There's a difference between "isn't perfect" and stuff like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.co

There's a difference between "isn't perfect" and stuff like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donal... The New York Times spend 30 paragraphs trying to tie Trump, Bannon and Breitbart to Nazi-quoting white supremacists through innuendo and insinuation, and then: "When asked about Mr. Bannon, the conference’s speakers said that they might have shaken his hand on occasion, but that they did not know him well. Mr. Brimelow said that he had met “Mr. Bannon once, earlier this summer, before he ascended to Olympus.” He said he had told Mr. Bannon that he was doing great work at Breitbart. “He agreed,” Mr. Brimelow recalled to the audience. As for Mr. Trump, Mr. Brimelow said he had met him about 30 years ago at a “conservative affinity meeting” in Manhattan. But that was it. “Trump and Steve Bannon are not alt-right people,” Mr. Brimelow said, adding that they had opportunistically seized on two issues that the alt-right cares most about — stopping immigration and fighting political correctness — and used them to mobilize white voters." Their entire narrative is basically bullshit, they went ahead with it anyway. and it worked. I've been seeing quotes from the article popping up all over Twitter as proof the next president is linked to Nazis. Once people have read paragraph after paragraph confirming their beliefs, they don't worry about minor details that call the whole thing into question. (This is a favourite trick of right-wing UK tabloid the Daily Mail.) Not only that, the group that the New York Times is writing about appears to be completely politically irrelevant... except for the coverage that papers like the NYT are giving them. They're pushing white supremacy into the mainstream because it suits their narrative.