Perhaps worried that the “TRUMP IS IMPLODING” story is running out of steam, the New York Times made the bold decision to invent a story without any supporting evidence, pretend it was news, and slap it on the front page of their website. This “news story” announces its intentions with an ominous headline:
Donald Trump Risks Alienating Military Communities in Swing States
Now, what might you expect when opening up an article with that headline? Some polling, right? Some damning surveys that show military supporters running away from Donald Trump in droves. Or, failing that, you would at least expect to see some “analyst” using historical data to show why Trump is falling into a pattern that has resulted in this outcome in the past.
But then you would remember that this is the New York Times, and feelings are just as good as facts when you’re preaching to a liberal choir that believes Donald Trump is literally Nostradamus’s third antichrist.
“Starting last week when he clashed with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of a Muslim captain in the Army who was killed in Iraq, Mr. Trump has reignited a set of controversies surrounding his approach to the military,” they scribble. “He has drawn fresh attention to his derisive comments about Senator John McCain’s capture in Vietnam, as well as to his own avoidance of military service during the same war. He attacked Gen. John R. Allen, a retired Marine who endorsed Hillary Clinton, as a ‘failed general’ over the weekend, and he joked at a campaign event on Tuesday about receiving a Purple Heart, the military decoration for soldiers wounded in combat.”
If this was actually a news story, this bit of background would be accompanied by some hard evidence to show that Trump was losing support in military communities that would have otherwise voted for him. But since this is just speculation masquerading as journalism, that evidence is not to be found. Hilariously, they admit they found just the opposite:
Interviews this week with more than 50 voters linked to the military in five contested states found that Mr. Trump may not have driven away many people who were steadfastly supporting his campaign. And a number of veterans who expressed distaste for Mr. Trump said they would vote for him anyway, as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton.
Much later in the article, buried as though it’s not particularly relevant, is this gem:
Whatever backlash he has faced so far, Mr. Trump can count on the continued backing of a formidable bloc of military voters in the swing states.
Well, then. Thanks for that enlightening piece of business, New York Times.
And people say journalism is dead…