Staff Reports
In classic fashion, President-elect Donald Trump has once again taken to Truth Social to demand a long-overdue apology from the notoriously liberal The New York Times. He has pointed fingers at their years of abysmal coverage, which many would argue mirrors a home-team fan heckling the road team from the nosebleed seats. Trump minced no words when he questioned if the “failing New York Times” would ever admit their reporting about him has been less than stellar, branding it as “phony junk.” Apparently, their strategy of tossing mud always aimed at demeaning only strengthened Trump’s resolve—something that should probably concern the Times more than it seemingly does.
Why Trump Is Demanding an Apology From The New York Times
https://t.co/IeyvCvNd1i— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 28, 2024
This latest cry for accountability comes on the heels of a rather salacious piece detailing an internal investigation involving Boris Epshteyn, a prominent aide to Trump. Allegations surfaced that Epshteyn allegedly solicited payments from candidates vying for key Cabinet posts, all in a dogged pursuit of favor with the big man himself. Epshteyn built a sturdy defense around the claims, but one has to wonder if the Times is attempting to create more headlines than they can justify.
During this verbal skirmish with the media outlet, Trump did not hold back when taking aim at Maggie Haberman, arguably the Times’ staunchest soldier in the Trump war. He deemed her a “third-rate writer” whose stories range from misleading to downright ludicrous, suggesting that despite her continuous output, a worthy piece remained elusive. It’s as if he’s been waiting for her to suddenly emerge with something logical or coherent—perhaps hoping she’d channel her inner Pulitzer while writing.
Trump maintained that The New York Times operates without a conscience when it comes to factual accuracy, which may explain why their claims often resemble extravagant fiction rather than journalism. The president-elect pointedly reminded the world that he won the presidency in an election hailed as the most consequential in decades, calling into question how a paper can report on significant events while largely missing the point. His fervent demand—”WHERE IS THE APOLOGY?”—strikes a chord that resonates not just with him, but with a legion of supporters who feel the same way about the so-called “news” from the left.
In response, The New York Times, ever the stalwart defender of its “integrity,” insisted that its reporting is the epitome of fairness and accuracy. They stated that not only do they not produce stories that are classified as “good” or “bad”—just “true”—but they also claimed Haberman and her crew operate on a plane of journalism that most in the industry could only dream of achieving. Truly, it sounds less like a defense and more like a firm grip on a sinking ship, with the crew refusing to acknowledge the gaping hole below deck. With every word, it becomes more apparent that the Times might be more invested in their narratives than in delivering the actual news.
