The other day, we told you about FEMA willingly and intentionally discriminating against Trump supporters in Florida, following Hurricanes Helene and Milton. The FEMA supervisor behind the order to skip homes displaying Trump campaign paraphernalia was reportedly fired.
It’s a good start, and more than deserved.
But what about the media? Donald Trump himself said there was discrimination against Republicans and that was dismissed — as always — as a conspiracy theory.
Now that it’s been confirmed, guess what won’t be happening?
No retraction coming, correct? pic.twitter.com/DXs0r9sjS8
— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) November 10, 2024
Of course not.
Doubtful the @nytimes even reports there were FEMA officials discriminating against Trump supporters in providing relief assistance.
— Jeff Wright (@1991Wolfpack) November 10, 2024
Surprisingly, they did.
But guess what?
Worse. They write the article and they claim that this story undermines the great effort by FEMA and still blame Trump. Fake news at their best. pic.twitter.com/CRWd88wq7v
— Max Pescatori (@maxpescatori) November 10, 2024
Least surprising news ever.
The New York Times wonders why subscriptions keep falling
— Hi, I’m KellyJo 🙋🏽♀️🇺🇸 (@BiologicalWoma2) November 10, 2024
Total mystery.
The progressive media keeps getting it wrong because they are incurious to find the truth if it hurts their narrative.
— Kevin Ledgister (@KevinLedgister) November 10, 2024
Recommended
And doubly so if it could remotely help Trump.
I checked outside the window today and pigs are not flying yet.
Should that change I will post here.— JBA Meet me in the Middle extremes are Bad (@AdlerJoelle) November 10, 2024
Heh.
The difference between a Republican conspiracy theory and the truth is about 2 months. https://t.co/hIP7WCLgmJ
— Bully the White (@BullyEsq) November 10, 2024
Give or take.
Well technically @JoeConchaTV @JoeBiden @KamalaHarris did not neglect GOP areas, they neglected actual Republicans on purpose https://t.co/5EbDTeuxRx
— Dallas Woodhouse (@DallasWoodhouse) November 10, 2024
Those are the sort of semantics the NYT will inevitably play here.
