Late last month, the Washington Post published an article with the title “Mitch McConnell Is A Russian asset”. Even as an opinion piece – which the article by Dana Milbank is – the headline errs itself as confirmed fact. Only conjecture and an attempt to misinform readers by using absolutes exists within the lede-in, a precedent which is sadly not new for WaPo’s headlines.

However, this kind of reporting is both irresponsible and dangerous.

For proof, look no further than the angry mob that surrounded McConnell’s home last Monday night. One could argue that Milbank’s article added fuel to the hashtag, “#MoscowMitch” and gave false credence to the idea that McConnell is in Putin’s pocket. The tactic seems very familiar considering Mueller’s investigation into President Trump having ties with Russia wrapped up after two and a half years with no evidence supporting the theory long held by the left.

Compare this situation to the recent outcry that surrounded The New York Time’s headline for August 6. Pictured below is the first, original headline the newspaper went to print with in their first edition:

Something as simple as “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism” was met with huge online backlash.

Enough backlash to the point where The New York Times changed the headline. Bear in mind, the headline wasn’t changed for accuracy, nor was it changed to update; it was altered to appease outraged leftists that couldn’t bear to see a mainstream media outlet be even halfway partial to Trump. Below is the revised headline that was printed in the second edition of the paper:

Just years ago, anti-Trump resisters decreed supporting The New York Times was a vital act of insurgency once the President affixed “failing” before the publication’s name. Now, the same “resisters” demand The New York Times capitulates to their objections and caterwauling – and even accomplished their goal. Is it not entirely fascist when offended, senseless people can force a supposedly historic media institution to change their frontpage headline?

With Milbank’s Washington Post headline, we have fake news masquerading as fact; with The New York Time’s headline we have fact altered as to not hurt the feelings of the deluded.

There was no outcry at the obviously misleading headline from WaPo but instead at a factual, unbiased headline. It is truly a sad state of affairs when crybaby outrage mobs can demand a news publication change their front page as to cater to their false narrative of Trump being a racist. News is no longer based on reality, apparently – news is what people want to be told.

Written ByJon Hall

How Nonpartisan Was This Article?

Show us on the slider what kind of bias, if any, you thought the author had. Why are we asking?

Liberal Center Conservative

Thank you for Voting!

Your input is helping other readers identify bias and helping them break through their ideological "bubble"!

Have some thoughts? Join the Conversation.

  • Avatar

    As a disclaimer, I’m left leaning. That being said, I find it interesting that you’re trying to paint Mitch McConnell as a victim. Is the New York Times biased? Sure. Is McConnell worthy of defending? Possibly, but only by someone who’s either politically ignorant, or a partisan hack. McConnell is responsible for the majority of the hyper-partisan environment in which we now find ourselves. Time and again, he has chosen party over country (politicizing a Supreme Court nomination/Scalia), publicly stating that his number one priority was to make Barack Obama a one term president (that worked well), and playing politics with election security. This is on top of the gerrymandering he’s supported to retain political power, the refusal to vote on gun restrictions (because who cares if kids are being massacred in schools, right?), and his despicable views and lack of urgency on climate change.
    And let us not forget that his wife is being investigated for inappropriate conduct as transportation secretary.

    I’ve respected and supported republicans in the past. Richard Luger, Chuck Havel, John McCain, and even Richard Nixon (for his creation of the EPA), but Mitch McConnell? He’s a dangerous cancer in the bowels of this great country. You’re attempt to make him a victim in this climate he’s had a hefty hand in creating is laughable.

    Someone I respect told me about this site, and for
    the most part, I like and respect what I read here. And because of that, coupled with the fact that I pride myself in being a gentleman, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You’re probably not a political hack. You’re just politically ignorant. Emphasis on ignorant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.