NYT Discovers Trump's Speeches Contain Factual Inaccuracies
While the NYT diligently fact-checks Trump’s post-presidency rhetoric, one might wonder where this rigorous standard was applied when, say, the Bush administration conjured WMDs out of thin air to justify wars. Or when various administrations cheered on regimes while conveniently overlooking their human rights abuses. This framing, focusing on predictable political puffery, conveniently sidesteps
the media's own historical role in amplifying or sanitizing state narratives. It's almost as if some 'facts' are more newsworthy than others. The real story isn't that a politician exaggerates, but which exaggerations receive the full, thunderous fact-check and which are left to silently shape public opinion. The selective outrage meter on display raises a critical question: is the goal to inform,
or to simply target the convenient 'liar' of the week?