I follow National Journal columnist and former AP White House correspondent Ron Fournier on Twitter. Mainly for the entertainment value of a mainstream journalist attempting to keep up the façade that he's an unbiased purveyor of truth holding all sides accountable.

This morning, Tom Anderson responded to one of Fournier's tweets noting the political sideshow that is Donald Trump's candidacy with this.

.@ron_fournier In the meantime, real news is ignored http://t.co/VjGXZmGOuM @realDonaldTrump

— Tom Anderson (@Tom_TJ_Anderson) July 19, 2015

Fournier's response was predictable...and false.

News not ignored when you can link to it. https://t.co/OJM2HylZSL — Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) July 19, 2015

Now, I like the Washington Free Beacon and think it does some great reporting. But the fact that something appears in that online-only publication or that there's a link somewhere on the internet to a blog, doesn't mean the story is being covered.

I worked in newspapers for 15 years. I saw news budgets where editors listed the potential state and national stories that would be considered for the next day's front page. This usually consisted of an amalgam of the AP's budget, the New York Times budget and occasionally the Washington Post budget. I left newspapers before the Free Beacon existed, but if any newspaper or broadcast television newsroom is looking at republishing the Free Beacon's work on a day-to-day basis, I'll eat Fournier's gym shorts.

The sad thing is that Fournier knows better. So does Anderson:

.@ron_fournier No bylines for me. But a major news outlet sat on the documents for several months.

— Tom Anderson (@Tom_TJ_Anderson) July 19, 2015

A "major news outlet" didn't want to report on news that is damaging to the Clintons. Color me shocked.

Which calls to mind this evergreen tweet from David Burge (aka Iowahawk):