If there is a clear contrast in this campaign between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, it is this: Trump seeks out the press and attracts them like a magnet to steel, while Clinton is perfectly happy to hold scripted events and avoid answering direct questions. But her blissfulness got to be a little too obvious and the press a shade too insistent, so Hillary finally relented and held a press conference. Sort of.

As with all things Clinton, you have to parse the term “press conference” in order to describe it as such — Hillary set up on an airport tarmac with an awaiting plane and deigned to answer a grand total of six questions from the assembled media. So the long streak “technically” came to an end, but you can bet Hillary endured the entire affair — which barely took 10 minutes — only because she had to.

Still more telling is the fact that not only did this availability lack a sufficient quantity of questions, but the quality was lacking as well. (That’s reminiscent of the last time she met the press.) Among the queries were ridiculous softballs about her position in the polls, the “double standard” in her treatment on the campaign trail (along with a companion question about whether the media is too easy on Trump), and reaction to the “what is Aleppo?” comment made by Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson about the Syrian situation, and a piece by Matt Olsen, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, who remarked on Wednesday that the Islamic State was supporting Trump. That last howler was asked by longtime Clinton sycophant Andrea Mitchell as Hillary was departing, and she dutifully praised Mitchell for being “indefatigable” about asking questions.

The most substantive questions were deflected by Clinton, who refused to discuss her intelligence briefings (at least with the press) and reiterated her comments from the night before regarding her refusal to commit ground troops to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — you know, where our ground troops already are fighting.

“This could barely be called a press conference,” wrote commentator Ashe Schow. “Clinton probably gets asked more questions by coffee baristas.”

In this era of 24/7 media, it’s fascinating how more and more press coverage reveals less and less about certain candidates. In March, we learned that during the Republican primary season Trump was the recipient of nearly $2 billion worth in free media, almost eclipsing the rest of the GOP field combined. (By comparison, second-place Hillary received just shy of $750 million worth.) Coverage of all things Trump led off newscasts for months, which allowed him to develop his own narrative against the remaining Republican field.

Yet while we have a good idea why Trump has dubbed Clinton “Crooked Hillary,” reporters seem reticent to do much digging. (Perhaps they worry about the undertaking leading them to the undertaker.) No one dared ask these obvious questions at the brief press conference, and it’s doubtful that the subject will be broached at one of the upcoming Presidential debates. It’s more likely the most damaging revelations will conveniently come out in the months after the election.

Pundits dismissively speak of “low-information” voters, but it’s not the lack of information that’s the problem. Instead, it’s the shortage of useful information provided to them by the lapdog press. In terms of a legitimate press conference, Clinton sparing 10 minutes on the tarmac to field a few softballs doesn’t even pass the giggle test.