New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse spread more publicity in support of classless Democratic pressure tactics on Senate Judiciary Committee. Using idisruptive, chanting college students borrowed from liberal activist groups, Democrats are trying to force a vote on a still-hypothetical Obama Supreme Court nomination to fill the seat of the late Antonin Scalia. Hulse's column, “A Court Seat Sits Empty, and Calls to Fill It Dog the G.O.P," follows his March 8 column on the same theme, and carried the same conclusion, the one Hulse virtually always arrives at in his reporting: Republicans are doomed to defeat by those wily Democrats.
It’s been ten years since the Duke lacrosse rape hoax, an occasion marked by “Fantastic Lies," the latest entry in ESPN’s acclaimed 30 for 30 documentary series, which aired last Sunday night. Former New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent made an appearance, but evidently spoke in only general terms about the media frenzy, while the New York Times’ own sorry complicity in the saga didn’t get much play. Neither did the Times itself carry a review of the show, no surprise, given that the entire saga marks a shameful episode in the newspaper’s journalistic history.
Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times editorial page editor since 2007, is leaving the position in late April. Over his term he repeatedly revealed himself to be a charmless and classless critic of conservatives. Rosenthal’s many lowlights are featured on the paper’s editorial blog, and he drove the Sunday Review section sharply to the left during his tenure. Before that, Rosenthal provided a vital (and phony) piece of liberal conventional wisdom that helped to doom the 1992 re-election campaign of President George H.W. Bush: Bush’s alleged shock to encounter a grocery scanner, which became a liberal media symbol of his inability to sympathize with the day-to-day lives of average Americans.
Hillary Clinton broke a cardinal rule of the angry left –saying something nice about a Republican who recently passed away. After she was savaged for saying Nancy Reagan had been out front in confronting AIDS, an angry backlash ensued, and Clinton quickly fell into line. Reporter Amy Chozick really let the leftist insults fly in the longer online version, hitting both the Reagans and Hillary in a nasty tone, under the solemn circumstances: "The problem with Mrs. Clinton’s compliment: It was the Reagans who wanted nothing to do with the disease at the time." Then she quoted notorious Reagan-hater Larry Kramer.
Don’t know much about...metaphors? The New York Times was shocked and appalled that a Republican senator predicted any Obama Supreme Court nominee would be treated like a piñata, and said such “violent imagery” made Sen. John Cornyn a “thug, threatening harm,” in a Friday editorial, “Republican Threats and the Supreme Court."
New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse damned with faint praise Republican majority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell in “McConnell Bets That Impasse on Court Now Helps G.O.P. Later.” Hulse characterized McConnell as “so crafty” while loosely wondering “what’s in his head?” as “far right politicians” praise McConnell for his stance on blocking any Supreme Court nominee from President Obama. That led Hulse to his favorite theme: Republicans losing elections as McConnell’s conservative stance may mean “Senate Republicans could pay a big price in November and beyond.
If you didn’t know the New York Times was in the tank for amnesty, Sunday’s stories would prove it. Reporter Jeremy Peters laid on a family guilt trip by strongly hinting that Sen. Marco Rubio was a hypocrite on immigration because of how his grandfather got to America: “Rubio’s Policies Might Shut the Door to People Like His Grandfather.” Turning to the New York Times Magazine, there was the 9,000-word cover story, “10 Shots Across the Border -- This Is The Wall Where A Mexican Teenagers Was Killed By A U.S. Agent Firing Through The Fence. Is the Border Patrol Out Of Control?” Gee, what do you think, New York Times? At the back of the magazine, Democratic activist Ana Marie Cox spoke to amnesty activist and Univision newscaster Jorge Ramos for the back of the magazine’s Talk page.
The New York Times on Friday and Saturday let its readers know that the Republicans were getting what they deserved for pandering to right-wing extremism and xenophobia, while Hillary Clinton had successfully gained the sensible center. Friday’s lead editorial, “The G.O.P.’s Monster in the Mirror,” began with a little implied Trumpian vulgarity, then smeared the two Republican senators in the presidential race as extremist. Paul Krugman doubled down, calling the field racist, while Ted Cruz was heckled and Hillary Clinton hailed on Saturday's front page
Republicans reaping what they sow was the theme of two New York Times stories on Thursday. Reporter Jennifer Steinhauer’s “Congressional Memo” suggested turnabout was fair play: “Ryan Now Faces Tea Party Forces He Helped Unleash.” It’s what Speaker Paul Ryan and the GOP get for setting off “flare-ups over racially charged issues” and trying “to roll back voting rights.” And reporter Michael Barbaro had far too much fun mocking NJ Gov. Chris Christie's endorsement of Donald Trump.
Well, at least they covered it. That’s the best that can be said about the New York Times story by Vivian Yee on the front of Wednesday’s Metro section about a racial hate-crime hoax at the University of Albany. Three black female students who initially blamed "white men" for racial attacks on a bus were instead charged themselves with misdemeanor assault against a white woman. But Yee did her defensive best to make it still somehow the fault of whites and conservatives and to lament the missed opportunity for racial enlightenment.
New York Times movie critics Manohla Dargis, A.O. Scott, and Wesley Morris blessed readers with an even sillier than usual Oscar racism recap in Tuesday's paper: “Watching a White Academy Squirm.”
Kansas City-based New York Times reporter John Eligon, most noted at NewsBusters for calling Kansas Republicans “conservative” or "right-wing" every other word, sympathetically covered the proposed shuttering of an Afro-centric school in Chicago: “Poor Scores Leave Afrocentric Schools Vulnerable -- Chicago Academy, Lauded for Instilling Pride and Confidence, Faces Closing.” Eligon mostly skipped over apparent electives like numeracy and literacy, and forwarded special pleading for the Afrocentric curriculum instead. The Times is notorious for giving radical and (certain) religious schools the benefit of the doubt
The failures of liberal internationalism meets the New York Times’ liberal hypocrisy on interventionism, in an enormous front-page Sunday story on Hillary Clinton’s decision to bomb Libya, and the catastrophic results:“The Libya Gamble,” by Jo Becker and Scott Shane. But left out of the thousands of words: How the New York Times itself aggressively pushed war in Libya hard on its news pages, while boasting that the Obama Administration was beloved and its troops greeted like liberators.
As Supreme Court arguments loom next week for an abortion-rights case in Texas, the New York Times went all-in, with its former Supreme Court reporter and fervent abortion supporter Linda Greenhouse making the case on the front of the Sunday Review section. While Greenhouse claimed a factual approach, she predictably attacked the Texas clinic regulations as an obvious smoke-screen for an anti-choice agenda. Greenhouse herself certainly has a strong opinion on abortion and many other things, including the "inflammatory" Antonin Scalia, who she criticized just a few days after his death.
The New York Times online headline captured the pro-Democrat, anti-GOP tone of the report from David Herszenhorn and Carl Hulse, “Supreme Court Fight Won’t Die, No Matter How Hard Republicans Try.” Another Hulse article described the Democrats' dilemma in pitiable terms: "They were absolutely astonished when Senate Republicans took the power struggle to an entirely new level by announcing that they would not even shake hands with a Supreme Court nominee selected by the duly elected president of the United States."
When you're a Republican running for president, it's phony charge on the front page of the New York Times, but vindication on Page 11. Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who was smeared with trumped-up charges of abuse of power by Democrats in Texas while running for the Republican presidential nomination, was finally vindicated, as the last of the phony charges were dismissed: “Texas Court Dismisses Case That Dogged Perry’s Presidential Campaign.” It was the top story in the paper’s National section Thursday, on Page 11. But when the partisan charges were first filed in 2014, they made the front page, with Times' reporters excitedly reciting details of the "stunning rebuke" of Perry and his presidential hopes.
So what’s the connection between Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz and Islamic organizations in Iran who just upped the reward for killing “blasphemous” novelist Salman Rushdie? Both are “hard-line” ideologues in the eyes of the New York Times.
Illegal immigration (i.e., amnesty) is perhaps the most shameless slanted area of coverage in the New York Times, and on Tuesday reporter Nick Corasaniti did his duty, filing a 1,500-word profile of Univision and its provocative, activist, heavily biased chief news anchor Jorge Ramos, talking about his network’s new (Democratic) voting drive: “Univision Aims to Make the Hispanic Voting Bloc Even More Formidable.” Ramos has shown his distaste (shared by the NYT) for the accurate term “illegal” in favor of “undocumented," even suggesting Latino Republican candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were betraying their ethnic heritage by insisting on the rule of law at the border. But Corasaniti mostly avoided those controversies in favor of uplift and spreading an optimistic “get out the vote” vibe for Hispanics,
The New York Times continues to list portside in its labeling, going particularly overboard in the last several months in using “hard-line” and “hard-right” to describe conservative presidential candidates, their policy positions, and the voters those candidates are appealing to. Yet no similarly unflattering term emerged in stories about liberal presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who take extremist positions on abortion, the minimum wage, and the evils of big banks and big business.The Times commented on Bernie Sanders’ “hard-left policies” on July 26, 2015. Since then, an analysis indicates there have been absolutely zero characterizations of either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton as “hard-left,” and only one instance of Hillary Clinton being “hard-line,” and even that reference was flattering.
Snooty New York Times columnist/Democratic hack Paul Krugman is very unhappy with Bernie Sanders and his Hillary-bashing supporters. Krugman had previously antagonized the left-wing hive of “Bernie bros” – supposedly sexist critics of Hillary Clinton supporters, and on Friday Krugman lit into Sanders’ economic plan, suggesting an economic plan strongly endorsed by his campaign “outdoes the GOP” when it came to fiscal wishful thinking and found its employment projections “horrifying.” The text box: “Sanders needs to get real."