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."
Leave it to the New York Times to turn a garden-variety partisan battle over the Supreme Court into a racial issue favoring the Democrats against Republicans: Thursday’s front page featured “Blacks See Bias in Delay on a Scalia Successor.” Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin, reporting from South Carolina, interviewed blacks suspicious of the GOP, given the party’s allegedly unprecedented disrespect for President Obama. The text box read: “To some, another sign of disrespect for the first black president."
Desperately hyping up any instances of alleged “Islamophobia” it can find, the New York Times on Wednesday covered tensions between students living in a high-rise at the University of Arizona, and the members of an adjacent mosque. There’s not much newsworthy going on, but reporter Fernanda Santos managed to spin it into the lead story of Wednesday’s National section: “University of Arizona Students Hurl Insults, and Litter, at Mosque in Tucson," elevating campus littering by jerky college students into “vandalism” and religious hatred.
The New York Times news coverage upon the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was mostly respectful (which is more than can be said about the paper’s nasty editorial thrust). But the paper’s liberal bias shone through in pondering how Scalia’s death would resonate during the election year. Emily Bazelon’s Monday “news analysis" portrayed conservative rulings as “limiting” and “hobbling,” while abortion was assumed to be a “constitutional right."
The New York Times is again trying hard to hang the immigration issue around the collective neck of the Republican Party. A lead story by Alexander Burns, “Division Deepens In The G.O.P. Field On Immigration – Appeals In The South – Cruz and Trump Assail Moderate Rivals on ‘Amnesty’ Issue.” Note the quote marks in the headline around the word amnesty. There were more politically correct descriptors in Burns' text, with illegal immigrants called “undocumented immigrants." Meanwhile, amnesty was termed “what conservatives call ‘amnesty,’” and it was suggested that if conservatives don't stop talking about it, Republicans will be doomed for decades to come.
New York Times Phoenix bureau chief Fernanda Santos gave out surprising praise to Republican Gov. Doug Ducey in Wednesday’s edition -- though it’s less surprising when you realize why. Like her newspaper, Santos has a history of trying to discredit Republicans on illegal immigration. In August 2014, Santos suggested Arizona citizens who showed up to a forum to express concerns about border security were misguided because, after all, Mexico was "at least 200 miles away” (now illegal immigration is a national concern of enormous electoral import).
Catching up with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: He is definitely on Team Hillary, and on his nytimes.com blog unleashes contempt usually reserved for Republicans upon a segment of supposedly angry, sexist, web-trolling Bernie Sanders supporters, who Hillary’s feminist fans have taken to calling “Bernie Bros," making for an interesting internecine fight on the Democratic side.
New York Times sportswriter William Rhoden jumped on the latest leftist bandwagon on Sunday, heartily supporting controversial comments by the Super Bowl-bound Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton. Newton was quoted in the Charlotte Observer accusing critics of his showboating post-touchdown antics of being racist. It’s been twenty-eight years since Doug Williams became the first black quarterback to start a Super Bowl. Newton will be the sixth. Talented as he is, he’s not breaking any barriers or shocking anyone. But Rhoden took the complaint to heart and found it the most compelling storyline of next Sunday’s Super Bowl, pumping up Newton’s social justice brand into the next Muhammad Ali in “Dancing Around End Zones, Not Around Matters of Racism.”
New York Times media reporter Jonathan Mahler indulged in a celebration of a rival paper, the New York Daily News, and its recent hard turn to the left, as shown in the tabloid’s spurt of vulgar anti-conservative headlines – like the one calling NRA president Wayne LaPierre a terrorist – that have gone viral on social media, in “Drop Dead? Not The Newly Relevant Daily News." Mahler took us inside the liberal hive mind, buzzing with giddy self-congratulation over yet another puerile attack on Republicans, while dutifully reprinting the controversial covers that made liberals go giddy
The stunning indictment in Texas this week of two pro-life activists from the Center for Medical Progress is a source of merriment among liberals, and of smug front-page coverage by the New York Times. Under the umbrella of CMP, the activists ran a multi-city hidden-camera sting operation against Planned Parenthood that documented how the abortion provider allegedly sold organs from aborted babies, resulting in state investigations and hearings in Congress. Times reporter Jackie Calmes’ front-page report on Wednesday carefully linked the state indictment to Republican Party prospects, all the better to rub the ruling into the faces of the GOP: “Indictment Deals Blow to G.O.P. Over Planned Parenthood Battle."
The New York Times often uses its book review to make liberal political statements under the cover of criticism, whether by praising books by liberals that bash conservatives, or eviscerating books by conservatives that attack the left. Sunday brought the first kind, summed up by this online teaser: "Dark Money argues that the Koch brothers and a small number of allied plutocrats have essentially hijacked American democracy."
Thousands braved miserable conditions and an incoming blizzard to march against abortion on Friday, and the New York Times once again came up short in covering the story, though when compared to previous years there was a veritable “blizzard” of coverage. The paper’s Public Editor Margaret Sullivan chided the Times in 2014 for its sparse coverage of the annual March for Life, and recommended covering the “gathering with a staff reporter in Washington...The lack of staff coverage unfortunately gives fuel to those who accuse The Times of being anti-Catholic, and to those who charge that the paper’s news coverage continually reflects a liberal bias...” Yet 2015 march coverage amounted to a half-sentence in a hostile story, and in 2016 the paper also failed to devote a full story to the march.
The Economist magazine often provides valuable windows into world events. But when it comes to American politics, its reach exceeds its grasp, succumbing to the worst, self-satisfied Euro-cliches: A knuckle-dragging, ultra-conservative Republican Party vengefully attacking thoughtful, intellectual Democrats like Barack Obama. The two standards were on stark display in the January 16/22 issue, which covered President Obama’s State of the Union address and South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley’s response. The title gave away the slant: “Barack Obama – A voice in the wilderness.