I Suggested Sleep Training and the Internet Lost Its Mind
UK Police Searched Through Six Years of Henry Nowak's Social Media Posts to...
Provocateur Jake Lang Arrested at Anti-Islamification Rally in Minneapolis
Hot Take: No White Nationalist Is Going to Pick Strawberries in 110-Degree Heat
Cato Chair: There Should Be No Federal Agency Tasked With Deporting Immigrants
Randi Weingarten Launches Website to Steer People Away From Shopping at Target
Gossip Girls: CNN’s Kasie Hunt and NYT‘S Maggie Haberman Aren’t ‘Relatively Close’ to...
Paramount Pushes Back Against Mark Ruffalo Claiming Complicity in Palestinian ‘Genocide’
J.K. Rowling: Caring What’s Between Your Date’s Legs Isn’t Bigotry — It’s Not...
Majority of Democrats Want to Recall Seattle Mayor As Starbucks Proceeds With Move...
Hasan Piker Mocks Charlie Kirk’s Assassination on Stage — Crowd Cheers As He...
US Government Plans to Pay $850 Million of the 'Several Billion' It Owes...
Hypocrite 'Eat the Rich' DSA Leader Caught Lying and Living Off Mom &...
This Murder Stat Sums Up the Insanity of Democrat Pro-Illegal Alien Policies
'Journalism' Trifecta! This Week CNN Set the 'Shameless and Embarrassing Fake News' Bar...

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