NYT: "Trump's Embrace Of Racially-Charged Past Puts GOP In Crisis"

link
   So now the characterization of what Trump said has evolved into he embraced our "racially-charged" past:

   President Trump’s embrace of the country’s racially charged past has thrown the Republican Party into crisis, dividing his core supporters who have urged him on from the political leaders who fear that he is leading them down a perilous and shortsighted path.
   The divisions played out in the starkly different responses across the party after Mr. Trump insisted that left-wing counterprotesters were as culpable as neo-Nazis and white supremacists for the bloodshed in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend. Much of the right was ecstatic as they watched their president fume against the “violent” left and declare that “very fine people” were being besmirched for their involvement in the demonstration.

Since, as I've agreed, I'm obviously the crazy one here, I'm not in much of a position to say anything about what Trump did or didn't do overall, in the big picture, by suggestion or omission, etc. As I've admitted, when you think that p, and everybody else thinks that not-p, the smart money is typically on everybody else. However, what I can say is: that is not an uncontentious assessment of what he actually said in the notorious press conference on Charlottesville on 8/15.
   What he actually said seems to have been true--with the possible exception of the "good people" comment--which also seems to have been true, though it's less clear. (There's evidence for it in this NYT piece).
   This inaccurate headline is just one of hundreds...and it's actually one of the less-weird ones, I'd say, since at least it isn't clear what it would be to "embrace the country's racially-charged past." Other inaccuracies are more straightforwardly wrong (e.g. he defended white supremacists, he expressed support for white supremacists). It's also not, strictly speaking, accurate to claim that Trump said that the sides were equally culpable. What he said was that there was/is "blame on both sides." That doesn't, strictly speaking, mean that there's the same amount of blame on both sides. But that's a reasonable interpretation of what he said. (It should worry reasonable people that the most uncharitable interpretation is being chosen at every point...but at least, in this case, an "interpretation" isn't basically being just plain fabricated.)
   Truth matters, as I find myself needing to say over and over anymore.
   The fact that this has to be said at all is a strong indicator that things have gone rather far off the rails.
   The fact that a concern with the actual facts is now, apparently, racist means that we've started down an even more dismal and dangerous possible path.