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).
The latest from New York Times reporter Kirk Semple on the front page of Tuesday’s Times, “Muslim Youth in U.S. Feel Strain of Suspicion,” demonstrates that the paper’s strongest impulse after Islamic terror attacks is not to investigate what went wrong but to fret over perceived, anecdotal “Islamophobia” among their fellow citizens. It’s much like his previous, anecdote-heavy, statistic-free “CAIR” package (as in Council on American-Islamic Relations) that Semple delivered in late November, an article completely dominated by CAIR sources in which Semple quite comfortably accused his fellow Americans of Islamophobia on the basis of anecdotes.
In his Thursday front-page New York Times profile of "gruff" Sen. Ted Cruz, Matt Flegenheimer took pains to portray the Texas senator and Republican candidate as an unlikeable, socially awkward “bomb-thrower” ideologue (“appraised as grating and pompous as a matter of bipartisan consensus”) in “Cruz the Gruff Taking a Turn At Being Nice.” The online headline was no less hostile: "After Making Enemies, Ted Cruz Tries to Make Friends.” Never mind his surge in Iowa. Flegenheimer’s opinionated profile piece, which characterized Cruz’s demeanor as growling and rhetoric as “apocalyptic,” was more suitable for a guest essay in the magazine than an ostensibly balanced front-page news story from a political reporter.
Reporters Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman made Sunday's New York Times front page with a deep and deeply fear-mongering analysis of “demagogue” Donald Trump’s stump speeches: "95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Trump’s Tongue." But things that two Times reporters find “ominous” may not scare a more moderate reader, such as pointing out that ISIS chops off the heads of their victims.
The front page of Saturday's New York Times, next to the paper's already infamous front-page gun-control editorial, claimed that "Shootings in California Reshape the Campaigns." The language used by reporters Michael Barbaro and Trip Gabriel, was quite revealing. See how the Republican presidential candidates "angrily demanded...[rode a] rising tide of bellicosity... seethed with disgust for Democrats...Their language was almost apocalyptic..." Meanwhile they missed the "nuance" of Democratic gun-control proposals. And the paper's religion reporter Laurie Goodstein seemed to fear "Islamophobia" more than Islamic terrorism, though FBI stats show that anti-Semitic attacks are far more common.
After the massacre by radical Islamists who killed 14 and wounded 21 more in San Bernardino, Calif., the New York Times took its tasteless grandstanding on gun control literally to the front, in a rare front-page editorial, "The Gun Epidemic" calling for bans on civilian ownership for certain types of rifles and ammunition. After joining the New York Daily News' anti-prayer brigade, the publicity stunt of an editorial briefly bowed to reality to admit that yes, there have been mass murders in countries with stringent gun control laws. Their rebuttal is a perfect encapsulation of liberal wishful thinking: "But at least those countries are trying."
Patrick Healy reported in Thursday's New York Times that "Skittish Over Terrorism, Some Voters Seek a Gutsy Style of Leader." "Skittish" [excitable, easily scared] is a pretty condescending way to characterize the American public's legitimate fears of terrorism. But far worse is Healy's inference that Republican rhetoric on Syrian refugees had stoked threats against mosques. He also linked the rough treatment of a Black Lives Matter activist who disrupted a Trump rally to a shooting at a BLM protest in Minneapolis
The New York Times' coverage of the international climate change summit in Paris remained on an aggressive boil, as Coral Davenport and Gardiner Harris' report from France Tuesday, "Citing Urgency, World Leaders Converge on France for Climate Meeting," hit the same set of alarmist notes Davenport did in her previous story from Paris. And Justin Gillis, the paper's most alarmist environmental reporter, accused libertarians and conservatives of bad faith, taking funding from Big Oil, and "cherry-picking" data under the headline "Why do people question climate change? -- Hint: ideology."
Hyperbole much? The New York Times brought predictably alarmist and overheated coverage to the climate talks in Paris, while lauding President Obama's attempt to make a legacy fighting "global warming." Environmental Reporter Coral Davenport gushed: "On Sunday night he arrives in Paris, hoping to make climate policy the signature environmental achievement of his, and perhaps any, presidency." In a later story she warned "If the talks fail...then nations will continue on a trajectory that scientists say locks the planet into a future of rising sea levels, more frequent floods, worsening droughts, food and water shortages, destructive hurricanes and other catastrophic events."
Two recent opinion pieces in the New York Times, one by a veteran reporter turned columnist, another featured in the Times' Sunday magazine, launched viciously hard-left attacks on Republicans on the issues of immigration and refugees. Timothy Egan's column, "Donald Trump's Police State," went so far as to compare Republican attendees at a Trump rally to "rabid brown shirts in Dockers" and that his deportation proposals "would prompt a million Hispanic Anne Franks -- people hiding in the attics and basements of Donald Trump’s America." Meanwhile, novelist Laila Lalami compared ISIS's rhetoric to that of President George W. Bush:
Sports and politics are an uneasy mix, but ESPN's "The Truth" columnist Howard Bryant sees no conflict from his end-zone perch at the back of ESPN's biweekly magazine. His column for the December 7 edition tackled a mini-scandal about the Pentagon paying for patriotic displays at professional ball games: "Are You Ready for Some Patriotism?" Bryant went beyond genuine concerns over the sub-rosa marketing by the Pentagon to criticize any such respectful acts as pandering to police. Going full p.c., Bryant even argued that Veterans Day was a slap in the face to American Indians.
It took two weeks after the mass slaughter by radical Islamists in Paris, but the New York Times finally finds itself comfortable with raising the false spectre of American "Islamophobia," with an enormous assist from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the so-called civil-rights organization many consider a Muslim pressure group, and whose ties to Hamas have been documented in federal court and by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer. Reporter Kirk Semple breezed past all that to repeatedly cite CAIR in Thursday's Metro story: "'I'm Frightened': After Attacks in Paris, New York Muslims Cope With a Backlash." The group was mentioned no less than four times in different contexts, making one wonder just where the Times' "Islamophobia" angle originated.
There was an interesting lead editorial in Wednesday's New York Times, forcefully in favor of demands from a black protest group at Princeton University to erase President Woodrow Wilson's name from the university's public policy institute because of his vile racial views and support for Jim Crow. Yet one could ask once again, where was this editorial concern five years ago, when it was leading conservatives like Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg who were making that very same case against the progressive hero Wilson? A man endorsed twice for president by none other than the New York Times itself?
It's suddenly acceptable in the New York Times to call liberal hero Woodrow Wilson a racist, now that a black campus pressure group is making demands that Princeton University strike the name of Wilson, former president of the university, from the name of its public policy school. Yet for years, prominent conservatives have reminded liberals of the blatant racism and discrimination practiced by the Democrat (an ID the Times failed to note), and the New York Times ignored those embarrassing facts when coming from the right.