The brazen anti-Americanism replete within The New York Times has become so in-your-face you can smell it like someone with a halitosis condition yawning within a few centimeters of your nose at a bus stop. How the trash newspaper tried to give new meaning to the idea of Memorial Day in its print edition is no exception.
The May 26 print edition of The Times featured no mention of Memorial Day or the numerous U.S. service men and women who died in the armed forces at all on its front page. In fact, one of the top so-called stories it chose to feature instead was teaming with anti-police, race-hustling agitprop: “Rise in Killings By Police Dims Floyd’s Legacy.”
Yes, this allegedly prestigious paper actually chose to elevate the memory of a violent convict charged with numerous drug and theft offenses to attack the police writ large rather than honoring the memories of dead soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect their country. One of Floyd’s most egregious crimes involved an aggravated robbery incident where he pressed a pistol against a woman’s abdomen while searching for items to steal in her apartment.
Did The Times bother mentioning any of this context when they chose to re-canonize Floyd in its racial propaganda written by three reporters? Nope. Instead, five years after the killing that sparked the racial unrest that dominated America’s streets amidst the violent Marxist Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, The Times is still so obsessed with Floyd that it is willing to give him “Memorial Day” precedence just so it can continue its pathetic trend of dunking on law enforcement.
What’s worse is that even The Times’s competitor, the left-wing Washington Post, had enough sense in its May 26 print edition to honor a service member (Sgt. Quandarius Stanley) — ON MEMORIAL DAY — who died under medical supervision while recovering from head wounds suffered in Gaza as its main story on the front page.
Times reporters Steven Rich, Tim Arango and Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, on the other hand, tried to whip out the worn-out narrative that the police are inherently racist. “[D]espite the largest racial justice protests since the civil rights era of the 1960s and a wave of measures to improve training and hold officers more accountable [after Floyd’s killing], the number of people killed by the police continues to rise each year, and Black Americans still die in disproportionate numbers,” the reporters propagandized.
As usual, there is no mention that police officers and others died in the "largest racial justice protests" -- where rioting and looting were somehow not controversial.
The irony is that one of the graphics that the reporters chose to feature showed that “Native Americans” represented the largest share of “racial disparities in police killings,” not “Black Americans.” But The Times reporters wrote nothing about this point. Apparently focusing on “Native Americans” didn’t fit the newspaper’s “the police just target black people” spin.
Moreover, the devil, as always, is in the details, which actually upended the lefty newspaper’s entire anti-police narrative: “Experts say it is difficult to draw definitive answers from the data about why police killings continue to rise without an analysis of the circumstances of each case. But they have plenty of theories about what may have contributed to the problem.”
So, in other words, no one really knows the reason, but it is oddly convenient for the Rich/Arango/Bogel-Burroughs narrative to bury this factoid eight paragraphs down in their story. Print readers wouldn’t even know this narrative-busting paragraph existed unless they took the time to turn to page A14.
In addition, the so-called “theories” the reporters chose to inject into the ether involved attacking gun ownership and conservatives because, why not? Derp:
An increasing number of guns in circulation heightens the chances of deadly encounters. A backlash against the police reform movement in conservative states may have empowered the police in those places. And the decline in public trust in the police after Mr. Floyd’s murder may have led to more deadly encounters.
Moreover, The Times let it be known that it has a beef with how “[t]he federal government, under the Trump administration, has also pulled back from holding law enforcement agencies accountable.”
Do the higher-ups at The Times realize how terrible the editorial decisions have to be in order to make the leftist agitators at The Post look like the more sensible ones in the national political conversation? Apparently not.
