BREAKING: House Fire Occurs. Trump Administration Mentioned in Same Sentence. Coincidence? TIME Magazine Says: Probably Not!
Police are investigating a fire that burned down the home of South Carolina Circuit Court judge Diane Goodstein, who had reportedly received death threats for weeks related to her work.
“At this time, there is no evidence to indicate the fire was intentionally set,” South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) Chief Mark Keel told TIME in a statement on Monday, noting that the investigation into the house fire on Edisto Beach is “active and ongoing.”
Oh, bravo, TIME Magazine. Slow clap. You’ve really outdone yourselves with this Pulitzer-worthy exercise in journalistic restraint: “House of South Carolina Judge Criticized by Trump Administration Burns Down.”
Let me get this straight. A house catches fire. Investigators say there’s no evidence of arson “at this time.” The cause is completely unknown. But you know what IS known? That approximately one month ago, this judge made a ruling that the Trump Administration didn’t like.
WELL THEN. Obviously, these two facts belong in the same headline! Why wait for pesky details like “evidence” or “causation” or “literally any connection whatsoever” when you can just slap them together and let readers draw their own wildly speculative conclusions?
I mean, why stop there, TIME? Why not go full conspiracy board with a red string?
“Judge Who Once Ruled Against Trump Stubs Toe”
“Trump Administration Exists; Judge’s Sandwich Falls Apart”
“Breaking: Judge Experiences Traffic Delay After Previously Blocking DOJ Request”
The beautiful part is that the passive voice does so much heavy lifting here. “Criticized by Trump Administration” – as if criticism is now being presented as some precursor event to arson. Never mind that the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is actively investigating and has found zero evidence of foul play. Never mind that houses catch fire for dozens of mundane reasons every single day in America.
No, no. The important story here is that a Trump official was mean about a court ruling, and then LATER (you know, in that suspicious linear fashion where time moves forward), a completely unrelated potential accident occurred.
This is peak 2025 journalism: Create innuendo through proximity, imply causation through headline placement, and when anyone calls you out, just shrug and say, “Hey, we’re just reporting facts!” Yeah, and I’m just reporting that TIME Magazine published an article, and COINCIDENTALLY, I had a really bad cup of coffee today. Make of that what you will.
Chef’s kiss to your editorial team for allowing this to escape the newsroom, TIME. Nothing says “responsible journalism” quite like fanning flames of political conspiracy before investigators have even determined if this was an electrical fire.
But Wait … there’s more!!
Nicolle Wallace and Mary McCord used their MSNBC platform to insinuate Trump administration involvement in a house fire—a fire that investigators say shows no signs of arson and has an unknown origin. In a functional media ecosystem with actual editorial standards, hosts who publicly float unsubstantiated theories connecting political figures to potential crimes would face serious professional consequences, if not removal from broadcasting altogether. Yet here we are, watching cable news personalities destroy what little credibility their network has left, one baseless accusation at a time.