Activism with a Press Credential

What a corporate hit piece reveals about The New York Times’ continuous fake news playbook.

By: Sean Spicer

Over my career, I have had a front-row seat to how information is weaponized by left-wing media outlets. But none are worse than The New York Times. Over and over, when reality conflicts with their preferred narrative, they simply rewrite reality through calculated omission.

Remember the Hunter Biden laptop story. In the closing weeks of the 2020 election, the Times treated the story dubious and for nearly a year afterward it was still calling it "unsubstantiated". Nearly two years later, with the election long over, the Times quietly confirmed the laptop was 100% authentic.

Or consider when the Times failed to tell its readers that drug-related deaths have fallen dramatically since President Trump took office, a direct result of his administration’s moves to shut down the southern border and choke off the fentanyl supply chains that poison American communities.

Just last week, a co-pilot hijacked a plane heading towards Israel before passengers were able to restrain him and retake control. The Times’ called it an “altercation.” When readers pushed back, the paper didn’t reconsider. It dismissed its critics as “activists and partisans.”

The Times starts with a predetermined verdict and works backward, burying any evidence that complicates their preferred narrative.

This same editorial bias was on display recently when the paper took aim at DraftKings, alleging the sports betting company uses artificial intelligence to prey on customers. You quickly learn to recognize the playbook: rely on anonymous grievances, cherry-pick the data, and actively conceal vindicating facts. The Times’ DraftKings hit piece checks every box.

DraftKings provided a very clear statement. The Times completely disregarded and went with their headline anyways. The company explicitly noted that the paper was trying to portray "routine promotional reinvestment practices common across consumer-facing industries as scandalous."

The Times did not care. What they described as an AI scheme is the exact same data driven customer retention playbook used by every major brand in America, from airlines to streaming services to The New York Times themselves. You use data to find out what promotions work. You offer those promotions. That is not a scandal. That is just business.

But the headline the Times published? Among the most click-baiting distortions of business practice and clear rebuttals from the company.

If a reader relies solely on the Times, they would never know that sports betting is one of the most intensely regulated industries in the world. You cannot simply open a sports betting company next week. Sports betting companies undergo rigorous scrutiny to earn strict state-by-state licenses. Operating under that intense oversight, operators need to maintain an extensive consumer protection architecture. The Times did not want you to know the company actually uses advanced technology to protect consumers, flagging at-risk behavior, issuing warnings, enforcing mandatory cool-off periods, and blocking accounts.

Just last week, DraftKings CEO Jason Robins pointed out the absurdity of the paper’s claims. “They’re saying that we’re targeting people that are losing gamblers and have gaming issues, which is just completely false. We have sent them almost 20 pages of documents showing them what we’re doing, giving them the facts, and they refuse to print any of it.”

When a news organization receives twenty pages of factual rebuttal and chooses to ignore it because it ruins their pre-determined headline, it stops being journalism and becomes a prosecution. And whether the subject is a failed terror attack or an American business, The New York Times is betting its readers won’t notice the difference.

The Times is known to use its bias to smear Republicans like President Trump. Examples of highly-regulated companies getting the Times bias treatment is new but increasing rapidly.

We must continue to call out the bias and agenda-driven reporting. We cannot give them a pass. The New York Times has too much power and conservatives must reject their influence.