New York Times Reporter Had Public Records Proving Elizabeth Warren's Claim About Being Fired Due to Pregnancy False, But Refused to Report It

Firefighters.

A reporter who now works for the New York Times failed to report on public records, which he obtained in April, that cut against Senator Elizabeth Warren's (D., Mass.) claim that she was fired from a teaching position in 1971 due to pregnancy discrimination. Reid Epstein, who was then working for the Wall Street Journal, filed an open-records request with the Riverdale Board of Education on April 2 seeking "to inspect or obtain" copies of public records relating to Warren�s time teaching at Riverdale during the 1970-1971 school year. In response to his request, Epstein on April 10 received school-board minutes that challenge Warre'�s story, according to documents obtained by National Review through the New Jersey Open Records Act. Epstein, who moved to the Times on April 19, never broke the story. Reached for comment, a Times spokeswoman said that the "records were inconclusive" and the potential story required further sourcing.

After the Free Beacon got the scoop -- which was only possible because Reid Epstein chose not to publish a story that would hurt a Democrat candidate -- the New York Times published a story, featuring Reid Epstein as a contributor, which claimed that... Elizabeth Warren's story was sort of true, despite being false, because... other women had been fired due to pregnancy?

The Times' reporting frames the story around "the discrimination that many pregnant women have faced on the job" and highlights Warren's statement, which dismissed the evidence gathered by the Beacon as lacking in context.

And the left fights for more gate-keeping by social media monopolies to censor stories they deem "false" or "misleading."

But you can see they think any story that hurts Democrats or socialism is false or misleading, because it diverts people away from their Glorious Socialist Future.

If the left had its way, the Free Beacon would not have been permitted to run their story.

This is an attempt at actual totalitarianism. They want to do it. The social media monopolists want to do it too.

They're just not sure they can get away with it yet.