To the editor: I'm aware of the 1st Amendment and free speech. Was I asleep in class when they covered false speech?
I speak of The Times' editorial on the second presidential debate, which declared in its print edition subheadline, "Unapologetic, he tries to deflect criticism by ramping up his personal attacks on Clinton." ("Debate Round 2: Trump doesn't redeem himself," editorial, Oct. 9)
Unapologetic? Really? Did the members of the editorial board not read the apology Donald Trump issued, which was printed on Page A6 of Sunday's Times? Were they not listening during the debate, in which he actually apologized?
This is not just yellow dog journalism; it's dirty black dog journalism at its worst.
There is no doubt that Trump won that debate, that he put Hillary Clinton on the ropes time after time. And yet The Times thinks she won. This leads one to ask why The Times prints such misleading information.
And if the editorial board does not like either candidate, then why endorse one?
John J. Gobbell, Newport Beach