The New York Times Sunday Book Review featured former book editor Sam Tanenhaus talking about several news political tomes under the rubric “Why Populism Now?” And when we say “talking about,” we mean using the books as a pretext to slime Republicans as demographically doomed, out-of-touch racists. Also: Libertarians give you cancer.
The New York Times is still singing the Brexit blues. The Times Sunday Review was full of fretful opinions in the aftermath of the “Leave” vote. Mark Scott, the paper’s European technology correspondent, announced he was becoming an Irish citizen, and former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair contributed “Brexit’s Stunning Coup.” But for fans of 190-proof lefty smugness, the section highlight was the contribution by a sensitive soul stifled in hell (i.e. the south of England), Tom Whyman of the University of Essex: “Hell Is Other Britons.” Specifically, his neighbors.
Some of the endless Brexit-result bashing from the New York Times on Saturday got personal. In her “reporter’s notebook," European culture correspondent Rachel Donadio didn’t hide her contempt for the “open xenophobia” and evident ignorance of the Leave side: "This week, it wasn’t Greece that was kicked out. It was Britain that voted to leave, after a campaign of open xenophobia." Also, White House reporters Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Mark Landler sadly revealed just how much the voters of Britain have disappointed President Obama
After Britain’s shocking vote to leave the European Union, the country's leftist elites (and the New York Times) shouted bootless cries of “xenophobia” to the rafters. Inside the paper lurked doom-saying, paranoia, and “xenophobia,” among other plagues to be visited upon Britain for its reckless leap from the crushing embrace of the European Union, an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy staffed by wealthy elites.
Immigration is the issue where the New York Times' liberal slant is most obvious, and Friday's edition did not fail to provide it. The Supreme Court effectively doomed President Obama’s executive actions in 2014 to unilaterally shield some five million illegal immigrants from deportation, and the New York Times' front-page “news analysis," “Lines Drawn for November,” immediately pounced on what it considers a golden political opportunity for Democrats in November.
Former New York Times Editorial Page editor Andrew Rosenthal was in fine outraged form on the latest “Good, Bad and Mad” podcast. Rosenthal trashed Brexit supporters, Trump, the NRA, and both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, as the host cheered on his leftist ranting. Also, reporter Nick Corasanti defended Hillary from a Trump ad charging her with feminist hypocrisy, and Maggie Haberman dumped on the anti-Hillary investigative book “Clinton Cash” without deigning to name the author.
New York Times reporters Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jennifer Steinhauer lamented the doomed legislative prospects for various gun-control bills in stories on Tuesday, tossing journalistic objectivity aside while all but weeping with the families of previous gun massacre victims. Stolberg’s profile piece, “Victims’ Families Watch as Gun Measures Stall,” was sodden with regret and bereft of objectivity, as shown from the first paragraph: "They are members of the Club Nobody Wants to Be a Part Of. And their numbers are growing."
Monday’s lead New York Times story by the paper’s Andes bureau chief Nicholas Casey was a grim report on the ongoing societal collapse of Venezuela: “Pillaging by Venezuelans Reveals Depth of Hunger.” But in typical media fashion, Casey managed to avoid the S-word -- socialism -- for almost all his report, and in an interview for NPR's Fresh Air actually blamed “consumerism” for the country’s woes, while labeling the late socialist dictator Hugo Chavez as "very much a democrat in a lot of ways."
The New York Times took a witheringly anti-Trump, anti-Bush, anti-Reagan stand on the front page of the Sunday Review. Veteran liberal journalist Michael Tomasky contributed, “No More Fear – Has political scaremongering lost its magic?” By “scaremongering,” Tomasky is talking about the Republican Party’s traditional tough stand against terrorism. Contributor Kevin Baker went further, falsely stating that "race-baiting" Ronald Reagan had launched his campaign at “an all-white gathering” in Mississippi.
After the worst terror attack on U.S. soil since 9-11, New York Times reporter Liz Robbins found time to pity some Muslim high school students who had their feelings hurt, on the front of Saturday’s edition: “Young New York Muslims, Robbed of a Respite.” Another article left no mistaking which political party was on the right side of the issue: "President Obama called it both 'an act of terror and an act of hate.' But some Republican officials have refused to acknowledge that it could be considered a hate crime."
After the murder of a British Parliament member while she was on the street meeting with her constituency, New York Times reporter Steven Erlanger used the front page to smear conservative supporters of Britain leaving the European Union (known as the “Brexit” movement) as anti-immigrant paranoids and “Islamophobic,” in “Growing Dread Over Ugly Tone of ‘Brexit’ Vote.” The online headline to the Saturday edition story really pointed fingers: “Britain Asks if Tone of ‘Brexit’ Campaign Made Violence Inevitable.”
Showing the continuing conflation of big-time sports journalism and liberal activism, Howard Bryant's “Ali Everlasting” tribute for ESPN Magazine used the boxing legend as a tool to condemn American racism and inequality Meanwhile at Sports Illustrated, lefty journalist Charles Pierce bashed the former Cuban embargo for "shredding" the Cuban economy:
On the front of Friday’s New York Times, reporter Damien Cave profiled the city victimized by an Islamic terrorist through the eyes of a Muslim trauma doctor who helped treat the victims. Cave, hypersensitive to alleged racism on the part of Republicans, allowed his heroic Muslim doctor subject to attack both Donald Trump and American intolerance. And Max Fisher made a second attempt to explain why talking about “radical Islam” is misleading: "Why do some consider it offensive? Over time, 'radical Islam' has taken on darker connotations. Mr. Trump, according to Mr. Hamid of Brookings, 'invested these words with new meaning.'"
New York Times reporter Jennifer Steinhauer gloated a little too obviously over the sight of GOP senators avoiding talking about Trump in Thursday’s “In G.O.P., Many Shades of Sentiment on Trump – ‘Never,’ ‘No Comment’ and a Fast Getaway.” Steinhauer dwelled lovingly on the issue, devoting no less than five categories of Republican responses to Trump. One can hardly imagine the Times making such a concentrated effort to personally embarrass Democratic allies of Bill Clinton during the years of his scandal-stocked presidency.
The post-Orlando demonizing of the GOP, not radical Islam, as dangerous anti-gay ideologues continued in Thursday’s New York Times, as Jeremy Peters and Lizette Alvarez demonstrated in “A Death Toll Fails to Narrow a Chasm on Gay Rights.” Peters and Alvarez seemed eager to equate lack of support for gay marriage to mass murder of gays: "And the murder of 49 people in an Orlando gay club has, in many cases, only exacerbated the anger from Democrats and supporters of gay causes, who are insisting that no amount of warm words or reassuring Twitter posts change the fact that Republicans continue to pursue policies that would limit legal protections for gays and lesbians."
The New York Times despises Donald Trump's use of the issue of Islamic terrorism during his run for president. Patrick Healy and Thomas Kaplan's front-page story accused Trump of "a classic tactic of demagogy" in “Old Political Tactic Is Revived: Exploiting Fear, Not Easing It," while new writer Max Fisher went to amazing lengths to suggest there's some doubt as to the killer's motive in “Trying to Know The Unknowable: Why Attackers Strike.”
The New York Times lead editorial Wednesday on the Orlando massacre, “The Threat to Gay Americans,” was notable both for the words it did contain – names of Republicans who the Times repugnantly held responsible for fostering the hatred that led to the mass murder – and for the words it didn’t contain: “Radical Islam.” That’s despite Omar Mateen, the actual mass murderer, calling a local TV reporter and stating “I did it for ISIS. I did it for the Islamic State." Meanwhile, Andrew Rosenthal accuses Trump of fomenting Stalinist genocide, and Jim Rutenberg and Frank Bruni indulge in some bias by omission.
The New York Times continued to evade the issue of Islamic terror in its reporting on the Orlando nightclub massacre. Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns targeted Donald Trump for his intolerance on the front-page under a lecturing headline “Branding Muslims as Threats, Trump Tosses Pluralism Aside.” Also, reporter Jim Yardley fretted about the bizarre aberration" of America's gun laws while finding threats among "evangelical Christianity" but not radical Islam. And the liberal Times apparently considers Mexico not to be an "advanced" country.
The New York Times reacted to the Islamic terror massacre in Orlando in predictable fashion, with muted gun control editorials in its news reports and warnings to Donald Trump not to “demagogue” the issue of radical Islam. Omar Mateen, who claimed loyalty to ISIS and went on a rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando, killing 49, declared allegiance to the Islamic State in a 911 call. Yet some Times reporters did their best to downplay the Islam angle.
Pot, meet kettle: New York Times reporter Stephen Castle unwisely waded into a media bias debate in “’Brexit’ Vote Gives Tabloids Chance to Unleash Anti-European Tendencies.” It also gave the Times a chance to unleash its snooty anti-tabloid tendencies against right-leaning media outlets that support England leaving the European Union, while being blind to irony: "Britain’s freewheeling tabloid press has never been shy about pushing an agenda." As if that’s not precisely what the Times does every day of the year.