The Media Knew The Truth About Samuel Alito Flag, And Attacked Him Anyway

As if we needed more examples of how major media outlets use purposeful misinformation to suit their political aims, the story of Justice Samuel Alito's flag may be one of the best.

The once-reputable New York Times published an article on May 16th with an incidenary headline: "At Justice Alito’s House, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol on Display." Terrifying, isn't it?

Even worse, this flag, which was an American flag flown upside down, was flown when, *gasp*, the Supreme Court was considering a case about the 2020 election. For left-wing media outlets and their ideological allies, there could be no greater transgression. 

Sure enough, a group of far-left Senators immediately demanded meetings with Chief Justice John Roberts, said Alito must recuse himself from any case involving Trump, and renewed calls to expand and pack the Supreme Court to ensure that they never rule against Democrats ever again.

Other media outlets piled on, then turned to reframing another flag associated with Alito, one flown during the American Revolution as a, *gasp* symbol of Christian Nationalism. You could almost hear the pearls being clutched through the screen.

Turns out though, the upside-down American flag that started the hypocritical moral panic was investigated by The Washington Post back in January 2021. That reporter spoke to Alito's wife, Martha-Ann, who said that it was "an international signal of distress," and "indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute," according to a story posted Saturday.

So the Washington Post knew that there was no story on the flag and Alito, that his wife had put it up about a neighborhood dispute and that it had nothing to do with January 6th. Yet they never divulged it until now, well after the Times posted misinformation on a nothingburger to stoke outrage among the political left.

Sounds right. 

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (L) and Associate Justice Samuel Alito (R). (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

New York Times, Other Media Leave Misinformation Up To Suit Their Goals

It would stand to reason that after the Post published its story debunking the Times' original report, that there'd be a rush to correct the record, apologize for spreading misinformation and issue mea culpas. Instead, crickets. Not that it matters.

The job is done, the misinformation is now the presumed truth in the mind of the political left. As is so often the case, the most far-left media outlets like the Times likely will ever do is issue generic, "we stand by our reporting" platitudes. Ignoring the damage they caused by spreading a lie.

All the while demanding that former President Donald Trump be gagged for speaking out about a judge for his outrageous attacks on the independent judiciary. Seemingly attacking judges is perfectly acceptable as long as they do it, with the unearned high ground they enjoy from having the "correct" set of progressive credentials.

Not to mention the aforementioned hypocrisy of politicians who rushed to demand Alito recuse himself, while ignoring that liberal hero Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had criticized Trump publicly while discussing his tax returns. Yet none of the Senate Democrats who are so morally outraged by Alito's nonexistent transgressions ever called for Ginsburg to recuse herself from cases involving Trump. 

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Nor do they have criticism for Justice Sonya Sotomayor who said recently at a Harvard speech that "There are days that I’ve come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried." Seems like a well-adjusted person fit to make dispassionate decisions based on case precedent and Constitutional interpretation.

This entire incident is a perfect example of how left-wing media works to create a false narrative to suit their goals, then refuses to correct their misinformation after the truth is revealed. Their job is done, the incorrect story is now perceived truth. Should be fun to see who they choose to inaccurately, and hypoctically, attack next.