Hillary Clinton has yet to put away challenger Bernie Sanders in her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, and her supporters at the New York Times (and the rest of the media) are trying to shield her from Sanders’ “harm,” while pointing fingers at him for the alleged violence and death threats committed by his supporters after suspicions of process-rigging during the Nevada primary. Refreshing as it is to see the media actually putting blame on a liberal politician or a political movement for the acts of his followers, it's also true that slamming Sanders helps smooth Hillary's path to the nomination.
If you didn’t know the New York Times was in the tank for amnesty, Sunday’s stories would prove it. Reporter Jeremy Peters laid on a family guilt trip by strongly hinting that Sen. Marco Rubio was a hypocrite on immigration because of how his grandfather got to America: “Rubio’s Policies Might Shut the Door to People Like His Grandfather.” Turning to the New York Times Magazine, there was the 9,000-word cover story, “10 Shots Across the Border -- This Is The Wall Where A Mexican Teenagers Was Killed By A U.S. Agent Firing Through The Fence. Is the Border Patrol Out Of Control?” Gee, what do you think, New York Times? At the back of the magazine, Democratic activist Ana Marie Cox spoke to amnesty activist and Univision newscaster Jorge Ramos for the back of the magazine’s Talk page.
New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters took a testy tone on Tuesday with Republican presidential candidates who dared raise substantive concerns about the Obama administration’s ineffectual response to the Islamic terror threat: “Republicans Turn Up Heat in Iowa as They Set Aside Good for Bad and Ugly.” The text box read: “A new mood for the new year among the G.O.P. contenders.” Actually, it’s the same old sour GOP, according to the paper’s previous reporting, which also accused Republican candidates of sounding “dark notes” on various other issues.
Even Joe Scarborough, who according to the National Review's Elaina Plott has a "vehement" dislike of Marco Rubio, thinks there's nothing to the Florida Republican Senator's credit card issue.
New York Times political reporters Nicholas Confessore, Alan Rappaport, and Maggie Haberman live blogged the third GOP debate, and while the NYT didn't have a problem with the slanted questions from CNBC, they were quite perturbed over the counterattacks from the candidates, a pile-on jump-started by a lengthy and detailed off-the-cuff condemnation by Ted Cruz: "...candidates whine about media bias and lack of substance from moderators, and then often refuse to answer the questions or address policy issues....Rubio [is] continuing his mission to trash the news industry."
Even after undercover tapes showed Planned Parenthood engaging in morally reprehensible and legally questionable practices with aborted babies, the New York Times is still using abortion as a wedge issue to use against "hard-right" Republicans, demonstrated by hostile, label-heavy stories in Friday's edition, including two on the front page. Elsewhere there was the usual defense of Planned Parenthood, which after all "provides an array of other women’s health services" besides abortion.
Finally! Something from a New York Times reporter you can absolutely, positively believe: that no matter the mounting evidence, he will not condemn Hillary Clinton for her email malfeasance.
On today's Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough repeatedly tried to get Jeremy Peters to state whether he agreed with the federal judge who yesterday declared that Hillary had not "followed government policy" regarding her email. After haplessly trying to do anything but answer the question, an exasperated Peters finally sputtered: "you want, you want me to indict and damn Hillary? I'm not going to do that."
Jeb Bush and Donald Trump faced off in separate town meetings in New Hampshire, New York Times' Ashley Parker and Jeremy Peters reported Thursday. The reporters also demonstrated that the pro-amnesty NYT would use the illegal immigration issue to harass the Republican Party all the way to November 2016. In this instance, by ginning up mock outrage against the "slur" of "anchor babies."
The New York Times is cranking up the old reliable "War on Women" weapon to target the crop of Republicans running for the presidency. Saturday's lead story by Patrick Healy and Jeremy Peters portrayed the aftermath of the GOP debate not as a tough, substantive debate but as yet another source for Democratic attack ads portraying the party as anti-woman: "Fear That Debate Could Hurt G.O.P.In Women's Eyes – Remarks Under Attack – Concern Grows That the Candidates Were Not Inclusive Enough."
Yes, what could be better for an already-troubled network than to be saddled with a disgraced hand-me-down from the mother ship?
On today's Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski gushed "I think that it's great for the network" that Brian Williams will be joining MSNBC as its anchor of breaking news. As dutiful employees, it's understandable that MSNBC people would greet Williams impending arrival respectfully, as did Joe Scarborough in saying--without excitement--that he was "very excited." But Mika went beyond the call of duty with her "great for this network" line.
Friday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC took a strange turn during a discussion of Bill Clinton’s latest comments about the Clinton Foundation scandal when co-host Mika Brzezinski demanded to know from panelist and New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters “why your paper is so interested in Marco Rubio's driveway” as opposed to continuing to dig into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation.