The New York Times Tried To Both Sides 1/6 But Reader Backlash Made Them Change Their Headline

The New York Times played into Trump’s narrative by trying to both sides the 1/6 attack, but reader backlash made them change their headline.

Don't Miss Sarah Jones's Essay On Kristi Noem Titled Predatory Is The Point On The Daily.

Here are the two headlines side by side:

Here is the original New York Times headline:

Here is the changed headline:

Given the ample evidence of Trump’s behavior and what happened during the 1/6 attack, the first headline that the New York Times went with could be considered willfully blind in the most generous interpretation.

More realistically, The Times played into the Trump narrative by ignoring facts about the 1/6 attack.

Corporate Media Like The New York Times Are Desperate To Have Trump Back In Power

Donald Trump was very good business for big corporate media companies. Trump lavished attention on old media dinosaurs like The New York Times and Washington Post. Trump’s criticism of corporate media elevated them and increased their profits.

With Biden in office, legacy media has hemorrhaged readers, viewers, and subscribers.

These corporations need Donald Trump and the danger that he places the country in back in the Oval Office.

They don’t care about democracy, freedom, facts, or accuracy.

Publications like The New York Times are secretly rooting for a Trump win, and their choices are a way to put their thumb on the scale to help Trump in 2024.

If you want media that is committed to democracy and truth, please consider donating to PoliticusUSA.

[paypal-donation]

Jason Easley

Jason is the managing editor. He is also a White House Press Pool and a Congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. His graduate work focused on public policy, with a specialization in social reform movements.

Awards and  Professional Memberships

Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and The American Political Science Association