WITNESSED: The New York Times takes a new approach!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2026

Reports what they're saying on Fox: To the naked eye of an unskilled observer watching via videotape, the latest fatal shooting—the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti—looks like nothing so much as an outtake from a Martin Scorsese crime film.

We're thinking of a film like Goodfellas, or of a scene from Casino. 

In the scenes we have in mind, Joe Pesci and Robert de Niro are whaling away at a helpless victim who is now down on the ground.  In the case of the fatal shooting of Pretti, something like half a dozen additional agents are whaling away at the victim.

The invention of the cell phone has allowed us the people to witness such public events. This morning, the New York Times has gone all in with respect to its reporting of this widely witnessed event.

The Times is treating this as the major event it surely is—and the paper isn't being kind to the current administration. In print editions, the headline in the upper-right hand corner of the front page offers this punishing overview:

Trump, Under Pressure, Retreats From Smears In Minneapolis Killing

That isn't a friendly headline. Three different reports about this matter appear today on that same front page. Online, these are the headlines which sit atop those three front-page reports:

A Crisis of Confidence for ICE and Border Patrol as Clashes Escalate

Crackdown Chief to Leave Minneapolis as White House Distances Trump From Uproar

Alex Pretti’s Friends and Family Denounce ‘Sickening Lies’ About His Life

The headlines don't just speak of "smears," they also speak of "sickening lies." Inside the paper, seven (7) additional reports concern this fatal shooting and what has followed. On pages A10 through A13, here are the headlines which sit atop four of those reports:

How the Trump Administration Rushed to Judgment in Minneapolis Shooting

Border Patrol Official Gregory Bovino Is Set to Leave Minnesota

They ‘Had Done Everything Right.’ ICE Detained Them Anyway.

Parts of Minneapolis Carry On, but Talk of Killings Is Everywhere

This isn't friendly coverage. Scanning those headlines, a reader might easily formulate this general picture of what happened in the wake of this latest "killing:"

The Trump administration rushed to judgment, issuing a set of smears ad "sickening lies"

Our own assessment would be this: 

Whatever else may turn out to be true, that overview won't be far from the truth. 

Indeed, as a simple matter of historical witness, news orgs should carefully assemble a catalogue of the inexcusable, crazy claims issued by Noem and Bovino and Miller and others in the immediate, split-second aftermath of this latest shooting. A careful record of this ludicrous conduct by major officials should be assembled and saved.

In various ways, the New York Times has already gone all in with respect to its coverage of this fatal event. That said: 

Late yesterday, we stumbled upon a news report which represents a whole new approach from this hugely important newspaper.

In all honesty, this new type of news report may come and go with zero follow-up. It may prove to be a harbinger of exactly nothing. The world may little know, nor long remember, the fact that it ever appeared.

For the record, it's hard to find this news report within the endless catacombs of this sprawling newspaper. Yesterday, we stumbled upon it only while googling some related topic. 

This news report is hard to find. That said, remarkably, the news report starts like this:

Most Fox News Reporting on Minneapolis Shooting Supports Official Version

On Sunday morning, reporters on many TV networks were poring over multiple videos of the shooting over the weekend of a protester in Minneapolis by immigration agents, trying to understand what happened from slow-mo footage and freeze-frame images.

But on Fox News, the nation’s top-rated cable news network, there was little of that kind of analysis. Instead, most of its hosts, reporters and guests appeared laser focused since the shooting late Saturday morning on supporting the Trump administration’s official narrative: that Alex Pretti, a 37-year old intensive care nurse, brought the violence upon himself.

“Only one person could have prevented this from happening and it’s Alex Pretti,” said Charlie Hurt, co-host of “Fox & Friends Weekend” on Sunday morning. “He should have not been there.”

And so on from there, at relatively modest length. To his great credit, the New York Times' Ken Bensinger wrote this report—and some editor let him do it and put his report in print. 

That quoted statement by Charlie Hurt? It's part of what we were referring to in our own (extremely rare) Sunday morning report. In that report, we mentioned the striking coverage we had seen on Fox & Friends Weekend that very morning.

As always, there we sat, bearing witness, during Sunday morning's 6 o'clock hour. Later that morning, here's part of what we wrote:

There are many problems to be examined in the wake of the latest fatal shooting. For one example, you need to see the way the fatal shooting was described by all three co-hosts on this morning's Fox & Friends Weekend.

It was Charlie and Rachel and Griff oh my! The agitprop was general over the broadcast. The thumbs on the scale were endless.

That's the way their presentation had looked to us. Yesterday, in a buried report for the New York Times, Bensinger reported some of what the three co-hosts had said.

We've complained and complained and complained ad complained about the failure of the New York Times to present this type of reporting. The American discourse could end up being massively better if this hugely important American newspaper continues along this path.

We live in two Americas now—Red as well as Blue. Just a guess:

Most of us in Blue America have little idea what's being said, and what's being heard, over in Red America. Citizens of Red America are similarly under-informed.

As he continued, Bensinger reported some of what has been said on Fox about this latest fatal shooting—and by far, Fox is the most heavily watched of our three major "cable news" channels. 

In our view, some of what is said on Fox is clownish / inane / inexcusable. On the other hand, some of what is said over there may perhaps be more accurate than what we hear over here.

In our view, a great deal of what occurs on Fox—and especially on its most-watched shows—resembles a clownish parody of news reporting and analysis. That said, some of what occurs on Fox is very much worth considering—and where major claims on Fox are wrong, they should be publicly debunked.

(Do you know how to assess this report? We have no idea.)

Readers of the New York Times deserve to know what's being said in the other America. As Lincoln suggested, a major modern nation can't survive half Blue and half Red.

The Times should bear witness to what happens on Fox! More on this topic tomorrow.

Tomorrow: Here's what the three co-hosts said