We're living in "Bizarro World," folks. There are very few news stories that come from the media where a reader or viewer wouldn't be able to question the validity of said stories. It's become increasingly difficult to discern what's real and what isn't anymore.
Apparently, the New York Times (NYT) story that former president George W. Bush - as well as a few other "Republican leaders" - weren't going to be voting for President Donald Trump in the upcoming 2020 presidential election is false.
Bush spokesman Freddy Ford disputed the NYT report, saying that the story "is completely made up."
"This is completely made up," Ford said in an email, according to the Texas Tribune. "He is retired from presidential politics and has not indicated how he will vote."
The CEO of the Texas Tribune even tweeted about Ford's statement:
If we look at the timeline of reporting, information that Bush himself never announced his voting intentions came on the same day the NYT article was published. The NYT published the story without direct knowledge of which way Bush would throw his support, citing that Bush and his brother, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, weren't going to vote for Trump based on the alleged word of "people familiar with their thinking."
"Former President George W. Bush won’t support the re-election of Mr. Trump, and Jeb Bush isn’t sure how he’ll vote, say people familiar with their thinking," the NYT reported.
This is the problem with "journalism" and writers who think they're "journalists" practicing "journalism." They're the NYT. They have resources very few of us have, yet they can't be even be bothered to check with anyone who works for or can officially speak for Bush? Instead they run with a story based on the word of "people familiar with their thinking."
What does that even mean? I can't believe no one called out the NYT for that type of source in their reporting.
It's been three days since the NYT story came out, and the article doesn't have any update, correction or addendum at the top or bottom of the article. Yes, the NYT article came earlier in the day on June 6th than the Texas Tribune article, but they still haven't issued any kind of clarification. What's the old saying? "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."
How disingenuous is the article written by Jonathan Martin? Even though the article is about Bush and other supposed Republicans not supporting Trump, it states near the end that Ford intimated that Bush "would stay out of the election and speak only on policy issues." But because of the word of "people familiar with their [the Bush's] thinking," the NYT went ahead with the story. That's not just on Martin. That's on the NYT editorial team.
Bush may in fact end up not supporting Trump. But the NYT didn't hear that from Bush, at least not in this instance.
H/T: The Blaze