We should not be surprised that the New York Times ignored a report on Tucker Carlson's Jan. 6 video disclosures.

If Sen. Chuck Schumer, declaiming on the Senate floor against Carlson, opposed a second showing of Carlson's videos, would it not make sense that the Times understood that it should not inform its base what Carlson reported in his first show on the Jan. 6 videos?

Instead, the Times went with a piece on the ongoing Proud Boys trial, even though a "conundrum" was presented by the fact that the PBs were likely not violent at the Capitol and one of the PB defendants was not even in Washington, D.C., on that day.  (The Times also ran to anti-Trump hit pieces on March 6.)

The Times accused Carlson of falsely portraying Jan. 6 as mainly a peaceful protest, also asserting that Carlson promoted the myth propagated by Donald Trump that the 2020 election was stolen.  The writers, Luke Broadwater and Stephanie Lai, were careful, however, in not telling readers what the Carlson disclosures depicted.

They provided contrary views from anti-MAGA Republicans in the House and Senate, criticism of Carlson from Capitol Hill police, even support for Carlson from Rep. Elise Stefanik and Sen. Ted Cruz.  But not a word about how the Carlson Jan. 6 videos refuted the demprop of the doctored versions of the videos, made available by Democrat propagandists.

But that is what demprop is all about.  Bury reality so that the people will be fooled by one's political narrative.

After all, isn’t that how Biden got to be president -- by the power of the false claims put forward by Biden and his media lackeys like, say, Luke Broadwater?  False was the claim that the scandal of Hunter Biden was Russian disinformation.  False was the advice from Dr. Anthony Fauci how to protect against COVID-19.  And certainly false is the current claim that Carlson is a Putin apparatchik.

Image: NYT