This I totally get. If you are good at critical thinking and willingly search and connect the facts, this editorials bring no added value to you and can seem like rethread of your own conclusions. For 99% of the population that is not the case though.As someone who follows the news closely at times, I am disparaged alot by her willingness to explain every detail every time. As someone who's worked with intel agencies, brevity is a hell of a trait. I understand why she does what she does but that and her cheesy delivery makes her pretty unappealing to me.
She should be applauded for her dedication though.
She is doing what's right for those of us that can't consume every bit of news let alone have the insight to connect it all. And that's commendable and unfortunately far from the norm.
I think she is also fantastic at bringing a sense of true human experience to her stories and also explaining in real life terms how Washington operates.
Her new head of the FBI exposition is a good example of it: she brought up the complexity of the decision to accept the nomination to head the FBI in todays context. On the one hand acknowledging what a career high and honor being approached for the post must be, but also stating that how scandalous this WH and the Trump admin. Has to cause pause when considering accepting. This real life struggle to reconcile the two was something I never even thought of when thinking about the next appointee, but it really makes you think what kind of person would a) have Trump comfortable appointing him and b) would be willing to stake their reputation accepting.