Former New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, pontificating from her regular perch at nytimes.com, unapologetically urged the conservative Supreme Court justices to embrace left-wing emotional and political symbolism on voting rights: "Would the court really have had the nerve to do it, with the memories of the march’s veterans still echoing for the world to hear and with President Obama making perhaps the best speech of his presidency? In the full glare of that public spotlight, would there really have been no member of the Shelby County majority who might have found his way (yes, the five were all men) to a different result?"
The morning after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's surprisingly easy victory against left-wing opposition, the New York Times was still sore. Columnist Thomas Friedman: "It is hard to know what is more depressing: that Netanyahu went for the gutter in the last few days in order to salvage his campaign -- renouncing his own commitment to a two-state solution with the Palestinians and race-baiting Israeli Jews to get out and vote because, he said, too many Israeli Arabs were going to the polls -- or the fact that this seemed to work."
Jodi Rudoren, the Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times, is often criticized as anti-Israel and hostile in particular to conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the wake of a tighter-than-expected reelection campaign and Netanyahu's controversial speech to Congress, in which he warned of the dangers of a nuclear Iran, the Times truly "doubled down" on its hostility, accusing the PM of being panicky, power-hungry, and appealing to racism.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman found a new way to be hostile to Israel, by employing the paper's new left-wing hobby horse, "income inequality." In his column "Israel's Gilded Age," Krugman longed for the socialist 1960s ideals of the Israeli kibbutz, and had a conspiratorial take on Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress warning of the dangers posed by a nuclear Iran.
New York Times reporter Amy Chozick played human shield on behalf of Hillary Clinton against attacks by potential Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina: "With Pointed Attacks, Getting Into Position as Party’s Foil to Clinton."
New York Times reporter Patrick Healy's news analysis" surveyed the splintered GOP presidential field, the barren Democratic one, and claimed that "Early In 2016 Race, Clinton's Toughest Foe Appears to Be the News Media." Healy really seems to think the press, and presumably the Times, has given Hillary Clinton a rough ride over her career. NewsBusters begs to differ.
After former President George W. Bush failed to make the cut in the New York Times' photo collection of the march commemorating Selma, the Times on Monday showed its idea of political balance. It led the paper with yet another hammering of an incompetent, ultraconservative Republican Congress, while another front-page report critical of Hillary Clinton was hidden under a mild headline and peppered with anti-GOP caveats.
A gushing profile of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in Saturday's New York Times captured reporter Jennifer Steinhauer's typical Democratic slant: "Through It All, Pelosi Keeps House Democrats Moving In One Direction." After being compared to Brett Favre and Cher, Pelosi was sympathetically portrayed by Steinhauer as an underestimated politician "positioned to play vital role for President Obama" and suffering endless personal attacks by Republicans:
Frank Bruni's latest for the New York Times sported an intriguing title: "Despicable Us -- Scott Walker, the Media and the 2016 Presidential Campaign." Would Bruni be apologizing on behalf of both his paper and other outlets, which have had to retract false criticisms of Wisconsin's GOP governor? No. His media criticism was simply window dressing, an excuse to mock conservative candidates past and present.
The New York Times' left-wing obsession over "income inequality" reached a pathetic nadir in Wednesday's print edition, in Randal Archibold's report on the Communist country injecting some feeble moves toward free enterprise to prop up its rotting economy: "As Cuba opens the door wider to private enterprise, the gap between the haves and have-nots, and between whites and blacks, that the revolution sought to diminish is growing more evident."
Tuesday's New York Times featured a front-page "congressional memo" by Carl Hulse and Ashley Parker devoted to the paper's new favorite topic: How the GOP-led Congress is staining the party's reputation for 2016: "Funding Fight Poses Dangers For the G.O.P. -- Battle on Immigration Puts Security at Issue."
The New York Times, having feasted for days on remarks made by former New York City Governor Rudy Giuliani at a private dinner for Scott Walker, is now switching targets to Walker himself.
The New York Times kept on its old Rudy the Racist beat, using the former New York City mayor's recent remarks suggesting President Obama doesn't love America to attack him in a front-page story on Saturday: "His remarks this week mostly drew derision and outrage, and seemed to further distance Mr. Giuliani from the heroic, above-the-fray image he carefully burnished after the Sept. 11 attacks, aligning him more squarely with the hard right of the Republican Party than at any other time in his career."
The New York Times played the race card while criticizing former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani for suggesting President Obama doesn't love America. Not fo the first time, the Times implied Rudy was a racist.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a reformist conservative and Republican presidential hopeful for 2016, has become a media target, from making a stink of Walker evading an evolution question to obsessing over his college years. Next up: Ripping Walker's proposed cuts to the state university system's operating budget. New York Times reporter Julie Bosman took advantage of Tuesday's front page to portray Walker's university cuts as tarnishing the very ideal of the university in "2016 Ambitions Seen in Bid for Wisconsin Cuts."
To understand the literary elite's simplistic grasp of politics, look to whom they get their opinions from: Veteran political contributor Elizabeth Drew, a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books, explained the Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate for the Review's February issue under the headline: "The Republicans: Divided and Scary." And purist. And nativist. And racist....
Ted Kennedy, the late liberal "Lion of the Senate" (as he's invariably called) had his hugely exaggerated bipartisan reputation polished to a gleam in a story in the New York Times Arts section by Robin Pogrebin, "In the Mold of a Senator Who Bartered -- Edward M. Kennedy Institute Aims to Teach Collaboration." Yet the George W. Bush Presidential Library was considered by the Times "disturbing" and a possible threat to academic freedom.
On successive front pages Saturday and Sunday, the New York Times hit from the left presidential prospects from each party: liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton and Bobby Jindal, the conservative Republican governor of Louisiana.
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?