NY Times runs 1300-word piece on senator's corruption trial--without mentioning his party
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/04/nyt-writes-1300-words-about-dem-senators-corruption-trial-without-mentioning-hes-a-democrat/
In yet another example of how the Lying Mainstream Media covers up stories that would tend to show the public how utterly corrupt the Democrat party is, three days ago the New York Times published a story about the corruption trial of New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez.
In the 1300-word story the Times managed to avoid ever mentioning that Menendez was a member of the Democrat party. That deliberate choice was in both the printed and on-line versions of the story.
It appears the NYT had more than enough time to put the "Democrat" identifier in the print version before Tuesday’s paper went out, but when the print version appeared on Tuesday morning neither the NYT’s online nor its print coverage noted that the story had been changed to include Menendez’s political affiliation.
After the story ran, the Times got a barrage of online criticism, and finally changed the on-line version to note that Menendez is a Democrat, adding that seemingly relevant fact in the fourth paragraph. But of course the print version had already gone out without this fact.
The author of the story tweeted that the omission in the original story was “just an oversight on my part.” Uh-huh. Sure.
I wonder if the editors and reporters at the Times would have similarly chosen not to mention party affiliation if the senator on trial for corruption had been a Republican.
In yet another example of how the Lying Mainstream Media covers up stories that would tend to show the public how utterly corrupt the Democrat party is, three days ago the New York Times published a story about the corruption trial of New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez.
In the 1300-word story the Times managed to avoid ever mentioning that Menendez was a member of the Democrat party. That deliberate choice was in both the printed and on-line versions of the story.
It appears the NYT had more than enough time to put the "Democrat" identifier in the print version before Tuesday’s paper went out, but when the print version appeared on Tuesday morning neither the NYT’s online nor its print coverage noted that the story had been changed to include Menendez’s political affiliation.
After the story ran, the Times got a barrage of online criticism, and finally changed the on-line version to note that Menendez is a Democrat, adding that seemingly relevant fact in the fourth paragraph. But of course the print version had already gone out without this fact.
The author of the story tweeted that the omission in the original story was “just an oversight on my part.” Uh-huh. Sure.
I wonder if the editors and reporters at the Times would have similarly chosen not to mention party affiliation if the senator on trial for corruption had been a Republican.
posted by SF at
12:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home