Deceit comes in a variety of forms, from the blatant lie to the subtle shading of the truth. Those in the high calling of news reporting hold a historically trusted position of delivering stories that are both factually correct and contextually accurate. The aim of the journalist should be seeking to inform the public, not to influence the public. In other words, a true journalist can never be an activist. This concept is something the mainstream media may espouse but in practice has utterly rejected.

Case in point. Last Friday, The New York Times reported thusly on Donald Trump’s CPAC speech: “Mr. Trump launched what was easily the most blistering attack on the media and corporate elites of his already bellicose and eventful presidency. His speech also included a promise to throw undocumented immigrants ‘the hell out of the country’ and a recitation of his law-and-order campaign promises.”

Did Trump say he wants to throw any and all illegal aliens out of the country, without any condition or caveat? That’s what any reader would conclude after reading the Times. But what did Trump actually say — in its complete context?

Trump stated, “We are also going to save countless American lives. As we speak today, immigration officers are finding the gang members, the drug dealers and the criminal aliens and throwing them the hell out of our country.” Clearly, the Times engaged in selective editing so as to insinuate that Trump was calling for the removal of all illegal aliens, period. This is defined as propaganda, or “fake news.”

Obviously, the Times seeks to paint Trump as anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic. Why? The Times favors Democrats, who seek to build a unified Hispanic voting bloc. Evidently, the Times doesn’t differentiate between those illegal aliens engaged in criminal activities and those whose only crime was crossing the border or overstaying a visa.

Trump has made a habit of calling out the biased reporting of the mainstream media, and The New York Times has been a consistent target of his ire. On Monday the Washington Post decided to run a circle the wagons story, claiming that Trump had little evidence to back his arguments against the Times. The Post sought to paint the Times as having been unfairly criticized by Trump, pointing to the lack of meaningful corrections as evidence of accurate reporting.

But just because the Times got the wording of Trump’s truncated quote literally correct doesn’t mean they were even in the ballpark with accuracy. And they’d never issue a correction for that kind of bias, which makes it all the more insidious.