After NY Times ‘egregious, disgusting’ smear, ‘Young Turks’ hosts admit paper could lie about Trump, too

(“The Young Turks” video screenshots)

Members of the far-left are learning the hard way why the demonstrably left-wing establishment media cannot be trusted.

On Monday, The New York Times published a lie by omission about a radically far-left candidate running for election in disgraced former California Rep. Katie Hill’s district.

While the Times leans heavily to the anti-Trump left, it ultimately represents the Democrat Party status quo, and the status quo does not include the likes of “The Young Turks” founder/host Cenk Uygur, a man whose own nephew and fellow “The Young Turks” host argued months earlier that America deserved the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Despite Uygur’s radicalism, last week Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed the 49-year-old radical’s campaign for office.

This provoked outrage from those who toe the Democrat Party status quo — and arguably justifiably so. As a radical, Uygur has said some exceedingly disgusting things. However, his disturbing history doesn’t justify the Times lying about him.

Fast-forward to last Friday, when Sanders formally rescinded his endorsement. In reporting on this later that afternoon, the Times told a lie by omission.

Writing about some of the controversial guests whom Uygur has hosted on “The Young Turks,” Times’ reporter Jennifer Medina zoned in specifically on the one time that he’d allowed notorious white supremacist David Duke on air for an interview.

“Mr. Uygur [has] hosted white supremacist figures, including David Duke. In one clip that circulated on Twitter, Mr. Duke ends an interview by saying, ‘I am not, what you call a racist,’ to which Mr. Uygur replies, ‘No, of course not,'” Medina’s original write-up read.

Here’s the catch: The “No, of course not” part was said sarcastically. But for reasons that remain unclear, Medina omitted this fact from her report, thus leading to her piece giving the appearance that Uygur genuinely believes Duke isn’t racist.

Watch the relevant portion of the interview below:

This glaring lie by omission enraged many, including even Krystal Ball, a fairly moderate commentator whose worldview doesn’t appear to line up with that of Uygur.

If the NYTimes can lie about [Uygur], they can lie about you. They’ll twist your words, pretend not to hear your sarcasm and make you sound like you’re saying the exact opposite of what you are saying,” she wrote.

President Donald Trump and practically every other prominent Republican figure can certainly attest to that.

Uygur also responded by revealing that Medina had known full well that he was being sarcastic in the clip.

Look at his and Ball’s tweets below:

They were right. Though Uygur is a far-left socialist who seeks a “political revolution,” he didn’t deserve to be lied about. Neither did fellow non-establishment 2020 Democrat candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who’s faced similar attacks for refusing to toe the status quo.

And to be clear, while it’s possible the Times merely erred in its reporting, most folks appear to believe the “mistake” was intentional. Why? Possibly because the Times’ mistakes invariably run in one direction and involve allegations or smears against their political enemies, be it Republicans or radical leftists.

“It’s one thing to make mistakes in reporting. Of course NY Times got things wrong before,” Ana Kasparian, Uygur’s on-air partner in crime, added in her own tweet. “But I was naive enough to think it was just incompetence rather than maliciousness. But the falsities are intentional and malicious. Thier [SIC] work is just an extension of corrpupt [SIC] politics.”

Here’s the kicker: “The David Duke interview smear against Cenk is so egregious and disgusting that it even makes me question some of the reporting on Trump. That’s how dishonest they’ve been.

It sounds like someone is finally waking up …

This controversy comes amid new Pew Research Center analysis showing that Democrats are far more trusting of the media than Republicans.

“About three-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (31%) say journalists have very low ethical standards, roughly six times the 5% of Democrats and Democratic leaners who say this,” the center reported last week.

“About two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (64%) say that journalists have very high or high ethical standards, compared with two-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaners – a 44 percentage point difference.”

Perhaps what happened to Uygur will help wake them up?

The Times has for its part issued an apology — one that Uygur has hesitantly accepted.



Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Latest Articles