New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg took his standard place on the front of Business Day, hyperventilating this time about the pushback to Kellyanne Conway’s comment about the “Bowling Green massacre” being a turning point in the battle against “fake news.” The headline wasn’t subtle: “The Massacre That Wasn’t: A ‘Fake News’ Turning Point.” The text box cheered: “The internet acted quickly to dismantle a Trump adviser’s false claim.”
Democrats are looking for a scalp among President Trump’s cabinet nominees, and seem to have settled on his pick for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, a firm conservative and advocate for charter schools in her home state of Michigan. Dana Goldstein, an education journalist who recently came aboard from the liberal site Slate, contributed to the liberal mockery of DeVos and slammed school vouchers in “Opposition to Education Pick Is Broad and Vocal.”
On the front of the paper's Friday Arts section, New York Times TV critic Neil Genzlinger checked out the reboot of the popular serial thriller “24,” making its debut after the Super Bowl Sunday night on Fox. But Genzlinger was less concerned about the action and more about the show's supposedly anti-Muslim messaging in this sinister Trump era: "...certain people, including some now working in the White House, can’t, or won’t, separate the real from the fake when it supports their interests or beliefs...an insidious part of human nature thrives on having somebody to hate."
New York Times Emily Badger dominates all of page 3 of Thursday’s print paper, with “Immigrant Shock: California Offers Hint of Nation’s Future,” a long “Upshot” analysis operating under the unspoken assumption that Donald Trump voters were prejudiced and skitterish of different-looking people invading their neighborhood. She even roped Rush Limbaugh’s 1980’s Sacramento radio show into her essay as a marker of racist anti-immigrant hostility.
It’s official: There’s no escape from anti-Trump politics – it featured on the front page of every inside section of Thursday’s New York Times. The NYT thought it vitally important to tell its readership how fashion designers and actors feel about Trump, and how a new TV cop show featuring a “results-oriented boor” is a painful reminder of the new president.
New York Times Washington correspondent Carl Hulse has been writing versions of the same story for years -- Republicans on the defensive. On Tuesday, he paired his standard trope with the issue the NYT is most liberal on -- amnesty for illegal immigrants -- to starkly slanted effect for his “On Washington” column, “Are ‘Dreamers’ Next? G.O.P. Fears Backlash.”
The front of Sunday’s New York Times featured David Barstow, known for blessing the paper’s readers with dubious Pulitzer bait every couple of years, tackling the story of authoritarian President Trump’s falsehoods, backed up by liberal good-government types, liberal plagiarist authors, and liberal “fact-checkers”: “‘Up Is Down’: Unreality Show Echoes a History of False Claims.”
Some serious bias by omission about President Trump’s executive order Friday on immigration, especially in the New York Times, none of whose reporters appeared to have actually read it. Trump’s executive order has its roots in previous legislation, The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act signed into law by...President Obama in 2015. But that was ignored by intelligence reporter New York Times in his “news analysis” for Sunday’s front page, “Visceral Fear, Dubious Cure.” The jump-page headline: “A Dubious Cure for Terrorism That Indulges Visceral Fear.”
Hysterical liberals are rushing to buy dystopian novels like 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale, regarding them as playbooks for the new Trump administration, and the New York Times is eagerly validating their fears: "...in recent months, [Handmaid's Tale author Margaret] Atwood has been hearing from anxious readers who see eerie parallels between the novel’s oppressive society and the current Republican administration’s policy goals of curtailing reproductive rights." But the NYT skipped a vital alternate reason why Handmaid is selling more of late: It's coming to Hulu this year.
What a difference an election makes: The annual pro-life March for Life, long ignored by the New York Times, led the paper’s National section on Saturday, driven by a little political star power in the form of Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway and Vice President Mike Pence. Jeremy Peters and Yamiche Alcindor’s account was teased with a photo from the rally on the front page: “Thousands March Against Abortion.” The headline read “A Rallying Cry, and an Act of Defiance.” The text box: “Anti-Abortion Marchers Take Hope In Trump’s Outspoken Support."
It happens every year in late January -- the annual March for Life, the 44th edition happening today -- around the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion. It reliably draws to the nation’s capital tens of thousands of pro-lifers out into the winter cold, only to be virtually ignored by a paper that routinely gives out space to far sparser liberal protests. Yet January so far has actually brought a little bit of pro-life coverage. What will tomorrow's paper reveal about today's March for Life?
New York Times reporter Nicholas Fandos fact-checked President Trump under the leading headline “The Truth Behind a Lie on Voting Fraud.” The paper is quite pleased with its new word, like a child who learns a bad one, and shouts it as often as it can. The online headline was even more blunt: “Trump Won’t Back Down From His Voting Fraud Lie. Here Are the Facts.”But is Trump stating a proven falsehood? No, although he provides no confirming evidence. But that’s not the same thing as a conscious lie. The Times then did its best to downgrade a previously respected piece published at the Washington Post to a mere blog "hosted" by the paper.It then did its best to downgrade a previously respected piece published at the Washington Post to a mere blog "hosted" by the paper.
New York Times right-of-center columnist Ross Douthat diplomatically but thoroughly documented the liberal bias and anti-Trump animus in the mainstream press. Of necessity, he avoided criticizing his own paper, but some of the shrewd points he made in “The Tempting of the Media” on Sunday certainly apply to journalists at his own paper. Douthat summarized “two common views among journalists about the fate of our profession under the presidency of Donald Trump,” one of a crackdown on independent journalism, the other “a golden age...for serious investigative journalism.” But he had another worry: "hysterical oppositionalism" to Trump.
New York Times media reporter Jim Rutenberg used the D-word in his latest excoriation of the new president in “The Costs of Trump’s Brand of Reality.” “Disinformation was once for dictatorships, not the U.S.”...was how Rutenberg's story was plugged on the front of Monday’s paper, for his “Mediator” column on the front of Business Day.
"Dark” was the New York Times’ theme for Donald Trump’s Inaugural Address, even in the banner headline that began the paper’s coverage of the 45th President. It also happened to be liberal Democrats' favorite criticism of the speech. Mark Landler wondered: "The question left hanging after this angry jeremiad: How will the new commander in chief be able to work with these people to govern the country?"
As if trying to poison the Potomac water for the new president on his first day in office, the New York Times Inauguration Day off-lead story tried to wrong-foot Trump the moment he takes his hand off the Bible: “With an Oath, Complications In Hotel Lease – Ethical ‘Minefield’ for the President-Elect” by Eric Lipton and Susanne Craig. The jump-page headline, “At Trump Hotel in Washington, Champagne Toasts in an Ethical ‘Minefield.’” The online teaser was blunt: “From the moment he is sworn in, Mr. Trump may be in violation of a lease with the federal government.” Less-hostile explanations were ignored.
The front of the New York Times Arts section featured an exhaustive report on the controversy over the world-famous Rockettes performing at Donald Trump’s inauguration: “Still Kicking, but No Longer Silent.” The text box was harsh to Trump for ruining an American tradition: “A Trump Inauguration Casualty: The Silent, Smiling Rockettes."
The New York Times went to enormous (and utterly unsubstantiated) lengths to portray former Texas Gov. Rick Perry as a oil-man rube over his head as the potential Energy Secretary, in “Perry Seeks Cabinet Job He Initially Misconstrued.”
New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg stood up for the government bureaucrats and left-wing paranoids in D.C. and gave them laudatory coverage: "...as Mr. Trump’s inaugural draws near, in a nation so deeply divided that it seems the political middle has entirely disappeared, perhaps no place in America feels as unsteady and on edge as the capital, which Mr. Trump calls 'the swamp.'...With his 6 a.m. Twitter blasts and chaos-sowing style -- and a roster of conservative Cabinet picks eager to do an about-face on President Obama’s policies -- Mr. Trump has upended the city’s rhythms and jangled its nerves."
If its frantic anti-Trump post-victory coverage hasn't given it away, a new internal report from the New York Times made clear the journalistic organization has failed to learned anything from Trump’s election victory. While the 8,700-word report and an accompanying memo from the brass emphasized the need to improve the race and gender diversity of the paper (but with fewer editors), it said nothing about the ideological groupthink that enabled the entire paper to be blindsided by the Trump phenomenon. “ Reporter David Chen tweeted: “NYTimes recommends fewer editors, more visuals, more diversity.” There was plenty of nuts-and-bolts criticism offered, and some warning signs for conventional reporters and editors, but nothing to suggest that the paper needs to expand its political vision to encompass more of America.