
A former New York Times reporter claims the newspaper held her story about the ravaging effects of the Kenosha riots on impoverished neighborhoods until after the 2020 elections, the NY Post reports.
Nellie Bowles went to the Wisconsin city to report on the racial justice riots in the wake of the police shooting of Jacob Blake in August 2020, according to a post on partner Bari Weiss’ Substack channel Common Sense. Protests, riots and civil unrest engulfed the city for days, and the events were the backdrop of then-17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse’s fatal shooting of two people.
Bowles said she was sent to report on the “mainstream liberal argument” that vandalizing buildings for racial justice was not detrimental because businesses had insurance. “It turned out to be not true,” Bowles wrote. “The part of Kenosha that people burned in the riots was the poor, multi-racial commercial district, full of small, underinsured cell phone shops and car lots. It was very sad to see and to hear from people who had suffered.”
Bowles said she filed her story, and editors told her it would not run until after the election, citing “space, timing, tweaks,” according to her post. The piece eventually ran after Joe Biden won the election, Bowles said. “Whatever the reason for holding the piece, covering the suffering after the riots was not a priority,” she wrote. “The reality that brought Kyle Rittenhouse into the streets was one we reporters were meant to ignore.” Read more: NY Post
{Matzav.com}
This can’t be true. The NY Times are thee most honest unbiased media forum out there.
Some have promoted violence in the wake of the Rittenhouse verdict. They believe that violence is an efficient technique to create social change. Their slogan should be,
“It takes a pillage.”
The NY Times has been printing the news the way it feels fit to print. It’s biased reporting has been coloring its news to match the way it wants you to think.
During WWII it hid the news of the Nazi slaughter of the Jews. During the Vietnam war it its coverage was biased and misleading so as to promote its anti-war stance.
So nothing out of character with this piece. Anyone trying to recreate a history of that war by reading the NY Times will produce a fiction.