The article delves into the controversy surrounding the mischaracterization of John Durham’s findings in the recently declassified ‘Durham Annex’ by major news outlets. The New York Times, along with other legacy media, has been criticized for misleading readers by framing Durham’s conclusions as suggesting the Russian documents were ‘fake’, when in reality, Durham’s team concluded they were ‘composites’. This misrepresentation has led to a narrow focus on the issue, overshadowing the larger implications of the report. The article argues that the media’s emphasis on these findings has hindered a more comprehensive understanding of Durham’s investigation, particularly regarding the FBI’s inaction on Russian intelligence data in 2016. Instead of highlighting the nuances of Durham’s conclusions, news outlets have amplified the controversy, focusing on the idea of the documents being ‘fake’ and downplaying the broader context. The piece underscores that the media’s selective reporting has led to a skewed portrayal of Durham’s report, potentially influencing public perception and limiting the debate on the FBI’s role in the Russiagate probe. As the debate continues, it remains crucial to examine the full scope of Durham’s findings and their implications for national security and media accountability.