Special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress Wednesday was a dud, as neither he nor lawmakers revealed anything new or of any real significance. This should come as a great embarrassment to the newsrooms that claimed these would be some of the most important “high-stakes” hearings in recent memory.

“We’re just hours away now from perhaps the most anticipated Congressional testimony of the decade,” NBC News tweeted early Wednesday morning, adding it “has everything you need to know before Robert Mueller’s high-stakes appearance on Capitol Hill.”

Bloomberg News published a headline titled, “In high-stakes Mueller hearing, there are big risks for everyone.”

“Mueller to testify at hearings with high stakes for Trump, Democrats,” read a Reuters headline.

ABC’s Good Morning America’s social media account tweeted, “Former special counsel Robert Mueller set for high-stakes hearing.”

“The stage is set for Robert Mueller's high-stakes testimony,” said Politico.

Even earlier than these headlines, newsrooms promoted Wednesday’s hearings with the exact same wording.

“High stakes House hearings with Robert Mueller pushed back one week to July 24,” reads an Associated Press headline.

The New York Times went with this: “Two high-stakes House hearings with Robert Mueller, the former special counsel for the Russia inquiry, were pushed back one week to July 24.”

“The political stakes will be high for both parties when Robert Mueller testifies next week,” said the Chicago Sun-Times on June 20.

I can go on, really, but I am sure you get the picture.

WEDNESDAY: @NorahODonnell to lead @CBSNews' coverage of former special counsel Robert Mueller's Capitol Hill testimony, anchoring special report "High Stakes and History" -- coverage begins at approximately 8:15 a.m. ET on @CBS https://t.co/i81WhEpcE4 pic.twitter.com/IIEB93gpMi — CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) July 22, 2019

I love it when newsrooms inexplicably use the exact same phrase or term to describe the same news event. It gives me fond flashbacks to 2000, former President George W. Bush, and the sudden popularity of the word "gravitas."

More seriously, though, journalists should be ashamed of themselves for overselling an event that had no chance of living up to its billing.

Anyone with half a brain knew Wednesday's hearings would be humdrum and mostly unremarkable affairs. The Justice Department instructed Mueller specifically to limit his testimony to just the findings of his two-year investigation. Mueller himself signaled repeatedly that he did not want to testify and that if he did, he would speak only of what is in the publicly available report. It was well-established before Wednesday that he would not reveal anything that had not already been discussed and disseminated ad nauseam by the press. "High stakes" indeed.

Newsrooms oversold these hearings for the basest of reasons: ratings. But for an event that was presented to the public as a made-for-TV drama, it was shockingly light on the drama. It is the most disappointing news event since the implosion of the media-promoted "collusion" narrative.

NYT colleagues reax to Mueller:@adamgoldmanNYT:

So far, this hearing is not revealing new ground...By tomorrow it could be forgotten in this frenetic news cycle.@maggieNYT:

Adam, I think you’re being generous with “by tomorrow.” — Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) July 24, 2019

There is another reason for why the press overhyped the Mueller hearings: wishcasting. Journalists and commentators played up his testimony because they wanted it to be groundbreaking, not because they sincerely believed it would be.

They all claimed and hinted the hearings would produce something new and shocking. But it was just an eight-hour-long rehashing of what the public already knows about the Mueller report, including that Trump lies, that his campaign officials, associates, and hangers-on engaged in illegal behavior, and that Mueller’s decision not to recommend “obstruction of justice” charges against the president was grounded in the guidelines from the Office of Legal Counsel that say a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Tell me something I do not know already.