A New York Times headline describes something that literally happened, and liberals lose it, twice

And the cherry on top:

On a purely practical level, the irony of Qatari funded lobbyists and cable news contributors scoffing from their Georgetown estates at late-night copy editors attempting to objectively describe one of the most politically charged tragedies of our century’s most polarizing presidency is laughable. But more importantly, how the New York Times responded illustrated a growing failure in the public’s expectations of the news.

This objectively true headline earned the scorn of journalists again, but not for the reason it should have. Predictably, leftists fulminated online that the Times still failed to insert an editorial condemnation of Trump. But the true problem lies in the updated headlines description of reality in relation to Acela corridor expectations rather than on its face.

Although the NRA has gotten in line behind the Trump administration, the president is exceptionally eager to entertain extreme forms of gun control for a Republican. Even given his willingness to sign off on bump stock bans and flex the power of the executive in the name of gun violence more than any other GOP president in a generation, no one with a brain is expecting an assault weapons ban or anything of the sort. So what’s the point of a headline that acts as though that had been likely or even possible? It simply confirms the prior expectations of a tiny class of elite Americans who have come to expect that they’re entitled to the news media sharing information through the prism of their imagination.

CNN reporters woke up this morning to a smaller version of the same sophomoric backlash. Unlike the obviously white supremacist El Paso shooting, the motive behind the Dayton shooting remains unclear, so responsible reporters have been sharing relevant details while the authorities ascertain a definitive motive. CNN did a deep dive into the Dayton shooter’s social media and independently confirmed that he espoused, among apolitical hints at violence, extreme left-wing views. Somehow, to report this is problematic because … reasons.

I hate to break it to the Beltway elite, but telling the truth to the public in an objective vacuum isn’t carrying water for your political adversaries; that’s just the actual job of journalists.