Great slant to how the NYT reports this exchange of accusations: It’s “The administration has provided no evidence to support [its] claims“ while Petro’s “description of Mr. Carranza and his boat could not be immediately confirmed.” https://t.co/YziPnKB5bv
— TSB (@TweetingTSB) October 20, 2025
As an aside, that old Coleridge poem (here) is well worth re-reading, provided of course that you were able to read it the first time back in high school. But that is not my point today.
Today, I'm struck with admiration for the creative power shown by the New York Times in its differing insinuations about the dueling narratives from Trump and Petro, his Colombian counterpart, over one of those kinetic interceptions of drug boats that we're carrying out in the Caribbean Sea.
Petro, like Trump and his administration, provided no evidence for his claim that an innocent fisherman was killed. But in his case, far from dismissing his claim, the NYT could not "immediately" confirm it.
That sounds like they almost could confirm it. You get the impression that we should stay tuned because they might well confirm it later today. Or they at least have a good chance of confirming it someday. Just a few missing details to nail down and - wham! - Petro's claims will get the NYT's seal of approval.
With such nearly poetic talent for between-the-lines messaging on display, I can't understand why the legacy news media is in free fall.
No comments:
Post a Comment