Clay Waters

Clay Waters's picture

Clay Waters was director of Times Watch, a former project of the Media Research Center. His new mystery is titled Death In The Eye.

Latest from Clay Waters

The plea from New York Times reporter Jonathan Weisman appeared in the Sunday Review: “Missing in the Fight Against Anti-Semitism.” The online headline: “Anti-Semitism Is Rising. Why Aren’t American Jews Speaking Up?” But Weisman focused solely and dubiously on controversial rightists and missed several recent examples of Democrats lining up with Louis Farrakhan. Weisman himself has a tangled history with accusations of anti-semitism that make his plea unconvincing.

Peter Beinart, contributing editor at The Atlantic, devoted 1,700 words in the April issue to ludicrously crowning House minority leader and arch-liberal Nancy Pelosi an amazingly effective congressional leader -- and dishonestly calling Republicans sexist for daring to oppose her: “The Nancy Pelosi Problem -- The first female speaker of the House has become the most effective congressional leader of modern times -- and, not coincidentally, the most vilified." He followed up: "...despite attributes that should make her endearing to cultural conservatives -- she is a Catholic Italian American grandmother of nine who entered politics only after staying home to raise her kids -- many Americans greeted her rise with, in the words of the Yale researchers, “contempt, anger, and/or disgust.” It was the same for Hillary Clinton...."

Scientific American continues on its activist leftward path, diluting its science trademark by transmitting biased anti-gun propaganda under the guise of unbiased sociology. The latest entry was posted Wednesday: “Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns? -- Research suggests it's largely because they're anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market and beset by racial fears.”

In Friday’s New York Times, Deborah Solomon and Kitty Bennett mocked President Trump’s new chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow, the conservative economist who will be the next director of the National Economic Council. There was yet another insulting NYT headline: “A TV Commentator Becomes a Presidential Adviser: Go to the Videotape.” The online headline was more blunt: “6 of Larry Kudlow’s Not-So-on-the-Money Predictions.” But what other economist (one who regularly writes for the NYT) has a flawed forecasting record?

The New York Times on Thursday dismissed Larry Kudlow, President Trump’s pick to head the National Economic Council (replacing Gary Cohn) in “President Picks TV Commentator as His Economic Adviser.” The conservative economist and associate director for economics and planning in President Reagan’s Office of Management and Budget was reduced to someone who Trump picked for his loyalty and Trump-style audacity.

The New York Times has fully and unapologetically embraced the children’s crusade of gun control in the aftermath of the Parkland school killings, and is now cheering on the promised nationwide school walkout today. The lead National section story for Wednesday, reported by Stephanie Saul and Anemona Hartocollis, was “Too Young to Protest? 10-Year-Olds Beg to Differ – Thousands of Students Nationwide Plan to Walk Out of Class.” 

Avi Selk, reporter for the Washington Post, callously suggested that liberal iconoclast and New York Times editorial writer Bari Weiss was getting what was coming to her in terms of online obloquy for her crimes against left-wing hyper-sensitivity  The headline to the Arts & Entertainment “analysis” piece was even worse than the text: “A New York Times columnist blamed a far-left ‘mob’ for her woes. But maybe she deserves them.” Weiss deserved being called a racist and getting death wishes on Twitter?

New York Times metro reporter Greg Howard's profile of Al Sharpton, the racially inflammatory activist and MSNBC host, will run in Sunday’s edition. As is Times’ custom, Howard skipped over several racially and deadly incidents connected to Sharpton. The headline and subhead betrayed the paper’s pathetic attempt at positioning Sharpton for posterity: “Al Sharpton, Reconsidered -- Mr. Sharpton has been called a race hustler, a hero, a buffoon, a freedom fighter. He would prefer to be remembered as the Martin Luther King of the North.” Ironically, the article contains no reconsideration of Sharpton – Howard fawned over Sharpton just as much as all the other Times’ reporters who have written about him.

New York Times reporter Katie Rogers covered the impromptu discussion at the White House on video games and violence, and casually worked in several strong “censorship” smears against those concerned about the issue: "Melissa Henson, the director of programs for the Parents Television Council, a censorship advocacy group...."

As usual, the media and the New York Times appear to have overhyped hopes for a Texas takeover in Congress this November. The paper’s familiar anti-conservative labeling pattern was present in the paper’s live updates of results from primary elections in Texas, with “far-right” Republicans pitted against benign-sounding “progressives” – not “far left,” not even “liberal.”And Beto O’Rourke, the newest Democratic savior of Texas, whom the paper fawned over last month, underperformed substantially, coming out on top in a challenging three-way Democratic primary.

A year after ridiculing President Trump for talking about it, the New York Times acknowledges that Sweden has a crime problem, and suggests very indirectly that it may have something to do with its loose immigration policy – just as the president insisted. In “Grenades and Gang Violence Rattle Sweden,” Ellen Barry and Christina Anderson used the incident of a man killed by a hand grenade in Stockholm to talk about the disturbing crime trend in Sweden, and hinted gently about a possible cause: Immigration.

The New York Times’ abject refusal to pin the socialism label on the failed and starving state of Venezuela is well-documented (as is the paper’s whitewashing of that and other tyrannical left-wing regimes). In the newest Times Sunday Magazine, writer Wil S. Hylton devoted nearly 9,000 words to fiery, often-imprisoned opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, “Can Venezuela Be Saved?” yet managed to totally avoid the word “socialism,” the idea that formed the root of the country’s present failures.


The New York Times starkly revealed its disparate, biased, and hopelessly confused treatment of fascist and socialist ideologies on Saturday, with Trump indirectly lumped in with European fascist parties. Reporter Jason Horowitz was featured on Saturday’s front page, “In Italian Campaign, Gravity of Far Right Exerts Its Strongest Pull.” Horowitz threw out plenty of “far-right” and “hard right” labels to describe some of the unsavory populist parties emerging in Europe. But on the same front page, White House correspondent Peter Baker also used “hard right” to describe the Trump administration’s policy moves. Meanwhile, another reporter celebrated a popular German socialist and knocked "trickle-down economics."

Some crimes, like the Parkland massacre, earn the full outraged attention of the New York Times, which is fitting. But when Trump wages a rhetorical war on other murderers, like the immigrant gang MS-13 who bludgeon teens to death, the paper responds with hand-wringing explainers like Friday’s front-page corrective suggesting the threat of MS-13 is overblown and surely is unrelated to Obama’s negligent immigration policy: “A Gang’s Fearsome Reputation, Further Inflated by the President.”

In the wake of the killings in Parkland, Fla., the New York Times is pressing for gun control and targeting the National Rifle Association. Reporters Richard Fausset and Tiffany Hsu reveled in a purported split between the GOP’s supposed natural allies, big business and the influential gun-rights group, in a front-page story Wednesday, “N.R.A. Battle Pits Business Against G.O.P.”

After a brief interlude, the New York Times is getting label-happy again, this time in its Supreme Court coverage. Beat reporter Adam Liptak on Tuesday covered the arguments in an important case involving free speech and government unions -- whether forcing workers to support public unions violates their First Amendment rights -- in “Newest Justice, Seen as Key Vote, Is Silent During Arguments on Unions.”

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, a guilt-ridden rich liberal who had an ill-fated run as owner of the liberal magazine The New Republic, was graced on Saturday with a front-page Business Day profile in the New York Times whose very headline mocks the idea of individual achievement: “Inequality: A Secret To His Success.” The subhead: “The Facebook co-founder’s rise was meteoric. He argues that the same forces that helped him succeed have made it harder for others. In a new book, ‘Fair Shot,’ he proposes a bold solution.” Hughes, who was the tech adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign, now spends his time doing penance for his own hard-earned success, as de Leon lovingly laid out.

New York Times media reporter Michael Grynbaum smeared conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh as a Florida shooting conspiracist in “Dubious Theories on Shooting In Florida Find an Audience." Grynbaum opportunistically lumped Rush and former congressman Jack Kingston into conspiracists making nutty claims about “false flags” and “crisis actors.”

The liberal New York Times is searching everywhere, even Texas, for candidates to dislodge the Republicans from Congress in November, by trumpeting any Democrat, no matter how hopeless the cause. The latest, Tuesday’s lead National section story, tried desperately to pump up prospects for Beto O’Rourke, a long shot candidate up against Sen. Ted Cruz, in “A Blue Spark In the Heart Of Deep-Red Cruz Country -- El Paso Lawmaker Fights Uphill Battle.” The reporters sure sound like they’re rooting for O’Rourke, who is favored to win the Democratic primary, in their 1,700-word behemoth that covers an entire page.

Tuesday’s New York Times featured a humdrum personal profile of its own reporter, Maggie Haberman, whose only point of interest was an offensive comparison the White House reporter made between Michael Bloomberg’s 2001 run for mayor of New York City and Donald Trump’s run for president in 2016. In both cases, “an unprecedented form of terror in an election” resulted in an unlikely result. One was an Islamist terrorist attack that murdered over 3000 people; the other, some embarrassing campaign emails that may have damaged Clinton’s prospects over Trump. Same thing, really, right?