The “Liberal Bible” Strikes Again: New York Times Gets It Wrong on Charlie Kirk

LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE on:

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watchdog-on-wall-street-with-chris-markowski/id570687608 

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2PtgPvJvqc2gkpGIkNMR5i 

WATCH and SUBSCRIBE on:

https://www.youtube.com/@WatchdogOnWallstreet/featured  

The New York Times falsely attributed anti-Semitic remarks to Charlie Kirk—when in reality, he was critiquing the statement. Yet liberals ran with the headline, branding him an anti-Semite before the paper quietly slipped in a tiny correction. Another example of why the so-called “liberal Bible” keeps losing credibility.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Watchdog on Wall Street podcast explaining the news coming
out of the complex worlds of finance, economics, and politics
and the impact it we'll have on everyday Americans. Author,
investment banker, consumer advocate, analyst, and trader Chris Markowski.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
The Liberal Bible gets it wrong again. No surprise here.
What's the liberal Bible? Come on, New York Times. New
York Times is the liberal Bible. Leftists go there every
single day and again they and whatever the New York
Times says they're going with, they're gonna run with it.

(00:39):
It's Accurate's right, it's again, it's all the news that's
fit to be print. Right. Okay. They did a piece
on Charlie Kirk and they incorrectly, incorrectly basically described anti

(00:59):
semitics statements they were attributing to Charlie Kirk. And what
happened All the people, all the liberals that you know
they check with their Bible every single day and what
they have to believe and what they have to say,
took it and started posting it everywhere. Why do you

(01:20):
feel bad anti Semitic? No? No, no, they were wrong.
They took that statement that Charlie Kirk said Charlie Kirk
was reading a post was reading a post that was
anti semitic, and he went on to freaking critique it. Again,

(01:44):
this really shouldn't surprise anyone at all. Quite frankly, it
really shouldn't. And what's even less surprising is, Yes, the
New York Times printed a correction and eats BTT tiny
whell will will print so nobody could see it. There's
your liberal Bible watchdog on Wall Street dot com.