The answer to the quandary to which you point is simple. The corporate media sees their products as needing to fit in one of three bins: entertainment, shock and dismay, and conflict. Publications like the NY Times eschews outright sensationalism but will modulate their coverage such that people will talk about how much they are upset about something the Times has published. This editorial strategy explains their coverage of Harris--modulated to keep a balance of people upset that the paper isn't going far enough one way or the other on Harris. Conflict from being deliberately muddled. If people are arguing over where the Times comes down on Harris, that's free publicity for the Times. That's what the paper cares about.