Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times editorial page editor since 2007, is leaving the position in late April. Over his term he repeatedly revealed himself to be a charmless and classless critic of conservatives. Rosenthal’s many lowlights are featured on the paper’s editorial blog, and he drove the Sunday Review section sharply to the left during his tenure. Before that, Rosenthal provided a vital (and phony) piece of liberal conventional wisdom that helped to doom the 1992 re-election campaign of President George H.W. Bush: Bush’s alleged shock to encounter a grocery scanner, which became a liberal media symbol of his inability to sympathize with the day-to-day lives of average Americans.



It's not just the New York Times news pages that lean left -- conservative viewpoints are virtually shut out of the paper's opinion pages as well, especially under the regime of toxically smug liberal Andrew Rosenthal, whose hobbies include calling Republicans racist and homophobic. The Sunday Review section has long been a particularly opinionated outpost, with Rosenthal using the day of leisure to print left-wing essays. The September 20 Sunday Review was a nearly flawless compendium of economic and social liberalism.



New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal appeared on a nytimes.com podcast and insulted every Republican candidate in nasty, personal terms, throwing around the words "idiot" and "xenophobic" and insulting Justice Clarence Thomas in a racially loaded fashion. Rosenthal then accused the 1988 George H.W. Bush using the Pledge of Allegiance as an issue "deliberately and specifically intended to remind Americans that Michael Dukakis was of Greek descent and therefore suspect."



Sound the trumpets. The New York Times announced on March 18 that it is bringing in 20 new online-focused writers as contributors for its op-ed and Sunday Review sections. In an interview, Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal claimed “We were looking for a broad range of viewpoints and subjects and backgrounds and geographical locations and every kind of form of diversity that you can think of.”

Lower the trumpets. Bring in the fact-checker. It seems the viewpoint-diverse Times can’t seem to locate a conservative acceptable to executives prowling the halls in the snooty Times offices in midtown Manhattan.



Sitting in on ABC’s This Week, guest host Jonathan Karl brought on New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal to discuss an editorial titled “Repeal Prohibition, Again.” The unsigned piece proclaimed “It has been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol. “ Online, the stars on the flag transform into cannabis leaves.

Karl did something surprising. He quoted the New York Times back to Rosenthal, a 2012 editorial championing a crackdown on smoking by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He wondered: Why bash tobacco smoking and champion marijuana smoking? (Video below)



The New York Times issued an editorial on New Year’s Day demanding that massive leaker Edward Snowden “deserved better” than exile in Moscow. He deserved clemency or a plea bargain so he could come home. On Friday night’s “Cavuto” on Fox Business, guest anchor Melissa Francis interviewed MRC director of media analysis Tim Graham, who didn’t like the paper’s choices for hero worship.

Graham declared: “If the New York Times had a Man of the Year, like Time magazine has a Person of the Year, it’s clearly Snowden. Snowden is their hero!”



On Thursday, The New York Times clearly insisted on its own Person of the Year: it lauded "whistle-blower" Edward Snowden’s allegedly heroic mass-leaking against an allegedly criminal federal government, and demanded that Snowden not only receive clemency, but that “President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr. Snowden’s vilification and give him an incentive to return home.”

Is it realistic for the Times to think the government should stop everyone from vilifying Snowden? Or are they only saying all good liberals should refrain from criticizing him? Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan asked editorial-page boss Andrew Rosenthal if this would sway Obama:



In the runup to Thanksgiving, Organizing For Action, the group whose sole mission is to promote President Barack Obama's agenda, with the "help" of an absolutely horrid video, encouraged its members to "have the talk with your loved ones" about signing up for Obamacare.

Just before Thanksgiving, as P.J. Gladnick at NewsBusters noted on Thursday, two Huffington Post writers suggested that changing the subject away from Obamacare might be the better move. Even Andrew Rosenthal at the Obama-loving New York Times was concerned: "I question the wisdom of directing people to a cheery ad for the exchanges before they, you know, work. The president’s communications team is just asking for it." Based on tweets collected by the intrepid Twitter monitors at Twitchy.com, they got it (some individual tweets were given minor edits; bolds are mine):



Sometime late Thursday afternoon, an editorial at the New York Times bitterly criticizing President Obama for the expansion of surveillance efforts during his administration contained this sentence: "The administration has lost all credibility." Within a few hours, as seen here, that sentence was changed to "The administration has lost all credibility on this issue," and set off in a separate paragraph.

The Times is pretending that it didn't do what it obviously did:



2012 was another banner year for bias at the New York Times, from slanted coverage of campaign 2012, to bizarre displays of unfairness to conservatives. The Times also intensified its push for liberal legislation on issues dear to the heart of its readership, like fighting "climate change" and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Here are some of the worst bits of bias from the year that was. (There's a more comprehensive version of this article on Times Watch.)

Taking Sides With Mitt Romney's Snobby Liberal Neighbors

Epitomizing the paper's social liberalism, the front of the June 7 New York Times Home section (!) featured a large story targeting Republican nominee Mitt Romney that made the paper's notorious front-page investigation into Ann Romney's horse look as significant as Watergate by comparison.



Andrew Rosenthal, the driving force behind the perpetually hyperventilating and self-contradicting editorials that fill up space in the New York Times’s opinion pages has now proven that he can hyperventilate and contradict himself in real-time.

The editorial page editor demonstrated this rare talent today on Twitter as he responded to the shooting at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, first by denouncing a gun rights supporter who bemoaned that the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting was yet another massacre that had happened in an allegedly “gun-free zone,” a reaction Rosenthal dubbed “sickeningly quick.”  Just three hours later, however, he tweeted out a link to one of the opinion staff’s usual hackneyed anti-gun pieces.



Since taking over the section, editor Andrew Rosenthal has transformed the New York Times Sunday Review from a selection of liberal-leaning political and sociological analysis into a bulletin board for the far left.

From the softer end of the spectrum, an essay by Washington bureau chief David Leonhardt, who proposed liberal tax solutions to the "fiscal cliff" in "The Cliff Is a Hard Place to Compromise." Holding up the hard left, professor Steven Hahn (pictured) dutifully uncovered "Political Racism in the Age of Obama."