Pushing every available emotional button, the New York Times and reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg used the anger and grief of two fathers to advocate for gun control with front-page placement in Sunday's edition: "Guns Took His Daughter; Anger Fuels His Crusade." Stolberg never even mentioned the Second Amendment while lamenting Virginia's "hostile" attitude toward gun control, and portrayed gun-rights advocates as potentially dangerous.
New York Times reporter Jada Smith celebrated "Justice or Else," an ominously named protest marking the 20th anniversary of the "Million Man March," led by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, the preacher notorious for his anti-Semitic and paranoid ravings: "Echoing Calls for Justice Of Million Man March, But Widening Audience." This year's version latched on to the harder-edged tone of the Black Lives Matter social media movement. But you wouldn't learn anything about organizer Farrakhan from Smith's adulatory treatment.
The surprise withdrawal of Rep. Kevin McCarthy from the race for Speaker gave the New York Times an excuse to issue a series of front-page stories larded up with hostile "hard-line" and "hard-right" labels mocking the apparent chaos surrounding congressional Republicans, being held "hostage" by the party's conservative wing.
New York Times columnist Frank Bruni quailed in horror at the prospect of concealed firearms being permitted in college classrooms at the University of Texas: "Guns, Campuses and Madness." Bruni, a former White House correspondent for the Times, at least found a novel angle to attack gun rights after the killings on a college campus in Oregon, by bizarrely suggesting conservatives want to infiltrate campuses with gun-toters as a way to (metaphorically?) attack liberal colleges. Bruni goes along with the infantalizing liberal concept of college students as fragile, overgrown children who require coddling from "microaggressions" and frightening thoughts about firearms.
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush was blasted by the New York Times for allegedly dismissing the mass killings by a gunman at an Oregon community college as "stuff happens." The Times then invited President Obama to lambaste Bush's out-of-context two words in a Saturday print story. (Meanwhile, true Democratic gaffe-masters like Joe Biden get an "off-the-cuff" pass from the newspaper.) Although the Times accused Bush of having "invited" the firestorm with his comments, it was the Times and other outlets that poured the gasoline by using the wildly out-of-context quote to paint Bush as being flippant about the tragedy.
Religious double standards on the front of Thursday's New York Times: "The Pope, the Clerk and Culture Wars Revisited." During his U.S. tour, the Times celebrated Pope Francis's liberal tone on economic, environmental, and immigration issues. But when he reaffirmed his belief in religious freedom (and the Church's opposition to gay marriage) by secretly meeting with Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who went to jail instead of issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, the Times adopted a puzzled, chiding tone, fretting that the Pope was reigniting the U.S. "culture war."
New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak filed a liberal pleasing analysis Tuesday, fervently insisting Chief Justice John Roberts is a staunch conservative, despite what ridiculous right-wingers may think. His reported opinion piece, based on voting analysis by law professors, strained to show Roberts as a loyal conservative Justice, but the evidence is hardly as cut and dried as Liptak's charged tone would suggest. Liptak has always trended left, as when he faulted the "terse" old U.S. Constitution as outdated for failing to guarantee entitlements like health care.
The shock resignation of Speaker John Boehner has driven the New York Times into a labeling fit, fearing an even more unreasonably conservative Republican leadership team will emerge in the aftermath. A snotty front-page report Monday warned of "conservative rage" and included eight "hard-line" or "hard-right" labels, including two in one sentence: "Mr. Boehner expressed that exasperation on Sunday, accusing the hard-liners, in an interview on 'Face the Nation,' when he was asked if the hard-liners were unrealistic."
New York Times' reporter Jackie Calmes has been the paper's pointman in its journalistic campaign in defense of the nation's largest abortion provider, in the wake of undercover videos by David Daleiden documenting the callous sale of baby organs for money, sometimes without the knowledge of the mothers. Calmes, whose reporting has reliably shifted the subject from the gruesome videos to alleged Republican "overreach," laid out the organization's defense strategy on Sunday: "Reacting to Videos, Planned Parenthood Fights to Regain Initiative."
After the shock resignation of John Boehner, should you fear and dread the rise of a revitalized right wing in Congress? Sunday's New York Times front page featured a "news analysis" on the surprise retirement announcement of House Speaker John Boehner. The takeaway from Jonathan Weisman and Michael Shear's label-heavy story was encapsulated in the headline: "The Post-Boehner Congress and Washington's Sense of Dread." Fear and dread among those who hew to the conventional wisdom dispersed by the liberal media, at least.
A heavily politicized preliminary version of Friday's front-page New York Times story on Pope Francis's visit to New York City was another example of the sudden respect a religious figure garners from the liberal newspaper -- at least when he happens to agree on the Times' pet issue of immigration. Reporters Marc Santora and Sharon Otterman noted that the Pope's "words cut against the current political climate in which the debate about immigration often has a harsh and unforgiving tone."
Jason Horowitz, one of the New York Times more colorful reporters, gave Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker a gleeful finger upon his departure from the Republican presidential race, suggesting Walker has advanced his career on racist appeals in "Dismal Finish Is a Fitting Result, Old Foes Say." Horowitz wrote on Tuesday: "Old political adversaries of Mr. Walker greeted his dour denouement as a fitting result for a politician who they say began and furthered his career here with a divisive style, a penchant for turning out conservative supporters rather than working with opponents, and tacit racial appeals in one of the nation’s most segregated cities. But the irony is that Mr. Walker was eclipsed by candidates who have ignited the Republican base with more overtly nativist and, their critics argue, racist appeals." Those "racist appeals"? Actually tough-on-crime proposals targeted at victims of crime in Milwaukee.
Jonathan Martin, perhaps the most condescending of the New York Times stable of GOP-hostile political reporters, eagerly condemned the entire Republican presidential field as childish and divisive in "Without Calming Voice, G.O.P. Is Letting Divisive Ones Speak on Muslims." Reacting to a critical comment by candidate Dr. Ben Carson about the possibility of a Muslim presidency, Martin took the opportunity to smear the Republican Party en masse, noting that "For Democrats, there is an opening to use the criticism of Islam to portray Republicans as intolerant, reinforcing an image that has damaged the party’s brand."
The New York Times' Jennifer Steinhauer celebrated the faith of the fiercely pro-abortion former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California under a laugher of a headline, "At Divisive Moment, Pelosi’s Faith Coexists With Belief in Abortion Rights." The online headline is even "stronger" in silliness: "In Pelosi, Strong Catholic Faith and Abortion Rights Coexist." Steinhauer strove mightily to portray left-wing, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Pelosi as an unconflicted Catholic.
It's not just the New York Times news pages that lean left -- conservative viewpoints are virtually shut out of the paper's opinion pages as well, especially under the regime of toxically smug liberal Andrew Rosenthal, whose hobbies include calling Republicans racist and homophobic. The Sunday Review section has long been a particularly opinionated outpost, with Rosenthal using the day of leisure to print left-wing essays. The September 20 Sunday Review was a nearly flawless compendium of economic and social liberalism.
More strange new respect for religion on the front page of the New York Times – at least when it comes to the economically liberal Pope Francis. Jim Yardley is the latest: "A Humble Pope, Challenging the World – First Latin American Pontiff Attracts Fans and Stirs Anxiety in Push for Change." Yardley tried to mainstream the left-wing Pope: "But he is hardly a left-winger, either -- at least in the political context of the United States," while portraying conservatives as fearful: "Many conservatives project their fears onto him."
Even after undercover tapes showed Planned Parenthood engaging in morally reprehensible and legally questionable practices with aborted babies, the New York Times is still using abortion as a wedge issue to use against "hard-right" Republicans, demonstrated by hostile, label-heavy stories in Friday's edition, including two on the front page. Elsewhere there was the usual defense of Planned Parenthood, which after all "provides an array of other women’s health services" besides abortion.
New York Times' food writer and leftist ranter Mark Bittman is retiring, and sent himself off in the paper's Sunday Review with a seven-course feast of his usual Krugman-esque pomposity and shameless left-wing inanities under the guise of food writing. NewsBusters has long documented Bittman's limitless appetite for intrusive government in the name of safety. Bittman's self-send-off in the Sunday Review regurgitated many of his hard-to-swallow premises, like limiting the speech of food marketers and pushing for a $15 minimum wage.
A recent outbreak of anti-Israel bias hit the New York Times. There was backlash over the paper's offensive "Jewish?" chart on Democrats opposd to Obama's Iran deal, as the paper's public editor responded to the chart under the heading, "Times Was Right to Change Insensitive Graphic." Meanwhile, editors placed the "stinging defeat" of a pro-Israel organization on the front page. There was also...Steven Colbert and a boycott of Israeli hummus?
Like a Monty Python skit gone tragic, the New York Times actually ran a chart labeling Democratic lawmakers against Obama's controversial nuclear deal with Iran as "Jewish?" or not (the "Jewish?" part was removed online after outcry). The four chart headings read: "Democrats against the deal – Jewish? – District and estimated Jewish population – Vote with party." Under "Democrats against the deal," the names were arranged out of alphabetical order solely to enable the Times to stack all the "Yes" names that qualified as "Jewish?" at the top of the chart.