'60 Minutes' Features Two High School Seniors Who Solved 'Impossible' Mathematical Puzzle
Identity of Biden Fanboy on Election Panel Exposed and It Explans Everything
President Biden Awards Presidential Medal of Freedom to Greatest Speaker in History
Twitter Tries to Get to the Bottom of Biden's Walk with Some Solid...
ASU Students Arrested During Protests Won't Be Able to Finish Final Exams
Just for Fun: Some of the Best Tweets Leading Up to the 'Kentucky...
Student Protesters Trash Car That ‘Targeted’ Them; ‘This Wasn’t an Accident’
Protestors Compare Campus Riots to 1968 Movement but Americans Aren't Buying It
Covington 2.0? The Hill Says GOP Rep. Applauds Counter-Protesters Who Taunted Black Woman
Almost Snakes on a Plane? Miami TSSSsssSSSA Snags a Bag of Snakes From...
Biden Reminds Us to Vote for the Candidate Who Ignores SCOTUS Rulings in...
White House Isn't Finished Trying to Milk Every Ounce of Cringe Out of...
WOMP WOMP! Hims Stock Tanks After CEO Praises 'Moral Courage' of Antisemitic Campus...
'Public Assembly': Watch Police Harass Billboard Chris, Anna McGovern for Wearing a Sign...
AP Review of Star Wars Actor's Meeting With Biden Doesn't Match the Readout...

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