Showing classic journalistic hypocrisy, New York Times reporter Nicholas Fandos shared the Democrats’ alarm that Republicans may actually reveal what the country’s domestic surveillance organization is doing behind closed doors in his report for Tuesday’s front page, “Republicans Vote to Release A Secret Memo.” An aggrieved Fandos led with criticism of the Republican vote to release the now-famous four-page memo: "Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, disregarding Justice Department warnings that their actions would be 'extraordinarily reckless'...."
On the same day conservative author Ann Coulter announced she would not speak to a campus group at the University of California in Berkeley, the New York Times blamed the victim and claimed that conservatives facing violent riots and protests on campuses across the country have no one to blame but themselves.
Early Wednesday afternoon, Washington Post writer Chris Cillizza attempted to silence those who pointed out his massive double standard in reporting about the health of Republican Senator John McCain (Ariz.) during the 2008 presidential campaign and his rampant dismissal of any doubts being raised about Hillary Clinton’s physical state here in 2016.
Even though Barack Obama is more than four-fifths of the way through his presidency, a large part of his popularity among liberals still rests on what they view as his exceptional talent for speechmaking -- a reputation which dates to his 2004 Democratic convention keynote address.
Now Alter, one of Obama’s biggest fans in the media, wants the POTUS to use his skill as a performer in a different context. In a Sunday column, Alter urged Obama to “challenge Wayne LaPierre, longtime leader of the National Rifle Association, to a one-hour primetime televised debate.”
In the past week, several pundits and alleged "experts" have been on a mission to tell us rubes that Hillary Clinton's email and private-server controversy doesn't rise to the level of being a scandal. They have absurdly argued that even if she "technically" violated State Department protocols and even broke some pesky laws in handling her communications while she was Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton's actions weren't serious enough to warrant prosecution.
In making that argument in an August 27 column ("The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t"), Washington Post columnist David Ignatius heavily relied on one Jeffrey Smith without revealing Smith's political connections to Bill and Mrs. Clinton and his professional advocacy on behalf of Democrats. After getting caught, while never recognizing his critics' existence, Ignatius incompletely disclosed Smith's obvious lack of objectivity in a manner which would have been barely tolerable during newspapers' dead-trees era, and which is completely unacceptable in the digital age.
New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan on Monday made a mea culpa for her past criticism of her paper's reporting on the racially-charged Ferguson case, when she called out a Times lead story for including the views of anonymous sources who supported police officer Darren Wilson's account of the shooting of Michael Brown -- a view eventually vindicated by the Obama Justice Department.
The New York Times continued to spread skepticism about the decision by a grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., not to seek criminal charges against a white police officer who shot a black teenager. The Times hypocritically upended its own liberal sensibility by suggesting more prosecutorial zeal would have been a good thing in this particular case. And a lead editorial likened the Ferguson police to "an alien, occupying force that is synonymous with state-sponsored abuse."
James Taranto's Opinion Journal page features a long-running gag, "Fox Butterfield, Is That You?" an homage to former New York Times crime reporter Fox Butterfield, who wrote an article under a now-notorious headline: "Crime Rates are Falling, but Prisons Keep on Filling." Yet the paper's liberal confusion had a straightforward explanation: Crime was down at least partially because more criminals were locked in prison. Now Taranto has struck again.
James Taranto performed an invaluable service from his Opinion Journal "Best of the Web" perch this week, revealing New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, a notorious liberal crusader on various fronts, to be perhaps the most gullible of the paper's many liberal writers. (He's also suggested Mao Tse-Tung and Saddam Hussein weren't that bad.)
Taranto teed up Kristof with this example of corruption of the peer-review process in scientific research:
A new Fox News survey tested Team Obama’s credibility: "The Internal Revenue Service says that two years of emails from IRS employees about targeting conservative and tea party groups were accidentally destroyed because of a computer crash and cannot be recovered. Do you believe the IRS that the emails were destroyed accidentally or do you think they were destroyed deliberately?"
The answer: only 12 percent believe the lame “accidentally destroyed” thesis, and 76 percent picked “deliberately.” Asked if Congress should keep probing, 74 percent said yes. No one at the networks will be touching this poll, but James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal wondered:
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal ably summarized the "hindsight and hypocrisy" of the New York Times editorial page. "Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Donald Sterling scandal is that virtually no one in the sports world was surprised to hear that Mr. Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, may have been caught on tape spewing racist sentiments," the Times proclaimed.
But apparently, the NBA is responsible for tolerating Sterling's "plantation attitudes" for decades, and somehow The New York Times editorial-page crusaders never before located this American racist menace:
While trying to win elections, the Democratic strategy is often perceived as combining several minorities -- including African-Americans, feminists, global warming alarmists and members of labor unions -- to pull together a winning total over Republicans, who usually try to draw more than 50 percent of the general population, a strategy that has often been hammered by liberals and members of the “mainstream” media as painting the GOP as “the party of the rich.”
However, ever since the October 1 rollout of ObamaCare, the program and its website have come under intense scrutiny for not working well, a charge that is now being brandished by Hispanics, who have usually voted Democratic but are accusing CuidadoDeSalud.gov of using computers to translate the original text from English into “Spanglish,” an “insulting” combination of the two languages.