A recent outbreak of anti-Israel bias hit the New York Times. There was backlash over the paper's offensive "Jewish?" chart on Democrats opposd to Obama's Iran deal, as the paper's public editor responded to the chart under the heading, "Times Was Right to Change Insensitive Graphic." Meanwhile, editors placed the "stinging defeat" of a pro-Israel organization on the front page. There was also...Steven Colbert and a boycott of Israeli hummus?
Margaret Sullivan
Anti-Israel Outbreak in New York Times: 'Jewish?' Chart, a 'Stinging Defeat' for AIPAC, and...a Boycott of Israeli Hummus?
By Clay Waters | September 12, 2015 | 9:50 PM EDT 
By Melissa Mullins | September 10, 2015 | 9:09 PM EDT
New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan posted a blog on Wednesday acknowledging those who support Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders are right to be upset over the lack of meaningful coverage on his campaign.
By Clay Waters | July 27, 2015 | 9:23 PM EDT
On Monday morning New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan, facing an outcry from her paper's liberal readership, fretted over its coverage of the investigation into Hillary Clinton sending private emails containing classified material. The print edition sent a similar message to Republicans who might dare to use the issue against Clinton on the road to the White House: Ease off. Reporters Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker suggested GOP presidential candidates tread lightly on the topic in "Focus on Clinton's Emails Forces Republicans to Weigh Risks of Criticism." Willie Horton and the "war on women" trope also make appearances as further warning of the alleged perils of Republican overreach.
NY Times Public Editor Admits Paper 'Has Moved Away' From 'Just the Facts' Reporting While Chiding Story on Reddit CEO
By Clay Waters | July 19, 2015 | 4:39 PM EDT Writing about her paper's biased, social-activist coverage of the firing of Reddit chief executive Ellen Pao, New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan let slip an unannounced editorial change by the Times, opening the floodgates even wider for reporters to inject liberal impulses into their news stories: "They want to provide 'value-added' coverage," not the "just the facts" reporting "that one can get anywhere." For the Times, "value-added" means "liberal bias."
NYT Public Editor Makes a Mea Culpa on Ferguson Case for Criticizing Pro-Police Sources Later Proven Right
By Clay Waters | March 23, 2015 | 10:16 PM EDT New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan on Monday made a mea culpa for her past criticism of her paper's reporting on the racially-charged Ferguson case, when she called out a Times lead story for including the views of anonymous sources who supported police officer Darren Wilson's account of the shooting of Michael Brown -- a view eventually vindicated by the Obama Justice Department.
By Clay Waters | January 23, 2015 | 9:48 PM EST
After years of virtually always failing to file a print news report on the March for Life, the New York Times this year ran a full half-sentence on the rally of tens of thousands in Washington, in a Jeremy Peters' report that used the march's existence solely to embarrass the Republican Party over its mishandling of an abortion bill.
NYT Public Editor Tweaked Her Paper's Elitism, Missed Hypocrisy of Supporting 'Occupy' While Pandering to Wealthy
By Clay Waters | November 9, 2014 | 7:29 PM EST New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan tweaked her paper for elitism in the Sunday Review section. Yet she whiffed on the hypocrisy of a newspaper whose support for Occupy Wall Street seeped into all sections and which obsessed over the "one percenters" -- yet hypocritically pandered to its hyper-rich liberal readership without a blink with stories about $160 flashlights, luxury dog houses, and other ridiculous amenities.
By Randy Hall | August 26, 2014 | 9:11 PM EDT
People on the Left rarely complain about news coverage by the New York Times, but it took only two words to generate a torrent of criticism -- which is usually reserved for conservative Republicans -- regarding an article that profiled Michael Brown, the young African-American man who was shot and killed by white police officer Darren Wilson on August 9 in Ferguson, Missouri.
In a front-page obituary timed to coincide with Brown's funeral on Monday, John Eligon -- a 31-year-old black reporter for the left-wing newspaper -- stated that the 18-year-old victim spent his “last weeks grappling with problems and promise” but was nevertheless described as “no angel.”
By Jeffrey Lord | August 16, 2014 | 9:23 AM EDT
Within the space of a week, the Public Editor of The New York Times, Margaret Sullivan, and Sarah Durand, a senior editor of publisher Simon & Schuster subsidiary Atria Books, have vividly illustrated how the game of liberal media bias works.
Let’s start with the Times.
By Scott Whitlock | June 27, 2014 | 5:33 PM EDT
The New York Times's public editor on Friday responded to criticism about the paper's coverage of the IRS scandal, admitting: "The Times was somewhat late in beginning to cover the latest development about the lost emails." An analysis by the Media Research Center's Jeffrey Meyer on Thursday found that "in the past 6 months (183 days), the New York Times has published only 13 news items on the IRS’ targeting of Tea Party groups."
Public editor Margaret Sullivan questioned David Joachim, the Times's Washington-based reporter, on the scant coverage. He offered an equivalence that seemed dismissive of complaints: "One side sees a Nixonian abuse of power and cover-up; the other sees an effort to smear the White House for electoral gain in the midterms. That stuff brings out passions."
NYT Public Editor Scolds Paper For Not Disclosing Change to Christie Story on Firmness of 'Evidence'
By Tom Blumer | February 5, 2014 | 10:55 PM EST On Saturday (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I noted how the New York Times had made a critical change to a story about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's possible knowledge of lane closures in the area of the George Washington Bridge. The initial story was that a Port Authority official "has evidence" in the matter. A short time later, that claim was watered down to a far more speculative "evidence exists."
The erroneous "has evidence" version of the story quickly went viral on Friday afternoon, and is what many news readers likely still believe — especially because there is still no indication at Zernike's story that any change from the original was made. Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan has a problem with that — as she should. There also appears to be an undercurrent of frustration at the Times that what comes off as a "gotcha" strategy didn't stick to Christie (HT James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web; bolds are mine throughout this post):
By Tim Graham | January 25, 2014 | 9:11 PM EST
Kudos to New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan for asking why the Times couldn’t provide much coverage of Wednesday’s March for Life. Hundreds, if not thousands of New Yorkers were there, so “Was this local participation, or the event itself, worthy of a news story in the paper of record? Apparently not.”
“The Times, in print, published only a stand-alone photograph of the event on Page A17 with a two-line caption on Thursday.” Sullivan reproduced complaints from pro-life readers: