Like a Monty Python skit gone tragic, the New York Times actually ran a chart labeling Democratic lawmakers against Obama's controversial nuclear deal with Iran as "Jewish?" or not (the "Jewish?" part was removed online after outcry). The four chart headings read: "Democrats against the deal – Jewish? – District and estimated Jewish population – Vote with party." Under "Democrats against the deal," the names were arranged out of alphabetical order solely to enable the Times to stack all the "Yes" names that qualified as "Jewish?" at the top of the chart.

The New York Times has repeatedly demonstrated that protesters they like are far more newsworthy than protesters they don’t like. The number of protesters doesn’t really matter at all. Five years ago, they reported a whole story on four (count them on one hand) illegal-alien protesters for amnesty. A few months later, they repeated it with a whole story on five protesters. 

But on Wednesday, thousands (as many as 12,000) flooded Times Square a few blocks north of the newspaper’s offices to protest President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, and the Times buried that in one paragraph -- paragraph 15 -- of a Thursday story headlined “Campaign for Congressional Backing of Iran Nuclear Deal Begins.”

The New York Times invariably casts any GOP inquiry into the intelligence failures that led to the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, as a purely partisan venture. The pattern was noted last year by the paper's own Public Editor Margaret Sullivan, who wrote before hearings in May 2013, "The Times has had a tendency to both play down the subject, which has significant news value, and to pursue it most aggressively as a story about political divisiveness rather than one about national security mistakes and the lack of government transparency. Many readers would like to see more on that front, and so would I."

But the Times is still at it. Friday's story by Jonathan Weisman and Jennifer Steinhauer reduced a deliberative investigative effort by GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy to a politically motivated ploy to damage former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's presidential run in 2016: "Democrats Wary of Benghazi Inquiry Stretching Into ’16 Election Season." They also reveal that Benghazi is an outrage only for "the Republican Party's most conservative voters."

Reporter Jonathan Weisman looked very hard to find hypocrisy among Tea Party candidates in his Saturday New York Times story "Ivy League Degrees, Elite Consulting Jobs, and Now Tea Party Candidacies."

The online subhead hinted at it: "Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Tom Cotton of Arkansas are running for the Senate as common-man conservatives but share high-flying pedigrees." Weisman's article is sprinkled with "gotcha" attempts that don't stick:

Inside the liberal echo chamber that is National Public Radio, the stale show known as “Fresh Air with Terry Gross” addressed Congress on Wednesday with New York Times congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman. Host Terry Gross announced “this Congress has been one of the least productive in history. They have accomplished so little that the president is looking into how he can bypass Congress and use executive actions to make changes in areas like job creation, immigration and the economy.”

Gross put all the blame for Congress on the “radical” Obama-resisting conservatives: “What do you think have been the most dramatic examples of partisanship or obstructionism or radicalism during this 113th Congress so far?” Weisman said tax hikes made Congress "productive" at first, but conservatives ruined it: