Michael Paulauski🐝💛💜: Oh my god, the New York Times wrote in the paper that they aren't mad, do not say they are mad.

Oh my god, the New York Times wrote in the paper that they aren't mad, do not say they are mad.

(wanna be clear here, the NYTimes wrote in *WaPo* that they're Definitely Not Mad, Do Not Say They Are Mad)

don't put in either News Paper that they got mad

“I don’t think those numbers are real” is fucking hysterical

Pretty soon their readership will shrink to a single ear of corn.

Kahn, both can't name specific claims against the Biden team, and when presented with actual data he rejects it as spurious.

They are mad because most everyone see exactly who they are

The joke about age was a sick burn IMHO😏

They have destroyed their own reputation, it's their own damn fault, they know exactly what they're doing and they're lying about it.

I love how, when confronted with data about their reporting, he just denies it and walks away from the question. Pathetic attempt to rehabilitate their deserved bad reputation

"It's on 'everyone's" mind, and when I say 'everyone' I mean 'the New York Times'"

Dude can’t even says Trump lies in other newspapers. Fucking lying eunuch.

no no it’s ok he just doesn’t believe the sky is blue, so it’s not

This is so shameless. They truthfully can’t imagine they’re doing it entirely vibes based so they’ve invented a standard that boils down to “full and fair coverage…in a way that’s relevant”. Who decides what’s full and fair and who determines you’ve covered it to the degree that it’s relevant?!

Hit dog and all that.

Sulz in his office after seeing this.

Post