That factoid was already discussed last fall, and there was nothing contemporaneous about it when Supereem posted it on August 18th (it happened in 1986) that wasn't relevant to Charlottesville, and the backlash against Trump for the "false equivalence" of his public comments on the matter. There is no reason to create a discrete thread for material that has already been exhumed; a historical event that is only being cited recently in the context of another thread's events. Otherwise, why is that being posted? What is grounding it? It's not current, and it's not relevant without that more recent anchor. It made its first run right before the election back on September 4th, 2016, after Snopes took care to fact check the story printed by The American Mirror: http://www.snopes.com/trump-received-ellis-island-award-in-1986/ Pertaining to my two threads on "Charlottesville". I did not make a thread about Charlottesville. I made a thread about the claims by Alex Jones that Soros was funding the protests that were breaking out across the country including in Durham and Chicago-- with a more recent, specific allegation leveled at Charlottesville. That merely broached the topic. If you read the thread you can see the discussion focused squarely on that question, and what evidence there is towards it, not Charlottesville or the details of the events that took place there. It's a Soros-Antifa thread. Charlottesville was just the most recent example where this topic became a point of interest thanks to Jones's comment, and spurred the discussion for the separate topic of professional protesters, and their funding. I'm not sure what the second thread is you're talking about. Not at all, but I'm communicating to you that I'm not going to dither in a game where you try to create a new thread for a topic that already exists (in which you have posted repeatedly, and for which you have tried spamming threads in the past) while offering a thinly veiled pretense for dragging out a headline rather than posting updates to the story with links in the appropriate thread. Your OP concerns a very specific story: about Wasserman-Schultz and her IT worker Amran. You make a deliberate effort to pre-empt an incoming/merge dump (that you know is appropriate) with this comment: While creatively acrobatic, all you have served to do is to create a thread that still preoccupies itself with that specific story about Wasserman-Schultz. Ergo it doesn't require a discrete thread. It isn't about a wider discussion on MSM suppression of stories. Furthermore, it fails in the context of the facts of the thread itself. For example, you said the New York Times hasn't covered the story, but in the OP itself there is coverage of the story dating back to the last major break (the arrest in the airport) on July 28th. I Googled for numerous other conservative sources, including The Hill and The Wall Street Journal, for example, and their coverage has been no more significant. Conversely, it mentions that the body covering the story the most closely is Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller. Uh...that is the MSM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller Meanwhile, Tucker's current residence is also covering the story in updates: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-it-aide-expands-with-4-count-indictment.html That is among the heart of the MSM. So your proposition for why the thread should be discrete is hollow. This isn't about the MSM. It's about the NYT, and your grievance that they aren't covering a specific story to your satisfaction despite that you cannot accurately define this grievance. It's impossible to prove a negative. This is simple, really: if you want to talk about Wasserman-Schultz and her IT guy, then post in the thread about Wasserman-Schultz and her IT guy. Complain about the lack of coverage there. Don't make 10 threads for the same topic.