Rant #2,423: Good News (?)

You have to hand it to the New York Times for proving once and again how fake journalism is rampant in today's world, how the great journalists of the past are turning in their graves over the latest faux pas by the paper that claims to print "all the news that is fit to print."

But now, once and for all, we know that that really means "all the news that is fit to print as long as it doesn't upset our ultra-liberal readership."

When a newspaper itself becomes a news story, well, you just know that there is something amiss in our world.

What happened is that those horrible mass shootings occurred, and the President had to say something about those tragedies.

No matter if the president was Obama, Clinton, Bush or Eisenhower, when you have a horrid situation like this, our President has to stand up and say something to address the situation. Heck, he is expected to say something.

And President Trump did, but he did not attack gun makers and the gun sensibility we have in this country, he attacked racism, hatred and white supremacy, evidently all pieces of the puzzle about why two shooters created horrific events this past weekend.

He said that those who decide to participate in such horrific events would, if legislation that he proposes goes through, be faced with the death penalty.

OK, agree with the President or not, he said what he said.

So, the New York Times did what it has been doing for generations: it covered what the President said in its pages, and headlined the main story about what the President said: "Trump Urges Unity." That was the headline, and that should have been the end of that.

But it appears that some people, who get outraged over everything and anything, took offense at such a headline. According to news reports, many prominent Democrats--and numerous subscribers to the left-leaning publication that has never given the President a fair shake since day one--took offense at the headline, and it was seemingly forcibly changed after the paper's first print edition hit the streets.

The headline was changed to "Assailing Hate But Not Guns" after many Democrats said that the President, in his address to the nation, did not bring up the biggest culprit of these tragedies: the accessibility of firearms to just about anybody who wants them.

Cory Booker, who is running for president, blamed the President for the bloodshed, tweeting, "Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT, please do."

Of course, Booker for years has represented Newark, New Jersey, one of the most crime-ridden cities in the country, with its fair share of gun proliferation.

Another so-called presidential contestant, Kirsten Gillibrand, tweeted, "That's not what happened ... I am not sure that 'Trump Urges Unity' is the way I would have framed the story."

Of course, Gillibrand, when she was a young, right-leaning upstate New York Democrat, bragged that she used to keep a gun under her bed at night.

And the panting went on and on, until the Times did, in fact, change the headline.

Funny, the President has talked on and on about fake journalism, how he has never gotten a fair break from the press, and how it has destroyed fair journalism as we know it, and people laughed at him.

I cannot see how anybody can be laughing now, as the New York Times has proven his point with this latest debacle.

We all remember the time when the news was reportedly fairly, but in today's environment, opinion seeps into even the most newsworthy stories, and that is not how journalism and fair reporting of events is supposed to work.

Personal opinions should be swept aside, and straight-ahead reporting is needed.

If you don't like what the President said, keep it to the editorial page, not the news page, as the Times did when they caved into Booker, Gillibrand and all those whose very aim in life appears to be to make the President look foolish.

I got news for you. All that you guys are doing is solidifying President Trump in his run for a second term as president in 2020. You are not helping your cause one bit by jumping on the Times for its headline.

When you begin to manipulate the press for your own benefit, you know that when the President says "fake news," he is very much on target, and his attacks on unfair reporting are 1,000 percent valid.

How we have fallen as a society when the press can be manipulated in such a way.