It’s hard to keep up with a fast news cycle. It’s even harder when major publications continuously change their own stories based on what Democrats say.
Usually if a media out has to fix a story it’s because they prematurely pounced on a story that turned out to be false. You’ve seen this with Russia gate, Jussie Smollett and the Covington kids, just to name a few examples.
Sometimes, the news agencies have to amend things because they accidentally got something right. Ummm, what? Stay with me because that’s today’s issue.
The New York Times printed a factual headline about President Trump. After intense backlash from the rabid left, they retracted that headline for something that would be more palate pleasing to Democrats. Here’s what you need to know.
The Original Headline
In the wake of two devastating mass shootings, President Trump addressed the nation. He gave what might have been one of the best speeches of his career. He universally condemned hatred and bigotry. He suggested that we have absolutely no tolerance for anything tied to these crimes. (Separately he pushed for the death penalty for mass shooters.)
Most of all, the President called for unity. In his speech, he suggested that the best way to stop mass shooters is to put aside our differences and work together for a better country. Clearly, this is the right response.
In one of the most surprising turn of events this century, the New York Times admitted that President Trump was right. They printed a headline that said, “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism.”
It was an unbiased title reviewing the contents of the speech. It’s been so long since you’ve seen factually correct reporting from the Times that you probably forgot what it looks like, but this is legitimate journalism.
If the Times reported something honestly, you know the left was angry. The backlash against this headline was severe. Where’s the dirt? Where’s the bias? How dare the Times say something honest and neutral about the President! Don’t they know he is literally Hitler!
Being upset over an honest headline about the content of the speech is insane. The Times didn’t particularly praise the President. They just forgot to add snide commentary to it.
Since the left is determined to blame President Trump for the shootings, they had to stick their fingers in their ears and throw a tantrum during the speech.
Realistically, they’re probably hoping for more mass shootings just so they can try to blame those on the President too. It’s not hard to believe, considering leftists late night talk show hosts like Bill Maher repeatedly said he’s rooting for a recession so Trump won’t be re-elected.
Well, the New York Times only has one pleasant surprise in store for us. They immediately caved to Democrats demands and printed a new headline, “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.”
This one has an angle. It derides the President for things lacking in his speech. It’s a weak attack, too. There’s no reason to criticize the President for things he didn’t say in one speech. He didn’t talk about nuclear disarmament or waffle recipes either. They weren’t related to the conversation.
What’s truly ironic is that the President actually did mention gun laws. In this particular speech, he didn’t discuss specific policy, but he has been talking with Congress about passing new red flag laws.
We’ll review the efficacy of those laws once there is concrete legislation to consider, but even the New York Times (in a separate piece) called it the most substantial change to gun laws this century. Looks like they got caught contradicting themselves again.
Here’s the thing. There’s more to this than a stupid headline rewrite. It’s become obvious from this incident that the New York Times does not feel safe printing objective news.
It’s hard to feel sorry for them. They courted the insane left, and now they are beholden to their demands, but when one of the most established journalist outlets in the world feels unsafe printing unbiased truth, we have a major problem. The press is still free from the government, but they are no longer free from the tyranny of the radical left. None of us are.
It’s hard to say exactly how we can take this country back, but another four years with Donald Trump at the helm seems like a good start.
If we can continue to push back against the PC police and elect a Republican in the face of the most prolific and persistent smear campaign in history, it will be a good sign that the tyranny of the left has failed.