The New York Times has an article up where they interviewed people in Pennsylvania to give readers a sense of who exactly is going to decide the election in a few days. And of all the people they could have highlighted, they picked a convicted felon and sex offender as one of their pro-Trump examples:
?https://t.co/nV7PrRCsYK pic.twitter.com/LUkg3tsYKZ
— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) October 23, 2020
It’s an awful crime, too:
“…witnesses testified that Placido walked up to sisters ages 11 and 17 outside a restaurant in Hampden Township and asked if they wanted to come over to his van and see his dog." https://t.co/6d1hMPdXrm
— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) October 23, 2020
Ryan Reilly of HuffPost called the Times out for it, too: “associating an unhoused registered sex offender with either candidate, in a piece meant to give NYT readers a snapshot of Pennsylvania voters, seems unfair.”
Since there’s been some misinterpretation of these tweets I’ll make my critique explicit: associating an unhoused registered sex offender with either candidate, in a piece meant to give NYT readers a snapshot of Pennsylvania voters, seems unfair. He clearly has the right to vote.
— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) October 23, 2020
The NYT has since removed this blurb from the report:
The NYT has now removed him from this piece, saying his inclusion “was inappropriate in a sampling of this kind.”https://t.co/nV7PrRCsYK pic.twitter.com/jIUw4U0i9a
— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) October 23, 2020
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member