Staff Reports
The New Yorker’s recent handling of a Trump campaign request for a correction on a misrepresented claim has become a prime example of the media’s bias and denial in the current political landscape. Following the presidential debate where Trump made a controversial statement regarding Kamala Harris and transgender operations for illegal immigrants in prison, the mainstream media circus had a field day with mockery and derision. The New Yorker, a publication often seen as a bastion of elitist liberalism, took the opportunity to join in on the derision rather than address the factual basis of Trump’s claim.
Writer Susan Glasser was quick to ridicule Trump’s assertion, dismissively stating that his comments were so outrageous that they were rendered incoherent. This reaction aligns with the behavior of many in the media who seem more committed to perpetuating a narrative than engaging in fact-based journalism. By laughing at and mocking the former president instead of investigating the claim, The New Yorker showcased a classic example of bias over accuracy.
This is one of the single wildest and most revealing stories about corruption in political journalism that I've read in a long time, and that's saying something.
What is wrong with Susan Glasser @sbg1? https://t.co/SGuLZDmiGLhttps://t.co/MvWVsfCvyA pic.twitter.com/l4tZHGPmWF
— Brian Anderson (@AZBrianAnderson) September 12, 2024
The irony in Glasser’s reaction is thick, as Trump’s statement actually had roots in factual events. Just a day prior to the debate, a CNN article revealed Harris’s responses to a 2019 ACLU questionnaire regarding health care rights for incarcerated individuals, including potential transgender surgeries. While the mainstream media were tripping over themselves to discredit Trump, they conveniently overlooked the reality of what Harris had previously endorsed, opting instead for snarky comments and eye-rolling.
Adding another layer to the circus, when approached for clarification by the Free Beacon, Glasser seemed to suddenly forget her previous mockery of Trump’s claim. Her editor’s dismissal of the need for a correction is telling; it indicates a troubling trend of media organizations refusing to hold themselves accountable. As the debate raged online, a clear pattern emerged where evidence is brushed aside in favor of maintaining a false narrative that suits liberal agendas.
Says a lot about the c. 2019 Democratic Party that Trump said something with a grain of truth about Harris supporting transition surgery for imprisoned migrants, but it seemed so absurd that people were sure he just made it up.
Here's her answer on an ACLU questionnaire:… pic.twitter.com/cFwoLUO4XO
— Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) September 11, 2024
Ultimately, this incident exemplifies the growing distrust of mainstream media among the American public. The New Yorker and other outlets have chosen to prioritize ridicule over reflection, misleading its audience rather than presenting a balanced view of the facts. The refusal to acknowledge or correct misinformation only reinforces the perception that the media is more interested in making political points than in delivering the truth. For many, the question lingers: why should anyone trust an organization that refuses to admit when it is wrong?
