Don't You Like Your Stupid Prizes? Hims CEO Andrew Dudum Is Upset About...
Monday Morning Meme Madness
Democrats' Push for State-Run Media Would Make Even Pravda Blush
Where Are the Rest of Them? FL Democrats Get Dragged for PATHETIC Pic...
It's Just So BAD: Mary Katharine Ham Reads Latest 'Hilarious' Headlines From the...
Trans Insanity: Six Trustees Suspended From Charity for Objecting to Inclusion of 'Breastf...
UC Santa Cruz 'Students for Justice in Palestine' Basically Demand Jews Be Removed...
'Doesn't Make Sense': Elon Musk Asks Why Taxpayers Fund Anti-American Activities on Colleg...
@CatoInstitute Is Right: 'The US Can't Keep Spending So Much Without Consequences'
WE WARNED YOU! Jacobin Mag Shocked Canada's MAID Program Replacing Social Welfare With...
He's FINE: NBC Slobbers All Over Biden's 'Less Is More' Strategy but X...
Hear Us Roar: Biden Reminded HE Messed With Women After Tone-Deaf Post About...
Michael Tracey WRECKED for Safe-Space Dig at the Right for Defending Jewish Students...
James Woods Puts Shrieking, Yelling, Republican-Hating Climate Change LOON IN HIS PLACE an...
BOMBARDA! J.K. Rowling Straight-FIRE in FAFO Thread Flaming Man Whining About 'Segregating...

Remembering Jim Brown: The tasteless obituary crew at The New York Times strikes again

The New York Times has, once again, beclowned themselves with a ridiculous obituary headline. This time, legendary Cleveland Browns running back, Jim Brown, was in their crosshairs.

Advertisement

Seriously, New York Times, can’t you let Browns fans have anything? (Sorry Browns fans.)

As with nearly every being afflicted with the condition known as ‘humanity’, Jim Brown also had skeletons in his past.

Generally, people tend to celebrate the good parts of a person’s life upon their death and leave those bad moments for another time.

That’s not how The New York Times rolls … or maybe it is … or well … it seems it depends.

Remember this classic?

It seems being a terrorist that targeted American troops earns you an ambiguously benign obituary, especially when your manner of death was being reduced to ashes by the U.S. military on orders from the Bad Orange Man.

Sam Wyche, however, a beloved Cincinnati Bengals head coach, has most of his obituary headline dominated by an obscure incident that nearly nobody remembered.

Maybe some old curmudgeon at The New York Times just has a personal beef with anyone related to the Paul Brown family?

Advertisement

Or, maybe the modern leftists at The New York Times just really love them some commies.

Gray Lady, eh? More like Red Lady.

How about this classic?

Sure, Kathy helped kill a couple police officers in an act of left wing terrorism, but she really helped her cell buddies, y’all!

Yeah, we think there’s something to this communist soft glove treatment, but that doesn’t explain their baffling obituary headlines all the time.

Let’s see what all you fine folks out there in Twitterland had to say about the treatment of Jim Brown by The New York Times.

See?! It’s not just us! LOL.

Advertisement

As expected, you’re all out there asking the right questions.

The New York Times is dying a slow death, so it’s not exactly clear when we get to include this little factoid in their obituary.

We’ll all just have to keep reminding them until they’re gone.

And we’re back to preferential treatment of commies.

Right?! People do good things. People do bad things.

Maybe don’t highlight the bad in your headlines of people who were generally admired.

We can already imagine how The New York Times will cover Bill Clinton’s passing:

‘Bill Clinton, widely considered to be America’s first Black president, became a popular icon after being targeted by Republicans while in office. Dead at 94.’

Advertisement

It’s not that had, guys. Yes, the full article from a news organization might include some of the ‘lesser’ facts about a public figure’s life, but in the headline?

They must be talking about the beloved Michael Jackson impersonator.

The contrast is mind-numbing.

Jordan Neely was also a mixture of good and bad. The press is choosing to remember the best of him from nearly a decade ago while ignoring the tragic circumstances of his life that eventually led him to criminal and antisocial behavior.

They grant that courtesy to Neely in headline after headline, but not Jim Brown.

Clowns.

It wasn’t even hard to figure out.

That’s sort of their thing.

Advertisement

They’ve been accused repeatedly but rarely found guilty.

And that’s why Jim Brown got The New York Times ‘bad person’ treatment instead of the ‘glorious leader’ commie treatment.

That would be counter to the goal of their Griner coverage.

LOL! The classic ‘austere religious scholar’ from WaPo. Yep, The New York Times is not the only game in town.

Advertisement

Nailed it.

Let’s just wrap this up with a remembrance by the people who actually loved Jim Brown.

There you go. The New York Times might want to consider breaking up their death notices from their editorializing.

***

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