Late Monday morning on NBCNews.com, former CNNer and current NBC senior media reporter Dylan Byers bemoaned how social media sites have become “a minefield for journalists” where they face “perils” such as “stray[ing] from reporting” and thus “opening news organizations to accusations of partisan bias.”



Emily Bazelon is a staff writer for the New York Times Sunday Magazine, but she was lead author of the earth-shattering story that Brett Kavanaugh apparently threw ice during an altercation at a bar in New Haven, Conn. in 1985. The online headline that appeared Monday evening was explicit: “Kavanaugh Was Questioned by Police After Bar Fight in 1985.” Bazelon is also a fellow at Yale Law School, Kavanaugh’s alma mater, and upon his nomination she made clear her contempt. So why is Bazelon reporting on this "story"?



So much for alternative points of view in the New York Times. With the news pages devoted to kneecapping the new administration, one would hope that a few right-of-center voices might at least slip into the weekend opinion sections. But the paper’s Sunday Review section is just as predictably, reflexively leftist. In fact, all you really need to read are the titles and teasers. Just for starters, the front featured a reported essay from the Texas border town of Brownsville. Keeping to the paper’s tradition of scaremongering on behalf of amnesty for illegals, the subhead read: “Like America, this place is split in two. One half is barbequing. The other is in danger of losing everything.” The online headline: “How Scared Should People on the Border Be?”



Not even Christmas Day provided respite from New York Times bias: The Sunday Review was devoted to the Year in Pictures, and cast the just-concluded election as a clash of light vs. darkness. The front-page was wholly covered by a full-length photo of Donald Trump -- more accurately, Trump’s shadow -- in stark, Stygian darkness, while the back page featured a hopeful member of the Hillary faithful, clutching an American flag while watching the election results. In the Sunday magazine, devoted to remembrance of famous or significant personalities who passed in 2016, a loving remembrance of Bill Clinton’s liberal Attorney General Janet Reno stood in blunt contrast to a cynical one probing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for intellectual blind spots.



The New York Times news coverage upon the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was mostly respectful (which is more than can be said about the paper’s nasty editorial thrust). But the paper’s liberal bias shone through in pondering how Scalia’s death would resonate during the election year. Emily Bazelon’s Monday “news analysis" portrayed conservative rulings as “limiting” and “hobbling,” while abortion was assumed to be a “constitutional right."



The first story in the August 23 New York Times Sunday magazine by staff writer Emily Bazelon, "The Unwelcome Return of 'Illegals,'" scolds conservatives for calling illegal immigrants "illegals," while again aligning the paper with left-wing amnesty activists like La Raza, who favor the term "undocumented." Bazelon also fretted about the government's official use of the term "wetback" in the 1950s, without noting the NYT also threw it around in news accounts favoring mass deportation.



Emily Bazelon apparently has found the opening of the 9/11 Memorial Museum in lower Manhattan as a perfect excuse to suggest that conservatives are particularly prone – compared to other Americans –  to buy into the absurd conspiracy theories of the so-called 9/11 Truther movement. But the most prominent of 9/11 Truthers in the national spotlight are celebrities and media personalities whose politics are left of center, including a co-host of CNN’s Crossfire.

The Slate senior editor made the pronouncement on the May 19 edition of The Lead with Jake Tapper, after Tapper asked her if there was a great deal of scapegoating involved with the Truther conspiracy [Click here for MP3 audio; Video below]:



On June 11, Slate editor Emily Bazelon whipped out the Nazi card against Congressman Trent Franks.  The media site, which is an affiliate of the Washington Post, unsurprisingly went after the Republican legislator for his remarks about rape on Wednesday concerning a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks into a pregnancy.

Of course, liberals tried to tie these remarks to Todd Akin, who made scientifically inaccurate statements about sexual assault and pregnancy last year. Yet, even some notables on the left are saying Franks is no Akin.



This is one of those stories that have you asking yourself if you’re still on planet Earth.  Emily Bazelone of Slate, a Washington Post affiliated site, wrote today that the case of Florida 18-year-old Kaitlyn Hunt’s sexual affair with a 14-year-old girl “is about gay rights. But it’s not about that.”  This isn’t Bazelon’s first foray into trying to defend the indefensible.  In the aftermath of the Boston Terrorist Attack, Bazelon had a rather extraneous piece about how Dzhokar Tsarnaev was a normal guy in his high school years.

So far, the “free Kate” campaign has animated the far-left of America.  T-shirts, Facebook groups, and Twitter hashtags have all voiced their support for the alleged sex offender, with much of the push tied up in the narrative of victomology. Hunt is being prosecuted, they claim, only because she's a lesbian. Bazleon agrees, but to her credit, writes that perhaps this is more about a law that lacks clarity regarding teen sex:



"There's a strong consensus he was pretty normal." That's how Slate's Emily Bazelon described surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who seems to have been discovered by the police. You cannot make this stuff up. The Slate writer interviewed two family friends, who attended Tsarnaev's high school who said of him:

"He was really nice,” Sam Greenberg [Bazelon’s family friend], now a junior at Harvard, told me over the phone. Sam played junior varsity soccer with Tsarnaev for a year and also hung out with him occasionally in the athletic area after school. “He was pretty quiet. Didn’t have a ton to say but was very normal, seemed like a nice kid.”



Does anyone remember when the liberal intellectuals decried populism coming from the likes of Glenn Beck and other conservatives that was aimed at the direction the country is going under the leadership of President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress?

Throughout 2009, that so-called "bottom-barrel demagogy," as Troy Patterson called it in an post for Slate one year ago, was the focus of much consternation from the intellectual class that resides in the Northeastern U.S. corridor. One example was a critique of the Rick Santelli call that inspired the Tea Party movement, which John Dickerson called "impassioned, scattershot, and ultimately clownish" in a post for Slate back in February 2009.

Apparently it is OK to cry foul on so-called populist rants when the mouthpieces tend to be right-of-center. But now, with Congress debating financial regulation, this sort of above-the-fray approach has gone by the wayside, at least for Slate.com. On Slate's Political Gabfest podcast for April 22, moderator John Dickerson asked his panel consisting of Slate editor David Plotz and Slate senior editor Emily Bazelon, if Wall Street banks had a responsibility to self-regulate and do what's right as opposed to solely relying on legislation to set the boundaries. That inspired an "impassioned" populist response from Plotz.



RuthBaderGinsburg0709

In a July 7 New York Times Magazine article ("The Place of Women on the Court"; HT to an e-mailer) apparently scheduled to appear in its July 12 print edition (based on its URL), Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Times's Emily Bazelon that "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Who is this "we" Ginsburg refers to?

Alleged reporter Bazelon did not follow up on this astounding admission.

Here, in full context of the Q&A discussion about women's reproductive rights, is Justice Ginsburg's statement: