More proof arrived on Sunday that the New York Times will never forgive conservative Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for successfully taming his state's public unions and then surviving an expensive, union-funded recall election. Contributing “writer and musician” Dan Kaufman: “The Destruction of Progressive Wisconsin.” The text box: “Scott Walker has turned his state into a laboratory for the evisceration of labor.”
New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse and White House scribe Julie Hirschfeld Davis teamed up to paint the president as wringing his hands over the current divided state of U.S. politics. One potential culprit almost wholly exonerated? The president himself. Thursday’s report, “Obama’s Plea to ‘Fix Our Politics’ Has Both Sides Looking Inward,” portrayed Obama as regretful, while skipping his bouts of arrogance and the clear animosity he feels toward his GOP opposition. They also pinned the beginning of the division to Robert Bork's failed Supreme Court nomination, without mentioning Sen. Ted Kennedy's scurrilous anti-Bork speech.
The New York Times has long maintained a gross double standard of coverage when it comes to Israel’s security. Palestinian terrorists who target Jewish civilians are rarely if ever described as terrorists. Even violently anti-Israel groups like Hamas are at worst “militants” in the Times, or even noted for their “roots in charity.” The ultimate Palestinian terrorist, PLO leader Yassir Arafat, was merely a “father figure of Palestinian nationalism” with a “heroic history.” The Times stepped shamelessly across yet another line of balance in Tuesday’s edition, using the word “terrorism” in a headline about terrorism in Israel – when committed by Israeli Jews
Reasonable people agree that Americans fear of Islamic terrorism is irrational. Unfortunately, President Obama can't say that in public. That’s the thrust of New York Times reporter Peter Baker's “news analysis” on Tuesday’s front page, before Obama’s last State of the Union Address: “A Speech to Balance Terror and Reality.” Baker’s pre-game analysis dovetailed with the administration’s condescending attitude toward the terror fears of their fellow Americans.
In Sunday’s New York Times White House reporter turned columnist Frank Bruni bashed Ted Cruz and Donald Trump in vitriolic tones in “Obnoxiousness Is the New Charisma.” The text box said it all: “Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are smug, mean and in the lead.” Bruni also snuck in snide liberal media descriptions of Cruz and Trump and treated them as conventional wisdom, while revealing some possible cultural blind spots about the voters he deigns to comment on. Meanwhile, "conservative" columnist David Brooks penned "The Brutalism of Ted Cruz."
It’s an old New York Times labeling trick: Find the bad guys, and stamp the “conservative” label on them -- even if they are Soviet Communists -- the enemy of U.S. conservatives during the Cold War. The Times insists on describing Muslim migrants, in the news for sex attacks in Germany, as hailing from “conservative” societies (then turning around and accusing Western conservatives of “Islamophobia”).
The New York Times, an outlet that has respectfully pondered the idea of a flourishing “rape culture” in the United States, and which irresponsibly furthered false accusations against three Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape by a stripper in 2006, suddenly doesn’t think sexual harassment is worth talking about. Or at least not when the accused is Democratic “big dog” Bill Clinton, and the topic might risk his wife becoming president in 2016. After Donald Trump re-injected Clinton’s sordid sexual past into the news stream, the paper responded with an editorial accusing Trump of trying to “tar” Hillary Clinton in “sexist fashion” to her husband’s dark sexual past – even though Hillary herself tore down the reputations of her husband’s accusers in order to save the couples’ political skin.
New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters took a testy tone on Tuesday with Republican presidential candidates who dared raise substantive concerns about the Obama administration’s ineffectual response to the Islamic terror threat: “Republicans Turn Up Heat in Iowa as They Set Aside Good for Bad and Ugly.” The text box read: “A new mood for the new year among the G.O.P. contenders.” Actually, it’s the same old sour GOP, according to the paper’s previous reporting, which also accused Republican candidates of sounding “dark notes” on various other issues.
No more worrying about the corrupting effect of money in politics at the New York Times – as long as the loot is used to fight gun rights, state by state. Before President Obama’s executive actions on gun control announced Tuesday morning, Times reporter Eric Lichtblau helped paved the way, celebrating a billionaire’s vast political reach on Monday’s front page in “Battleground Shifts In Debate On Gun Control -- Obama Is Set To Act – Buoyed With New Cash, Groups Notch Small Wins vs. N.R.A.” The moneyman in this case would be former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson purchased the Las Vegas Review Journal newspaper last month, and the New York Times is obsessed. The paper put a conspiratorial Sunday front-page spotlight on Adelson (who is, not coincidentally, a major Republican donor) and his legal clashes with a Nevada judge: “Mogul’s Purchase of Las Vegas Newspaper Is Seen as Power Play." Also suspect: A free paper Adelson distributes in Israel “has been accused of supporting the conservative positions of Benjamin Netanyahu.” Of course, the Times never worries about being accused of supporting the liberal positions of Barack Obama.
The rich are "horrible people" -- at least those who lean to the right -- declares economist turned pompous New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in Friday’s “Privilege, Pathology and Power.” The text box: “Can we survive rule by self-centered billionaires?” (Liberal billionaire activist George Soros had no comment.) Krugman channeled opportunistic moralism, citing “science” to confirm his prejudices that rich people who disagree with him politically are bad, bad folks, though Krugman is no prince of humility and civility himself.
Donald Trump called out Hillary Clinton for hypocrisy in accusing the GOP of being anti-woman, yet relying on serial philanderer Bill Clinton’s help while running for president. But you wouldn’t have learned that until deep into the front-page story in Wednesday’s New York Times. Political reporter Amy Chozick spent the first several paragraphs piling up shallow evidence of the former friendship between Trump and Bill Clinton in order to accuse Trump of treachery, while dodging and ducking the serious sexual accusations long festering around the former president.
In Saturday’s New York Times, reporter Matt Flegenheimer took a hostile tone in an ostensibly light-hearted story about Jeb Bush’s surprising reserves of humor in Saturday’s “Bush Camp Suggests (Very) Secret Weapon: Its Candidate Is Funny.” Turns out Jeb! has a decent line in dry wit, but the Times resolutely refused to be amused by the struggling Republican candidate: “Who says @JebBush doesn’t have a sense of humor!” his top adviser, Sally Bradshaw, asked on Twitter....The list is long: allies, foes, former aides."
The New York Times’ Christmas Day editorial got off to a wonderful start with a tribute to the astronauts of Apollo 8, the first humans to orbit the moon. But it quickly fell back to earth, as the liberals on the editorial board took advantage of the season to interpret peace on earth and goodwill toward men as a Christmas wish list for the left wing, celebrating Black Lives Matter, gay marriage, the climate change accord, and Syrian refugees, while putting America on the naughty list.
On Christmas Eve the New York Times pushed the NBA’s new gun control campaign (that's NBA, not NRA), both on the front page and the front of the Sports section. The sports editors really performed a full-court press, taking a local angle with an over-the-top deck of headlines above an enormous picture of New York Knicks player Carmelo Anthony: “Trying to Drown Out The Din of Gunshots – No Stranger to Despair, Anthony Joins Other Stars in Speaking Up for a Cause.” As long as it’s a cause approved of by the liberal Times, anyway.
Liberal blinders fastened tight, the New York Times set up inflammatory race-baiter turned MSNBC host Al Sharpton as an arbiter of someone else’s racism on Tuesday’s front page. Maggie Haberman and Steve Eder’s report, “Trump’s Rise Divides the Black Celebrities He Calls His Friends,” is just the latest in a depressing series of Sharpton suckups from the New York Times. The Times has taken enormous pains over the years to ignore Rev. Al’s numerous racial controversies all the while calling him a civil rights “leader.
New York Times White House reporter Julie Hirschfeld Davis is sending Barack Obama into 2016 in style, with three successive stories focusing on various flattering angles of the president, who is shedding the lame duck stereotype and laying down accomplishments -- at least according to Davis -- although the poor president can’t enjoy a holiday getaway without world events intruding. On Monday she penned “Relishing a Respite in Hawaii, but Reality Is Never Far Away,” which portrayed as a burden the president’s visit with families of the victims of the San Bernardino attacks
The lead story in Saturday's New York Times heaped praise upon the passage of a package of spending increases: “Avoiding Rancor, Congress Passes A Fiscal Package -- $1.8 Trillion Measure – Spending Rise and New Tax Breaks Suggest End of Austerity." This big-spending budget earned Ryan some strange new respect, with reporter David Herszenhorn praising his “deftness in pacifying rebellious conservatives.” A copy editor gave Ryan a pat on the back in a text box: “A successful effort by Republicans to show that they can govern effectively.”
President Obama spoke off the record to news columnists, in a defensive response to Republican criticism that he has seemed passive and uninterested in the face of Islamic terror attacks against the United States. In a news story about the meeting New York Times reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris revealed this damning admission from the president: "In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments." So why was that sentence was deleted from the version that appeared in Friday’s print edition?
Thursday’s New York Times was particularly dense with bias against the "hard-right" and "far-right" Republican Party, starting on the front page, where a story about Latino candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio turned into a criticism of GOP immigration policy, and reaching the back page, with an editorial hitting the Republican Party for its "Appalling Silence on Gun Control" (the candidates "dwelled darkly" about the actual threat of Islamic terorrism instead).