After what just happened to CBS, the legacy media should be on notice.
When the network got caught deceptively editing an interview in an attempt to make Kamala Harris sound halfway coherent, President Trump didn’t just call it out — he sued it. And he won. The result was a staggering settlement north of $30 million and a humiliating new rule forcing CBS to release full, unedited transcripts of all presidential candidate interviews going forward. It was a watershed moment that proved that we can — and will — hold the legacy media accountable when it tries to rig the narrative.
Trump has been on a roll holding the legacy media accountable for election interference, and there’s another target he needs to consider: The New York Times.
I’m sure we could all come up with dozens of examples of the New York Times pushing false stories in an attempt to interfere with the presidential election, but let’s look at the paper’s handling of the Aurora, Colo., gang crisis. Last fall, as the presidential election heated up, the Times ran a piece accusing Donald Trump and conservative media of fabricating a “false story” about a Venezuelan gang takeover in Aurora.
“Before Springfield, Ohio, before the misinformation about devoured pets and the memes of Mr. Trump rescuing ducks and kittens, there was Aurora, pop. 404,219, supposedly overrun by the violent Venezuelan street gang, Tren de Aragua,” the paper reported last September. “Those claims became a cause célèbre for the right-wing media, and ultimately a key focus of Mr. Trump’s anti-immigration repertoire as he escalated his attacks on immigrants as part of his campaign’s effort to capitalize on voter concerns about the southern border crisis.”
Recommended: Joe Biden Made Another Public Appearance, and Oh Boy
The story bore the headline “How the False Story of a Gang ‘Takeover’ in Colorado Reached Trump.” The implication was that Trump was stoking fear for political gain, and anyone who believed otherwise was either misinformed or malicious.
Fast forward to this week, and suddenly the Times is singing a different tune. Now they admit there really was a gang problem in Aurora — one so severe that it drove residents like Cindy Romero, a former lifelong Democrat, out of their homes and out of the Democratic Party itself. “She thanked Trump first and foremost ‘for believing me.’”
Imagine that: the supposed right-wing fantasy turned out to be a grim reality, one that the Times and its Democratic allies desperately tried to wish away.
What the New York Times did wasn’t mere political spin; it was a deliberate effort to suppress the truth in the service of trying to get Kamala Harris elected. When Trump raised the alarm during a presidential debate, the left accused him of fearmongering. Rep. Jason Crow declared, “There is no gang takeover in any part of Aurora.”
The Times dutifully amplified this denial, painting Trump and his supporters as liars. Meanwhile, the violence escalated, and the people living through it were left to fend for themselves, and there was ample evidence that the New York Times ignored for the sake of branding Trump a liar.
So why shouldn’t Trump sue the New York Times for election interference? When the paper of record uses its platform to label the truth as “disinformation,” all to protect their preferred candidate and agenda, it’s not just bad journalism; it’s an attack on democracy itself.
