Trolling Trump: President-Elect Sends Sarcastic ‘Season’s Greetings’ to Those on His Naugh...
What the Puck? Trump Suggests NHL Superstar Wayne Gretzky Replace Justin Trudeau
Church of England Warns Clergy About Christmas Carols With 'Problematic Words'
Matt Yglesias: Why Aren't Conservatives Bothered by Crime in Conservative States?
Taylor Lorenz Extremely Stressed About Getting a Rush Visa ASAP
People Have Fun With Idea That 'Hunnikah' Celebrates a Jewish Gorilla War
Christmas Is a Miracle and You Don't Need to Look Further Than North...
Happy Holidays Tweet from the ATF Doesn't Warm The Heart
If What the Teamsters Prez Told Tucker Carlson Is True It's No Wonder...
Merry Christmas: A Special Bonus Gift of Christmas Funnies Just for You
Simply ‘Wonderful’: Classic Holiday Film Reminds Generations It’s Okay to Cry at Christmas
A Lump of Coal in Her Stocking! Crypto Influencer Gets BURIED for Not...
Political Pivot? Many Question ‘Young Turk’ Cenk Uygur’s Sudden Willingness to Talk with...
'The View' Panelist Says Problem for Dems Is That Gov't Won't Regulate Social...
Man Vs. History: Bear Grylls Gets DROPPED by Community Notes for Awful Take...

NYT left some pretty major details out of their coverage of girl who aborted, burned, and buried her baby

Various

As you unfortunately may have heard, Nebraska teen Celeste Burgess has been sentenced to 90 days in jail after pleading guilty to illegally concealing a dead human body, the dead human body of her third-trimester baby that she, with her mother's help, aborted, tried to burn, and repeatedly buried in April 2022. The details are incredibly grisly, although you'd never know it from this New York Times' tweet:

Advertisement

No mention in there of the fact that Burgess was in her third trimester and that the baby could have been viable. No mention of the fact that Burgess and her mother buried the body multiple times. No mention of their attempts to burn the baby. Those seem like pretty significant details that should've been included in the tweet, no?

And the headline isn't any better:

Yeah, let us find our shocked faces. We're sure they're around here somewhere ...

More like crafty. It's quite obvious what the New York Times is trying to do.

Advertisement

The New York Times is counting on outrage from pro-aborts who can't be bothered to actually click the link and read the article.

In what universe does that information not deserve to be front and center in the New York Times' — and any outlet's, for that matter — tweet about this story?

At this point, we're honestly not sure that the New York Times even knows what actual journalism is. Or, more likely, they know but just couldn't possibly care less.

Advertisement

Ridiculous and shameful and disgusting.

Sick.

***

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.  Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement