On the Friday edition of his Fox News show Tucker Carlson Tonight, the host interviewed New York Times Liz Spayd and challenged her on the anti-Trump bias of the paper. Spayd, the paper’s recently appointed ombudsman took her criticism of the Times’ journalism to what many of her colleagues see as enemy territory. She criticized the irresponsible tweets of some of the paper’s supposedly objective political reporters (“It’s outrageous”) and revealed whose opinion truly concerns the Times brass -- the good opinion of liberals: “....I think there’s a lot of angst and concern at Big Media organizations about whethere we’re going to get blamed by the left by, you know, the half of America that did not vote for Trump, for putting Trump in office."
Congressional reporter Carl Hulse’s “On Washington” column, demonstrated Hulse’s eternal optimism on behalf of the Democratic Party. Even after a breathtaking setback on all levels just three weeks ago, Hulse has quickly switched back into his typical pro-Dem wishful thinking for Thursday’s “Democrats See Medicare as Winning Wedge Issue.” He’s written this article hundreds of times, focusing on some issue -- or more likely non-issue -- that will guarantee Democrats a permanent victory and drive Republicans down
After a summer shower of concern over the left-wing squelching of free speech in academia by campus radicals, the New York Times is returning to knee-jerk hysterical concern over the newest danger posed to “academic freedom” in the dawning age of Donald Trump: Professor Watchlist. So far it’s a rather bare-bones compilation of journalism about left-wing professors that references various sources. Sounds pretty non-threatening. Not to the NYT and reporter Christopher Mele, who filed “Website Targeting ‘Leftist’ Professors Raises Fears of Threat to Academic Freedom."
The New York Times has treated the passing of Cuba’s Fidel Castro less as the death of a dictator than the dying of a revolutionary dream. Former Miami bureau chief Damien Cave’s off-lead story from Havana on Monday interviewed three generations of Cubans, but only came within glancing distance of the truth of the tyrannical leader, treating him more as an eccentric relative than a man who has jailed harassed and left impoverished three generations of his countrymen. In the past Cave has obsessed over hypothetical "income inequality" in a more capitalist, freedom-embracing Cuba.
As part of its rearguard attack against the “fake news” it thinks cost Hillary Clinton the election, New York Times reporter Cecilia Kang made the front of Tuesday’s Business Day with “Fact Check: This Pizzeria Is Not a Child-Trafficking Site.” Kang’s supportive article profiled James Alefantis, a pizzeria owner in D.C. and a mover and shaker in Democratic circles, whose restaurant was victimized by a sinister political hoax on social media. But the paper’s sympathy and interest in such victims of fake news are rather selective. The Times never printed a headline back in April 2015 that said: “This Pizzeria Does Not Hate Gays” when an innocent pizza place outside of South Bend was getting the full social media condemnation from the left, threats, phony reviews and all, all based on a phony premise.
“When they go low...” well, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman goes even lower. On Friday the once-respected economist, who ia no stranger to classless rants, filed a blog post with the offensive title “The Sorrow and the Pity,” a ham-handed swipe of the incoming Trump administration as akin to the Nazi occupation of France. (The Sorrow and the Pity is a 1969 documentary about how the Vichy government of France infamously collaborated with Germany during the World War II occupation.)
New York Times Public Editor Liz Spayd, who takes claims of liberal bias more seriously than her predecessors, might be annoying more of her liberal media colleagues with her latest Sunday Review entry, under the studiously unprovocative headline “One Thing Voters Agree On: Better Coverage Needed,” on how the paper blew its pre-election coverage and was left in shock at Donald Trump's victory. Spayd stressed "....I found myself wishing someone from the newsroom was on the line with me, especially to hear how many of the more liberal voters wanted more balanced coverage. Not an echo chamber of liberal intellectualism, but an honest reflection of reality."
On the front page of Saturday’s New York Times, environmental reporter Coral Davenport filed from Morocco on how shell-shocked diplomats at an international climate conference were responding to Trump’s election victory (spoiler: not well) in “Climate Pact Negotiators Confront a New Peril.” While Davenport went into loving detail on how the international community could punish the United States if it withdraws from the Paris climate accord, another alleged news story ranted: “Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the world’s climate is changing, the president-elect of the United States, Donald J. Trump, has long been on the side of the deniers."
The two stories in the lead slot of Saturday’s New York Times under the umbrella headline “Trump Selects Loyalists On Right Flank to Fill National Security Posts” both hammered Trump’s “hard-line” national security choices. But it was Michael Rosenberg’s profile of Trump’s pick for national security, Gen. Michael Flynn, that truly lifted the hood on the paper’s seething contempt for Trump’s assertive foreign policy philosophy.
If it’s Friday, it must be juvenile anti-Trump fearmongering New York Times. In “Is It Safe for Me?’ Foreign Students Consider College in Trump’s U.S,” was about international college students foreign possibly forgoing American universities, or at least those in “red states,” for fear of a Donald Trump presidency. Another story found a silver lining in a surge of donations to unlabeled left-wing groups like Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club.
ESPN Public Editor Jim Brady on Election Eve surveyed complaints that the sports network had gone overboard with liberal pieties, frustrating long-time watchers by injecting politics onto the playing field. He agreed with conservative complaints that ESPN had shifted leftward, though the company brass and at least one outspoken lefty personality didn’t see a problem: "One notion that virtually everyone I spoke to at ESPN dismisses is what some have perceived as unequal treatment of conservatives who make controversial statements vs. liberals who do the same."
Whatever it takes. Wednesday’s New York Times saw the paper defending the incompetent Veterans Administration and praising “biblical imperatives,” all in the name of opposing Donald Trump. In “Harsh Critic of the V.A. May Become Its Leader,” by Dave Philipps, who often reports on the military for the paper. Became a fierce defender of the corrupt and incompetent federal agency and picked the odd target of Rep. Jeff Miller, considered by Trump to run the agency. The same day, religion reporter Laurie Goodstein took the biblical views of Catholic bishops seriously -- at least when they were criticizing Trump and calling for amnesty for illegals, two of the paper’s favorite hobbies.
Post-election, the New York Times seems dimly aware it has a “red state” credibility problem, but its pattern of coverage shows it has a long way to go. Sunday it whined about how the imminent Trumper invasion posted a threat to the cultural life of Washington, D.C., not exactly a top issue for blue-collar Macomb County voters. They aren’t as comfortable in red Texas, as shown by Manny Fernandez's stand-offish approach to his conservative fellow Texans. Reporter Adeel Hassan got an awful lot of front-page mileage out of a distressing anecdote in “Refugees Discover 2 Americas: One That Hates, One That Heals.” The NYT also asked the question on the minds of red state America -- How does Mexico feel about all this?
Sunday’s New York Times went from positioning race-baiter Al Sharpton as a credible voice of anti-Trump dissent, to hailing the wisdom of another liberal MSNBC host: Chris Matthews. Matthews' horrified reaction to Trump-supporting Rudy Giuliani led off a contemptuous profile of the former NYC mayor, written by the eccentric reporter Alan Feuer: “America’s Mayor Rolls the Dice.” Feuer threw around psychiatric slurs: "Something had gone horribly wrong with Mr. Giuliani. There seemed no other way to explain it....To Mr. Giuliani’s critics, the answer was obvious: incipient mental illness."
Remember those concerned New York Times stories about the dictatorial dangers of refusing to accept election results? Apparently they only applied to Donald Trump. In Sunday’s edition, New York Times reporters hypocritically hailed anti-Trump demonstrators in “Protesters Take Anti-Trump Message to His Doorstep, and Plan Next Steps."
After Donald Trump’s victory shocked a media that was confidently and happily predicting a safe, historic win for Hillary Clinton, the New York Times seems to dimly recognize it has a credibility problem. Times media writer Jim Rutenberg noted in a front-page mea culpa on behalf of both his paper and his industry Thursday: “Most ominously, it came in the form of canceled subscriptions, something that will surely be monitored.” It turns out the Times can’t really shape public opinion, much as the it has tried over the years. The latest evidence is a fascinating story posted to Deadline on Friday, by former Times-man Michael Cieply describing how editors put news reporting on the backburner in favor of trying to shape the news itself, by establishing a narrative of coverage and then finding facts and assigning stories to fit it
Left bereft by the election results, veteran former ABC reporter Lynn Sherr had a long rant on the site of left-wing public television omnipresence Bill Moyers, under an aggressive headline: “Agree: It Was Sexism: It wasn't because she was unqualified or didn't get the popular vote. It was sexism.” Sherr lamented "the tide that turned America into a nasty pit of hatred is a direct descendant of the entrenched male privilege -- and fear of change by both sexes -- that has kept women down for centuries. The same old insistence, barely recast, on keeping a woman in her place."
Friday’s New York Times proved the paper still hasn’t processed Donald Trump’s win, unleashing three bitter articles accusing Trump and his supporters of sexism, racism, and hate crimes. First up, Katharine Seelye and Claire Cain Miller wrote weepily about women whose dreams were crushed by sexist Trump supporters who couldn’t stand the idea of a woman president. Liam Stack spread gay panic, while Caitlin Dickerson and Stephanie Saul rounded up alleged Trump related hate-crime anecdotes to make a pattern.
Thursday’s New York Times, the first print edition to actually deal with president-elect Donald Trump’s Wednesday morning victory, wasn’t exactly elated, judging by the banner headline: “Democrats, Students And Foreign Allies Face The Reality Of A Trump Presidency.” The headline to the day’s lead story? “Grief and Glee as an Administration Once Unthinkable Becomes Real.” Yes, it’s a liberal nightmare come to life. Meanwhile, the paper's public editor had a radical suggestion: Talk to Red Staters.
Thursday’s New York Times was in panicky mode over President-elect Donald Trump, especially from an immigrant and minority perspective, with the paranoia on fully display in “Trump Win Has Blacks, Hispanics and Muslims Bracing For a Long 4 Years." This purported “news” story even recycled leftist Van Jones cries of “Whitelash” -- as if an African-American president didn’t actually win a second term in office a mere four years ago.