On Tuesday, President Trump tweeted he would be “announcing THE MOST DISHONEST & CORRUPT MEDIA AWARDS OF THE YEAR” on Monday “in various categories from the Fake News Media." There’s bias, but then there’s sheer incompetence. The biggest media obsession last year was the search for evidence of Trump’s supposed collusion with Russia, in the process, liberal reporters in 2017 repeatedly stumbled into error and were forced to make embarrassing corrections. This post presented eight possible choices that the President could consider.



On Thursday evening, CNN.com ran a story by reporter Thomas Frank which, according to a now-posted Editor's Note, connected "Anthony Scaramucci with (congressional) investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund." The Editor's Note tells the network's readers: "That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted." Further, "Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci." Then, in a Monday evening bombshell, Fox News's Howard Kurtz reported that "Three journalists (have) quit CNN in fallout from (the) retracted Russia story" — although it's possible they may have resigned instead of getting fired. What in the world happened?



At the New York Times Monday evening, Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers reported that "none of the (FBI) investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government."



Just in time for Halloween, Hillary Clinton’s classified document scandal rose from the dead; FBI Director James Comey announced Friday that a newly discovered collection of emails “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” The New York Times is not happy. Particularly aggrieved was columnist and Democratic hack Paul Krugman, who alleged that Comey was rigging the election (sound familiar?): “If we don't hear more from Comey, we just have to conclude that he was trying to swing election. And *that* should be the story.” That after weeks of the Times saying such talk was a threat to democracy.



The New York Times coverage of the final presidential debate was dominated by what it termed “a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy” -- Trump’s refusal to state he would accept the results of next month’s presidential election, along with a cutting front-page opinion on how Hillary flustered Trump. There was also another ideologically slanted fact-check of the debate.



The New York Times on Sunday attacked Republican Donald Trump on several fronts, including instigating hate crimes against Muslims. Reporter Jonathan Martin filed “Anything Goes Campaign an Alarming Precedent.” The teary-eyed text box: “Long-held ideals seem of little concern to Donald Trump.” And Martin’s colleague Eric Lichtblau fingered Trump for a alleged rise in “hate crimes” against American Muslims.



FBI director James Comey endured condemnation from conservatives for his weak-kneed decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in handling classified documents as Secretary of State. But New York Times reporters Michael Schmidt and Eric Lichtblau gave him an atta-boy on the front page of Wednesday’s edition paying tribute to his toughness, patience, and principles -- while still chiding him for disagreeing with the Obama administration on police brutality: “Public Scolding of Clinton Fits A Pattern of Taking On Power.”



No more worrying about the corrupting effect of money in politics at the New York Times – as long as the loot is used to fight gun rights, state by state. Before President Obama’s executive actions on gun control announced Tuesday morning, Times reporter Eric Lichtblau helped paved the way, celebrating a billionaire’s vast political reach on Monday’s front page in “Battleground Shifts In Debate On Gun Control -- Obama Is Set To Act – Buoyed With New Cash, Groups Notch Small Wins vs. N.R.A.” The moneyman in this case would be former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg



Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times chronicled another example of the Obama administration’s historic resistance to the free flow of information: an “aggressive assault” curtailing the ability of inspectors general to get access to records inside their agencies.

This inspector-general system was created in 1978 as a post-Watergate reform, so it looks a little ironic that a liberal Democrat is trampling on the Watergate reformers of his own ilk.



Eric Lichtblau and Alexandra Stevenson made the front of the New York Times by taking pains to make a major donor to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, sound suspicious, even sinister, digging up unflattering (and irrelevant) details and finding two liberal Democratic congressmen to criticize him.



Everyone proposes drinking games for the State of the Union speech. But it’s not just the president that can drive you to drink. It’s the opportunistic media elites deciding which branches of government have too much power, depending on which branches the Democrats presently control.

After a lot of stalemate in 2013, the partisan media think it’s high time for the executive branch to go completely around the legislative branch. They think that now that Congress has proven itself unwilling to provide Barack Obama with the historical greatness he deserves, they should and must be driven around like roadkill. They’ll have no talk of an imperial presidency, let alone autocracy.



News that the New York Times and Washington Post kept secret until recently the secret U.S. drone base in Saudi Arabia is once again raising questions on the paper's politicized double standards on keeping state secrets related to the war on terror.

Contrast the deference paid to the Obama administration's request for secrecy, going along with the national security arguments advanced by Obama (until Wednesday's expose of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, Obama's choice to head the CIA) with how the paper routinely leaked secrets during the Bush administration that may have hurt anti-terrorist programs. Here are just some of the national security low-lights and double standards Times Watch has documented at the Times over the years.