As of Wednesday morning, a search of The New York Times on "Eric Trump Foundation" shows the latest result being from January 6, 2017. That's when Eric Trump stepped down from the foundation that bore his name. The headline to that story: "Hospital Confirms Eric Trump Helped Raise $16.3 Million for It." Funny that the Times has completely ignored the big story on Eric Trump's foundation from Forbes on Tuesday about how "the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which has come under previous scrutiny for self-dealing and advancing the interests of its namesake rather than those of charity, apparently used the Eric Trump Foundation to funnel $100,000 in donations into revenue for the Trump Organization."

In fact, the Times hasn't just not covered that story, reporters from the Times pooh-poohed this story on Twitter. In tweets that appear to have been deleted, but were captured by T. R. Ramachandran, reporter Eric Lipton says that "what matters" to him is that the Eric Trump Foundation "spends relatively small % of revenues on fundraising." Times reporter Maggie Haberman chimes in to say that the story "took a baseless shot at @EricTrump."

And Haberman knows from baseless shots at foundations, because she and her colleagues spent an awfully big chunk of 2016 writing about the total non-scandalous Clinton Foundation. Haberman, in fact, had a lot to say about how the Clinton Foundation, sure, does good works BUT:

[…] there's an enormous amount of defensiveness on the part of the Clinton about this and has been for many, many years about what are legitimate questions. At the end of the day, yes, it is true. It is smoke, there is no evidence of a quid pro quo. But there is certainly clear evidence of the foundation and the State Department doing what they said they wouldn't do, which is have a lot of interaction and a lot of back and forth. And that is going to look strange. To your point, we've never had a set of circumstances like this before. Usually what people would do in that situation is try to use the utmost caution. The Clintons repeatedly over many years, get into these kind of situations where there's just enough for critics to hit them on.

"Smoke." Unless you actually review the evidence. Like how it got an "A" grade from Charity Watch and "Platinum" rating from GuideStar, another charity watchdog group. So there's some baseless attacks for you.

This is another black eye for the Times, which apparently has decided that how Donald Trump steals from children with cancer isn't a story that's "fit to print." Not when compared to the latest innuendo about Hillary Clinton.