So the media is at it again bagging out Trump, this time doing exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing: using an emotional event to make a political point.
The final sentence is an attack on the writer of the list, stating that it was obviously hastily put together as it had even misspelled the word "attacker", yet the same media that attacks Trump's cabinet's spelling can't even edit a simple sentence:
I think what they MEANT was "Allahu akbar" - an Arabic phrase meaning "God is great" - during the attack. If the media can pick on the US government for spelling errors, which isn't one of their core points - then I can pick the media up on their bad editing, which IS one of their core points.
So, a Muslim man can do whatever he wants whilst yelling the war cry of a Jihad soldier and it's not considered a terrorist attack. When is it a terrorist attack? How many people have to die in an attack by a man yelling "Allahu akbar" before it's deemed a terrorist attack? More than two? Because one death is too many to me.
As usual, the media is only too happy to give coverage to stories like this, but far less likely to give stories like the Angel mums, mothers who have lost their children to the criminal activities of illegal immigrants. Or to the pro-life march that took place in Washington.
Of course, that's not the narrative the media wants to spread.
Which is why public trust in the media is at the lowest point in history and they're showing no sign of doing anything different to try to turn that around.
We are very rapidly heading towards a post-media world, where no one trusts anything that comes out of the media unless it confirms what they know to be fact.
Well done media, you've only go yourself to be blamed.