New ‘Maryland Man’ Joins ‘Virginia Dad’ in the Headlines
Meryl Streep Tells Colbert Married Women May Be Disqualified at Voting Booth If...
The Bulwark's Jonathan V. Last: ‘America Lost. Iran Won.’
This is Why Parents Are Fleeing Public Schools: NYC Teacher Calls for Seizing...
Expert on Grand Strategy Can't See the Rationale for Blowing Up a Bridge...
ActBlue Lashes Out: Accuses NYT and Its Own Lawyers of Lying in the...
Nancy Pelosi’s Daughter Thanks Sketch Artist Who Captured Justice KBJ Schooling Trump
Sky News Reporter: Apollo Mission Wasn't for All Humanity Because It Was All...
Everybody Has the Same Question After Newsom Press Office Posts 'President With a...
Canadian Butthurt Over Joke About ‘Our Moon’
Under Duress: Colorado Demands Lawyers Promise Not to Aid Feds on Immigration or...
Harry Reid in 1993: 'No Sane Country Would Do This.' Harry Reid's Party...
MN Dems Still Debating Whether There's an Inherent Right to Life for... Wild...
George Washington’s Warning Morality and Religion Are Essential
No Need to Imagine, Sonny: We Lived It — Bunch Pretends Biden Never...

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