The NYTimes has a live blog - it was only pushed below the fold on the front page because of the school shooting:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/30/nyregion/ghislaine-m...

It's also the main headline on the frontpage of the BBC atm:

https://www.bbc.com/news

Some people are mistaking not reading with it not being covered.

The story has been on the front page of every news website I've checked today. Loading a few of the usual news sites shows it's still near the top, although the tragic school shooting is obviously the higher priority news story right now.

But you're right: The topic of discussion all over Twitter and Reddit is about the lack of mainstream news coverage, which is such a weird claim to make when it can be disproven with 60 seconds of loading any news website.

Checked to see:

- NYT has one 100px tall box, 4 pages below the fold

- WaPo has coronavirus, acai bowls, Biden, Sydney Powell above fold, Ghislaine 2 pages down

- CNN I don't see Maxwell or Ghislaine anywhere but one Epstein box bottom 1st page

- Fox has two boxes, both below fold

> it was only pushed below the fold on the front page because of the school shooting

Is this known or a guess?

Reading Manufacturing Consent (as well as @nyt_diff) has led me to believe that we should not jump to come up with charitable excuses for why media does not cover stories in the way we think they should.

This is such a silly conspiracy theory in the most pejorative sense of the term -- there are literal front page stories on CNN/NYTimes/Fox News/MSNBC.

There is definitely coverage but the fervor from the media, the usual suspects and subsequently the general public is not even remotely to the fever pitch we've seen recently. It also doesn't help that this case involves a literal conspiracy with wealthy people in power of all domains and so people defaulting to deep distrust of how it's being handled seems perfectly sound.

The simple answer is that the trial is not partisan, and a lot of news engagement is due to partisanship.

If Joe Manchin and Susan Collins teamed up to make a bipartisan death ray pointed at us from outer space, it would get less media coverage than the Rittenhouse trial, because bipartisan stuff is not engaging news.

Yeah. Bill Gates just got divorced over this. Judy Woodruff, probably deeply disturbed that Bill was able to get a spot on the New Hour because he is a major donor to the News Hour (and PBS), used the opportunity to corner him with questions about Epstein at the end of the segment (he was talking about curing Malaria and general pandemic preparedness) and she tied it to his recent divorce. He pretty much locked up and went into politician mode punctuated by a goofy, nerdy loss of words. I was not expecting it at all and was completely slack jawed the whole time. I had a lot of respect for Bill and Melinda, still do but this was deeply disappointing to me.

> I had a lot of respect for Bill

That was your mistake right there. Bill Gates has been a criminal for longer than I can clearly remember, the only thing that kept his company from being split up was his political connections. Bill Gates did not deserve anybody's respect past the point where he started to use his wealth to buy access and cover for his misdeeds. And make no mistake: the rot that this caused has never really left Microsoft, it has only caused it to get smarter about how it presents itself.

The respect was from Bill and Melinda's tireless philanthropic work.

I see that whole philanthropic work as a giant white-wash operation. And: it's working. But if you first commit a series of crimes to amass a great fortune and then you go around playing Santaclaus I am not going to be one of those easily swayed to move you to the 'good' column. The origin of your wealth matters as much if not more than what you do with it.

I don't think it's the media that's lacking fervor in this case. It's your social media feed.

Hacker news is the only thing I use close to resembling social media. I am basing this off of people I know in real life, youtube channels and small talk before my zoom meetings. The difference in people having a position in the matter seems stark. Perhaps it's less controversial of opinion one way or the other so the rage bait isn't their to be reaped.

HN has its own share of extremism, uninformed opinions, and misinformation, just like any other social media. The participants here are just more civil and articulate.

Yep. People just aren't as interested in this case. There's no culture war component.

But there certainly isn't some suspicious media blackout on it. You can readily find coverage.

These companies are not simply a mirror back at society. People were interested in Rittenhouse because they were told that it was important. They could have elevated one of dozens of shootings by minors last year to media sensation status if they so chose.

The Rittenhouse incident was all over the internet the night it happened. It dominated Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter while armchair detectives scrutinized every leaked cell phone camera angle and posted their hot takes.

The media didn't tell people to get interested in it.

Do you think there was more genuine "early internet interest before MSM intervention" behind Rittenhouse than Ghislaine/Epstein?

Wait, you're supposed to stop any discussion whenever someone mentions the words "conspiracy theory".

There are stories on all of those sites about this trial, no doubt, though the article is not prominent (with the exception of CNN).

That said, it is hardly a conspiracy theory to point out that the media has a disincentive to give this story the attention it deserves because of the amount of prominent figures implicated. Amy Robach of ABC even claimed that they squashed the story initially because they were worried that covering it would impact their ability to air the Harry/Markle wedding.

Edit: Not sure why I am being downvoted for pointing this out, but if anyone thinks this is baseless or conspiratorial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Robach#Jeffrey_Epstein_sto...

A cover up of some sort really did happen if you believe the hot mic rant of Amy Robach that was recorded by ABC News: https://www.the-sun.com/news/27431/abc-news-host-amy-robach-...

Even now, that leak is mostly reported by unreliable sources like The Sun above and Project Veritas rather than more established news organizations despite the video's apparent legitimacy.

The cover-up in question was pretty plainly a news org not wanting to get sued by incredibly litigious participants (namely Dersh and Prince Andrew).. It's insane to me that people think a Clinton sex scandal wouldn't get covered because of some mysterious reasons.. Were none of you alive during Watergate?

The accusations against Epstein (and association with Trump/Clinton/Dersh/Prince Andrew/etc) have been reported for like 15 years now but for whatever reason it took the Miami Herald's reporting in 2019 to break through..

You're correct, though I have to say as someone who reads the Financial Times and The Economist, I haven't seen any headlines today; this is the first time I've heard of the news.

I don't expect conspiracy, though; it's far more likely that the Omicron variant is far more relevant to markets. The FT also did publish two stories on Ghislaine Maxwell about 23-24 hours ago, but it's fair to say that the paper isn't emphasizing the story (by comparison, the Theranos Elizabeth Holmes trial had a story on the front page this morning).

It's the ~3rd most popular story on FTs US coverage right now..

https://www.ft.com/content/f58cc9df-98d3-4f11-9d24-e2c4e059b...

That observation is incorrect (as of November 30, 8:46 pm ET, about two hours after your comment). It doesn't appear in the top five "most read" stories, which are:

1. Moderna chief predicts existing vaccines will struggle with Omicron

2. The inside story of the Pfizer vaccine: ‘a once-in-an-epoch windfall’

3. Powell signals support for quicker ‘taper’ of Fed’s bond-buying scheme

4. Holmes accuses former business partner of abuse in Theranos trial

5. Inditex shares fall after it appoints founder’s daughter as chair

Even if the observation were true, it doesn't contradict my note that the FT omitted it from the front page stories this morning (US edition, FT, iPad app).

However, in the interest of reporting updated information over being 'right,' a new story about Ghislaine Maxwell (published "an hour ago" at the time of this comment) has since been published after my original comment, and now appears on the front page (website and iPad app).

That said, from my observations, it's clear that the Theranos story today was more popular than the Ghislaine Maxwell story, with my inference that it was more widely-promoted. I'm not arguing that there was an effort to suppress reporting, but I am arguing that it's reasonable to conclude that one story may have been marketed more heavily than the other, from seemingly-minor decisions in web design and the stories selected for the mobile apps.

> (by comparison, the Theranos Elizabeth Holmes trial had a story on the front page this morning).

probably because its directly related to finance?

To be fair Epstein was literally a financier.

Unproven claim

No, it's pretty well established. He's run a registered investment bank and was a prolific philanthropist.

In an alternate timeline: Why is the media reporting so much on this Maxwell trial that has no material importance to society at large? Meanwhile, they're burying the new COVID variant that is killing people. Guess they're distracting us from a public health issue with a salacious scandal of the week.