More proof that the New York Times will not let the most innocuous trifle pass unjudged for sexism: Laurel Graeber’s theater review in in Tuesday’s New York Times of the “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” musical was headlined “A Red Note Lights an Uneven Field – All receive lessons against bullying, but bucks still get more attention that does.” The online headline: “A ‘Rudolph’ for Inclusion (at Least if You’re a Guy).” Yes: Graber found harmful sexism in a kids musical based around anthropomorphic reindeer.
After television news (and his own newspaper) spent the last eight years praising Barack Obama and defending him against GOP attacks, there’s a Republican about to take office and suddenly it’s high time for journalists to get tough on politicians. That’s the gist of New York Times media reporter Jim Rutenberg’s latest Mediator column “TV News Must Pull No Punches For Trump." Rutenberg praised ABC’s George Stephanpopoulos and Martha Raddatz, two of the most notorious purveyors of Hillary hagiography and anti-Trump vituperation during the 2016 campaign.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is fighting in the last trench, still fighting the results of the free and fair 2016 presidential election that resulted in for him the unthinkable: A victory by Donald Trump. “The Tainted Election.” "So this was a tainted election. It was not, as far as we can tell, stolen in the sense that votes were counted wrong, and the result won’t be overturned. But the result was nonetheless illegitimate in important ways; the victor was rejected by the public, and won the Electoral College only thanks to foreign intervention and grotesquely inappropriate, partisan behavior on the part of domestic law enforcement."
American pop musician Moby (perhaps best known in his home country for “South Side,” his duet with Gwen Stefani), is a Hillary Clinton supporter not shy about personally offending half of his country. He recently talked to Kate Mossman of the left-leaning British magazine The New Stateman about “how dumb and delusional so many Americans are” for having voted for Donald Trump. “Because really -- in terms of the subsets of people who would vote for Trump -- you have to be delusional, or racist, or stupid. I am so confused as to the fact that such a high percentage of Americans are either really stupid or incredibly bigoted.”
The front of Friday’s New York Times featured Michael Shear's interview with Chuck Jones, the now-famous president of Indiana United Steelworkers Local 1999, who came under withering attack by president-elect Donald Trump on Twitter on Wednesday night, after claiming that “Trump lied his ass off” about how many U.S. jobs Trump’s Carrier move would actually save. The headline: “Trump as Cyberbully in Chief? New Twitter Attack Draws Fire.” But it's hypocritical of the paper to condemn Trump on the front page as a powerful person bullying an innocent private citizen, while letting intimidation of private citizens by Obama go unremarked upon.
New York Times former Editorial Page editor Andrew Rosenthal, who never met a Republican he couldn’t call a racist, made one of his sporadic appearances at nytimes.com on Wednesday with “Donald Trump’s Big Idea: Don’t Blame Me” when he casually linked Trump to two of the most notorious mass murders in recent history with the smarmy observation that Trump had been named Person of the Year by Time Magazine, “a distinction also given to...Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin – twice.” Classy! Rosenthal also insisted that Trump voters must take responsibility for Trump's racism, xenophobia, and lying.
Are U.S. elections reliable? Should the results be universally respected and accepted? Can one challenge the results without being smeared as a threat to society or at least a poor loser? The New York Times can’t make its mind up. After Donald Trump refused to say he would accept the election results two weeks before the election (when the media was already crowning Hillary the winner), the Times was crammed with stories about the dictatorial dangers of refusing to accept election results. But when liberal anti-Trump protesters engaged in violent protest in the wake of Trump’s surprise victory, there was no problem. Similarly, the NYT seems fine with Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s expensive recount. No wailing about how the $7 million Stein has raised to fund the recount could have fed a hungry child or helped save the planet, just mildly encouraging reports with no hint of impropriety or threat, in the face of Stein hinting at vote fraud and refusing to accept the results of a free and fair election.
We’re just a few steps away from Putin-style reign in America under the Trump regime, New York Times media reporter Jim Rutenberg implied in his “Mediator” column on the front of Monday’s Business Day: “From Russia Comes a Warning for Americans.” Rutenberg used Tolokonnikova, who has also attacked Trump, to make dubious parallels between the Russian media situation and America’s: “...as an emissary from a dystopian political-media environment that seemed to be heading our way, with governmental threats against dissent, disinformation from the presidential level and increasingly assertive propagandists who stoke the perception that there can be no honest arbiter of truth.”
New York Times reporter Kirk Semple reported on Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro’s funeral fnd retained the paper’s soft-soap treatment of Castro’s tyrannical rule: “In Subdued Ending, Cubans Put Castro to Rest." The online headline even quotes one of his Cuban fawners: “Cuba Puts Fidel Castro to Rest: ‘A Man So Large in a Box So Small.’” Ugh. Semple's article praised Castro's "socialist revolution" and "free health care and education systems."
Presidential visits to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed should be non-political events worthy of non-partisan coverage, but the New York Times manages to shows its colors even in those solemn moments. In the half-page “Obama’s Sacred Duty: Visiting the Wounded -- Trips to Walter Reed Take Toll and Inspire," reporter Gardiner Harris brought a somber, emotional, personalized tone to the proceedings. But visits by George W. Bush were greeted with terse headlines and criticism.
On the Friday edition of his Fox News show Tucker Carlson Tonight, the host interviewed New York Times Liz Spayd and challenged her on the anti-Trump bias of the paper. Spayd, the paper’s recently appointed ombudsman took her criticism of the Times’ journalism to what many of her colleagues see as enemy territory. She criticized the irresponsible tweets of some of the paper’s supposedly objective political reporters (“It’s outrageous”) and revealed whose opinion truly concerns the Times brass -- the good opinion of liberals: “....I think there’s a lot of angst and concern at Big Media organizations about whethere we’re going to get blamed by the left by, you know, the half of America that did not vote for Trump, for putting Trump in office."
Congressional reporter Carl Hulse’s “On Washington” column, demonstrated Hulse’s eternal optimism on behalf of the Democratic Party. Even after a breathtaking setback on all levels just three weeks ago, Hulse has quickly switched back into his typical pro-Dem wishful thinking for Thursday’s “Democrats See Medicare as Winning Wedge Issue.” He’s written this article hundreds of times, focusing on some issue -- or more likely non-issue -- that will guarantee Democrats a permanent victory and drive Republicans down
After a summer shower of concern over the left-wing squelching of free speech in academia by campus radicals, the New York Times is returning to knee-jerk hysterical concern over the newest danger posed to “academic freedom” in the dawning age of Donald Trump: Professor Watchlist. So far it’s a rather bare-bones compilation of journalism about left-wing professors that references various sources. Sounds pretty non-threatening. Not to the NYT and reporter Christopher Mele, who filed “Website Targeting ‘Leftist’ Professors Raises Fears of Threat to Academic Freedom."
The New York Times has treated the passing of Cuba’s Fidel Castro less as the death of a dictator than the dying of a revolutionary dream. Former Miami bureau chief Damien Cave’s off-lead story from Havana on Monday interviewed three generations of Cubans, but only came within glancing distance of the truth of the tyrannical leader, treating him more as an eccentric relative than a man who has jailed harassed and left impoverished three generations of his countrymen. In the past Cave has obsessed over hypothetical "income inequality" in a more capitalist, freedom-embracing Cuba.
As part of its rearguard attack against the “fake news” it thinks cost Hillary Clinton the election, New York Times reporter Cecilia Kang made the front of Tuesday’s Business Day with “Fact Check: This Pizzeria Is Not a Child-Trafficking Site.” Kang’s supportive article profiled James Alefantis, a pizzeria owner in D.C. and a mover and shaker in Democratic circles, whose restaurant was victimized by a sinister political hoax on social media. But the paper’s sympathy and interest in such victims of fake news are rather selective. The Times never printed a headline back in April 2015 that said: “This Pizzeria Does Not Hate Gays” when an innocent pizza place outside of South Bend was getting the full social media condemnation from the left, threats, phony reviews and all, all based on a phony premise.
“When they go low...” well, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman goes even lower. On Friday the once-respected economist, who ia no stranger to classless rants, filed a blog post with the offensive title “The Sorrow and the Pity,” a ham-handed swipe of the incoming Trump administration as akin to the Nazi occupation of France. (The Sorrow and the Pity is a 1969 documentary about how the Vichy government of France infamously collaborated with Germany during the World War II occupation.)
New York Times Public Editor Liz Spayd, who takes claims of liberal bias more seriously than her predecessors, might be annoying more of her liberal media colleagues with her latest Sunday Review entry, under the studiously unprovocative headline “One Thing Voters Agree On: Better Coverage Needed,” on how the paper blew its pre-election coverage and was left in shock at Donald Trump's victory. Spayd stressed "....I found myself wishing someone from the newsroom was on the line with me, especially to hear how many of the more liberal voters wanted more balanced coverage. Not an echo chamber of liberal intellectualism, but an honest reflection of reality."
On the front page of Saturday’s New York Times, environmental reporter Coral Davenport filed from Morocco on how shell-shocked diplomats at an international climate conference were responding to Trump’s election victory (spoiler: not well) in “Climate Pact Negotiators Confront a New Peril.” While Davenport went into loving detail on how the international community could punish the United States if it withdraws from the Paris climate accord, another alleged news story ranted: “Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the world’s climate is changing, the president-elect of the United States, Donald J. Trump, has long been on the side of the deniers."
The two stories in the lead slot of Saturday’s New York Times under the umbrella headline “Trump Selects Loyalists On Right Flank to Fill National Security Posts” both hammered Trump’s “hard-line” national security choices. But it was Michael Rosenberg’s profile of Trump’s pick for national security, Gen. Michael Flynn, that truly lifted the hood on the paper’s seething contempt for Trump’s assertive foreign policy philosophy.
If it’s Friday, it must be juvenile anti-Trump fearmongering New York Times. In “Is It Safe for Me?’ Foreign Students Consider College in Trump’s U.S,” was about international college students foreign possibly forgoing American universities, or at least those in “red states,” for fear of a Donald Trump presidency. Another story found a silver lining in a surge of donations to unlabeled left-wing groups like Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club.