https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/18...FM3Ig&s=19

---

https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/18...FM3Ig&s=19

I don't understand that criticism.  Why expand the picture in order to include a flag?  If they did that, ClayTravis would probably say, "the New York Times shrinks picture of Trump under the guise of including a flag."

---

https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/18...FM3Ig&s=19

I don't understand that criticism.  Why expand the picture in order to include a flag?  If they did that, ClayTravis would probably say, "the New York Times shrinks picture of Trump under the guise of including a flag."

Now do the part about avoiding the word assassination.

---

I don't understand that criticism.  Why expand the picture in order to include a flag?  If they did that, ClayTravis would probably say, "the New York Times shrinks picture of Trump under the guise of including a flag."

Now do the part about avoiding the word assassination.

"Assassination attempt" takes up a lot more space than "shooting" in the headline.  

What difference would it make if they said, "assassination attempt," instead of "shooting," anyway?  I don't get the objection to the word "shooting."  Isn't that accurate?

---

Now do the part about avoiding the word assassination.

"Assassination attempt" takes up a lot more space than "shooting" in the headline.  

What difference would it make if they said, "assassination attempt," instead of "shooting," anyway?  I don't get the objection to the word "shooting."  Isn't that accurate?

Words matter man. Especially here. Ever heard of the JFK shooting?

---

https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/18...FM3Ig&s=19

I don't understand that criticism.  Why expand the picture in order to include a flag?  If they did that, ClayTravis would probably say, "the New York Times shrinks picture of Trump under the guise of including a flag."

Marty, I know you love the NYT for their cultural content and its faded past of intellectual discourse, but you're going to have to eventually admit that it has become a cheap leftwing rag.

---

I read a comment somewhere speculating the shooter registered as a Republican so he could vote against Trump in the primary. Is that even a thing?

PA has closed primaries, so yes.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

"Assassination attempt" takes up a lot more space than "shooting" in the headline.  

What difference would it make if they said, "assassination attempt," instead of "shooting," anyway?  I don't get the objection to the word "shooting."  Isn't that accurate?

Words matter man. Especially here. Ever heard of the JFK shooting?

JFK was assassinated.  Trump was not assassinated.  He got shot.  But he was not assassinated, because he's still alive.  There was an attempted assassination, but if you need to make a headline about it, you have to save space.  That's all they were doing- making a headline.

---

Here is some help on how to journalism Marty.

https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/...lzKdg&s=19

---

'She was guarding Cheetos': Elon Musk slams Secret Service chief Kimberly Cheatle after attack on Trump – Firstpost

I don't know about her background besides being the former Senior Director of Global Security for Pepsi. Does she have any tactical training or experience, or is she a career bureaucrat?

---

Words matter man. Especially here. Ever heard of the JFK shooting?

JFK was assassinated.  Trump was not assassinated.  He got shot.  But he was not assassinated, because he's still alive.  There was an attempted assassination, but if you need to make a headline about it, you have to save space.  That's all they were doing- making a headline.

You are getting close.

Trump survives assassination attempt.

See....I didn't even go to school for journalism.

---

I don't understand that criticism.  Why expand the picture in order to include a flag?  If they did that, ClayTravis would probably say, "the New York Times shrinks picture of Trump under the guise of including a flag."

Marty, I know you love the NYT for their cultural content and its faded past of intellectual discourse, but you're going to have to eventually admit that it has become a cheap leftwing rag.

That's an interesting prediction.  Maybe I will, maybe I won't.  I enjoy the NY Times.  I don't agree with their editorials, and I see that they come at things from a left of center point of view, and that infects their news coverage sometimes, but there is so much interesting content they put out that has nothing to do with politics, that you won't see anywhere else.  And most other publications are so dumbed down in order to get readers, they are very boring and worthless.  

Besides, do you really want to cut yourself off from ever reading any opinions that conflict with yours?  I don't.  I think I have the ability to read opinion pieces that I disagree with without becoming infected somehow.  Aren't you interested in how other people think?  Left wingers are not always wrong, just like right wingers are not always wrong.

---

Marty, I know you love the NYT for their cultural content and its faded past of intellectual discourse, but you're going to have to eventually admit that it has become a cheap leftwing rag.

That's an interesting prediction.  Maybe I will, maybe I won't.  I enjoy the NY Times.  I don't agree with their editorials, and I see that they come at things from a left of center point of view, and that infects their news coverage sometimes, but there is so much interesting content they put out that has nothing to do with politics, that you won't see anywhere else.  And most other publications are so dumbed down in order to get readers, they are very boring and worthless.  

Besides, do you really want to cut yourself off from ever reading any opinions that conflict with yours?  I don't.  I think I have the ability to read opinion pieces that I disagree with without becoming infected somehow.  Aren't you interested in how other people think?  Left wingers are not always wrong, just like right wingers are not always wrong.

Opinion and reporting aren't the same. NYT lost sight of that a long time ago.

---

Marty, I know you love the NYT for their cultural content and its faded past of intellectual discourse, but you're going to have to eventually admit that it has become a cheap leftwing rag.

That's an interesting prediction.  Maybe I will, maybe I won't.  I enjoy the NY Times.  I don't agree with their editorials, and I see that they come at things from a left of center point of view, and that infects their news coverage sometimes, but there is so much interesting content they put out that has nothing to do with politics, that you won't see anywhere else.  And most other publications are so dumbed down in order to get readers, they are very boring and worthless.  

Besides, do you really want to cut yourself off from ever reading any opinions that conflict with yours?  I don't.  I think I have the ability to read opinion pieces that I disagree with without becoming infected somehow.  Aren't you interested in how other people think?  Left wingers are not always wrong, just like right wingers are not always wrong.

Which is all fine and good, but they tout themselves as arbiters of truth while actively omitting facts which don't support their views. It is no longer a journalistic standard. It is no longer a newspaper. It's an opinion website on par with Politico, et al.

---

That's an interesting prediction.  Maybe I will, maybe I won't.  I enjoy the NY Times.  I don't agree with their editorials, and I see that they come at things from a left of center point of view, and that infects their news coverage sometimes, but there is so much interesting content they put out that has nothing to do with politics, that you won't see anywhere else.  And most other publications are so dumbed down in order to get readers, they are very boring and worthless.  

Besides, do you really want to cut yourself off from ever reading any opinions that conflict with yours?  I don't.  I think I have the ability to read opinion pieces that I disagree with without becoming infected somehow.  Aren't you interested in how other people think?  Left wingers are not always wrong, just like right wingers are not always wrong.

Which is all fine and good, but they tout themselves as arbiters of truth while actively omitting facts which don't support their views. It is no longer a journalistic standard. It is no longer a newspaper. It's an opinion website on par with Politico, et al.

EVERY reporter has a point of view.  We ALL have a point of view.  You would write a story one way, because you have a point of view as to what facts are really important.  And someone else with a different point of view would select different facts to report because they honestly think they are reporting the most important facts.  It's not dishonesty that causes people to do this.  It's limited space.  They have to write a column, not a book.  

But that's the reason you have to read more than one source.  No one has a monopoly on the truth, not the New York Times, not Fox News, not News Max.  They all report what they think is important.  

People tend to think that publications that agree with them politically are reporting just the facts, and publications that disagree with them politically are biased.  It's unavoidable.  Bias is unavoidable.  Two people will see the same thing and report a completely different story, because what they see in filtered through what they believe.  It's unavoidable.  It's everywhere.

---

Which is all fine and good, but they tout themselves as arbiters of truth while actively omitting facts which don't support their views. It is no longer a journalistic standard. It is no longer a newspaper. It's an opinion website on par with Politico, et al.

EVERY reporter has a point of view.  We ALL have a point of view.  You would write a story one way, because you have a point of view as to what facts are really important.  And someone else with a different point of view would select different facts to report because they honestly think they are reporting the most important facts.  It's not dishonesty that causes people to do this.  It's limited space.  They have to write a column, not a book.  

But that's the reason you have to read more than one source.  No one has a monopoly on the truth, not the New York Times, not Fox News, not News Max.  They all report what they think is important.  

People tend to think that publications that agree with them politically are reporting just the facts, and publications that disagree with them politically are biased.  It's unavoidable.  Bias is unavoidable.  Two people will see the same thing and report a completely different story, because what they see in filtered through what they believe.  It's unavoidable.  It's everywhere.

The Gray Lady now has blue hair and wears a 'Protect Trans Kids' t-shirt.

---

What time is it? Why by golly it is Oswald acted alone time.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9Z4_-gO6...1mNnpsbWVn

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

That's an interesting prediction.  Maybe I will, maybe I won't.  I enjoy the NY Times.  I don't agree with their editorials, and I see that they come at things from a left of center point of view, and that infects their news coverage sometimes, but there is so much interesting content they put out that has nothing to do with politics, that you won't see anywhere else.  And most other publications are so dumbed down in order to get readers, they are very boring and worthless.  

Besides, do you really want to cut yourself off from ever reading any opinions that conflict with yours?  I don't.  I think I have the ability to read opinion pieces that I disagree with without becoming infected somehow.  Aren't you interested in how other people think?  Left wingers are not always wrong, just like right wingers are not always wrong.

Which is all fine and good, but they tout themselves as arbiters of truth while actively omitting facts which don't support their views. It is no longer a journalistic standard. It is no longer a newspaper. It's an opinion website on par with Politico, et al.

Which is why you should read that but also seek other sources to find the facts they omitted.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It is clear these DEI hires are over their head and should never have been on this detail.


https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1812330...wCakw&s=19

I can't take the one girl seriously as a SS agent with her pony tail flapping around slapping her in the face when she turns her head.  They look more like someone pretending to be SS for Halloween or some stripper theme.

---