Anyone wondering whether the mainstream media takes its orders from the Democratic National Committee can cease doing so now. The New York Times is now taking editorial direction directly from the Democratic candidates running for president.
The New York Times has changed its print edition headline of a report on President Donald Trump‘s response to the two mass shootings this weekend after receiving a lot of Twitter blowback.
The original headline said “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. HATE,” and was widely criticized for the framing of the president’s remarks Monday morning — including by a number of Democrats running for president.
The ball got rolling with some prompting by the supposedly impartial Nate Silver:
Tomorrow's NYT print edition.
Not sure "TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM" is how I would have framed the story. pic.twitter.com/quOibXsp32
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 6, 2019
Some of the lower-polling candidates like de Blasio, Beto, and Gillibrand piled on, expressing their disgust with the newspaper that does more to keep them relevant than anything they can come up with on their own.
Cory Booker continued his flair for the verbally dramatic with his Twitter response:
Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do. https://t.co/L4CpCb8zLi
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) August 6, 2019
You have to hand it to the Dems — they are consistently unclear as to who is actually doing the killing.
The Times dutifully listened to its overlords, and changed the headline for the second edition that day:
— Tom Jolly (@TomJolly) August 6, 2019
People still complained about that too.
This is a perfect example of just how strong liberal media bias is and how addicted Democrats are to it.
This was one headline they didn’t like from a news organization that carries their water ninety-nine percent of the time and they lost what was left of their minds.
It also happens to be perhaps the most influential news organization in the United States and it folded under pressure from a group of Democratic presidential hopefuls who are barely polling in double digits if you combine their numbers.
If the Times has become that timid now, imagine how obedient they’ll be the next time there is another petulant Democrat in the White House.