The front of the New York Times Arts section featured an exhaustive report on the controversy over the world-famous Rockettes performing at Donald Trump’s inauguration: “Still Kicking, but No Longer Silent.” The text box was harsh to Trump for ruining an American tradition: “A Trump Inauguration Casualty: The Silent, Smiling Rockettes."
The New York Times went to enormous (and utterly unsubstantiated) lengths to portray former Texas Gov. Rick Perry as a oil-man rube over his head as the potential Energy Secretary, in “Perry Seeks Cabinet Job He Initially Misconstrued.”
New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg stood up for the government bureaucrats and left-wing paranoids in D.C. and gave them laudatory coverage: "...as Mr. Trump’s inaugural draws near, in a nation so deeply divided that it seems the political middle has entirely disappeared, perhaps no place in America feels as unsteady and on edge as the capital, which Mr. Trump calls 'the swamp.'...With his 6 a.m. Twitter blasts and chaos-sowing style -- and a roster of conservative Cabinet picks eager to do an about-face on President Obama’s policies -- Mr. Trump has upended the city’s rhythms and jangled its nerves."
If its frantic anti-Trump post-victory coverage hasn't given it away, a new internal report from the New York Times made clear the journalistic organization has failed to learned anything from Trump’s election victory. While the 8,700-word report and an accompanying memo from the brass emphasized the need to improve the race and gender diversity of the paper (but with fewer editors), it said nothing about the ideological groupthink that enabled the entire paper to be blindsided by the Trump phenomenon. “ Reporter David Chen tweeted: “NYTimes recommends fewer editors, more visuals, more diversity.” There was plenty of nuts-and-bolts criticism offered, and some warning signs for conventional reporters and editors, but nothing to suggest that the paper needs to expand its political vision to encompass more of America.
The front of Monday’s New York Times presented some truly groundbreaking journalism: President Obama likes to read. Book critic and Obama idolizer Michiko Kakutani’s long farewell piece was plotted to make the departing president look like a thoughtful intellectual: “How Reading Nourished Obama During the White House Years.” It’s the sequel, awaited by no one, to her front-page report from January 2009 featuring then president-elect Obama on the eve of his inauguration, where she credited him for his "love of fiction and poetry” that “imbued him with a tragic sense of history and a sense of the ambiguities of the human condition," as opposed to departing president George W. Bush's "prescriptive" reading that merely provided a black-and-white "Manichean view of the world."
As Inauguration Day draws closer, Monday’s New York Times lead story by Yamiche Alcindor all but called the president-elect a racist: “In Trump Tweets, Blacks Perceive A Callous Rival – Some To Skip Inaugural – Democrats Voice Anger After Trump Impugns a Civil Rights Icon.” She also smeared Sen. Jeff Sessions as a racist. Also on the race front, the NYT compiled a huge, amazingly gushing collection of interviews with kids whose lives were transformed simply by being in the presence of The One.
If first lady Michelle Obama and losing Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton want salve for their sorrow at Trump’s election victory, they can peruse the front page of the New York Times Sunday Styles section for consolation. Fashion writer Vanessa Friedman started with a tribute to the political significance of the first lady's sartorial elegance, “How Clothes Defined Her – No first lady understood the role of fashion, and the potential uses of it, better than Michelle Obama.” A college of Michelle Obama in various stylish outfits took up the top half of the page. Also featured: The royal treatment losing Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is receiving in her spiritual home of Manhattan:
Jeffrey Fleishman, arts and film writer for the Los Angeles Times and its former Cairo bureau chief, waxed insufferably eloquent about the departing President Obama’s oratorical skills in a pandering panegyric: "Obama’s legislative legacy may be in jeopardy from President-elect Donald Trump, but the grace of his prose will endure....His sentences soothed and stung, coaxed and challenged, drawing fits from his critics while urging his supporters to seek moral and political transcendence..... But the soul of his sentences -- the resonance, depth and musicality -- hark back to Abraham Lincoln and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., with a bit of Nelson Mandela’s sparse stoicism stirred in..."
The New York Times a saw a rough road ahead for Trump cabinet choices. Meanwhile, media reporter Jim Rutenberg documented the latest go-round of Trump vs. the mainstream media, which Rutenberg claimed were “Outgunned, Outmaneuvered and in Need of a Game Plan.” And his NY Times colleagues provided a backhanded compliment, saying the president-elect’s social media wasn’t all “anger and spittle.”
When Donald Trump mentioned Nazi Germany in reference to a lurid document floating around U.S. intelligence agencies, the New York Times was shocked and appalled -- and deeply hypocritical, given the eagerness of the paper's reporters, editors, and columnists to make those same comparisons against Donald Trump.
The front page of the New York Times on Tuesday featured a hit-job against Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education, by reporter Noam Scheiber, “Trump Education Pick Plays Hardball With Her Wealth.” Scheiber, formerly of the left-wing New Republic magazine, is a passionate fan of a $15 minimum wage, and his left-wing leanings are evident in this long hostile profile of DeVos, which included slams at the left’s favorite villains, activist libertarian businessmen David and Charles Koch.The ideological article, full of both personal insults and ideological assumptions, would not have been out of place at The New Republic, or even the hard-left The Nation magazine
The latest conversation from the joyless liberal New York Times movie critics A. O. Scott and Manohla Dargis tacked race and class. The online headline was provocative to the point of offensiveness: “Watching While White: How Movies Tackled Race and Class in 2016.” Dargis, the more radical of the two, proclaimed herself pleased that Hollywood isn’t telling quiet as many lies about American greatness and white superiority, and asserted that "Movie critics, who are largely white and male (see the numbers!), seem stubbornly reluctant to engage with race, at least as it pertains to whiteness."
Would an Attorney General Jeff Sessions wreck civil rights? Several newspapers seem to think so, including Monday’s New York Times, which tried to poison the well against him as his confirmation looms. The long front-page profile of Sen. Sessions of Alabama, Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, hid its hostility and labeling slant under the benign headline, “Bonding by Bucking the Establishment.”
The front page of the Sunday Review was graced with a half-page photo illustration of first lady Michelle Obama under a story by Jodi Kantor, “Michelle Obama’s Turn.” Kantor is author of “The Obamas: The Partnership Behind a Historic Presidency,” which didn’t exactly speak truth to power. In her latest Kantor, who is an actual reporter for the Times, portrayed president-elect Donald Trump as an interloping brute come to wreck the first lady’s house.
Journalist Glenn Thrush, who recently took his Democratic partisanship from Politico to the New York Times, filed “Trump Finds That Attack-Dog Strategy Has Its Limits” for Saturday’s New York edition. The news media was not at all happy with Donald Trump Twitter mockery of liberal Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, and Thrush piled on Trump. Thrush is a self-described “hack” for the failed Clinton campaign, and also has a history of sensitivity to insults to Democrats -- don’t dare call (failed) Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis “abortion Barbie”! That explains the self-satisfied tone here, lecturing Trump on how to respond to accusations of Russian meddling and how to treat his Democratic opponents.
The New York Times continued its embarrassing idolization of departing first lady Michelle Obama, but this time without even the excuse of arts page placement: White House reporter Julie Hirschfeld Davis gushed over the first lady's last public remarks in Saturday's “In Emotional Finale, First Lady Says, ‘I Hope I’ve Made You Proud."
New York Times critic Dwight Garner wrote an embarrassingly florid tribute to first lady Michelle Obama, in the guise of a book review, on the front of Friday’s Arts section: “Eyes on a First Lady Unlike Any Other.” Garner was reviewing the work of 16 equally smitten liberals under “The Meaning of Michelle: 16 Writers on the Iconic First Lady and How Her Journey Inspires Out Own. He began by posing the question on everyone's lips: "Who will Americans miss more, Barack or Michelle Obama?"
After several months of New York Times angst over the supposed racist turn of the Republican Party, the front page of Monday’s New York Times featured a hostile report on a Koch brothers public relations campaign appealing to black voters, business reporter Hiroko Tabuchi’s “Koch Strategy Mixes Gospel And Oil Policy.” Beyond the “ultraconservative” labeling on the front page, Tabuchi found a left-wing environmentalist to smear as “racist” the attempt by the wealthy industrialists Charles and David Koch to convert minorities to their viewpoint on an issue.
Is the United States doomed to become the latest global victim of a dangerous strongman, a la Venezuela under Hugo Chavez? That's what economics reporter turned left-wing columnist Eduardo Porter thinks in Wednesday’s New York Times: “How Dysfunction Threatens U.S. Democracy.” What led to this dramatic conclusion? Trump’s election. Porter made a rare Times admission of the “authoritarian” nature of the Communist rule of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, only to bash Trump as a similar threat to democracy.
Congress convenes today, and congressional reporter Carl Hulse, a reliable Democrat defender and Republican critic, came loaded for bear against the Republican House and Senate, now fortified by a president from their own party, in his Tuesday New York Times column, “In Congress, Free to Govern and Face the Consequences.” The online headline is harsher: “Republicans Stonewalled Obama. Now the Ball Is in Their Court.” In it, Hulse made the same argument he’s been making for over a decade: Republicans are doomed.