The New York Times is getting awful cocky about big Democratic victories on November 7. One of the two leading stories on the front of Monday’s paper: “Obama Targets G.O.P. Control of Statehouses.” The other lead story found no worries for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the home stretch: “Victory In Sight, Clinton Presses Beyond Trump – Appeals to Vote Early – With Lead in the Polls, She Turns to Backing Other Democrats.”
Saturday’s New York Times attacked Republican positions on voting from two angles. Reporter Yamiche Alcindor responded to Donald Trump’s refusal to say he would accept the election results with typical liberal hyperbole, comparing Trump’s comments to actual dictatorships abroad: “For Some Immigrants, Trump’s Warning on Election Results Sounds All Too Familiar.” Reporter Michael Wines took another angle, dismissing the danger of vote fraud as a false campaign tactic by Republicans in “How Citing Voter Fraud Became a Political Tactic.”
Even when the New York Times does run articles (not on the front page) about Democratic scandals, it tried desperately to turn attention to old Republican Party controversies. That was the case with two Friday articles involving possible Democratic vote fraud and electoral disruption.
Friday’s New York Times continued to dubiously fact-check Donald Trump, this time on abortion, while positioning Hillary Clinton as a pro-choice heroine of women on the front page. Reporter Farah Stockman hailed Hillary as finally emerging as a champion for women under the eye-rolling headline “Clinton Arrives As a Crusader For All Women.” Even the women she slimed in defense of her sleazy husband?
The New York Times coverage of the final presidential debate was dominated by what it termed “a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy” -- Trump’s refusal to state he would accept the results of next month’s presidential election, along with a cutting front-page opinion on how Hillary flustered Trump. There was also another ideologically slanted fact-check of the debate.
On the eve of the final presidential debate, Wednesday’s New York Times went after Donald Trump cover to cover, with attempts to shame the Republican nominee and a cavalier dismissal of his allegations of election rigging as racist and paranoid, though the Times was quite amenable to Democratic conspiracy theories about Bush stealing the 2004 election. Wednesday’s off-lead story by Trip Gabriel was headlned “Few Answering Call by Trump To Watch Polls – Fraud Warnings Raise Intimidation Fears.” The text box cried racism: “Increasing worry about intimidation focused on minority communities."
The front of Monday’s New York Times continued the paper’s relentless and one-sided assault on Donald Trump’s campaign. First up, “Public Jolted As Campaign Turns Coarser -- Across Nation, Ripples From an Ugly Race” by Patrick Healy and Farah Stockman slanted toward Hillary Clinton while blaming Trump's comments for traumatizing women nationwide. In the lead slot story, “Officials Fight Trump’s Claims Of A Rigged Vote, Times reporters forwarded the worries of hard-left “civil rights” groups, while ignoring justified Republican concerns over vote fraud and relegating the firebombing of a local GOP headquarters to a single paragraph.
Sunday’s New York Times Magazine featured a 6,000-word cover profile of Hillary Clinton by Mark Leibovich, chief national correspondent for the magazine: “Her Way.” And the article indeed went all “her way,” skipping her scandals, bashing Donald Trump and hailing the caring, dogged thoughtfulness of the Democratic candidate. This supposed sit-down with Hillary opened with a long list of condemnations of Trump over issues that have been full aired. It was quite unlike Leibovich's profiles of Republicans, which are crammed with unflattering lines.
The New York Times went after the Republican candidate hammer and tong Friday and Saturday on accusations of past sexual misconduct, while continuing to downgrade long-standing, mostly unaired charges made against Bill Clinton, a man who would return to the White House if his wife defeats Trump in November. Reporter Jonathan Martin found Donald Trump flirting with anti-Semitism in “Trump’s Barrage Of Heated Speech Has Little Precedent.”
Former (and fired) New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, now a regular columnist for the left-wing British newspaper The Guardian, hypocritically dismissed three women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct in “Did the Hillary Clinton intimidate Bill's accusers? Let's look at the evidence.” The subhead: “Trump has tried to distract attention from his misogyny by throwing the spotlight on Jones, Willey and Broaddrick. It’s a dishonest and devious tactic.” Abramson’s dismissal of sexual harassment charges against political figures is particularly hypocritical from the woman who co-wrote “Strange Justice,” a smear job on Justice Clarence Thomas that sided with his accuser, Anita Hill.
Thursday’s New York Times provided a long, unfriendly article by Jonathan Mahler on the government watchdog group Judicial Watch, under a dismissive headline: “Group’s Path on Clinton: Sue Early and Often – Judicial Watch Is a Foil That Won’t Quit.” The nonprofit legal group is doing the investigative legwork on Hillary Clinton that the liberal media won’t do, and the media won’t forgive them for it: "
Judicial Watch was one of the Clintons’ original tormentors, a charter member of what Mrs. Clinton famously called a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' to destroy her and her husband by seizing on any potential scandal. The organization filed its first lawsuit against the Clintons shortly after its formation in 1994, and it pretty much never stopped."
In Tuesday’s New York Times, legal reporter Charlie Savage went way overboard fear-mongering over a quip Donald Trump made to Hillary Clinton during their debate Sunday night in “Pledge to Put Clinton in Jail Gets Experts Thinking of ‘Tin-Pot Dictators.’” Trump’s “you’d be in jail” rejoinder to Hillary Clinton came during a heated discussion of her handling of classified documents, and the media aggressively misrepresented it to liken Trump to a dictator. One wonders where this concern about careful rhetoric and the rule of law was when the left howled for war crimes tribunals for President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Paul Krugman went there in his hackish Monday New York Times column, “Predators in Arms,” arguing that Republican politicians tend to be sexual abusers. The text box: “Is there a partisan pattern here?” Krugman apparently has never heard of Bill Clinton accuser Juanita Broaddrick, or the infamous exploits of “Chappaquiddick” Sen. Ted Kennedy, or Rep. Mel Reynolds, or Rep. Garry Studds. And reporter Maggie Haberman had this weird description of Juanita Broaddrick, who accuses Bill Clinton of rape: "At other times, Mr. Trump retreated to Twitter, where he retweeted posts from an account that says it belongs to a woman who had long ago accused Bill Clinton of rape.”
The second presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis on Sunday night was widely seen as a decent performance by Donald Trump, but the New York Times frantically spun away from Trump’s attacks on Hillary Clinton for enabling her husband’s treatment of women. The NYT's Haberman dismissed a press conference of women accusing Bill Clinton of sexual assaults: “If anyone was wondering how ugly tonight is going to get, Trump just answered it." The Times' fact-checking also found Trump's debate claims false by a staggering 13:1 ratio.
The leftward lunge of the New York Times arts pages as the election looms continues apace. In Sunday’s Arts & Leisure, Brett Anderson hailed the new aggressively “progressive” strain in Southern rock while dismissing conservative bands and listeners in “Southern Bands, Progressive and Proud": "Citing as an example the Dixie Chicks’ 2003 criticism of President George W. Bush, and the CD-burning and widespread radio bans that followed, Mr. Gaillard said it still takes 'a certain amount of bravery' for Southern musicians to speak their liberal minds. Mainstream country’s conservative fans can still operate like unofficial censors."
As the election looms, the standard left-wing slant of the New York Times arts and social pages becomes ever more blatant. Style writer Sridhar Pappu penned “These Guys Are With Her” for the paper’s fashion (?) section. The online headline was provocative: “Hillary Clinton’s Lonesome White Male Supporters.” Another piece celebrated an artist who holds up "late-capitalist demons...to ridicule."
The New York Times can’t stop slobbering over 13th, a Black Lives Matter-style documentary by activist Ava DuVernay that takes a conspiratorial left-wing view equating prison labor as black slavery. Hard-left controversialist Van Jones and Castro-loving Communist Angela Davis feature in the flick, though NYT’s Cara Buckley doesn’t bring those names up in her press-release style laudatory interview with DuVernay for Thursday’s Arts section. She simply provided more glowing publicity in the ridiculously headlined “Examining Modern Slavery In America.”
The New York Times cynically used “the children” to advance Hillary Clinton’s election prospects (and the Democrats' attempt to take the Senate) in Wednesday’s edition, trashing Trump as a bad role model for children on the front page, while hailing Hillary as an anti-bully heroine inside. Jennifer Steinhauer’s Wednesday front-page story was headlined: “Trump as Role Model? Ayotte ‘Absolutely’ Has Second Thoughts.” While Matt Flegenheimer used children again for another attack on Trump in “Clinton’s Call to Girls: Stand Tall and Be Proud.”
Respected economist turned New York Times Democratic hack columnist Paul Krugman bizarrely went after his media colleagues again for being too hard on Hillary Clinton, in his Monday column “Trump’s Fellow Travelers.” He also warned anti-Trump conservatives that unless they actively support Hillary Clinton, they are "profiles in cowardice" and that "you need to vote for Mrs. Clinton." Columnist Charles Blow chimed in with a pathetic defense of Hillary's smearing of her husband's victims.
Monday’s long New York Times front-page story by Megan Twohey, “Her Husband Accused of Affairs, a Defiant Clinton Fought Back,” is all too soft on Hillary Clinton, with the beginning especially tracking closely with Hillary’s preferred image as a long suffering victim of husband Bill’s infidelity. The names of two of Clinton's assault accusers, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, were totally omitted, making Bill's sexual history look more benign. But there are damning bits worth fishing out of the long piece, including her support of siccing attack-dog detective Jack Palladino on her husband's accusers.