The New York Times (1/27/26) employs artful ambiguity: “Something needs to change,” but it’s not saying what. People watched “scenes from the violent unrest,” with no specifics on who exactly was violent. That prompted “reflection about where the nation is heading”—wherever that is.

The New York Times is addicted to bothsidesing. Even when you have examples on video of people being shot down on the street by federal agents, the paper has to pretend there’s a valid case for justifying murder: on the one hand, on the other.