But hey, why let the facts get in the way? The New York Times needed to peddle some propaganda, and blaming Palin would no doubt please its loyal readership. ...Except maybe not.
The story is so demonstrably false that even the Gray Lady can't sell it. After Palin responded to the editorial on her Facebook page, the heat was on. A short time later, they published a correction.
In response to Alexandria shooting
Two things about this:
- Retractions never get the exposure the initial claim gets, so the damage is already done - and in this case, you should feel confident that it was done purposely.
- Even after the "correction" the article still mentions Palin's crosshairs graphic. They just soften the language a bit. Instead of making an outright claim that a link exists, they're now implying it.
...And the talking heads wonder why no one trusts the old media anymore.
UPDATE: Uh-oh....looks like the New York Times may have sailed into some rough waters.
Earlier, I showed you how Chris Matthews was coping with the fact that a hardcore leftist tried to assassinate a wide swath of Republican congressmen. His reaction was to sympathize with the would-be killer. Over at the New York Times, the editorial board chose a different course. They decided to equivocate by dredging up a phony conspiracy theory that blamed Sarah Palin for the Gabrielle Giffords shooting:
They wrote: