You know, when news breaks and you're a media organization trying to get a quick story up to inform readers and viewers, you do your best with the information your reporters can get via its sources, from visiting the scene if possible, etc., in hopes of being as accurate as possible without going too far out on a limb.

But sometimes news outlets can be overly cautious to the point that it's insulting, as we saw, for instance, in CNN's initial coverage of the assassination attempt on then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024, which RedState documented at the time:

An early headline from USA Today, which is still up on their website, read, "Trump removed from stage by Secret Service after loud noises startles [sic] former president, crowd."

Fast forward over two years later, and the Usual Suspects are still at it, with the culprits this time around being at the purported "newspaper of record," The New York Times.

As news was breaking about the violent incident on a FlyDubai aircraft full of Israeli passengers headed for Tel Aviv, the Times made a choice to describe it as merely an "altercation" between the two pilots:

Recommended
New Midterms Flashpoint: Dems Block Electricity Cost Bill Ward Clark Seattle Primed to Set Ridiculous Record-Setting Minimum Wage While Businesses Head for the Exits Becky Noble

As you can see from the Community Notes and other reactions, they were taken to the woodshed in short order:

Adding insult to injury was the actual "report," which proclaimed that terrorism merely was one possible motive:

"The main goal from the New York Times with any major news story is to disinform their audience," Substacker and media critic Stephen L. Miller correctly observed.

The Times PR team dug an even deeper hole once they got involved:

"We don't publish speculation or unverified information" ... unless it involves disgusting, baseless Hamas-sourced smears about how the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were allegedly training dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners.

Not to mention their other anti-Israel stories, like this infamous one:

Truly, the NY Times writing that "we don't publish speculation or unverified information" and them pretending they aren't activists and partisans are some of the most unintentionally hilarious things I've seen any mainstream media outfit put out there in a long time, and I honestly wish I could laugh at it, but thinking about the underlying subject matter in context with the PR statement honestly just makes my blood boil.

I'd say "do better, New York Times," but it's just a waste of time at this point. Being rabidly, unashamedly biased is just who they are, and it is unlikely to ever change.