New York Times SLAMMED For Not Knowing What 'NATO' Stands For

Ladies and gentlemen, the mainstream media has stepped in it once again.

Specifically, it's the New York Times that has gotten in some hot water once more with a misleading – or in this case, inaccurate – headline.

Shocked? Of course, you aren't.

With the geopolitical climate as charged as it is, the New York Times couldn't help jumping into the fray, choosing to commentate on President Donald Trump's threats to leave NATO.

There's just one problem.

It would appear the Times has no idea what "NATO" actually stands for, opting to run THIS headline in their Friday paper.

Yikes!

Okay, I just got done writing about a laughably inaccurate political compass in some teenager's AP government textbook, so maybe whoever works at the New York Times can chalk their stupidity up to systemic issues, but in today's day and age of technological advancements, ignorance is no longer an excuse.

All it takes is a simple Google search to learn that "NATO" stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

I know you guys at the Times want to dunk on Trump and America as much as possible, but come on!

Working in an editorial space and having a background in social media makes this even more unbelievable to me.

Not only did the writer duff this one, it slipped through the cracks of multiple editors.

And this wasn't some Facebook post they could edit with the press of a button, it went to print.

The Times had to issue a correction, but with this being a physical copy, that correction had to wait until the following morning.

READ: Remember When The Media Told Us Not To Even Question COVID Policies?

How. Does. This. Happen?

And if you thought the internet was going to put on kiddie gloves for the New York Times, you thought wrong, as folks from all over the social media sphere flew in to dunk on everyone's least favorite liberal rag, and rightly so.

READ: Local CBS Reporter In Austin Told To Stop Covering Celebratory US-Iran Rally

I'm not joking when I say that I don't know a single person in my life who still reads the New York Times.

I really don't even know how the Times is still in business at this point.

The only time I ever hear about the Times is when it makes boneheaded mistakes like this one, so maybe that's the business model these days.

Any publicity is good publicity, right?