Alexander Burns
More proof that the New York Times ideological scale is way out of calibration appeared in Monday’s edition, first in reporter Alexander Burns’ long profile of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s entry into the Democratic political field: “Bloomberg Hits Democratic Presidential Race Running to the Center.” The online subhead underlined Bloomberg’s supposed centrist appeal: “Mr. Bloomberg brings a huge personal fortune and moderate views to an increasingly fluid race, but issues like criminal justice and his late start loom as vulnerabilities.” Another story had an even more ludicrous "moderate" label for a well-known liberal Democrat.
The New York Times posed a set of dominantly left-wing questions to 22 Democratic presidential candidates and invited them to answer on video. Only Joe Biden declined to participate. There was a distinct, undeniable hard-left lean to the questions. Of the set of 18 questions, fully half (nine) were left-leaning, and only one classified as right-leaning. One lliberal question: "Does anyone deserve to have a billion dollars?"
Former senator and vice president Joe Biden is officially running for president, and once again went to Anita Hill in its front-page story Friday, “Biden’s ‘Regret’ For Hill’s Pain Fails to Soothe.” Hill is seen by the press as a victim of both Clarence Thomas and the all-white, all-male Senate Judiciary Committee. She made regular appearances in the paper during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and been given a fresh life with Biden’s presidential announcement: "....Ms. Hill says the call from Mr. Biden left her feeling deeply unsatisfied."
With elections fast approaching, Friday’s New York Times was packed with accusations of President Trump as a racist and hostile to immigrants, most intensely in the lead story by Michael Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis. The headline deck: “Trump Invoking ‘Crisis’ at Border As Voting Nears – Message For Midterms – A Presidential Theme Is Built Around a Fear of Immigrants.” Illegal immigrants, actually, but don’t count on the Times to ever clarify.
The Sunday New York Times front-page “news analysis” was positively gleeful over the apparent certainty that the last-minute assault accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would cost the Republican Party control of the House in November: “For Nominee, G.O.P. Takes A Big Gamble – Risking House Seats to Retain Senate Control.” It sounds like the GOP may as well pack it in right now. Of course, the Times dooms the Republicans in every election cycle – the issues may change (sometimes it’s immigration, sometimes abortion, sometimes Merrick Garland) but the hoped for result stays the same: Democratic victory.
The New York Times’ co-lead story naturally dealt with the Kavanaugh controversy: “Nominee’s Fate Is Pivotal Point In U.S. Politics – An Apex in the Struggle Over Women’s Status.” Reporters portrayed Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, and last-minute sexual-assault accusations, through the prism of Kavanaugh taking away women’s rights through gutting Roe v. Wade as a future member of the Supreme Court, and sexist male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee failing to believe a wronged woman.
Hope springs eternal for Democrats in the pages of the New York Times. Thursday’s lead story by Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin provided Democratic predictions for winning the House in the November elections: “Clarity in Election Fog: Fall Holds Peril for G.O.P.” The reporters made hay over GOP struggles, and again exploited criminal charges faced by Rep. Chris Collins to make a pro-Democratic prediction. Other stories alternately pushed female candidates and mocked them, depending on party label.
The labeling bias came straight from the very top of the New York Times lead National section story Monday. Richard Fausset reported from Georgia under the headlines, “A Race Pivots on Guns, Saws and Trucks – In Georgia’s heated G.O.P. runoff, two candidates for governor court voters on the far right.” Fausset played up the controversies and heated rivalry in Georgia, while a story on the emerging Democratic 2020 presidential choices was sedate and politely headlined: “Warren Is Warming Up for 2020. So Are Many Other Democrats.”
The New York Times’ Alexander Burns rushed to the defense of one of their 2020 presidential hopefuls on Sunday: “Elizabeth Warren Condemned Trump in Reno. He Answered in Las Vegas With a Slur.” And what horrible slur would this be? "....a sarcastic, racially incendiary jibe -- 'Pocahontas' -- lobbed by Mr. Trump...." Oh, that one.
The New York Times pathetically tried to turn the shock resignation of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman accused by several women of physical abuse into a political plus for Democrats, even though Schneiderman was one of the legal leaders of “The Resistance” and a #MeToo crusader for women. Thursday’s New York Times front-page story by Alexander Burns read: “Sex Scandals Hit Both Parties, But One Sees Double Standard.”
The New York Times found yet another angle from which to attack the Republicans as the 2018 elections loom. Friday’s lead National story concerned various teachers strikes in “red states,” “Teacher Walkouts Threaten Republicans’ Grip on Red States – Years of Budget Cuts Push Education Into Political Fray.”
Taking a clear anti-gun stand, the New York Times sent a platoon of reporters worldwide to cover the anti-gun March for Our Lives for Sunday’s lead slot. On Monday, the paper pivoted to the November elections, with Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin pressuring Republicans on the front page: “Gun Protests Leave Republicans Scrambling as Midterms Loom.” It’s the same gun-hostile, NRA-obsessed wishful thinking the Times has indulged in for decades, fueled by slanted reporting and expressing regret at past political failures.