The New York Times humorless, bean-counting movie critics Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott surveyed the fall film season under this pair of judgmental headlines: “Hollywood, Separate and Unequal – The history of American film is the history of American racism.” Dargis and Scott have a regular tag-team movie-ruining-gig: In March they focused their judgmental Oscar coverage on racism and reveled in “Watching a White Academy Squirm.” In the summer of 2015 they indulged in joyless feminist politics. Dargis, a movie critic supposedly concerned about aesthetics over all, is even prepared to deny artistic achievement in the name of racial and gender bean-counting. The text box is ominous: “Insisting on the sanctity of art can just be another way of shutting our eyes and denying ugly systemic realities.”
The New York Times on Sunday attacked Republican Donald Trump on several fronts, including instigating hate crimes against Muslims. Reporter Jonathan Martin filed “Anything Goes Campaign an Alarming Precedent.” The teary-eyed text box: “Long-held ideals seem of little concern to Donald Trump.” And Martin’s colleague Eric Lichtblau fingered Trump for a alleged rise in “hate crimes” against American Muslims.
It's Week 2 of the NFL season, and the controversy over San Francisco 49er's quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the National Anthem still simmers among those die-hard sports fans in the liberal news and opinion pages of the New York Times. Times critic-at-large Wesley Morris had a think-piece at the front of the Times Sunday Magazine, “Stand and Deliver,” while another Times writer fawned over the QB under this headline: "Colin Kaepernick Finds His Voice.”
New York Times political reporter Michael Barbaro, perennially hostile toward Republicans, led Saturday’s edition with 700 words of seething hostility against Donald Trump under the guise of a “news analysis”: “Trump Gives Up a Lie But Refuses to Repent – No Apology After 5 Years of Nurturing ‘Birther’ Issue to Undermine Obama.” Maggie Haberman and Alan Rappeport offered a related story that also categorically denied any Hillary-birther connection: “Trump Drops False ‘Birther’ Claim but Offers New One: Clinton Started It.”
New York Times Jennifer Steinhauer’s “Congressional Memo” was the lead National section story in Wednesday’s edition, dripping with her trademark sneering condescension toward conservatives in Congress for not caving in to the Democrats on their issues: “A G.O.P. Fear In the House: Cooperation After Nov. 8." She wrote: "A big conspiracy theory in Washington these days, perhaps second only to the one concerning Hillary Clinton’s supposed body double, is the fear among some House Republicans of what President Obama and their party leaders might cook up during a lame-duck session of Congress after Election Day."
No points for “compassion” for a Republican from the New York Times, even when the party’s presidential candidate makes a big move in a liberal direction, as Donald Trump did with his proposed child care mandate. Wednesday’s front-page story emphasized the cynical political aspect of the move, while indicating the subsidies were feeble. A related story from Italy treated as bizarre the idea that mothers could be expected to bear and raise their own children without subsidies from the state: "The problem is not a lack of desire to have children, critics of the campaign say, but rather the lack of meaningful support provided by the government and many employers in a country where the family remains the primary source of child care."
The New York Times has covered Hillary Clinton’s botched attempts to hide her illness in two successive lead stories. But as if to undercut that journalistic skepticism, Tuesday’s front page also included a short essay by reporter Susan Dominus (disguised as a “Reporter’s Notebook”) painted Hillary as a sexism victim: “A Resilient Figure Stumbles, And Her Fans Wince in Turn.”
Hillary Clinton may be slipping in the polls of late, but she has one huge asset in her corner, according to Monday’s New York Times: Michelle Obama. Reporter Julie Hirschfeld Davis profiled the First Lady in “Michelle Obama to Lend an Asset to Clinton: Voters’ Trust.” The text box: “Putting the first lady’s popularity to work for the campaign.” In 2014 Davis bragged about Obama’s intellectual dinner talks in Europe, summed up in a text box as "Freewheeling events, with conversations about architecture, art and literature,” and sent him into 2016 brimming over with “accomplishments.” This time it was the First Lady’s turn for the soft pillow treatment:
New York Times “public editor” or ombudsman Liz Spayd is probably not making many friends inside corporate headquarters (and Dan Rather doesn’t approve either) after her latest Sunday Review piece attacked a liberal assumption: “Here’s the Truth About ‘False Balance.’” The text box reads: “For some critics, stories are deemed fair only if they serve their cause.” Paul Krugman, call your office.
On the front of Saturday’s New York Times, reporters Jonathan Mahler and Maggie Haberman shed hypocritical tears over the risks to Rudy Giuliani’s “legacy” -- one the paper has spent over a decade doing its best to slur. The former New York City Mayor oversaw a record plunge in city homicides, led the city through 9-11, and currently advocates for Donald Trump. That last detail was the key to “Giuliani Role Risks Legacy To Aid Trump.” Post-9-11, the Times has rarely acknowledged the “legacy” of the former mayor to be anything but Hillary-hating and race-baiting
In Thursday’s New York Times, sports columnist Juliet Macur followed in the dubious cleats of ESPN’s Howard Bryant in being highly disturbed by displays of patriotism in professional sports -- a subject that’s gotten new life in the wake of San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s petulant flag protest: “Protest Leaves N.F.L. Necessarily Uneasy.” The text box portrayed patriotism as negative: “A league imbued with patriotism must confront some issues."
The networks finally notices the presidential candidacy of Libertarian Gary Johnson, when it can show him stumbling. The New York Times jumped on to his "Aleppo" flub with two left feet -- only to fall flat on its face as well. Times reporter Alan Rappeport filed the giddily hostile “‘What Is Aleppo?’ Libertarian Presidential Candidate Asks in an Interview Stumble.” The text box was unyielding: “Gary Johnson revealed a lack of foreign policy knowledge that could hurt his campaign.” Rappeport even suggested the flub was disqualifying, and played the unlikely role of conservative prude by bringing up Johnson's "acknowledged use of marijuana."
Those oh-so-objective journalists at the New York Times went after a fellow journalist, NBC’s Today show host Matt Lauer, for being unfair to Hillary Clinton and not sufficiently attacking Donald Trump, both during and after the MSNBC/NBC Commander in Chief Forum Wednesday night. Reporter Maggie Haberman was particularly perturbed: “Clinton basically got a two-by-four equivalent in the questions, well beyond emails. Trump got tapped on the cheek.”
New York Times obituary writer Douglas Martin penned Tuesday’s front-page goodbye to conservative legend Phyllis Schlafly, who died Monday at the age of 92: “‘First Lady’ of a Movement That Steered U.S. to the Right.” The Times and other media outlets generally file glowing obituaries for liberal figures, but Schlafly, the winner of the 2015 William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence from the Media Research Center, received a hostile farewell -- a literal “hatchet job,” with Martin likening Schlafly to “ax-wielding prohibitionist Carry Nation” in the third sentence
“Islamophobia” at home and abroad is a recurring focus of the New York Times. Even after multiple reports of sexual assaults by Islamic refugees, and the problems of assimilation and cost, the Times can only see one reason for opposition: Racism. In his sycophantic report on the meeting of the Islamic Society of North America, “Muslims Forum Laments ‘Normalization of Bigotry’ In Current Political Scene,” Ron Nixon had to steer clear of some embarrassing facts, with federal prosecutors linking the group to Hamas and other anti-Israel terrorist groups. Elsewhere, reporter Alison Smale tried to cram as many "far-right" labels into a small space as possible, and David Zucchino fretted whether "a longstanding but latent racial hostility is being unearthed" in Denmark for the nation having qualms about admitting Islamic refugees.
The front of the New York Times Sunday Styles section featured a novelty: One of the paper’s political reporters interviewing that noted expert Cher: “Campaign Sighting: It’s Cher – She is going all out for Hillary Clinton, and her Twitter followers are along for the ride.” From the tone it was clear that NYT’s Jeremy Peters was talking both to a rabid Trump-hating Clinton supporter, and a personal heroine: Last month, at a rally for Hillary Clinton, Cher colorfully compared Donald Trump to Hitler and Stalin as fellow “despots.” But Peters ignored that dark link to Hitler in favor of reminiscing about the time he dressed up as Cher for a school talent show. He also celebrated a young Cher trashing her own family’s Republican campaign signs and hailed her present “reputation as one of the more effective and entertaining Trump neutralizers on Twitter.”
The New York Times is spending its Labor Day holiday plotting the Democratic takeover of Congress and the overthrow of "far-right conservatives." The Sunday Review devoted its entire front page and two inside pages (three out of the section’s ten pages) for “Getting America Back In Gear,” consisting of two essays by two liberals devoted to strategizing how Democrats can take over the House of Representatives in November, while mitigating the “far-right” Republicans already there.
ESPN Magazine’s Howard Bryant: insightful on sports, but prone to suffocating liberal piety when he starts talking politics. As a special treat for fans, ESPN posted online Bryant’s “The Truth” column for the upcoming September 19 NFL Preview II Issue: “Response to protest shows the power of the sports machine.” That would be the protest of infamous San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, whom Bryant predictably hailed as a hero for failing to stand for the National Anthem at a preseason game last week, citing United States “oppression” while collecting a $19 million annual salary in that same oppressive country. Bryant portrayed the quarterback, whom many criticize as hypocritical and ungrateful as well as anti-police (his workout socks featured pigs in cop hats), as “awakening” into brave dissent despite the pile-on of intimidation by the "predominantly white media."
Post-Brexit, the liberal media lashed out with myriad hysterical predictions of economic meltdown and threw around bitter accusations of xenophobia, with the New York Times leading the charge. Well, those dire predictions of crisis have not exactly panned out, but the Times is back trying to pump some life into the libel, by labeling any violent crime against any immigrant in England as Brexit-related. In Friday’s New York Times, Dan Bilefsky wrote: “Fatal Beating of Polish Man Fuels Debate Over Xenophobia in Britain.” The text box read: “Fears that the ‘Brexit’ vote has unleashed a wave of violence.” More like fear among sore losers in the press, who still can't grasp how they could have lost an election where everyone they knew voted the morally correct way.
Friday’s New York Times featured wall-to-wall scare-mongering over Donald Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration, and placed the perfectly respectable term “sanctuary cities” in scare quotes, as if was somehow out of bounds. Reporter Julia Preston, perhaps the paper’s worst offender when it comes to producing biased, pro-amnesty stories (and that's some stiff competition), struck twice in Friday’s edition. “In Immigration Enforcement Debate, a Split on the Role of the Police” featured “sanctuary cities” enclosed in unnecessary scare quotes, something the Times does with phrases popular with conservatives, like “death tax.”