The New York Times just tripped over its own keyboard with a jaw-dropping blunder on a case as serious as an attempt on President Donald Trump’s life.
Fox News reported that the Times prematurely published a story declaring Ryan Wesley Routh not guilty of attempting to assassinate Trump, only to scramble and correct it after the actual guilty verdict was delivered on all charges.
Let’s rewind to the origin of this saga, when Routh was accused of plotting a deadly attack at Trump’s West Palm Beach golf club back in September 2024.
The allegations were no small matter, as they pointed to a calculated strike against a major presidential figure. It’s the kind of story that demands precision, not guesswork.
Federal prosecutors didn’t hold back, charging Routh with five serious counts, including attempting to assassinate a key political candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and several firearms violations. These aren’t parking tickets; a conviction could mean life behind bars. The weight of these charges alone should have signaled caution to any newsroom.
On Tuesday, the verdict came down hard—guilty on every single count. Justice was served, or so it seemed, until chaos unfolded in the courtroom. Reports indicate Routh attempted a desperate act, trying to harm himself with a pen before being restrained by four U.S. Marshals.
That dramatic moment should have been the headline, but The New York Times had other plans—albeit accidentally. Their initial story screamed a headline of acquittal, claiming a “surprise verdict” had freed Routh. Talk about getting the cart before the horse.
How does a publication of this stature publish such a glaring error? Their excuse is that newsrooms often pre-draft stories for major events like court rulings, preparing for all outcomes. Fine, but pre-writing shouldn’t mean pre-publishing, especially on a case this explosive.
A screenshot even suggested this erroneous piece was slated for the print edition on September 24, 2025. Imagine waking up to that headline over coffee, only to learn it’s a complete fabrication. It’s not just sloppy; it’s a breach of trust.
The Times did correct the headline and lede within minutes, updating it to reflect the true guilty verdict with a proper description of Routh’s conviction. But the damage was already done. First impressions stick, and in the digital age, screenshots are forever.
Conservative voices were quick to pounce on the mistake, and understandably so. Mary Katharine Ham, a podcast host and Fox News contributor, didn’t mince words, questioning, “Why is it preloaded?” Her point cuts deep—how does a pre-written “not guilty” story get pushed live when the jury’s decision was the exact opposite?
Others echoed the sentiment, with Raw Story writer Sarah Burris asking how anyone could even entertain the idea of a not-guilty outcome in their draft. It’s a fair jab; the evidence seemed stacked against Routh from the start. This wasn’t a coin toss of a case.
A spokesperson for The New York Times tried to smooth things over, explaining to Fox News Digital that pre-writing for different verdicts is standard practice. They insisted the error was corrected in under a minute and a clarification was added. Still, one wonders if “standard practice” should include such a reckless fumble on a story of national importance.
This isn’t the first time a major outlet has botched a big story, nor will it be the last. History reminds us of the Chicago Daily Tribune’s infamous 1948 flub, “Dewey Defeats Truman,” a headline that became a punchline for premature reporting.
Even entertainment isn’t immune, as “South Park” once had to rewrite an episode after misjudging a presidential election outcome in 2016.
These examples aren’t just trivia; they’re cautionary tales for an industry that’s supposed to be the bedrock of truth.
When trust in media is already shaky, especially among those skeptical of progressive-leaning outlets, errors like this fuel the fire of doubt. The Times’ misstep isn’t just a typo—it’s a reminder of why vigilance matters.