The New York Times has been a model of left-wing journalism for quite a while now. However, in a shocking turn of events, they printed an article that accurately depicted the truth. But then they recalled it, after backlash from progressives who didn’t like it.
The article was meant to cover Trump’s speech on Monday in response to the mass shootings that took place this past weekend in Ohio and Texas. The first print edition of the article’s headline read “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.”
However, after mere hours of receiving flack and hate mail about the truth of Trump’s speech being revealed, the title was changed to reflect a much more liberal point of view. It now reads, “Assailing Hate but Not Guns.”
We’ll let you read the speech for yourself and see what you think the better title was. Here is what President Trump said on Monday.
“The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate. In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul.”
I don’t know about you, but it sounds like the president isn’t inciting hate at all here, as the left would like for us to believe. In fact, it seems as though he is firmly against it, as well as the racism and bigotry it demands. “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism” sounds very similar to “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism,” if you ask just about any reasonable person.
He even goes on to say, “We have asked the FBI to identify all further resources they need to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism – whatever they need.”
This speaks of justice, of getting retribution for horrendous crimes committed in the name of hate. And yet, the left simply isn’t happy with it. They are so obsessed with ousting Trump and all Republicans that they aren’t willing to let the truth out, that Trump does actually care.
One of the first to express their disapproval of the truth is the limelight loving liberal, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez herself. She tweeted, “Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions.”
Umm, did she read the speech at all? There seems to be a disconnect somewhere.
And she wasn’t the only Democratic lawmaker to show such dislike for the piece. Presidential hopeful Senator Kirsten Gillibrand tried to contradict the facts of the article, tweeting, “That’s not what happened.”
But it was. His speech was a blatant example of his utter dislike for hatred and racism within the US, as well as an effort to make sure that these kinds of tragic events do not happen in the future. Anyone with half a brain and who heard/read the speech would realize the truth that was printed there in the headline.
So, what does that say about these liberals? Clearly, they have their own agenda, and apparently, the Times wasn’t helping them achieve it.
Senator Cory Booker, another White House candidate, also voiced his displeasure on Twitter. “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.”
Lives are at stake, really? More like his campaign depends on the anti-Trump rhetoric. Without it, he, and many other presidential candidates would fail to be noticed at all.
Rather than praising the president for his sensitivity and call for change and justice, they skew this so that the only thing worth noting is that he didn’t say much about gun control. How very predictable.
In addition, haven’t those of the left-wing been proclaiming that criticism of the media is a form of violence, that it violates the first amendment? And what exactly do they think they are doing when they lash out like this, even making threats, calling names, and ending subscriptions?
But it worked out for them, didn’t it? Well, kind of. They pressured the NYT to change not only the headline of the article but also its subheadings and some of its content. But in doing so, they showed the world that the Times is run by liberals, as are many other media outlets. As for the New York Times, their motto of reporting “without fear or favor,” just flew out the window.