The big-government supporters at the New York Times offered two classic big-government news stories on the front of its Business section two days in a row. On Friday: "Government Spending, Edging Up, Is a Stimulus." The text box underlined the pro-government spending sentiment: "The public sector is once again adding to prosperity." On Thursday: "Hourly Wage Is Going Up for Millions." The online headline was biased: "States' Minimum Wages Rise, Helping Millions of Workers."
On the heels of news that Republican majority whip Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana may have addressed a white nationalist group founded by David Duke, New York Times reporter Jeremy Alford did his best to smear today's Republican Party by linking it to the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan: "Much of David Duke’s ’91 Campaign Is Now in Louisiana Mainstream." Guilt by association is popular in the media when yoking fringe right-wing figures to the Republican Party, though Democrats never have to worry.
Tuesday's lead New York Times editorial on the battle took the side of left-wing New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio in his tussle with the NYPD, under the striking headline, "Police Respect, Squandered." To which a regular reader of the paper could retort, what "respect" did the paper ever show the NYPD in the first place?
A Christmas Day article in the New York Times left no doubt which party they would leave a lump of coal for. The paper impressively managed to spin a current controversy into a problem solely for the Republican side -- as if crime has not long been a losing election issue for the Democrats -- by portraying the GOP as making knee-jerk, stiff-necked appeals to white fear.
A new congressional report on the IRS persecution of conservative groups in the run-up to the 2012 election? Nothing to see here, the New York Times' headline blared. The paper set the bar sky-high for anti-Obama scandal, using the evident lack of a smoking gun linking IRS persecution to the White House as an excuse to completely dismiss the scandal. The Washington Post was little better.
New York Times reporter Damien Cave reported from Havana that Obama's liberalized policy shift toward Cuba meant that that country was finished with its "venerable....leader" (not ruthless dictator) Fidel Castro, and also took a shot at "stiff-backed critics of Fidel’s government." As Miami bureau chief, Cave fostered a bizarre obsession with hypothetical inequality that might transpire in a freer Cuba.
Surprising news that President Obama would normalize relations with Cuba by establishing full diplomatic relations while easing restrictions excited reporters and editorial writers at the New York Times, who saw the demise of the "dinosaurs" and "aging...hard-liners" who opposed liberalizing ties to the authoritarian Cuban government.
An epic example of fanciful, fatuous liberalism featured in the most recent New York Times Sunday Review, a screed from Times food writer Mark Bittman that tried to tie in every single current event into a neat package labeled Republican Evil: "The police killing unarmed civilians. Horrifying income inequality. Rotting infrastructure and an unsafe "safety net." An inability to respond to climate, public health and environmental threats. A food system that causes disease. An occasionally dysfunctional and even cruel government. A sizable segment of the population excluded from work and subject to near-random incarceration. You get it: This is the United States, which, with the incoming Congress, might actually get worse."
Two recent Q&A sessions by New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg for the paper's Sunday magazine made for a convenient encapsulation of the paper's liberal double standards, with challenging, testy questions thrown at conservative Iowa Rep. Steve King in this Sunday's edition, versus a sympathetic, almost fawning session with lefty "Doonesbury" cartoonist Gerry Trudeau last month.
Saturday's front-page report on Jeb Bush, "Looking to ’16, Another Bush Stakes Out the Middle Ground," marks the latest New York Times profile to flatter the moderate Republican, at least in comparison to those "hard-line" right-wing conservatives. But such reportorial flattery from the Times would end the day Jeb Bush won the Republican primary, as John McCain found out in 2008.
While the New York Times allows inflammatory race-baiters like Al Sharpton to get away with spouting about racial justice, and global warming activists like Al Gore can fly around the world with impunity before returning to one of their energy-sucking estates, the paper reliably plays the hypocrisy card against conservative politicians who fail to adhere to moral values.
"Why was he holding back?" The New York Times sniped at President Obama from the left on the front of Tuesday's edition, disappointed by the insufficient fire displayed by the president over the recent incidents of black men being killed by police officers, with no conservative criticism or commentary offered.
The New York Times' labeling bias isn't just aimed at U.S. conservatives; the Times' global reach and bias extends overseas, as demonstrated in Wednesday's New York Times was crammed with dangerous and unpleasant right-wingers in Europe, Asia, and of course Israel.
New York Times environmental reporter Coral Davenport continues to push climate alarmism with a lead story on Monday, "Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks." Davenport's environmental reporting specialty is singling out U.S. conservatives for putting the world at risk.
Is there no beloved American tradition the liberal media won't try to sour? "A Warning on Nutmeg," a silly post from the New York Times' health section, failed to come close to justifying its alarmist headline, and functioned as a near parody of liberal media handwringing. But it's far from the first time the paper has flubbed Thanksgiving, either politically or by just being ridiculous
The New York Times continued to spread skepticism about the decision by a grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., not to seek criminal charges against a white police officer who shot a black teenager. The Times hypocritically upended its own liberal sensibility by suggesting more prosecutorial zeal would have been a good thing in this particular case. And a lead editorial likened the Ferguson police to "an alien, occupying force that is synonymous with state-sponsored abuse."
New York Times reporters covered in (mostly) fair fashion the grand jury announcement from Ferguson, Mo. announcing that no charges would be brought against the white police officer who shot black teenager Michael Brown. But a racially charged profile of Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's response was so hostile, you'd think he was a Republican.
New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan reluctantly waded into the paper's coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in her latest Sunday column, relaying criticism from both sides before throwing up her hands and defending her paper as fair and balanced. But anyone who's read Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren's coverage knows that's a sad joke.
Immigration is the issue where the New York Times' liberal slant is most obvious, and the paper's heavy coverage Friday and Saturday held true to form, after President Obama's prime-time Thursday announcement that he would bypass Congress and grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Obama even used the same "out of the shadows" phrase liberals -- and the Times -- use so often, while the Times insisted Republican resistance was futile.
More offensive anti-Israel moral equivalence in Wednesday's New York Times. Jewish worshipers were massacred by Palestinians while at prayer in synagogue in Jerusalem. Yet Palestinians evaded blame in the headline of the lead story by Jodi Rudoren and Isabel Kershner: "Israel Shaken by 5 Deaths in Synagogue Assault." But Rudoren's news analysis was even worse, blaming "extremists on both sides" in the wake of a Palestinian terror attack on Jews.