'MAGA is the Republican Party': Mitt Romney Predicts JD Vance Will Be The...
Monday Morning Meme Madness
Spoil Sport: Campaign Manager Blames Trump Culture for Sporting Shows Dropping Kamala
January 6 Committee Democrat Won’t Refuse Biden Pardon Despite Saying He Broke No...
Definitely Defeated: Kamala Serves Up Repetitive Word Salad at Annual DNC Holiday Dinner
Trophy Treat: Pop-Tarts Unwraps Tasty Toasty College Football Bowl Prize
Host of Cringemas Present: Celebrating Our Final Kamala-Cackling Holiday Season
State of the Chart: Chris Cillizza Blind to Fox News Post-Election Viewership Rise
Poll Position: Pollster Who Had Kamala Winning Iowa is Refuting Election Interference Clai...
Kamala Eyeing Full-Court Shot at Presidency Despite California Governorship Layup
ABC News Sends ‘Regrets’ But No Apology for Trump Rape Lies Spread by...
Seven Years Ago, Disney Enacted Order 66 on the Movie Industry (but We...
Israel Closing Embassy in Ireland, Citing 'Extreme Anti-Israel Polices' of Government
Infectious Disease Doc Gets WRECKED for Calling Lockdowns a 'Necessary Evil'
J. K. Rowling Pitches an Amazing New Action Series

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