Dana Loesch slams The New York Times as a dutiful shill for the left and says we're done with their narratives, propaganda and fake news.
Recently The New York Times, in its bid to remain relevant and influential, tried to disrupt the narrative on "fake news" by promoting itself as truth. Who are you fooling, New York Times?
NRATV responded to that garbage immediately, with a video of their own. And in response to that dose of truth, Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for The New York Times, said "Our commitment to the truth isn't new, it dates back 166 years. And each and every story mentioned in the NRA's video, from Benghazi to crime in Chicago, was covered in deep and rich detail by Times reporters."
Oh, New York Times? Because on September 11, 2012 you ran with the fake news that the terror attack in Benghazi was caused by a 14-minute movie trailer on YouTube. You published that while men like Kris Paronto, John Tiegen and Mark Geist—contractors actually on the ground in Benghazi—set you straight that this was a terror attack.
In fact, New York Times, you ever dutiful shill for the left, you get major brownie points for continuing Hillary Clinton's debunked blame-game even after emails produced showed her admitting to her own daughter that this was not the result of a video, but rather a terror attack.
Please, tell me all about how you covered this story in "deep, rich detail" while you're embarrassing your profession by continuing a narrative that your boss lady has given up already.
"We're going to laser-focus on your so-called 'honest pursuit of truth.' In short, we're coming for you."
One more example on your "deep, rich detail," New York Times — you always blame the gun when publishing stories on the Chicago crime rate, and refuse to acknowledge the fall of the prosecution rate for felony crimes, you refuse to acknowledge when the Chicago Police Superintendent excoriated judges for making cops' jobs harder by releasing violent offenders over, and over, and over again. Story after story — to say nothing of your inability to delve into that "deep, rich detail" when using the term "assault rifle" as your undefinable, go-to scary buzzword for all guns.
"We the people" have had it. We've had it with your narratives, your propaganda, your fake news. We've had it with your constant protection of your democrat overlords, your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life. And we've had it with your pretentious, tone-deaf assertion that you are in any way truth or fact-based journalism.
Consider this the shot across your proverbial bow. We are going to fisk the The New York Times and find out just what "deep and rich" means to this old gray hag, this untrustworthy, dishonest rag that has subsisted on the welfare of mediocrity for one, two, three, more decades. We're going to laser-focus on your so-called "honest pursuit of truth."
In short, we're coming for you.