Latest Posts

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."

The first week of a presidency is usually described as a “honeymoon period,” but the liberal media are still on a war footing. There is no romance. On the PBS NewsHour on Friday night, liberal analyst Mark Shields insisted Trump was already a punchline by the second day, and pseudoconservative analyst David Brooks was trying to decide if Trump was  a dictator or an egotistical 5-year-old brat.

One of the more revealing side effects of the 2016 presidential campaign, and especially the November election, is how old-line liberal publications which once had at least a veneer of respectability have completely gone off the deep end. Readers have come to expect completely unhinged, error-ridden material to routinely appear at places like Salon.com. But at the Atlantic? Beyond occasional shorter blog posts at its web site, we didn't used to see much of it. But there's no other way to describe a deeply flawed January 24 op-ed appearing there which sharply criticized ultrasound images of unborn children as an example of "how effectively politicians have used visual technology to redefine what counts as 'life.'"

In an online column about the mainstream media, the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple conceded that claims of liberal media bias have "documentary backing.” Wemple reported on efforts by the New York Times to make their paper more diverse, though not necessarily ideologically so. 

It happens every year in late January -- the annual March for Life, the 44^th 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?

Appearing as a panel member on Thursday's Anderson Cooper 360, CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour went on a rant against Steve Bannon and the Donald Trump White House over their criticism of the media, as she likened the administration to "totalitarian regimes" and suggested that they were "angling for an order of merit" from the presidents of Egypt, Russia and Turkey. She also hearkened back to the George W. Bush administration whom she accused of "rushing to war," presumably referring to Iraq. But she then seemed to incorrectly claim that President Bush had accused the press of siding with the terrorists if he objected to their coverage, even though Bush's line that "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" came immediately after the 9/11 attacks and was aimed at countries like Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan and Iran as the U.S. prepared for retaliation against the Afghanistan-based Taliban regime.