“Donald Trump joins Democrats in post-Orlando gun control push”This was the leading story at the Washington Times. As a lure to get me reading it worked. As a piece of legitimate reporting it failed.
I started reading the article and saw nothing about Trump that justified the headline. When it switched to reviewing all the boilerplate rhetoric of the Democrats I began skimming, looking for the information to back up the headline. The closest I could come up with was almost to the end of the article and it went like this:
“Mr. Trump’s statement that he plans to meet with the NRA on the issue roiled the debate — though it’s unclear exactly what the presumed Republican presidential candidate has in mind.So no, Trump has not decided to “join the Democrats”. What he has agreed to do it talk to the people at NRA about the topic. That means that he is looking in the right place for an overview of the issue. That means he is being reasonable, not knee-jerk.
“‘I want to meet with the NRA — we’re going to be discussing it,’ he said. ‘[A] number of people have brought this to my attention, and I understand why we should be discussing it.’”
I am not a Trump backer. I am a truth backer. It would seem that the Washington Times doesn’t know the difference.
homo unius libri