A New York Times military correspondent filed a useful story on the problem of military veterans being stereotyped as violent and troubled on movies and TV. But what about when the Times was guilty of doing the same thing on its Sunday front page, smearing veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan as killers on "a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak"?
The UK-based Economist magazine took a snotty tone trying to explain the popularity of American Sniper to its sophisticated worldwide audience, attributing the movie's popularity to mindless pro-American jingoism, mocking it as "more John Wayne than Wilfred Owen." Isn't the whole "John Wayne" caricature getting old?
Eagerly clawing around for a wedge issue with which to split the Republican Party, the New York Times used the controversy over mandatory vaccinations to smear the GOP as opposed to "modern science" and "established science" in "Measles Proves Delicate Issue to G.O.P. Field," a front-page story Tuesday.
Vice Magazine has posted a long, fawning interview with limousine leftist documentary maker Michael Moore, infamous for his recent Twitter attack on U.S. Navy Seal Chris Kyle. Maintaining the offensiveness, Moore found American Sniper to be a racist "mess" and discredits the heroism of marksmen like Kyle, calling snipers "chicken-shit," saying the U.S. was the bad guy in Iraq. And on his Facebook page, Moore compared his conservative critics to the Islamic terrorists of ISIS.
Two Jonathan Weisman reports from Monday on Obama's big-spending new budget underlined the New York Times' ongoing liberal obsession with "income inequality," with Weisman's report loaded with language that could have come straight from a liberal protester: "the rich are getting much richer."
Not content with reporting the news, the New York Times on Saturday tried to manufacture its own, issuing a "climate change" poll with an environmental group, and putting it on the front page as news in order to push the paper's own left-wing alarmist view of global warming.
New York Times reporter (and chief Hillary Clinton follower) Amy Chozick made an indignant defense of the Democratic front-runner in "Clinton Opponents Hone New Barbs and Attacks as 2016 Campaign Nears." She introduced the article, which dripped with anti-Republican sarcasm, with a vivid description on Twitter: "The cottage industry of Hillary hating has never gone out of business, but it has evolved with the times."
After years of virtually always failing to file a print news report on the March for Life, the New York Times this year ran a full half-sentence on the rally of tens of thousands in Washington, in a Jeremy Peters' report that used the march's existence solely to embarrass the Republican Party over its mishandling of an abortion bill.
The New York Times just can't stop using precious print space to attack rival news organization Fox News, based on an exaggerated claim about Muslim "no-go-zones" in England by a terrorism analyst who appeared on the channel after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Fueled by an obsessive anti-Fox crusade by a left-wing French comedy show, the latest story made Page 4.
Sunday's New York Times editorial page came once again to the defense of the Internal Revenue Service against the depredations of congressional conservatives, even suggesting the IRS's targeting of Tea Party groups amounted to nothing: "...payback demanded by House Republicans to penalize the I.R.S. for daring to scrutinize Tea Party operations that tried to claim exemptions under the tax code for nonpolitical groups. Democratic groups trying the same thing were also scrutinized."
Justin Gillis, the New York Times most alarmist environmental reporter, eagerly "undermined" "climate-change contrarians" (the paper stopped calling it "global warming" when temperatures failed to cooperate) on Saturday's front page, under the headline "2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics." But a roundup of skeptical scientists emphasized that the "record high" temperature readings are based on a temperature difference of a few hundredths of a degree.
The New York Times' long-standing support for amnesty for illegal immigrants -- and its contempt for the Republican Party's continued opposition -- leaped out of Thursday's front-page story by Jeremy Peters, a reporter whose hostility to the GOP is well-documented.
The New York Times' message to the new Republican congress? Don't cross Obama. That was the gist of three political stories on Wednesday. Sheryl Gay Stolberg's profile of grizzled Senate veteran John McCain included this harsh attack: "...despite hints that he is trying to reinvent himself from cantankerous Obama critic to elder statesman, Mr. McCain still seems to be in clobber mode."
The New York Times, perhaps stung by conservative criticism of its timid coverage of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, went along with the liberal masses in mocking Fox News, based on a tweet by Rupert Murdoch and an exaggerated claim by a Fox News analyst. The unconfined glee came through in a sniping article by Stephen Castle and Robert Mackey.
New York Times political reporter Jonathan Martin went snide and condescending in his "Political Memo" on Republican presidential prospects for 2016, "In G.O.P., a Divide of Ideology and Age." Treating the Republican Party like a dour religious sect, whose opposition to Michelle Obama's stringent "health" campaign is equivalent to being "a cheerleader of artery-clogging calories," Martin used all the bad buzz words ("stricter...brand of conservatism," "deviations from orthodoxy," "doctrinaire conservatives") to describe the right.
The New York Times smugly explained to Buzzfeed why it refuses to rerun the "offensive" images of the Prophet Muhammad published by Charlie Hebdo: "we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities." So why has the Times previously run cartoons that offend Christian and Jewish sensibilities, without any apparent concerns?
The New York Times ran a lead editorial Thursday in support of Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine in Paris where twelve people were massacred, evidently by radical Muslims angry at its satirical images of the Prophet Muhammad. But the Times' defense of free expression looks like hypocrisy, given the paper's pathetic past in condemning previous cartoonists for drawing Muhammad:
After a massacre that killed at least 12 at the offices of the satirical Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo, the New York Times issued this tweet: "The weekly
#CharlieHebdo has long tested limits with its satire..." So the Times is the self-proclaimed arbiter of satire, at least when it comes to mocking one particular religion, Islam?
As Republicans take control of both the House and Senate, the New York Times is preparing the political ground for GOP failure. Exhibit A: Monday's front-page story by Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse, who quickly got to the "sour note" of John Boehner's struggle for re-election as House Speaker. Exhibit B: Michael Shear's front-page story Sunday on the GOP turning to the courts for what they can't achieve through elections (sound familiar?).
Reporters Carl Hulse and Robert Pear teamed up in the New York Times to lament the decline of cooperation in Congress -- a hypocritical stretch in particular for Hulse, whose reporting invariably has a partisan Democratic tone. The slant was clear in this survey of wisdom from four retiring congressmen, two Democrats and two Republicans. While dubious talk of compromise emanated from the mouths of fiery liberals Rep. Henry Waxman and Sen. Tom Harkin, painting themselves in flattering fashion, the Republicans were quoted as having to fend off extremists on their right flank.