New York Times Calls Osama bin Laden a 'Devoted Family Man'

The New York Times just won't let CNN be the biggest loser of the week.

One of the morons at the Times headlined a review of Peter Bergen's new book The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden by referring to bin Laden as a "devoted family man": "Osama bin Laden, the Fanatical Terrorist, and the Devoted Family Man."

While terrorists could be family men in theory (we suppose), it's unclear what the Times gains by humanizing the despicable scum who murdered thousands of Americans almost twenty years ago.

Moreover, bin Laden wasn't even a family man-- at least not a devoted one. He actually used his many wives as human shields to protect himself, according to Robert O'Neill, the former U.S. Navy SEAL who fatally shot bin Laden in 2011.

"Family man. He used his wife as a human shield," O'Neill said. "Lucky for me he was taller than her."

As expected, the Times got crushed hard for its headline. Following the backlash, China's business partners at the Times changed the headline to "A Fuller Picture of Osama bin Laden's Life."

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) also blasted the paper:

As others correctly point out, the Times is more critical of the United States than it is of the terrorist who masterminded the 9/11 attack. 

In this case, the entire Times editorial team should be blamed. Louise Richardson's review went through the whole editorial process at the outlet, yet not one staffer thought calling bin Laden "a devoted family" man was a bad idea.

Between this headline, reports that China paid the Times $100,000 a month for propaganda, and confirmation that the paper's editors quashed an investigation into the origins of COVID -- you have to seriously wonder whether the Times will crash and burn sooner than CNN. At this rate, CNN may have to settle for being just the second most dishonorable news outlet in the industry.

For those keeping track, the New York Times has now covered Osama bin Laden more favorably than Donald Trump.