The mainstream media are terrible at their job. They can’t seem to differentiate fact from fiction.

Even worse, they purposely lie to trash conservatives.

They no longer report. They write anti-conservative hit pieces that masqueraded as journalism.

The most egregious example I have read lately was published in the New York Times.

It was an article that was intellectually dishonest at best, and full of outright lies at worst.

The article was titled: “The Making of a YouTube Radical.”

The premise of the article was that YouTube radicalizes young people into be conservative.

They make it sound like they are being radicalized by Jihadists.

The author, Kevin Roose, proceeded to perpetuate this false narrative throughout the article by tracing a man’s conversion to conservatism via YouTube videos.

NYT Reporter’s Hit Job on Conservatives

The cover of the article features conservative media personalities. Here are a few that are featured on the cover: Ben Shapiro, Stephen Crowder, Dave Rubin (who isn’t a conservative, but has conservatives on his program), Lauren Southern, Jordan Peterson, Stefan Molyneux, and Milton Friedman.

That’s right — Milton Friedman, arguably the most influential economist of the 20th century is considered “alt-Right.” Ben Shapiro is Jewish and is a target of the alt-Right, and has condemned its proponents.

The Left’s latest dirty trick is to tie all conservatives in with the White Nationalists on the Right. Most conservatives are not racist and alt-right; however, the media continue to push this false narrative.

Throughout the article the author traces the ideological odyssey of Caleb Cain, a 26-year-old West Virginia native.

The author blames YouTube for converting Cain into being a conservative.

Spoiler alert: He eventually converts to being a liberal. More on that later.

Cain explained his conversion: “I fell down the alt-Right rabbit hole … I just kept falling deeper and deeper into this, and it appealed to me because it made me feel a sense of belonging.”

The story would have more legitimacy if it dealt specifically with the despicable members of the alt-Right. However, the article is intellectually dishonest by lumping conservatives in with the alt-Right. That “alt-Right rabbit hole” is code for “conservative rabbit hole.”

The author then wrote: “He began referring to himself as a ‘tradcon’ — a traditional conservative, committed to old-fashioned gender norms. He dated an evangelical Christian woman, and he fought with his liberal friends.”

How dare he believe in traditional values and so-called “old-fashioned” gender norms! What a radical.

Dating an evangelical Christian woman was a bridge too far.

As far as fighting with liberal friends, it is my experience that liberals are the irrational ones in a debate — especially if you voted for Trump. It is a two-way street.

One of Cain’s friends said that, “It was kind of sad. I was just, like: Wow, what happened? How did you get this way?”

The article concludes by detailing the conversion of Mr. Cain into being a liberal. This contradicts the entire premise of the article.

Cain was converted to being a liberal by liberal content creators. The premise of the article was that YouTube can turn viewers into political radicals. By that, they mean conservatives.

However, the same site converted him into being a liberal.

Surely, the author must consider a him a “YouTube” radical for converting to the far-Left.

Probably not.

This article demonstrates why conservatives hate the media.