The New York Times has done it again.
Their obituary for Charlie Kirk was shameful enough, and in a separate story, titled "where Charlie Kirk stood on key political issues," the Times listed categories like climate change, race, free speech and antisemitism.
In the Times' story about where Kirk stood, you won't be surprised to know that there were some inaccuracies, and they've now added a correction to the end of the story. This is a doozy:
What a correction from the @nytimes on Charlie Kirk. pic.twitter.com/bXwcUAEzJ8
— Daniel Mael (@DanielMael) September 11, 2025
One more time:
A correction was made on Sept. 11, 2025: An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast. He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it. It was not his own statement.
The quote the Times cited was Kirk reading the words of somebody else but the story attributed them to Charlie, because of course they did.
And guess what -- even the correction is misleading:
And even the correction is purposely worded to confuse.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) September 12, 2025
“Described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made…”
No, he did not make an “antisemitic statement.” https://t.co/D4eiPVZojl
The correction STILL makes it sound like Charlie made the comment.
— Jeremy E. Neuman (@JerOHMee) September 12, 2025
Recommended
It does.
Their errors only ever seem to be in one direction 🤔
— elizabeth bennett (@ebennett74) September 12, 2025
Thankfully they do this to both sides pretty equally 😐
— CCP IS ASSHOE (@CCPISASSH0E) September 12, 2025
Yeah, "errors" that only usually go in one direction aren't really honest mistakes.
It was deliberate - the media lies with its ledes then "retracts" in fine print on the last page days or weeks later, if ever, and only if caught in the act.
— Frankie D (@FrankieInVegas) September 12, 2025
That part of the Times' story on Kirk was up long enough to give the Left another bogus talking point and the people spreading it won't bother to mention the correction. It's almost like that's all by design.
*****