Most people hear claims about media bias and greet them with the same enthusiasm they'd share if they were told the Earth is round or that cotton is white.

Only reporters still act like it's up for debate.

That's why when President Trump cited a report this week showing journalists uninterested in last year's scandalous meeting between Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the pushback from the media was predictably defensive.

The report, published in the Washington Examiner, was based on newly uncovered 2016 emails from Washington Post and New York Times journalists who were contacting Department of Justice officials for information on the meeting, which took place in the heat of the presidential campaign and as Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was under federal investigation for her private email server.

"E-mails show that the AmazonWashingtonPost and the FailingNewYorkTimes were reluctant to cover the Clinton/Lynch secret meeting in plane," Trump said Tuesday on Twitter, using his deliciously petty nicknames for the Washington Post and the New York Times.

The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza said the emails actually "show reporters trying to get info from DOJ, checking facts. Pieces were tough & forced Lynch's semi-recusal."

Coverage of the meeting was "tough" the way a mother is "tough" on her toddler when she catches him eating a bag of sugar: She'll send him to his room, but only after she takes a photo of how cute he is.

News of the meeting was first reported by a Phoenix TV station and the New York Times didn't publish anything about it for more than 24 hours.

That might be loosely related to the paper's reporter, Mark Landler, emailing a DOJ contact to say he had "been pressed into service to write about the questions being raised" about the meeting.

Reporters today see their mission as government watchdogs clearer than ever -- but before Trump's election, Landler had to be "pressed into service" to even bother.

And when Landler's report finally made it to daylight, it framed the episode as a "political furor" caused by Republicans who wouldn't buy Lynch's excuse that the meeting was, in her words, "primarily social."

"An airport encounter this week between Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton has welled into a political storm with Republicans asserting that it compromised the Justice Department's politically sensitive investigation into Hillary Clinton's email practices," Landler wrote, as if he were describing a young love threatened by outside forces.

The story noted that Trump "seized on the incident," the phrasing journalists like to use in order to cast something as a partisan squabble instead of an actual scandal. (Similarly, Newsweek said it was "people on the political right, including Trump" who "believe the emails between the press and the Justice Department show that reporters were eager to downplay the meeting.")

Washington Post reporter Matt Zapotosky had emailed a DOJ official with questions about the meeting because his editors were "still pretty interested" in the story. He added, however, that he'd like to "put it to rest."

Zapotosky has written dozens of stories related to the DOJ's Russia investigation, including a "Who's who in the government's investigation into Russia ties" on Friday. But last summer, confronted with news about a meeting between powerful people held in secret on an airport tarmac, he thought it best to "put it to rest."

When his story published last year, it said that Lynch had offered "innocuous descriptions of the interaction" with Clinton and that the issue had "generated instant buzz in political circles," as if it were something that only geeks care about.

Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple dismissed the newly surfaced emails because his paper and the New York Times did eventually cover the meeting and offered some subsequent coverage.

As an example of all the extensive reporting, he cited one front-page Washington Post story from July 1 last year headlined, "Attorney general pledges to accept FBI and Justice findings in Clinton email probe."

The article covered Lynch's official decision and public announcements on how she was moving forward with the Clinton investigation -- which would be impossible not to cover given that they were official and public!

Following that logic, Wemple would have awarded Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein Pulitzers -- not because they published secret information, but because they wrote up Nixon's nationally televised resignation.

Still, Wemple lauded the secondary coverage and chocked the new emails up to "easily misinterpreted remarks in quickie emails from reporters to government flacks."

People who saw Trump's tweet this week about the reporters' emails might have only vaguely recalled what "secret meeting in plane" he was referencing.

But that's not because they were never interested in it. It's because reporters weren't.

Eddie Scarry is a media reporter for the Washington Examiner.