NY Times Smears Lindell TV’s Castronuova for Daring to Ask About Election Integrity
By Richard Luthmann
On April 16, 2025, The New York Times published a digital segment by Ashley Wu that singled out independent media White House correspondents, including Cara Castronuova.
Castronuova, who represents Lindell TV in the briefing room, was accused of lobbing a “softball” question meant to “flatter” President Trump.
But Wu’s segment was more than a cheap shot—it was a textbook case of unethical journalism, and is endemic of the New York Times’ descent into the deepest nether regions of Fake News.
Legacy Media Hit Job: The NYT Digital Drive-By
“She never called me for comment, but they completely smeared me,” Castronuova said. “I’m right there in the same briefing room as they are. They broke the code of ethics and did not reach out to me.”
Castronuova is a member of the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA).
“They should’ve reached out to me for a comment, and I want my comment and a correction to be printed in the New York Times.”
President Trump, who has faced an unprecedented assault by the traditional fourth estate for the last decade, has not attended the WHCA dinner during his presidency, reflecting ongoing tensions between his administration and the radical left-leaning legacy press.
Wu framed Castronuova’s legitimate question about the Trump administration’s new Executive Order on election integrity as a “distraction” from the Signal Chat story—a manufactured media frenzy about a leftist infiltrator from The Atlantic.
In doing so, Wu downplayed that the eight questions before Castronuova’s were about the exact same Signal Chat story, ground already covered by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and violating the WHCA’s own recommendation against redundant questioning.
Wu also ignored the NYT’s Ethical Journalism Handbook.
The Question That Wasn’t Softball
Castronuova asked:
“First and foremost, thank you to the administration for the election integrity executive order, because so many journalists for four years were banned from talking about this very subject, so thank you to the administration for that. My question is- yesterday, President Trump, when signing the order, said there’s more to come when it comes to election integrity. Would that include same-day voting and hand-counted paper ballots?”
That question came just one day after President Trump signed a sweeping Executive Order titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” The order called for uniform enforcement of existing election laws, proof of citizenship for voter registration, and better safeguards against foreign interference.
Pretty solid question given the circumstances. But the NY Times only covered the second part of the follow-up:
“And, why are Democrats so against election integrity measures, like obviously proof of citizenship when it comes to voting in a United States election?”
Wu chose to frame Castronuova’s question as “favorable” rather than newsworthy. And that characterization holds up for those who rely solely upon the New York Times for their propaganda masquerading as news.
Ashley Wu’s omission of context turned a news-driven question into a political jab.
The NYT segment failed to mention the Executive Order at all. Instead, it reduced Castronuova to “a right-wing mouthpiece” from “Lindell TV, a media outlet started by Mike Lindell, who also founded MyPillow.”
This isn’t journalism. It’s partisan PR for the Radical Left Democrats posing as reporting.
NYT’s Track: Wrong on Stalin, Ukraine, and Everything Since
The New York Times’ hypocrisy here is nothing new. It has a long and disgraceful record of media malpractice.
Start with Walter Duranty, their Moscow correspondent who won a Pulitzer in 1932 for downplaying Stalin’s Holodomor—the genocide-by-famine that killed millions of Ukrainians. Despite overwhelming evidence that Duranty deliberately ignored and covered up the truth, the Pulitzer Board still refuses to revoke his prize. The NYT has never apologized.
Then there’s the Russia collusion hoax. The NYT gave endless column inches to unverified claims of Trump-Russia collusion. Most turned out to be bunk. No retractions. No apologies.
In 2020, The New York Times dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop as “Russian disinformation.” They later confirmed the laptop’s authenticity—but not before the damage was done. Again, no apology.
They pushed the Wuhan wet market theory as gospel. When scientists questioned it and suggested a lab leak, the NYT slowly backpedaled. But not a word of regret. The lab leak has become an established scientific fact and a historical occurrence.
Now they smear Castronuova for asking about election integrity, the same week Trump issued a directive focused on that very issue of importance to millions of Americans.
The Real Reason: Lindell, Not Journalism
This isn’t just about Cara Castronuova. It’s about who she works for: Mike Lindell, the unapologetic Christian, White, traditionalist, heterosexual, biological male Trump supporter, and CEO of MyPillow.
Lindell is Public Enemy Number One to the media elite. Thus, the “sanctioned hit-job” in the White House Briefing Room.
The New York Times has a problem with Lindell’s Election Crime Bureau, his Plan to Secure America’s Elections, and his growing influence through platforms like Lindell TV.
Lindell believes that election integrity is the single greatest threat to American democracy, and he’s not alone. For Lindell, the 2020 election taught what the Stalin sycophants at the already NYT know: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”
It’s not Lindell and his reporters’ questions they hate. It’s his political beliefs—and by extension, those of anyone who shares a microphone with him.
If Lindell were a leftist billionaire pushing mail-in voting and ballot harvesting, he’d be on the cover of the failing New York Times Magazine.
Hypocrites in the Briefing Room
The NYT hides behind credentials and the WHCA, but their own behavior shows contempt for the rules.
WHCA guidelines discourage repetitive questioning and encourage the inclusion of diverse outlets.
Yet on the day of the Signal Chat story, nearly every legacy outlet asked the same question again and again, trying to corner Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
Castronuova broke the mold by asking something new. Instead of being rewarded, she was punished, targeted by Wu’s hit piece.
While Castronuova was asking about a major Executive Order, the others were chasing a Signal Chat story that turned out to be a “nothingburger.”
The NYT didn’t just ignore the order. They buried it.
We asked them why and copied in the WHCA Executive Committee. They didn’t respond before press time. We’ll follow up if they do. We gave them the opportunity that Castronuova was not afforded. Here’s what we asked:
From: Richard Luthmann <[email protected]>
Date: On Saturday, April 19th, 2025 at 9:28 PM
Subject: Violations of Journalistic Ethics and Failure to Seek Comment – Castronuova Coverage
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
CC: Michael Volpe <[email protected]>, Dick LaFontaine <[email protected]>, Rick LaRivière <[email protected]>, Modern Thomas Nast <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Richard Luthmann <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Dear NYT Digital Reporters Wu and Hogan, NYT Editors, and the WHCA Executive Committee,
I am writing on behalf of multiple independent jorunalists, news outlets, and the broader press community to raise urgent and serious concerns about a New York Times (NYT) Digital segment, “How the White House Press Briefing Is Changing,” published on April 16, 2025, which directly targeted Lindell TV White House Correspondent Cara Castronuova.
The segment contained what appears to be a politically motivated mischaracterization of Ms. Castronuova’s question, omitted critical context, and—most egregiously—failed to seek comment from her before publication, violating nearly every standard of professional journalism. We ask that you respond to the following questions (as applicable) and clarify your editorial position immediately:
On Journalistic Standards and Ethics:
1. Why did the NYT fail to contact Cara Castronuova for comment before featuring her question and framing it as “favorable” to the Trump administration in your segment?
2. Are you aware that Ms. Castronuova is a credentialed member of the White House Correspondents’ Association and regularly attends briefings in the same room as the NYT?
3. WHCA guidelines discourage redundant questioning and promote a diversity of outlets. Why did your piece omit the fact that Ms. Castronuova was the only reporter to ask a question unrelated to the Signal Chat frenzy that legacy media pressed 20 times in a row?
4. Did the NYT Digital Team review or reference President Trump’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order titled Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections before drafting your segment’s script?
5. If so, why did NYT’s reporting fail to mention the Executive Order entirely, despite it being the obvious subject of Ms. Castronuova’s first question?
6. Who at the NYT approved the final version of the NYT Digital Team’s segment? Did you happen to have any discussion in editorial review about the ethical obligation to seek comment from Ms. Castronuova?On Content Framing and Bias:
7. The segment described Lindell TV as “a media outlet started by Mike Lindell, who also founded MyPillow.” Was this meant to discredit Ms. Castronuova by association?
8. The segment cited reporters from CNN, Reuters, and CBS as asking “real questions,” yet excluded direct quotes from their redundant inquiries. Why were only right-leaning outlets like Lindell TV, Gateway Pundit, and Turning Point USA named, quoted, and framed negatively?
9. The segment included no reference to Ms. Castronuova’s full question, which explicitly mentioned the Executive Order and hand-counted ballots. Why was that part of the exchange cut?
10. The segment implied that “favorable questions” are less legitimate. Did that standard apply in the last administration to pro-Biden questions by MSNBC or NPR reporters?On Correction and Accountability:
11. Do the NYT Digital Team and its editors intend to issue a correction, clarification, or update that reflects the full context of Ms. Castronuova’s question and acknowledges your failure to seek comment?
12. If not, please explain why The New York Times refuses to correct the public record, even after being formally informed of the error.
13. Will The New York Times issue an apology or on-the-record statement of regret to Ms. Castronuova for violating ethical reporting standards?
14. Has the NYT Digital Team ever reviewed the NYT’s internal policy on reporting about other journalists, especially in shared professional environments like the White House Press Briefing Room?
15. Does the NYT have a formal policy for contacting subjects of stories that involve criticism or potentially damaging depictions?On Historical Patterns of Malpractice:
16. Given the NYT’s refusal to return Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer despite overwhelming evidence of deception, why should readers trust your newsroom to fairly cover Ukraine or election integrity today?
17. The NYT promoted the Russia collusion hoax, dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop, and misled the public on COVID origins. What has changed institutionally to restore credibility?
18. How does the NYT’s failure to accurately report on Cara Castronuova’s question, the Executive Order, and Lindell TV differ from past episodes of partisan misinformation?WHCA Standards
19. Do you believe the April 16, 2025 segment violated WHCA ethical guidelines, particularly the duty to treat fellow correspondents with professionalism and fairness?
20. Are you aware that WHCA members are expected to engage respectfully and avoid misrepresenting the work of other credentialed correspondents?
21. Has the WHCA reached out to the NYT editors regarding NYT Digital’s failure to contact Cara Castronuova for comment before airing the segment?
22. Does the WHCA expect to initiate an ethics review or disciplinary proceedings related to the reporting?
23. If a right-leaning outlet had aired a segment selectively editing and ridiculing a NYT reporter without seeking comment, would you call for WHCA sanctions or removal of credentials?
24. Given the WHCA’s responsibility to promote a professional and inclusive press environment, how does the NYT’s public mischaracterization of a fellow WHCA member square with WHCA standards?
25. Will the NYT cooperate with any WHCA investigation or review process related to potential violations of its code of conduct?
26. Do you believe the WHCA should reaffirm or clarify rules against using credentialed access to target, slander, or misrepresent other members in their professional capacity?
27. Has the NYT received any prior warnings or informal complaints from the WHCA about similar behavior?
28. Would you support or oppose WHCA penalties—such as censure, temporary suspension, or public reprimand—for members who violate the association’s professional standards?Final Question:
30. If the question Ms. Castronuova asked had been asked by a New York Times reporter at a Biden White House briefing, would you have described it as “favorable” or simply “newsworthy”?We respectfully request a formal on-the-record response to the above questions as soon as possible, to be published in full.
We also request that the NYT newsroom clarify the editorial policy regarding:
– Corrections when reporters fail to seek comment,
– Framing of questions from credentialed White House correspondents,
– Disclosures of ideological or institutional bias.If we do not receive your response, we will note the same in our coverage. If we receive your response after publication, we will incorporate it into the follow-up reporting.
Thank you in advance for your time.
Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
Legacy Journalism Is Dead. Long Live Independent Media.
Ashley Wu didn’t act alone. Editors approved the script. The WHCA stayed silent. The crooked Pulitzer crowd cheered.
But Americans are waking up.
Cara Castronuova is the new face of real journalism—one that demands accountability and context. She doesn’t owe the New York Times anything.
But the New York “Slimes” owes her an apology. And the WHCA should have her back. But they won’t. They want to see President Trump fail and the free press destroyed.
Castronuova asked the right question at the right time. The legacy press and their media masters hated the answer.
And the journalistic meltdown leading to a transparent media hit job proves it.
About The Author
