Yesterday the Super Bowl champions, the New England Patriots, visited President Trump at the White House. Naturally, the pickers of nits were out in force. The first controversy was Tom Brady’s absence. Brady was supportive of Trump during the primary and election and therefore there had to be some embarrassing reason why he didn’t show. The favorite seems to be that he was “whipped” by Mrs. Brady, Giselle Bundchen, because being with a cancer-stricken mother could never be a concern of anyone supporting Trump. And never mind that he declined to visit the White House the last time the Patriots won.

The the media got involved:

In this case, the media was pushing a story that Trump was so unpopular that he was shunned by most of the Patriots.

Then the Patriot front office spoke up:

The New York Time eventually offered an update.

There is no doubt that some Patriot players stayed home because of Trump. The fact that rich, privileged Democrats from the northeast who are part of reflexively liberal and politically correct business would boycott a Republican president is unremarkable. They did the same when they won in 2004 and 2005. In fact, more players showed up for Trump than for Bush in 2005.

The point is that the New York Times engaged in Leni Riefenstahl-esque commentary by using two non-similar images that were insinuated to be comparable. This is not journalism. It isn’t even “speaking truth to power.” It is propaganda masquerading as news.