Our courageous truth-tellers in the national news media have decided to attack The New York Times as fake news. The crime leading to the Grey Lady getting canceled?

A headline attempting to describe President Trump’s extended response to two mass shootings with different motives: “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM.”

Leftists and leftists disguised as journalists, who have spent the past two years melting down in apoplectic rage over Trump’s crude and demeaning posture toward the free press, have responded by spearheading a #CancelNYT movement.

The cherry on top was Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden cheering Sen. Cory Booker for calling out the Times’ “insanity.” Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin echoed Tanden’s critique.

The irony of Tanden, whose progressive think tank has recevied funding from the United Arab Emirates, and cable-news contributors like Rubin 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 — that’s, well, laughable.

But more important, how The New York Times responded illustrated a growing failure in the public’s expectations of the news. The paper changed the headline, this time: “ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS.”

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 headline’s description of reality in relation to Acela corridor expectations rather than on its face.

Yes, the National Rifle Association has gotten in line behind the Trump administration. But for a GOP president, Trump is exceptionally eager to entertain extreme forms of gun control.

He has been willing to sign off on bump-stock bans. He has flexed the power of the executive in the name of stopping gun violence more than any other GOP president has in a generation. Still, 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 pretends 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.

Tiana Lowe, co-host of The Political Pregame podcast, is a commentary writer for The Washington Examiner, from which this column was adapted. Twitter: @TianaTheFirst