It’s been weeks since a major news story broke about the Russia investigation, but you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise, given the media’s frenetic reaction to every development in the story, no matter how small.

For instance, The Washington Post reported last week about the ongoing negotiations between special counsel Robert Mueller and President Donald Trump’s lawyers, who negotiating over how Mueller’s office will interview Trump about Russian meddling and allegations of collusion. Mueller can always subpoena Trump, but he appears to be exhausting his alternatives before resorting to that dramatic step. Mueller “informed President Trump’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point,” according to the Post, and Mueller told Trump’s lawyers that he would be issuing a report of some kind about Trump’s “actions while in office and potential obstruction of justice.”

Commentators on both sides leapt into action. The New York Post’s David Harsanyi took the report as vindication for Trump, complaining that “much of the political media has worked backward from a preconceived assumption of guilt” over the past year. Not so fast, argued Slate’s Jeremy Stahl: Mueller may just think he’s bound by Justice Department precedents on indicting a sitting president, and a public report is still significant. “That he would seek such a dramatic step sounds like more terrible news for Trump,” he wrote. CNN spent the night debating the report’s significance.

The episode illustrates a growing tendency to over-interpret news about the Russia inquiry. Significant details still get published on a regular basis, but they largely flesh out stories already known about election meddling, collusion, and obstruction of justice. This isn’t a problem on its own. What’s troubling is how the overall tenor of coverage hasn’t kept in sync. Every development sparks breaking news alerts and lengthy panel discussions on cable news, giving undue weight to revelations that don’t necessarily deserve it.

Don’t get me wrong. There are still multiple recent threads worth keeping an eye on: the strange saga of Kremlin-linked businessman George Nader, who is now reportedly cooperating with Mueller; Blackwater founder Erik Prince’s alleged efforts to set up a back-channel with Moscow in the Seychelles; questions about Russian money flowing into the National Rifle Association’s coffers; the entire Cambridge Analytica episode. But approaching every new twist and turn with roughly the same verve doesn’t help the public’s understanding of these issues, and may hinder it.

