Imagine if a maniac shot a bunch of Hillary aides, and it turned out that he worked as a campaign vol for Trump, and that Breitbart had given up the location of their unsecure picnic.
Posted on 06/15/2017 11:27:00 AM PDT by maggief
The New York Times corrected an editorial on the GOP baseball shooting Thursday that baselessly accused Sarah Palin of inciting the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords.
“An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords,” the correction reads. “In fact, no such link was established.”
The editorial initially stated there was a “clear link” from Palin’s rhetoric to Giffords’ shooting, as a means of justifying the board’s decision not to place the same kind of blame on Democrats for the baseball shooting.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Didn’t that have to do with Palin’s use of the word targeting? How tenuous can you get?!
Despite the near impossibility to do it, the NYT is becoming more RED and less READ.
Did the scum NYT correct IT only because Palin may have filed a lawsuit against them?
Imagine if a maniac shot a bunch of Hillary aides, and it turned out that he worked as a campaign vol for Trump, and that Breitbart had given up the location of their unsecure picnic.
The NY Slimes, aptly named. Because that’s what this rag is. A biased journal of leftist slime.
In other cases they seem happy to make changes without a correction notice. In this case the correction notice is there and mentions “the link” two times. And points out that it was “not established”, leaving readers able to believe it did exist if that’s what they wanted to believe after having it mentioned 2 additional times.
I’d bet they intentionally used the correction to reinforce the main point they wanted to make.
They only took it back because she threatened to sue their asses..she still should..but its the New York Slimes, they are worthless, and I wouldn’t wipe my behind with their pathetic excuse of a “Paper”
I’m surprised they printed a correction. Normally, they just don’t care to correct the propaganda.
Geez, it’s fortunate they weren’t actually sitting in an SUV at the time, or this guy might have started by shooting them where they sat.
Exactly right, probably was his first choice.
I thing they realized they’d cross the line and thus “a correction”. The law says they can print whatever they want as long as they do not have malice. You tell me they did this for any other reason than to hurt Palin. That’s malice. As I’m sure their lawyers informed the Carlos Slim Blog.
Funding a play about the assassination of Trump is just art, according to the NYSlimes. It isn’t hate speech.
Rush talked about this this morning. He strongly encouraged Sarah Palin to sue the New York Times for libel.
The Fake New York Times didn't want Sarah to end up owning half the paper.
I saw a screen grab (since been deleted) from DU...long before Palin’s ‘targeting’ map...that showed all of the Repub candidates DU was ‘targeting’.
Did NYSlimes ever report on that?
Listened to just a bit of Rush today. He thinks that Sarah has an excellent grounds for a lawsuit and should be encouraged to move forward with it.
this was no accident, it was on purpose. Everyone will remember their initial assertion, few will remember their correction.
The NYT, CNN, etc., are all bottom feeding scum, and liars.
After the NYT “correction” Governor Palin tweeted she is exploring her legal options.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.