The New York Times took a witheringly anti-Trump, anti-Bush, anti-Reagan stand on the front page of the Sunday Review. Veteran liberal journalist Michael Tomasky contributed, “No More Fear – Has political scaremongering lost its magic?” By “scaremongering,” Tomasky is talking about the Republican Party’s traditional tough stand against terrorism. Contributor Kevin Baker went further, falsely stating that "race-baiting" Ronald Reagan had launched his campaign at “an all-white gathering” in Mississippi.
After the worst terror attack on U.S. soil since 9-11, New York Times reporter Liz Robbins found time to pity some Muslim high school students who had their feelings hurt, on the front of Saturday’s edition: “Young New York Muslims, Robbed of a Respite.” Another article left no mistaking which political party was on the right side of the issue: "President Obama called it both 'an act of terror and an act of hate.' But some Republican officials have refused to acknowledge that it could be considered a hate crime."
After the murder of a British Parliament member while she was on the street meeting with her constituency, New York Times reporter Steven Erlanger used the front page to smear conservative supporters of Britain leaving the European Union (known as the “Brexit” movement) as anti-immigrant paranoids and “Islamophobic,” in “Growing Dread Over Ugly Tone of ‘Brexit’ Vote.” The online headline to the Saturday edition story really pointed fingers: “Britain Asks if Tone of ‘Brexit’ Campaign Made Violence Inevitable.”
Showing the continuing conflation of big-time sports journalism and liberal activism, Howard Bryant's “Ali Everlasting” tribute for ESPN Magazine used the boxing legend as a tool to condemn American racism and inequality Meanwhile at Sports Illustrated, lefty journalist Charles Pierce bashed the former Cuban embargo for "shredding" the Cuban economy:
On the front of Friday’s New York Times, reporter Damien Cave profiled the city victimized by an Islamic terrorist through the eyes of a Muslim trauma doctor who helped treat the victims. Cave, hypersensitive to alleged racism on the part of Republicans, allowed his heroic Muslim doctor subject to attack both Donald Trump and American intolerance. And Max Fisher made a second attempt to explain why talking about “radical Islam” is misleading: "Why do some consider it offensive? Over time, 'radical Islam' has taken on darker connotations. Mr. Trump, according to Mr. Hamid of Brookings, 'invested these words with new meaning.'"
New York Times reporter Jennifer Steinhauer gloated a little too obviously over the sight of GOP senators avoiding talking about Trump in Thursday’s “In G.O.P., Many Shades of Sentiment on Trump – ‘Never,’ ‘No Comment’ and a Fast Getaway.” Steinhauer dwelled lovingly on the issue, devoting no less than five categories of Republican responses to Trump. One can hardly imagine the Times making such a concentrated effort to personally embarrass Democratic allies of Bill Clinton during the years of his scandal-stocked presidency.
The post-Orlando demonizing of the GOP, not radical Islam, as dangerous anti-gay ideologues continued in Thursday’s New York Times, as Jeremy Peters and Lizette Alvarez demonstrated in “A Death Toll Fails to Narrow a Chasm on Gay Rights.” Peters and Alvarez seemed eager to equate lack of support for gay marriage to mass murder of gays: "And the murder of 49 people in an Orlando gay club has, in many cases, only exacerbated the anger from Democrats and supporters of gay causes, who are insisting that no amount of warm words or reassuring Twitter posts change the fact that Republicans continue to pursue policies that would limit legal protections for gays and lesbians."
The New York Times despises Donald Trump's use of the issue of Islamic terrorism during his run for president. Patrick Healy and Thomas Kaplan's front-page story accused Trump of "a classic tactic of demagogy" in “Old Political Tactic Is Revived: Exploiting Fear, Not Easing It," while new writer Max Fisher went to amazing lengths to suggest there's some doubt as to the killer's motive in “Trying to Know The Unknowable: Why Attackers Strike.”
The New York Times lead editorial Wednesday on the Orlando massacre, “The Threat to Gay Americans,” was notable both for the words it did contain – names of Republicans who the Times repugnantly held responsible for fostering the hatred that led to the mass murder – and for the words it didn’t contain: “Radical Islam.” That’s despite Omar Mateen, the actual mass murderer, calling a local TV reporter and stating “I did it for ISIS. I did it for the Islamic State." Meanwhile, Andrew Rosenthal accuses Trump of fomenting Stalinist genocide, and Jim Rutenberg and Frank Bruni indulge in some bias by omission.
The New York Times continued to evade the issue of Islamic terror in its reporting on the Orlando nightclub massacre. Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns targeted Donald Trump for his intolerance on the front-page under a lecturing headline “Branding Muslims as Threats, Trump Tosses Pluralism Aside.” Also, reporter Jim Yardley fretted about the bizarre aberration" of America's gun laws while finding threats among "evangelical Christianity" but not radical Islam. And the liberal Times apparently considers Mexico not to be an "advanced" country.
The New York Times reacted to the Islamic terror massacre in Orlando in predictable fashion, with muted gun control editorials in its news reports and warnings to Donald Trump not to “demagogue” the issue of radical Islam. Omar Mateen, who claimed loyalty to ISIS and went on a rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando, killing 49, declared allegiance to the Islamic State in a 911 call. Yet some Times reporters did their best to downplay the Islam angle.
Pot, meet kettle: New York Times reporter Stephen Castle unwisely waded into a media bias debate in “’Brexit’ Vote Gives Tabloids Chance to Unleash Anti-European Tendencies.” It also gave the Times a chance to unleash its snooty anti-tabloid tendencies against right-leaning media outlets that support England leaving the European Union, while being blind to irony: "Britain’s freewheeling tabloid press has never been shy about pushing an agenda." As if that’s not precisely what the Times does every day of the year.
New York Times liberals don’t come any more knee-jerk than Andrew Rosenthal, son of the paper’s long-serving former executive editor A.M. Rosenthal. Rosenthal served nine years as the paper’s Editorial Page editor, and his first opinion column, "Why Republicans Won't Renounce Trump," plays on a seemingly deathless themes: Racist Republicans and the Willie Horton ad from the 1988 campaign, which Rosenthal has mentioned at least 16 times over the years to smear the Bush Sr. campaign and Republicans in general as racist.
The New York Times' Amy Chozick predictably celebrated Hillary Clinton as the Democratic victor (in a story filed even before Tuesday’s late night California primary results) in “Clinton’s Trek, Fueled by Grit, To Finish Line – Riding Steely Fortitude to Brink of History.” Meanwhile, an amazing Times headline on Thursday showed outrage at Sanders for having “Stubbornly Ignored” his Democratic opponent's “History-Making Moment."
The press is really trying to put the Democratic Party nomination to bed, on the eve of what might be a tricky vote in California for likely party nominee Hillary Clinton. At a press conference in Emeryville, Calif., Monday, New York Times reporter Yamiche Alcindor actually asked Bernie Sanders if he was being sexist for staying in the race. Alcindor jumped in with this gem: “What do you say to women who say that you staying in the race is sexist because it’s getting in the way of what could be the first female president?”
The front of the National section of Monday’s New York Times featured two race-and-ethnicity-charged reports from Minnesota and Virginia, one trying to corrode confidence in three Islamic terrorist convictions of Somalis in Minnesota, the other on a “Racially Charged Fight” over granting blanket voting rights to felons in Virginia, a move expected to benefit the Democratic nominee in November. Reporting from Minneapolis, reporters Jack Healy and Matt Furber’s story gave credence to far-left conspiracy theories right in the headline in “Fair or ‘Conspiracy’? Trial Divides Somalis in Minneapolis," while Sheryl Gay Stolberg happily followed a felon-turned-voting rights activist around Virginia helping enroll Democrats to vote.
Every year the New York Times tries to ruin the summer movie season with the pair of fun-deprived, politically correct movie critics Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott, who solemnly count up and analyze female characters on screen before declaring the portrayals sexist and the numbers insufficient. The bean-counting joylessness has expanded to another artistic field, with theatre critics Laura Collins-Hughes and Alexis Soloski dueling to see who could be more astringently feminist in grading the current state of Broadway: “Broadway May Not Be So White, but Is It Woman Enough?” Plus an arbitrary dig at Ronald Reagan in the Sunday Books section.
The liberal Euro-philes at the New York Times are at it again, mocking ignorant Britons for resenting the grand European Union trading bloc. London-based reporter Sarah Lyall made gentle mockery of the right-of-center push for England to exit the EU (a proposal known colloquailly as "Brexit") on Friday’s front page by evoking Monty Python, especially John Cleese: “On ‘Brexit’ Vote, British Ask If It Would Be Silly to Walk.” Lyall opened her news story with an editorialist anecdote: "Jackie O’Neill, a 54-year-old administrative assistant, was explaining the other day why Britain should vote to divorce itself from the European Union in this month’s referendum. As she enumerated her many grievances, I couldn’t help thinking of the scene in Monty Python’s 'Life of Brian' in which a bunch of disaffected Judeans sit around, complaining about the Romans."
What’s the real danger to the First Amendment? Trump! the New York Times shouts in its Saturday lead. Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak gathered up opinions from left and right for “Trump Declarations Seen As Threat to Rule of Law -- Scholars Finds Disregard for Constitutional Rights in Remarks That Raise Alarm." Yet after going after Trump for disrespecting the First Amendment, another story on Saturday’s front page dismissed the violent attacks on Trump supporters in San Jose.
New York Times coverage of the anti-Trump violence committed by left-wingers outside a Trump rally in San Jose was distinctly underwhelming, with reporter Alan Rappeport having the gall to blame Trump for failing to condemn the violence instigated by anti-Trump protesters, while letting the Clinton campaign pose as above it all.