The New York Times is well-known to conservatives as the primary cheerleader of the Left, frequently selectively reporting on topics so as to advance the narrative. Back in the 1960s, the Times wanted to push for more policing, and so, as fellow traveler The Washington Post reports, they faked details of the Kitty Genovese story:
Another neighbor, Sophia Farrar, ran to help Kitty and held her as she died.
â€œAll five-foot-nothing of her went flying down the stairs at 3:30 in the morning,â€ Genovese marvels.
…That heroic act, however, didnâ€™t conform with the Timesâ€™s portrait of urban indifference. Thereâ€™s no mention of her in the 1964 story.
Information which does not fit the narrative must be selectively omitted for the narrative to advance. To that end, the Times neglected to mention the heroic neighbor, and focused instead on hammering home the idea that ordinary people would not defend each other against crime.
Why is this important, to Leftists? Their goal is to replace culture with ideology, and government is a means to that end. For that to happen, people cannot be self-reliant or working together as neighbors, and instead, all acts of civil order must be assigned to government through the police. That increases government power.
Other facts were altered or faked:
Genovese also interviewed A.M. Rosenthal, who was city editor at the New York Times when Kitty was murdered and helped shape the narrative.
â€œWhere did the number 38 come [from]?â€ Genovese asked him while filming the movie. Rosenthal, who has since died, responded with a sardonic laugh.
â€œI canâ€™t swear to God that there were 38 people. Some people say there were more, some people say there were less,â€ he said with a casual flip of his hand. â€œWhat was true: People all over the world were affected by it. Did it do anything? You bet your eye it did something. And Iâ€™m glad it did.â€
This is reminiscent of the investigator of a recent college rape case who was denied records at the school library when it was revealed that the investigator sought to find facts that could invalidate the case. The librarian angrily responded that the facts did not matter, only the principle that the case established. In other words, this librarian wanted to advance the narrative in defiance of fact.
The New York Times did exactly the same thing, and continues to do so in many if not most of their stories. They also specialize in “burying the lede” by stacking a third of an article of distractions, conjecture and irrelevance before mentioning crucial facts that could skew the narrative.
Most of our media follows them in this practice, and dutifully reports whatever they say as if it were an absolute authority, attracting the most power-hungry Leftists to their ranks.