NYT reports from the dark depths of Mitch McConnell’s soul

NYT reports from the dark depths of Mitch McConnell’s soul

Posted in Uncategorized

I hate headlines like this:

McConnell in Private

If Mitch McConnell is doing something “in private,” then how would the NYT know?  How would anyone know that?  It’s an incorrect use of the word “private.”

In the error, the NYT reveals just how gullible they are.  If we are to believe them, then here’s what happened:

  1. Mitch McConnell had a private emotional experience of doubt.
  2. Wittingly or unwittingly, McConnell honestly and accurately communicated his internal doubt to someone in his inner circle (his wife?  his chief of staff?).
  3. That confidante decided that he/she had a duty to make it publicly known that the majority leader was experiencing a specific emotion.
  4. He/she reached out to a reporter at the most celebrated newspaper of our time and honestly and accurately described McConnel’s emotional state.
  5. The NYT dutifully passed along this important information to the public.

Isn’t it possible that the NYT might have been played by McConnell or his staff?  How can you write this article and not admit that your source likely has a vested interest in having the NYT readership think that McConnell is experiencing doubt?

If I’m McConnell, my emotions have gone way beyond doubt by this time.



Start typing and press Enter to search

Shopping Cart