By P.J. Gladnick | May 19, 2017 | 2:24 PM EDT

Jeffrey Toobin pretty much let the cat out of the bag about the real desired purpose (by the Democrats and the mainstream media) of the investigation by the new Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the May 19 New Yorker. He basically concedes that there is a good possibility that no criminal evidence of collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians will be found. What he reveals, and it is no big surprise to anyone who follows politics, is that the information collected during the course of this investigation could be politically damaging to President Trump if it is released. 

By Tim Graham | May 13, 2017 | 1:51 PM EDT

Your average liberal journalist isn't going to think The New Yorker magazine when it comes to fake-news sites on Facebook. But my wife hopped in the car yesterday and asked, in a please-shoot-this-down tone: "Trump didn't really say that if I'm impeached, I'll have the greatest ratings ever." My first reply -- not kidding -- was "that sounds like Andy Borowitz and his brand of humor/hate at the Borowitz Report. Sure enough, it was.

By Tom Blumer | May 1, 2017 | 10:23 PM EDT

In an 18-minute Friday interview on the New Yorker Radio Hour, CNN President Jeffrey Zucker contended that "Fox News ... is state-run TV," that "MSNBC has become the opposition," and that "CNN is seeking the truth." Yes, he really said that. Zucker also doesn't like the term "fake news" any more — even though his network was one of the earliest post-election promoters of the term when they thought they could use it as a club against others.

By P.J. Gladnick | February 28, 2017 | 5:30 PM EST

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

We've already had witches attempt to cast a mass spell to remove President Trump from office but now a former senior editor of New Yorker magazine, Jeffrey Frank, has come up with an equally unlikely scenario: a recall election. Yes, the extremely desperate left have analyzed and discarded removing Trump via impeachment or the 25th Amendment so now a recall election has been trotted out despite that fact that it isn't even constitutional.

By P.J. Gladnick | January 21, 2017 | 8:29 AM EST

Not fair! Only liberals are allowed to make fun of conservatives. That's the way it has always been so when someone like Donald Trump  jokes about liberals it is absolutely intolerable. Not only is it offensive but dangerous since jokes won the election for Trump.

That pretty much sums up the attitude of New Yorker television critic, Emily Nussbaum, in her January 23 article. Somehow it is just not right that liberals are mocked. Nussbaum is so upset by this cultural turnaround that she even attributes it to making Trump's victory possible as you can see in the title of her article, HOW JOKES WON THE ELECTION:

December 5, 2016 | 10:07 PM EST

After Donald Trump chose former presidential candidate Ben Carson to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), journalists ridiculed the choice, mocked Carson’s beliefs and labeled him a “scammer.” Squawk Box co-anchor Joe Kernen anticipated the liberal media reaction on Dec. 5, saying, "Let's see, he's not a billionaire, so how's the mainstream media going to trash him? He's a -- he's just a loyalist. He's a doctor. Doesn't know anything about housing."

 

By Jack Coleman | November 24, 2016 | 10:33 AM EST

Even on his way out the door, they can't get off their bended knee. The last eight years have provided countless examples of media fawning over President Obama -- make that last dozen years, since his coming-out party at the Democrats' national convention in Boston.

By Tim Graham | November 22, 2016 | 11:52 AM EST

The first summary of the meeting between Donald Trump and network TV stars and executives yesterday was the official one, via Kellyanne Conway: When asked if the meeting was about mending fences, Conway said, “There’s no need to mend fences. It was an off-the-record meeting. It was very cordial. Very productive. Congenial. But it was also very candid and honest.”

The New York Post used the term “f—ing firing squad.” David Remnick, the Obama-adoring editor of The New Yorker, was very upset about how Trump is scaring the liberals – he’s going to keep criticizing liberal bias? As if that were so unprofessional and beneath him (it’s never unprofessional and beneath them to manufacture it).

By Tom Blumer | November 14, 2016 | 10:52 PM EST

William Finnegan's lengthy report from Venezuela in the November 14 edition of the New Yorker begs two obvious questions: Where have you guys been? And why did you wait until the wee hours on November 7, the day before Election Day in the U.S., when almost everyone's attention was on the presidential and other contests, to post it online?

The report's headline asks a question: "How did this happen?" Finnegan fails to satisfactorily answer it. Instead, he wants readers to believe that the country began an inexorable downhill slide many years before Hugo Chavez took over Venezuela's government and embarked on his Bolivarian socialist "revolution." It wasn't inevitable, but his telling of the story contains implicit warnings applicable to the U.S. which the magazine appears to have decided that its left-leaning readers didn't need to see before they voted.

By Tom Johnson | October 25, 2016 | 9:52 PM EDT

When it comes to Supreme Court justices and their views of the Constitution, on the one hand there’s Clarence Thomas, and on the other there’s everyone else in the 227-year history of the Court, suggested CNN and New Yorker legal analyst Toobin in a Tuesday piece. Toobin called Thomas, who just marked a quarter-century as a SCOTUS justice, “not a conservative but, rather, a radical” who’s driven to advance “his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution.” Thomas’s jurisprudence is, in Toobin’s words, “reactionary” and “antediluvian.”

By Brad Wilmouth | August 22, 2016 | 11:38 AM EDT

Appearing as a guest on Sunday's CNN Newsroom with Poppy Harlow, CNN political commentator and New York Times columnist Charles Blow became the latest example of liberals accusing Republicans of racism when they talk about helping black Americans solve problems that they are disproportionately affected by, as he asserted that recent efforts by the Donald Trump campaign at "outreach" to blacks are just an excuse for the GOP candidate to speak negatively about blacks in front of white audiences.

After declaring that "This is just a backhanded way of criticizing black people in front of white people," leading host Harlow to bring up a clip of CNN political commentator Ryan Lizza suggesting that the Trump campaign was just trying to convince college-educated white Republicans that he is not racist, Blow reiterated his charge as he responded: "There may be something to that. I think it's worse than that, though. I do think that it is a backhanded way of criticizing black people in front of white people."

By Tom Blumer | August 17, 2016 | 11:44 PM EDT

Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."

One of the things that liberals "know that isn't so" is that conservative talk radio hosts are all crude people who routinely hurl racist, sexist, homophobic and other epithets over the airwaves. This would explain why the layers of fact-checkers and editors at The New Yorker felt no need to verify the accuracy of the following sentence in the opening paragraph of an essay ("HOW ROUSSEAU PREDICTED TRUMP") by Pankaj Mishra: "In India, Hindu supremacists have adopted Rush Limbaugh’s favorite epithet 'libtard' to channel righteous fury against liberal and secular élites." But blogress and University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse did — and forced a correction.