Did You Retweet This Picture? If You Didn't Retweet the Apology, You're Guilty of Spreading Fake News

Finally, some honesty from a mainstream media reporter.

After tweeting juxtaposed pictures of the New England Patriots with President Trump and President Obama, the sports editor of the New York Times issued an apology. Why? The photos were fake news, comparing apples to oranges.

RELATED: New York Times Sports Editor Takes Blame for Misleading White House Photo

"Congratulations, Jason Stallman. If you can find his Twitter handle, you should tweet this and tweet good job," Glenn said Friday on radio.

There's just one little problem. The damage had already been done --- unless everyone who retweeted the original image retweets his apology.

An initial count showed the first tweet with the two pictures had been retweeted 32,000 times. The apology? About fifty-four.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Glenn: I want to talk to you a little bit about fake news and the press. And I'm going to show you a hero, a villain -- I'm going to show you a mistake and the truth. And some of it you're going to cheer for. Some of it you're really not going to like. But I guarantee you, this will open your eyes if you're willing to look at the stuff you like and don't like, this will open your eyes on who's at fault here? What's happening to our society and who's at fault?

Let's start with the New England patriots. They went to the White House to go with President Trump, and the big thing was, oh, look at the New England patriots. They're not going -- not all of them are showing up to have their picture taken with Donald Trump. When Barack Obama was there, everybody was there.

STU: So the New York Times sports decided to tweet a picture side by side picture of the crowd of the patriots in 2015 versus the crowd in 2017.

GLENN: With the president in the middle.

STU: With the president in the middle and the exact same backdrop. And what you see in 2017 there's a small gathering of players behind the White House. And then there are staircases that go up the sides. And in 2015, those staircases are full. Those people all up and down, obviously much more interest in seeing Barack Obama than Donald Trump because in 2017, there's nobody on the staircases at all, and there's definitely a much smaller crowd. That's what they tweeted.

GLENN: Okay. So the New York Times is trying to make the point and the typical New York Times.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Typical failed New York Times is trying to make it look like nobody wants to have their picture taken with Donald Trump.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Here's what happens.

STU: So the New England patriots tweet "These photos lack context. Facts in 2015, over 40 football staff were on the stairs. In 2017, they were seated on the south lawn. So the picture does not reflect the entire crowd. In fact, they tweet another picture where the staff is there --

GLENN: In 2017.

STU: In 2017. And not only does it go up the stairs and the side, it wraps all the way around the back. That picture that they tweeted has more people than the Barack Obama picture of 2015.

GLENN: Okay. Now you can say fake news New York Times. Look what the New York Times is doing. How many times was the New York Times -- how many times was it retweeted that original picture of Donald Trump looking like a loser?

STU: I don't have the exact amount, but it was in the tens of thousands.

GLENN: Tens of thousands of people retweeted that picture basically to say haha.

STU: Trump sucks. Obama is better.

GLENN: Trump sucks. Obama is great, and it feels good. Tens of thousands of people retweeted it. And The New York Times knew what they were doing, or did they? Here's what the guy who made the decision, the sports editor, who made the decision to tweet those two pictures tweeted once the patriots came out and said "No, you've got the story wrong." Here's what he tweeted:

STU: He actually responded to a reporter asking about what he said. This is what he said "Bad tweet by me. Terrible tweet. I wish I could say it's complicated but, no, this one is pretty straight forward. I'm an idiot. It was my idea. It was my execution. It was my blunder. I made a decision in about four minutes that clearly wandered much more time. Once we learned, we tried to fix everything as much as possible, as swiftly as possible and as transparently as possible. Of course at that point the damage was done. I just needed to own it.

PAT: Wow, that's great.

GLENN: Isn't that the realest apology you've ever heard? That guy is one of my new heroes.

PAT: Stand up guy.

GLENN: Saying, look, man, I own it. It's my fault. It was four minutes I made this. Not even saying it was a little deal, big -- no, I own it. Huge mistake.

PAT: Everybody else almost anybody else would have done that. Been, like. Okay. Get over it.

GLENN: Right it was just a stupid picture. I made a mistake. Blah, blah, blah.

No, this guy -- I'm going to post this story up at GlennBeck.com today. This is a guy I want you to talk about at your dinner table tonight with your family. I want you to read that tweet to your children and say "That's the way you own it. That's the way you make an apology."

STU: Because we've all made mistakes like that. We've all jumped to a conclusion that was incorrect. And, you know, there's a point to be made here that seemingly he wanted to see that; right? Like, somewhere in his mind, he thought that impression was true, and he was, like, wow, look at that. And he put that out there and wanted to make sure people knew that these crowds didn't compare.

GLENN: And the only reason why we say he wanted to do that is because he works for The New York Times. We don't know anything about him.

STU: We don't know. But for some reason jumps to conclusion without checking.

GLENN: But this shows because he's surrounded with people thank that. This shows that I don't care what I think. It doesn't matter what I think. It's the truth. What's his name?

STU: I don't know, actually.

GLENN: We have to find out.

STU: It just says New York Times sports editor. A reporter contacted him.

GLENN: Keith -- is Keith around? Did you find out? Because I asked yesterday if we could get this guy on the air. Did we try?

STU: I know we did try. There's confusion of which one --

GLENN: Which one it was?

STU: I don't want to bore you with it.

GLENN: Please, find out, Keith.

PAT: It's New York Times sports editor Jason Stallman.

GLENN: Congratulations, Jason Stallman. If you can find his Twitter handle, you should tweet this and tweet "Good job."

Here's a guy -- I haven't heard an apology like that in how long? Ever?

STU: Right.

GLENN: I mean, that's a great thing. Now, here's the problem. As he said.

PAT: The damage was done.

GLENN: The damage was done. Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. How was the damage done? We used to say corrections in The New York Times, they run on the back page. Nobody sees the back package page. They run in a little, teeny section. It was the headline. They're not going to correct it with the same headline. New York Times wrong. Well, wait a minute. This isn't a newspaper. This is digital. They're giving it the same 144 characters from the same guy from the same source to the same people. So now, we can see. Because it is truly apples to apples. We're comparing the incorrect story, and its impact of tens of thousands of retweets, and we'll see who the fake news people -- who the fake news people are. Did those people retweet "Oh, crap. I just sent on to all of my followers, I just sent on a fake news story."

STU: Right. Do I have any responsibility -- or at least responsibility to correct it? To be clear what the New York Times did, they retweeted the exact tweet from the patriots that I just mentioned. So they actually said "Oh, by the way. We were wrong. Here's the evidence from the patriots saying we were wrong. And then they went into talk about how the delegation was, their quote was roughly the same. Okay? And this is just a snapshot in time. I don't have the current numbers.

At one point, though, the first tweet of the two pictures where it looked like Trump looked bad had 32,000 retweets. The correction had 54. Not 45,000. 54. 32,000 to 54.

GLENN: Okay. So who's fault is that? And we see this in the conservative realm.

STU: You do.

GLENN: I will tweet something out that feels good. I'll tweet something out that's true but doesn't feel good. No likes. No retweets. Nothing. Nothing. Who's fault is the fake news? In this particular case, who's fault is the fake news? It's not The New York Times. It's not The New York Times editor. They're all skewed. No, huh-uh.

STU: They made a mistake. It happens.

GLENN: It's you, minus 54 people.

STU: It's you, in this particular situation, it's the left.

GLENN: It's the left.

STU: They're the ones excited about this one. And this idea that the left has no appetite for fake news I think is pretty well disapproved right here.

GLENN: Right here. Right here. You are retweeting -- and, again, as Stu said, I guess I should point that out. I assume we all understand that I don't think any of us are following The New York Times, you know? We're not, like, I like and follow The New York Times on Twitter, so I think that's probably pretty low in our audience that you got that and then retweeted it.

But anybody who did, you're following The New York Times, and you retweeted this the first time and didn't retweet the correction, you are the problem. And every time that happens on our side, you are the problem.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It's as long as it's corrected, and it's on Twitter. Because that's apples to apples. Like, I -- you know, we always say we lead with our mistakes. Most people don't. They won't put the headline right at the top. We put the headline right at the top. Try to do that. That's still not the same because we may have chewed on something for, you know, 20 minutes and the correction only takes three. With Twitter, it's 144 to 144. It's the same space going to exactly the same people. It's not the press, and I will tell you -- I mean, it is the press. But it is the people who are consuming it that are spreading it.

STU: And, you know, look, this guy at The New York Times who actually apologizes and takes responsibility, that person doesn't exist at name your random partisan fake news hack website they just want the 32,000 fake retweets. He doesn't bother with a correction.

GLENN: Nope.

STU: And I think it's important for us as conservatives as people who try to execute principles every day to -- when you see someone on the other side take a step like that, it's important --

GLENN: You have to say thank you.

STU: To make a big deal out of it. It is.

GLENN: This is important for us to retweet because it shows -- because I am convinced a lot of this nonsense is because we're not listening to each other. A lot of this nonsense is because we assume the worst of each other. And we're not following The New York Times. And because we don't follow The New York Times, we didn't see them just correct this, and we didn't see a heroic move of a guy who you know there are people in The New York Times who were, like, just leave it. It doesn't matter. I mean, what are you doing helping him out; right? You know there are people who said that to him in the cafeteria. We need to -- excuse me. We need to get to the point to where we can point out the heroes on both sides. And when we listen to each other, when we actually -- we just assume The New York Times is always going to be unfair. We just assume CNN is just going to be unfair. They just assume Fox News and talk radio is going to be unfair. They put this show into the same category as Alex Jones.

Well, that's because you don't listen to us and you don't listen to Alex Jones. That's why. You don't know the difference. We need to do it.

CNN’s Brian Stelter had a shocking moment of clarity Sunday when he acknowledged what everyone but the liberal media has known since before the 2020 presidential election: President Joe Biden's son Hunter has been up to some seriously dubious dealings overseas, and his father was almost certainly involved despite his repeated claims to the contrary.

On "Reliable Sources" Sunday, Stelter spoke with first lady Jill Biden's former press secretary, Michael LaRosa, about whether Biden is likely to seek a second term in 2024.

“I hope he runs, and I know he’s going to run. I think he's planning to run ... I don't see why he wouldn't run,” LaRosa stammered.

"What about his son? What about Hunter?" Stelter cut in. “Hunter [is] under federal investigation, charges could be coming at any time. This is not just a right-wing media story. This is a real problem for the Bidens."

Unluckily for Stelter, "The Hill's" Joe Concha can remember all the way back to the fall of 2020:


On a recent episode of Glenn TV, Glenn Beck discussed the most recent findings in the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Don't get distracted by the seemingly endless stream of scandalous photos and videos, Glenn warns, it's what's coming out about Hunter's overseas business dealings that should be all over the media, because Joe Biden is involved too.

Watch the video clip below or find the full episode here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream

VOTE: You decide who gets a Badge of Merit (Round 3)

Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Purple Heart in George Washington's time was not given for being wounded. This award went to ordinary soldiers for doing something of merit—something that would find favor in the eyes of God. Washington knew they couldn't win if they weren't on God's side. And if they were on God's side, God would bless them.

I've been looking for people who deserve a George Washington badge of merit. Many of you have submitted nominations. Thank you for the love, respect, and consideration you have shown in doing so.

From your hundreds of nominations, we have narrowed it down to three finalists. Now, it's up to you to decide who gets this honor.

Here are the candidates:

1. Dana, the Mom to Many

Dana and her husband Brian run a nonprofit called Dogwood Ranch in southwest Missouri. According to their website:

Dogwood Ranch was created by family, for family. We believe that everyone deserves the chance to live the life for which they were created. Our mission is simple: to provide support for survivors of trauma as they journey towards wholeness. This includes creating a new heritage for foster children and youth who have been abused and neglected, by providing them with safe and healthy forever families. We are also committed to offering a place of belonging for foster teens through individualized transitional living services. Additionally, we offer specialized support through our equine assisted counseling program, which focuses on bringing restoration to foster youth and other at-risk populations, including our honored military veterans and their families. Through the operation of Dogwood Ranch, our desire is to allow those we serve a new way to experience life, family and true redemption. Everyone deserves a chance to find their way home.

According to her nominator, on top of their work at the ranch, they personally foster young girls and have had "over twenty foster girls they now call family."

Her nominator wrote:

They take the toughest cases that come up. On several occasions, I would reach out to see if she could go out, and she would say she couldn’t because they were on suicide watch that night. Young girls have tried to stab her, have stolen her car, and have come to call her Mom…She is an incredibly hard worker, no-nonsense, and full of life and joy. She is constantly making our community and our world a better place.

2. Francine, the Joyful Servant

Francine, who also goes by “Frannie,” and “Fran,” not only has multiple names, but wears multiple hats. At home, she is the mother of two boys with serious disabilities. At work, she is a caretaker for the elderly, and everywhere she goes, she is a ray of sunshine.

Her nominator entrusted her mother, who has since passed, to Francine's care at a nursing home. She said, whenever Francine was working, she would breathe a sigh of relief. She wrote:

While most of the aides looked at the work as just a paycheck, and some of them were actually cruel to the most needy patients, Fran treated each and every one of them like royalty. She saw each individual as unique and worthy of love and understanding. Every patient adored her, because they knew they were in good hands.

Her nominator wrote that she saw treatment of elderly patients that “made her skin crawl.” There was a woman at the nursing home with severe dementia who had become so antagonistic that other aides, to avoid feeding her by hand, would simply not feed her. When Fran was working, she made sure to sit with her while she ate. She even hosted “dinner parties” with multiple residents to ensure they were fed, and happy.

Her nominator wrote:

When Fran was on shift, people who needed help going to bed never had to wait long. Besides, they didn't mind waiting for FRANNIE. She always did everything with such love and care and class! Then, after a long eight hours (or sometimes a double shift!) she would go home to more of the same routine. And in spite of it all, she did it all with a smile on her face. I've never known anyone like her. She was a godsend to my mother. If it hadn't been for her, and a handful of others, Mom's time at the home would have been unbearable. This woman really does deserve an award.

3. Michael, the Godly Father

Michael was nominated by his three children for modeling how a true man of God lives, loves, and serves his community. After serving as a corpsman in the Vietnam War and then working as an elementary school teacher, his children say he was the “solid, and consistently Godly male role model” in his grandchildren’s life. His children wrote:

My father helped raise his grandkids when my sister was a single mom, even though he had already raised his own kids.

Michael shares the gospel in one-on-one Bible studies with young people who have just gotten out of jail. He raises donations for clothing, food, and blankets for the homeless. He meets weekly with young men for Bible studies, to mentor them, and help them mature into men of God.

Michael has taught true love to his children by the way he treats their mother–his wife of 42 years. They wrote:

He is a solid rock of unwavering love for her, which has had a huge impact on how my brother and I treat our own wives. Mike's steadfast love for our mother has taught us the meaning of loyalty, love, commitment, sacred covenant, compassion, honor, and what a true husband looks like.

Most importantly, they say their father "instilled in us an absolute love for our Creator and compassion for our fellow man. He is our number one role model showing us what a godly man is.”

Who do you think deserves a badge of merit? Cast your vote below.


'Really SCARY': The IRS just spent $700,000 on AMMO — and plans to add 87,000 new 'enforcement' agents

Photo by (left) Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images/(Right) Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

The Democrats' wonderfully named "Inflation Reduction Act," which passed in the Senate on Sunday, includes a massive expansion of the IRS. President Joe Biden wants to hire 80,000 new agents, and of course, this is for totally non-nefarious reasons, like cracking down on all those evil billionaires committing tax fraud.

Financial expert and author of "The War on Small Business" Carol Roth joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to explain who she believes this expansion will really target.

"The Democrats like to pretend that they are the party of the middle and working class, and the Biden administration has continued to find ways to extract wealth from the middle and working class," Carol began. "We saw it in the American Rescue Plan, where they raised the reporting threshold for any sort of hobby site you might have ... down to $600. Now, and this was part of Build Back Better which we thought was dead but now is just coming back in pieces, and this piece has survived — $80 billion for the IRS. Half of that ... is going to hire 87, 000 agents for 'enforcement,' okay? We don't need 87, 000 agents to go after what was 800 or 900 billionaires ... so, who do you think they're coming after?" she added.

"They're going to come after you," Carol warned. "You should pay your taxes that are due, but that doesn't mean you're not going to get audited, and that doesn't mean you're not going to have to justify every single thing that you do and waste your time and money so they can try and extract a few more dollars from you."

Glenn mentioned that the IRS has recently purchased nearly $700,000 worth of guns and ammo to go along with these 87,000 new "enforcers."

"That is really frightening," Glenn said. "They're not going after the rich ... they're going to go after anyone who disagrees with them. And because it's now public-private partnerships, any business that doesn't agree with them."

"Yeah, this is really really scary," Carol agreed. "And the crazy thing is the number of people who gave feedback and said, 'Well, if you're not a tax cheat, what do you have to worry about?' You've hit the nail on the head, Glenn. The politicization of this is they're going to come after people, they're going to harass you, they're going to tie up your time, they're going to tie up your money, regardless of whether you have followed the rules or not."

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Sanctuary city' Democrats upset over a few thousand migrants, meanwhile here's what's happening in border towns

(Left) Photo by Bill O'Leary - Pool/Getty Images/ (Right) Photo by ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images

New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) and Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) are in an uproar now over a few thousand illegal immigrants coming to their cities — even though both places claim to be "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, the number of illegal immigrants coming into border towns is expected to exceed 6 MILLION by the end of Biden's term if things continue at the current rate.

As the Democrats ask the Biden administration to declare a federal emergency, Glenn Beck took a few moments on the radio program to compare their immigration problems to the massive influx of illegal immigrants flooding our border towns.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.