How Media Are Lying Right Now: New York Times ‘Analysis’ Edition

There’s a helpful new way to determine whether the dying news media are lying: Simply look for some variation of the phrase, “according to a New York Times analysis.”

The Times itself has repeatedly relied on that little trick to cast blame on the Trump administration in the death of the angry anti-ICE leftist now identified as Renee Nicole Good. She was shot in Minneapolis last week after recklessly flooring it in her SUV in the middle of the street while disrupting a law enforcement operation.

“A New York Times analysis of videos of the shooting contradicts the Trump administration’s account.” (Jan. 7)

“But a Times analysis of video calls into question key aspects of the government’s account.” (Jan. 7)

“But our analysis of bystander footage, filmed from different angles, appears to show the agent was not in the path of the victim’s SUV when he fired three shots at close range.” (Jan. 8)

“[A] Times analysis of footage from three camera angles showed the motorist was driving away from — not toward — a federal officer when he opened fire.” (Jan. 8)

By “a Times analysis,” what the paper means is that a handful of content creators who work there looked at the same videos everyone else saw. There’s no reason to believe their eyes are any better than mine, and what I saw was clear. While officials were posted up in their vehicles, pedestrians were blowing whistles and yelling in protest. Good, the now-deceased woman, had her Honda Pilot parked longways in the center of the street, obstructing traffic. When three officers approached Good and commanded her to exit the vehicle, she threw her car into reverse before shifting forward and slamming the gas pedal, apparently striking one of the agents on his left side. That officer had his weapon drawn for her to see, and when she failed to brake, he fired multiple rounds. The SUV then crashed at high speed into another parked car on the road’s left shoulder.

It doesn’t matter whether Good was trying to avoid arrest or whether she suddenly remembered she forgot to blow out the candles before leaving her house. It doesn’t matter whether she was deliberately turning toward any of the agents or away from them. The fact remains that she broke the law by interfering with law enforcement and that she put the lives of everyone on scene at risk when she chose to hit the gas in her two-ton vehicle.

How insulting for some content creators, sitting comfy in their climate-controlled offices, to render their judgment on a highly combustible event because they were able to see it play back on their computer screens. And then call it “an analysis” as if that bestows any authority at all on their juvenile opinion.

The Times’ “analysis” means nothing. It’s just a way for the paper to assert an accusation for its own predictable political purposes.