Appearing as a panel member on Sunday's Kasie DC on MSNBC, NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg predicted that a circuit court panel would have to be made up of "whack jobs" to side in favor of recently passed laws banning abortion. She also joined with Jeremy Peters of the New York Times to repeat misleading polling claiming that a solid majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade and therefore abortion.
Reporter Jeremy Peters chose a novel angle in Friday’s New York Times -- how conservatives are actually winning the PR war on abortion of late. It’s an unusual topic for the paper, which is reluctant to dwell on issues that favor conservatives. Still, a predictable tone of lament and clear disappointment prevails, salted with accusations that social conservatives are distorting the debate and misinforming the public, a slant captured in the headline. Democrats Are Caught Off-Guard on Abortion -- Forceful Messages and Misinformation By Opponents Are Defining the Debate.”
After then-candidate Donald Trump issued an off-the-cup hypothetical about not respecting the election results, the New York Times hysterically compared him to a dictator. So it’s striking how accepting the Times is of liberal Democrats who actually do fail to accept the disappointing results elections. On the front page of Monday’s New York Times, political reporters Glenn Thrush and Jeremy Peters fixed the blame solely on Republicans and "conservative-dominated legislatures...stoking paranoia over stolen elections."
The front of Tuesday’s New York Times featured reporters Jeremy Peters and Maggie Haberman in the Florida capital Tallahassee, the heart of the latest controversial voting issues related to recounts to hit that state, for a “news analysis” that cast the Republican Party as ruthless and cynical and the Democrats as meek: “G.O.P. Fears Over Senate Edge Drive Push to Discredit Recount.” The reporters downplayed past and present examples of Democratic electoral shenanigans and managed to mention long-controversial Broward County supervisor of elections Brenda Snipes just once.
Sunday’s front-page New York Times featured reporter Jeremy Peters’ horrified reaction to President Trump’s aggressive push (or “demonization”) on behalf of Republicans as Election Day closes in: “G.O.P. Tactics Amplify Theme Of Us vs. Them – Sticking to President’s Script in Tight Races.” The Times tried as best they could to paint Trump as a racist and bigoted without actually using the words: "....Mr. Soros, the liberal philanthropist who has been smeared with anti-Semitic attacks; Mr. Kaepernick, the black football player famous for kneeling during the national anthem; and now the migrant caravan."
On the front page of Tuesday’s New York Times, reporter Jeremy Peters committed a “news analysis” that basically blamed Trump for stoking the recent pipe bomb attack against Democrats and anti-Semitic massacre in Pittsburgh: “Caravan Rhetoric Intersects With Deadly Hatred -- President Stokes Same Fears That Appear to Drive Attacks.” The online headline made the connection even more explicit: “How Trump-Fed Conspiracies About Migrant Caravan Intersect With Deadly Hatred.”
Reacting Wednesday night to the bombs sent to CNN and other Democrats, MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews offered a bizarre take that invoked how next Wednesday is Halloween, blamed the President without evidence for being responsible for the bombs, and insinuated that he was akin to Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.
The New York Times reported from Omaha on Saturday: “Trump Seizes On Migrant Caravan to Rev Up Republican Voters.” "Barely two weeks away from an election that threatens to sweep Republicans from power in the House of Representatives and dash any lingering hope of conservative immigration reform, the party, led by President Trump, is leaning more aggressively into dark portrayals of undocumented immigrants in a bid to galvanize voters. Mr. Trump, whose political appeal among his core voters has largely been rooted in warnings about illegal immigration as a threat to American security, sovereignty and identity, has stepped up his hard-line, inflammatory attacks on Latin American migrants...."
New York Times reporters Jeremy Peters and Susan Chira shamelessly played both the race card and the Trump card to dismiss and mock Brett Kavanaugh’s anger at being called a rapist in front of America, in Sunday’s “Court Pick Steals a Page From Trump’s Playbook On White Male Anger.” The word choice gave away the paper’s disbelief at the effrontery of the conservative Supreme Court nominee actually defending his own honor: "For many conservatives, especially white men who share Mr. Trump’s contempt for the left and his use of divisive remarks."
The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation saga has led the New York Times back into its bad old distorted labeling habits, in which stories included the term “conservative” as often as they included conjunctions. Friday’s front page led off with “Religious Right Wary of Delays On Court Pick – Threatening to Sit Out Midterm Elections.” The 1,600-word story contained a whopping 15 “conservative” labels, a “religious right” in headline and one in the text, plus a “further to the right” for good measure. Meanwhile, the anti-Kavanaugh liberal side was only given a single ideological label (“liberals”) deep into the story:
Friday’s New York Times featured political reporter Jeremy Peters hypocritically worrying President Trump and Republicans were politicizing the murder of Iowa woman Mollie Tibbetts by an illegal immigrant: “Lament Quickly Turns Into Politics In Wake of Young Woman’s Death.” Yet the paper didn’t hesitate a millisecond before politicizing the school shootings in Parkland, Fla. to push stricter gun-control measures. The reliable liberal media incantation “seized” made an appearance -- a code word for “A Republican is bringing up an issue we would rather not have to talk about.”
On Tuesday, MSNBC hosts and correspondents displayed their religious intolerance by attacking the faith of potential Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. During one hour after another, Barrett’s membership in a faith group was ridiculed and listed as one of her “potential weaknesses” in a Senate confirmation fight.