Well, the New York Times didn’t actually call former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani a racist in its lead editorial Tuesday, which it has strongly implied in the past on its news pages. That’s about the best that can be said for “Rudy Giuliani’s Racial Myths,” in which the Times attacks its old enemy as a race-baiter for criticizing Black Lives Matter, which the paper referred to as a “civil-rights movement” on Sunday’s front page. Meanwhile, actual race-baiter Al Sharpton is portrayed in the Times lecturing others on race-baiting.
The New York Times’ front pages over the weekend dealt with the awful police-related events over the last few days, culminating with the assassination of five policemen in Dallas during a Black Lives Matter demonstration. The paper fanned the flames of racial discord, pointing a finger at “some whites who feel they are ceding their long-held place in society." Another story lamented how the murders threatened to sabotage the "still-young civil rights movement" of Black Lives Matter.
New York Times Midwest correspondent Julie Bosman learned an "alarming" new term from Kansas conservatives for Sunday’s edition: “The Right’s Wording for Public Education in Kansas: ‘Government Schools.’” Some other sneaky terms concocted by conservatives to pull the wool over voters eyes? “Tax relief.” “Pro-life.” “The Democrat Party.” “Death panels.” And another Times writer revealed how Republicans stoke “racial resentments with subtle and not-so-subtle dog whistles” like (again) “Death panels,” “Knockout game,” and “All lives matter.” Meanwhile, the Times does its own quiet semantical leaps; "Illegal immigrant” is out, “undocumented” is in. “Gun control” is out, while “gun safety” is constantly used by the Times in a matter-of-fact manner.
Wednesday’s New York Times was crammed with condescension and hostility toward racist Brexit voters. Rachel Donadio had previously “credited” “a campaign of open xenophobia” for the victory of the Leave choice. On Wednesday she peppered some left-wing British in writing and theatre fields with loaded questions, and they delivered the artists’ predictable low opinions of their fellow citizen-xenophobes who’d had the bad taste to vote for national sovereignty. And two other reporters toured two struggling towns that had voted Leave, and predictably found racism, xenophobia, and economic ignorance.
FBI director James Comey endured condemnation from conservatives for his weak-kneed decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in handling classified documents as Secretary of State. But New York Times reporters Michael Schmidt and Eric Lichtblau gave him an atta-boy on the front page of Wednesday’s edition paying tribute to his toughness, patience, and principles -- while still chiding him for disagreeing with the Obama administration on police brutality: “Public Scolding of Clinton Fits A Pattern of Taking On Power.”
When liberal newspapers attack less liberal newspapers: Jim Rutenberg’s Mediator column, “Fair Play in a Fact-Challenged Political Landscape,” on the front of the Monday July 4 Business Day, started with a media conflict involving a pro-Donald Trump commentator but pivoted to a denunciation of supposedly misleading journalism on Brexit from conservative newspapers before the vote. (The Times often singles out less liberal media outlets like the New York Post for scorn when events don’t turn out the way the paper wishes.) Then Rutenberg turned for Platonic political truth to...the liberal Politifact.
The New York Times once again conveniently fumbled recent political history (to the benefit of Hillary Clinton) on the origin of Barack Obama’s birth certificate controversy. Ashley Parker and Steve Eder’s “How Trump’s ‘Birther’ Claims Helped to Stir Presidential Bid,” on the front page of the Sunday July 3 edition, laid out how Donald Trump came to embrace and then distance himself from the controversy. According to the Times, the conspiracy theory was wholly a “right-wing” job, though actual facts show otherwise. The Times has long been unable to commit itself to the journalistic fact that the conspiracy was in fact “birthed” by Hillary Clinton supporters during the 2008 Democratic campaign
Back in May, New York Times reporter Mark Landler praised President Obama for saving the U.S. economy and insisting “Many historians agree.” In his “White House Letter” of July 4, “Globalization Demands Obama’s Oratorical Skills,” he went further, calling in Obama to save the world economy against the ugly forces of “nativism and nationalism” of Trump and the Brexiteers with his silver-tongued oratory. The text box portrayed the president as delicately nudging the thugs with nuanced rhetoric: “Making a delicate case amid a rising tide of nativism.
Catching up on some unadulterated Obama hero-worship from the New York Times: Reporter Michael Shear penned his latest fawn-a-thon for the front page of the Sunday July 3 edition, showing our belovedly quirky president still tirelessly working as the day and his presidency winds down: “Obama at Night: 7 Almonds and Some Precious Solitude."
The New York Times’ snobbish, condescending, and just plain crazed hostility toward Britain’s vote to leave the European Union trade zone continued after a political coup resulted in Boris Johnson, the intellectual figurehead of the successful Brexit campaign, dropping out of the race for conservative leader to replace Prime Minister David Cameron. Friday’s front page featured an insulting "memo from London" from reporter Sarah Lyall gleefully digging the dirt and then shoveling it over Boris Johnson's political career:
The New York Times dove right back into a controversy it instigated last month on public pools segregated by sex for religious reasons, in which the paper showed himself to be a very selective supporter of public religious accommodations. The nasty double standard resurfaced on Thursday, with Sarah Maslin Nir’s Metro story on the Brooklyn pool controversy, “A Battle Over Gender and Religion, at the Pool.” The online headline was more colorful: “Pool Rules: No Running, No Eating and, Three Times a Week, No Men.” Nir felt free to mock the “prudish” Hasidic outfits in a way the Times would never do with Muslim women clad head-to-toe in burkas.
In the wake of Congress's official report on the Benghazi massacre, the front page of the New York Times Wednesday eagerly absolved Hillary Clinton of any fault in the attack in Libya that killed four Americans: “Benghazi Panel Finds No Misdeeds by Clinton.” The paper’s inside-the-paper analysis by Mark Landler and Amy Chozick found further vindication, not addressing Hillary Clinton’s moral culpability in the attack but merely treating it as a partisan victory for the Democratic Party’s nominee, just one more hurdle to get past on the way to the presidency: “An 800-Page Report Down, and a Server of Emails to Go.”
After the terrorist attack in Libya on the anniversary of 9-11 that left four Americans dead, the Obama administration at first falsely blamed the attack not on terrorism, but on a spontaneous mob erupting about a film on YouTube portraying the Prophet Muhammed. The White House’s story about the video, put out on all five Sunday talk shows by then-U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, was later discredited, a fact that reluctantly filtered out into the media, even the New York Times. But apparently some Times journalists still haven’t gotten the news.
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."