Spoiler alert: No one trusts the New York Times. And while this article – based on 'evidence' they refuse to share – intends to scold online speculateurs (to coin a term) and rumor-mongers, it still doesn't actually settle the real question at hand. The NYT reporter implicitly concedes this point after all the finger-wagging at people who wondered why a US Senate candidate would disappear for over a week a month before Election Day.
First off, let's start with what the evidence reportedly proves:
The New York Times reviewed time-stamped images from a security camera at Mr. Talarico’s home, which were provided by his campaign on the condition they not be published for security reasons. The images showed Mr. Talarico around the exterior of the home and at its entrances between Oct. 1 and Oct. 8.
Er ... ooookaaaaay. The NYT spends a couple of dozen paragraphs scolding the speculateurs for embracing a theory without any evidence, and then insists we trust them without showing us the evidence. Maybe this is a 'hair of the dog' strategy for online hangovers?
And why exactly would this be a "security issue" for Talarico? His residence would eventually become public record, if it isn't already, thanks to financial disclosures. Even if that weren't the case, how would security cameras with timestamps reveal the residence's location? Surely the paper could blur out any portions of the images that might reveal an address or a position on a street. If the security video settles the question of where Talarico spent more than a week off the campaign trail, why wouldn't Talarico or the NYT release it? After all, the voting public deserves an answer to the question of where.
Unfortunately, this still doesn't answer the question of why. No one needs nine days (or 13 if you count from Talarico's last public appearance on September 26) to recover from the flu. If anyone in the private sector missed more than three days of work, they'd need a doctor's note to keep their job, especially if they hadn't communicated well with their employer up front. Even the NYT conceded, sotto voce, that this doesn't answer the real issue, emphasis mine:
The episode represented a wild stretch in the Texas Senate race — one of this year’s highest-profile, ugliest and most expensive contests and one that could help decide control of the upper chamber.
The furor over Mr. Talarico’s absence was extraordinary on several levels. It showed how mistrust of politicians and the mainstream news media, combined with online algorithms that incentivize outrageous theories, has created a Wild West of misinformation. It offered a lesson for Democrats: In such an era, it is politically risky for a candidate, even one too ill to campaign, to disappear for nine days.
Ahem. Talarico is 37 years old, not 87, and even with Type I diabetes, it should not have required him to completely disappear for nine days. That alone calls into question the flu story and prompts curiosity about what really made Talarico too ill to campaign. Assuming the video evidence is authentic, Talarico should be asked why he was so sick that he went totally dark but was wandering around his home well enough to be constantly caught by his surveillance cameras. If Talarico could walk around his home, why couldn't he do Zoom calls, at the very least?
This passage also indicts the NYT and the rest of the Protection Racket Media. A major-party candidate disappeared for nine days (or 13!) with a month left to go before Election Day, and not one media outlet bothered to ask why. They simply accepted the 'flu' story and refused to cover it. The NYT and others are only covering it now as a lecture to readers, but still admit that a nine-day disappearance is strange and still lacks any credible explanation. The NYT and the rest of the mainstream media are stenographers for Democrats and progressives, and prosecutors when it comes to Republicans and speculateurs.
Mary Katharine Ham has a couple of pointed responses to this (via Twitchy):
It shouldn’t take a fake story about him disappearing to spur journalists to wonder why an otherwise healthy young man actually did disappear for *more days than I’ve been out of commission for childbirth* when he should be working harder than he’s ever worked in his entire life. Off the trail for 9+ days in October is a story. Aren’t y’all who support him the least bit annoyed he’s not mustering some Zoom calls during convalescence? This also sets up a pretty perverse incentive where making up stories about a story that should have already been covered gets you both clicks and the story covered in the NYT! I hate being gaslit by both the mainstream and the people with the fake recording on this.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 13, 2026
Off the trail for 9+ days in October is a story. Aren’t y’all who support him the least bit annoyed he’s not mustering some Zoom calls during convalescence? This also sets up a pretty perverse incentive where making up stories about a story that should have already been covered gets you both clicks and the story covered in the NYT! I hate being gaslit by both the mainstream and the people with the fake recording on this.
And as for Talarico's absence, Mary Katharine and Sohrab Amari posit a likely explanation:
The generational pussy shit explanation may indeed be the real one.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 13, 2026
Talarico's a shirker, at best, and the NYT is all-in to cover it ... up.
Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress.
Help HotAir continue to report on the Democrats’ radicalism and inform voters as our nation faces a crossroads. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member