On a chilly day in January 2019, a group of high school boys from Covington Catholic School in Kentucky stood waiting for their bus near the Lincoln Memorial. Having participated in the March for Life, they gathered in high spirits, many of them wearing red “Make America Great Again” hats, a visible expression of support for then-President Donald Trump. Unbeknownst to them, within hours, they would become the center of a nationwide firestorm—vilified by journalists, celebrities, and millions of social media users as symbols of racism and privilege. Their offense? A selectively edited video clip that gave the false appearance that they had mocked a Native American elder.
The story was irresistible to the mainstream press. It was too neat, too emotionally charged, and too useful to their ideological lens to pause and ask questions. But within days, the fuller truth emerged—and it told a radically different story. Far from being aggressors, the Covington boys were, in fact, the ones harassed and provoked. The media’s narrative had not merely been incorrect; it had been reckless and defamatory. What followed was a legal reckoning and a cultural reckoning—one that exposed the deep ideological fault lines in American journalism.
The Viral Smirk That Wasn’t
The incident began with a short video clip that exploded across Twitter: a teenage boy in a MAGA hat, later identified as Nicholas Sandmann, standing face-to-face with a Native American man, Nathan Phillips, who was beating a drum and chanting. Sandmann’s expression—a slight, closed-mouth smile—was quickly interpreted as smug, mocking, and emblematic of white privilege. The moment was framed as yet another example of systemic racism, of youth emboldened by Trumpism, and of the enduring disrespect shown toward Indigenous Americans.
Within hours, major outlets including CNN, The Washington Post, NBC, and others had run stories portraying the Covington students as hateful bigots who had surrounded and jeered a peaceful elder. Social media personalities and progressive celebrities piled on, some calling for violence, others for expulsion or public doxing. One commentator declared that the students’ “faces are punchable.” Another likened them to Klan members. Few paused to verify the context of the video. Even fewer asked what had happened before the now-infamous faceoff.
The Full Video and the Unraveling of a Lie
Within two days, a longer, unedited video surfaced—over an hour of footage that had been entirely ignored by the major networks and Twitter mob alike. The truth it revealed was deeply inconvenient for the initial narrative.
The Covington boys had not surrounded Nathan Phillips. They were waiting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial for their bus. While they stood there, a small group of fringe street preachers known as the Black Hebrew Israelites began shouting vicious slurs at them—calling them “incest babies,” “future school shooters,” and “crackers.” These self-proclaimed prophets hurled racial and sexual insults not only at the white students but also at African-American members of their group. Rather than retaliate, the students tried to drown out the harassment with school chants and cheers—something they later explained was intended to uplift one another and maintain a positive spirit.
As the verbal abuse escalated, Nathan Phillips entered the scene. Contrary to the initial reports, he was not being surrounded or blocked. He approached the students, walked directly up to Nicholas Sandmann, and began banging a drum in his face. Sandmann didn’t move or speak. He didn’t laugh. He didn’t shout. He stood silently—awkwardly, nervously, perhaps uncertain of how to respond to a bizarre and escalating scene. The “smirk” was not an act of mockery but of uncertainty. The entire narrative had been built on a lie, one reinforced by the assumption that a white boy in a MAGA hat must be guilty.
Legal Consequences and Vindication
When the full video reached the public, the media backlash began to turn inward. Critics noted the irresponsible reporting and the haste with which many major outlets had condemned minors without verifying facts. But apologies were slow in coming. Some journalists quietly walked back their claims, but few issued public retractions. Others doubled down, insisting that, even if the facts were wrong, the “spirit” of the story—about Trump-era racism—remained intact.
Nicholas Sandmann’s family, refusing to let the defamation stand, filed lawsuits against CNN, The Washington Post, NBC, and other major players. These were not symbolic gestures; they were serious legal efforts to restore a reputation destroyed by ideological narrative-building. Over the next two years, both CNN and The Washington Post reached undisclosed settlements with the Sandmann family. The precise financial terms remain confidential, but the settlements themselves were widely viewed as tacit admissions of guilt.
At the 2020 Republican National Convention, Sandmann addressed the country in a calm, steady voice. “I learned what was happening to me had a name,” he said. “It was called being canceled.” His testimony resonated deeply with Americans tired of seeing lives ruined by digital mobs and media malpractice.
What the Incident Reveals About Today’s Media
The Covington affair exposed more than just one bad decision. It revealed a dangerous pattern in American journalism. Many media outlets now operate through an ideological framework rooted in critical theory, intersectionality, and social justice activism. In this framework, truth is secondary to narrative. Context is less important than symbolism. And guilt is often assigned based on group identity, not individual actions.
The red MAGA hat became a stand-in for racism. The white, Catholic boys became symbols of historical oppression. And the Native American elder, despite later questions about his credibility, was immediately placed in the role of moral victim. The progressive media did not merely misreport a story—they told the story they wanted to be true, regardless of evidence.
This approach violates every standard of journalism. It’s also a betrayal of the biblical call to pursue truth and justice impartially. Proverbs 18:13 warns, “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.” And Leviticus 19:15 commands: “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”
Christians, especially those tempted to rush to judgment in the name of compassion or social justice, would do well to heed those words.
A Cultural Turning Point
While the media quietly tried to move on, the Covington incident left a lasting mark on public discourse. For conservatives, it became a rallying cry against media bias and fake news. For Christians, it became a painful example of how moral narratives can be weaponized against the innocent. And for the country as a whole, it underscored the urgent need for caution, due process, and critical thinking in the digital age.
Even more significantly, it demonstrated that the so-called “woke” media complex is not merely misguided but, at times, deeply unjust. In this case, they aimed their ideological firepower not at a powerful politician or a corrupt executive, but at teenage boys. The Covington students weren’t famous. They weren’t influential. But they were the perfect foil for a culture desperate to confirm its prejudices.
Conclusion
The smearing of the Covington Catholic boys was a manufactured crisis—a morality tale crafted by ideologues and perpetuated by journalists more interested in shaping opinion than reporting facts. The longer video didn’t merely vindicate the students; it indicted a media machine that feeds on outrage and ideology. That machine is still running—and Christians, conservatives, and all truth-seeking Americans must resist it with vigilance, courage, and clarity.
In the end, this was not just a story about a smirk. It was a story about the death of honest journalism, the rise of ideological storytelling, and the cost of believing lies. If we are to rebuild a society rooted in truth and justice, we must start by remembering what happened at the Lincoln Memorial—and by refusing to let it happen again.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
rob@christiannewsjunkie.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots.
You can always send me an email at rob@christiannewsjunkie.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
If you have evidence that I am wrong about a material statement of fact, provide the evidence and I will gladly review it and make revisions if merited. Obviously, there are some assertions that are matters of opinion that I will not change, but I always strive to be truthful.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.
I recommend these Youtube channels and commentators for good content on politics and news from a Christian and/or conservative worldview: Albert Mohler, Allie Beth Stuckey, Bill O’Reilly, CBN News, Hugh Hewitt, John Anderson Media (Australia), Nick Freitas, Ruthless Podcast (language warning), Scott Jennings, The Hot Zone with Chuck Holton, Vince Dao, and Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Albert Mohler’s channel on Youtube has a daily episode called The Briefing with Albert Mohler that I highly recommend. Allie Beth Stuckey’s channel is top-notch, too.
For livestreaming of political protests and riots by conservative commentators, check out Nate Friedman, Cam Higby, James Klug, and Nick Shirley. I don’t agree with the perspectives of all these commentators and the language of protesters is often obscene. Most news outlets will not cover these illegal assemblies, though, because it doesn’t promote their narrative.
Depictions of Jesus Christ are used in some illustrations. I realize that some including conservative Presbyterians consider this to be idolatry. I respectfully disagree with their position on this matter as the commandment forbids worshiping such depictions, and I do not worship these illustrations.