By the wildest of coincidences, two long, gushy profiles from the New York Times and Washington Post have simultaneously come out about John and Tony Podesta, just when they are sinking into scandal and closing up shop.

The Drudge Report was the first to spot it, linking both stories next to one another in a not so subtle flag to readers that there seems to be some coordination going on.

Whether it was the work of some zealous public relations agent seeking to rehabilitate the brothers as negative news rains down on them or word of one doing it triggering the other one to do one of his own, it's a sign of the readership being played.

The two profiles really are remarkably similar to one another – a curious thing, given that these are two different rival newspapers.  And what another coincidence – they both came out on the same day.  And what a yet nother coincidence – they both were flattering as heck to the scandal-plagued political operatives.

The Times calls their brotherhood and fall from grace practically Shakespearean, as if there were something classy about this pair of gamy swamp things.  The Post calls their name "gold" and describes Tony as "respected."

Tony, who is in hot water over his cash from Ukraine's pro-Russia think-tank and failure to register as a foreign agent, is portrayed as this noble, diffident guy, un-upset at Fox News's coverage, ever so unfairly maligned and all full of dignity.  He's a happy warrior; he's friends with everyone.

"He has his phone" Podesta said of President Trump. "And I have my integrity."

Ready to hurl?

John Podesta, meanwhile, is depicted as the brains of the brotherhood, smart, disciplined, methodical, despite his love for UFOs, the writer of the Post article not noticing the irony.  He's portrayed as smart and a survivor, likely to keep doing what he has been doing, which is advise presidential campaigns, albeit not officially.  Not exactly an endorsement, even if the Post thinks there's nothing wrong with it.

The sob-story working-class roots of both are emphasized in both pieces, and the competence that came of it is as well.

What it all signals is that there is some kind of rehab operation going on, using the most powerful print media organs in the land.  That shows their ties to the papers now that a favor has been called.  Any questions again as to why the public no longer trusts the media?