We're big fans of self-contained "fact-checks" from the media because they make our job so much easier, and the New York Times has come through again.
The media in general often likes to report on comments President Trump makes by following it up with "without citing evidence." Do they ever do that after quoting a Democrat like, say, Adam Schiff?
In any case, @DrewHolden360 spotted the Times debunking a "without citing evidence" claim about something Trump said in the same sentence. This is amazing:
I think @nytimes got so used to saying that the Trump admin did something “without citing evidence” that they didn’t realize they mention the “evidence” in the same sentence. pic.twitter.com/Ebcgl2yJq3
— Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) January 6, 2026
Ah, "journalism"!
Left is the full piece.
— Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) January 6, 2026
Right is their reporting on the “evidence” in question. pic.twitter.com/ky15yAfIwv
They're so used to trying to make their readers think Trump's always lying that occasionally the Times forgets to debunk themselves.
“Without citing evidence” is my most despised tell of awful journalism. It’s 100% slanted and can’t be taken any other way. Any writer that uses it or editor that allows it should be ashamed.
— Jordan Golson (@jlgolson) January 7, 2026
It’s so gross.
An absence of "real journalists" running the Times has been detected:
‘Claims’ or ‘claiming’ never needs ‘without evidence’ because that assumption is already built into the definition. ‘Journos’ started this non-journalistic practice because of Trump. A real editor would strike it. Real journalists would never use it because it’s redundant. pic.twitter.com/O4KoEK7GDl
— Super Journalist (Retired) - JOURN-EL of Skrypton (@Magnum_CK) January 7, 2026
This is a tactic that not only the New York Times likes to use:
NPR did something similar a few days ago.https://t.co/1hQVCVztiV
— Super Journalist (Retired) - JOURN-EL of Skrypton (@Magnum_CK) January 7, 2026
What a surprise!
*****