It is a bizarre defense, suggesting the sole purpose of reporting was its specific impact, something they would normally deny (disingenuously).Please Twitter, leave @maggieNYT alone. Trump lost the election, for God's sake. If Maggie had told you a little bit more before the election (she told you A LOT, btw), what, you think Trump would have lost ... twice?
— Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) September 27, 2022
There are actually some valid defenses for "held the bombshell for the book," but I actually rarely see them being made, suggesting they aren't actually the reasons. Instead you get this nonsense.
My big problem with the practice of sitting on bombshells is, how does a reporter actually report stories while pretending not to know lots of things they actually know? A minefield of their own making.