We live in a time where things that we could easily dismiss as a conspiracy are proving true. I recently wrote about how it appears that Democrats are deliberately trying to get themselves arrested to score political points. And it’s like the media is trying to prove me right.
What we’re seeing unfold is not honest journalism. It’s narrative-building in real time, crafted with the precision of a Hollywood screenplay. The emotional language, the carefully selected imagery, and the one-sided outrage all point to a strategy. And not just from the Democrats pulling the stunts, but from the journalists breathlessly packaging it for maximum impact.
On Wednesday, the New York Times reported on Democratic officials assaulting federal agents, and they've chosen not to report the facts in favor of emotionally manipulative propaganda to push the Democrats' talking points.
"A United States senator forced to the floor and handcuffed by federal agents for interrupting a news conference,” the article began. “A mayor taken into custody by masked officials in military-style fatigues. A political candidate pushed against a wall and handcuffed in a dispute at an immigration courthouse."
Nothing about these people breaking the law, just your classic lie of omission to push the narrative.
This isn't news reporting; it's cinematic framing designed to evoke maximum emotional response. Consider how the Times describes Brad Lander's arrest at an immigration courthouse. Rather than focusing on why an elected official assaulted and interfered with federal law enforcement operations, the paper emphasizes the visual drama: "the suit-and-tie-clad Mr. Lander being manhandled." The implication is that this well-dressed public servant was brutalized by jackbooted thugs. Never mind that Lander, who is trailing in mayoral polls, happened to show up at exactly the right moment with cameras rolling.
Recommended: The Latest Immigration Numbers Practically Prove Joe Biden's Criminal Intent
Even more telling is how the Times handles the Department of Homeland Security's characterization that Lander was seeking to "undermine law enforcement safety to get a viral moment." Rather than investigating this claim or considering its merit, the paper immediately pivots to Democratic outrage, giving Mark Levine a platform to declare, "This is authoritarianism" and allowing Hakeem Jeffries to make the inflammatory claim that Democratic officials are being "marked for death by violent extremists."
How many times in the past few years have Democrats tried to imprison Trump, boot him off state ballots, or assassinate him? Just asking.
The pattern becomes unmistakable when examining the Times' coverage of other incidents. Sen. Alex Padilla's disruption of Kristi Noem's press conference is described as him being "forcibly removed" and "handcuffed despite identifying himself as a senator." Missing from this framing is any serious examination of why a senator would show up uninvited, without a security badge, and charge at the dais where a Secret Service-protected cabinet member was speaking.
The Times even inadvertently admits what's happening and notes that "plenty of politicians over the years have gotten themselves arrested in an effort to draw attention to themselves or their cause" and that "many elected Democrats have rushed to show how fiercely they are opposing Mr. Trump's administration, and have been rewarded for doing so by the party's base." Yet rather than seriously investigating whether this calculated political theater is exactly what's occurring, the paper quickly dismisses such concerns as Republican "accusations of grandstanding."
What makes this media complicity particularly egregious is the Times' selective outrage over "traditional norms." The paper wrings its hands about "the use of force [shattering] traditional norms of showing deference to lawmakers," but shows no concern for the norms being violated by elected officials who disrupt official proceedings, interfere with law enforcement operations, or show up uninvited to cabinet briefings.
And do I need to bring up the lawfare Democrats used against Trump again?
The most revealing sign of media manipulation is how these stories are wrapped in lofty abstractions like “due process,” “the rule of law,” and “checks and balances,” while conveniently ignoring the glaring hypocrisy at play — namely, that the very party that spent years chanting “no one is above the law” now insists their own elected officials should be.
And the New York Times is helping push that narrative. By treating these orchestrated confrontations as organic expressions of principled resistance rather than calculated political stunts, the New York Times is actively participating in the very strategy it should be investigating and exposing.
