Thanks.  I've read it now and have two comments however.

1)  NY Times IS the so called "mass media", and
2) This article addresses the issue of the email that you seem to think is being ignored.  It clearly shows that (as is so often the case with emails) its meaning is open to interpretation.      You cannot convict on e-mails alone when the e-mail in question is ambiguous in its meaning or context.  Investigators everywhere face this issue all of the time and cases have been thrown out of court where meaning is inferred by the prosecution.  This appears to be why the FBI didn't act on it.