Last week, The New York Times bowed and scraped before the Left when their readers erupted in outrage over the bland, objective headline "Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism." This week, the Times demoted deputy Washington editor Jonathan Weisman after he upset the Left with several tweets about the hardcore "Justice Democrats" and an angry email to a radical feminist who writes for his paper.



Reporters Reid Epstein and Jonathan Martin devoted 1,800 words on the New York Times Sunday front page to getting out the black vote against Donald Trump in 2020, in “Trump’s Words Fuel Racial Strife. How Will Black Voters Respond?” Along the way, they issued a conspiracy-agent theory about how Trump is trying to stifle blacks from voting Democrat by...mentioning his criminal justice reform legislation? "No modern president has ever vilified black Americans or sought to divide people along racial lines like Mr. Trump, while also claiming to be a champion of their economic interests."



New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg handled the latest disturbing anti-Israel outburst from a controversial Democratic freshmen representative...by rushing to Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s defense in Tuesday’s edition under a headline that reduced the controversy to a partisan squabble: “A ‘Calming Feeling,’ a Furor and a  New Front in the War Over Anti-Semitism.” Tlaib made a bizarre and historically fraudulent comment on Jews fleeing persecution and Palestinians supposedly giving them refuge after the Holocaust. The paper’s response fits the media pattern. When a Democrat says something offensive or controversial, the media reacts not to the actual Democratic statement, but how the Republicans reacted to it, “pouncing” or otherwise.



New York Times reporters Glenn Thrush and Sheryl Gay Stolberg kept up with the ongoing (and for Democrats, seemingly never-ending) saga over the constant spew of anti-Semitic statements emanating from controversial new Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar. The suspiciously regretful-sounding “Democrats Let Their Message Escape Them” appeared on the front of Thursday’s edition. Indeed, the reporters appeared to lament the controversy less for Rep. Omar’s actual anti-Semitic statements than for distracting Democrats from liberal legislation. A previous story sported tougher anti-Republican language, calling out "bigoted" remarks by the GOP.



New York Times deputy Washington editor Jonathan Weisman made the Sunday Review with the dramatically titled “American Jews and Israeli Jews Break Up.” Weisman is author of the book (((Semitism))) Being Jewish in America in the Age of Trump, which blames Trump and the alt-right for a rise in U.S. anti-Semitism. But he is unwilling to acknowledge anti-Semitism on the left, as Ben Shapiro found in his evisceration of Weisman’s book. That held true in his latest for the Sunday Review, where he made Trump the villain.



A scoop in the lead slot of Monday’s New York Times was horrified that the Trump administration may resume following scientific procedure by defining sex in biological terms based on one’s genitalia at birth -- or, as the Times insisted, defining transgenders “out of existence”: “Trump May Limit How Government Defines One’s Sex – Gender Listed At Birth – Threat to the Protections of Those Who Identify as Transgender.” The online headline was even more dramatic and misleading: “‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration.”



The plea from New York Times reporter Jonathan Weisman appeared in the Sunday Review: “Missing in the Fight Against Anti-Semitism.” The online headline: “Anti-Semitism Is Rising. Why Aren’t American Jews Speaking Up?” But Weisman focused solely and dubiously on controversial rightists and missed several recent examples of Democrats lining up with Louis Farrakhan. Weisman himself has a tangled history with accusations of anti-semitism that make his plea unconvincing.



The idea that reporting the facts about terror attacks encourages more terrorism — an idea ridiculously advanced by the likes of former Secretary of State John Kerry during the Obama administration — has apparently gained some traction in the establishment press. On Tuesday, bothered by a "FOX NEWS ALERT" (in, oh my gosh, all caps) that "ISIS claims responsibility" for the hostage siege in Melbourne, Australia "that killed one person and injured three cops," Jonathan Weisman at the New York Times tweeted that such reporting is "giving the terrorists what they want," and complained that "No attack (is) too small or too far away for a big all-caps alert."



When Donald Trump mentioned Nazi Germany in reference to a lurid document floating around U.S. intelligence agencies, the New York Times was shocked and appalled -- and deeply hypocritical, given the eagerness of the paper's reporters, editors, and columnists to make those same comparisons against Donald Trump.



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."



After the shock resignation of John Boehner, should you fear and dread the rise of a revitalized right wing in Congress? Sunday's New York Times front page featured a "news analysis" on the surprise retirement announcement of House Speaker John Boehner. The takeaway from Jonathan Weisman and Michael Shear's label-heavy story was encapsulated in the headline: "The Post-Boehner Congress and Washington's Sense of Dread." Fear and dread among those who hew to the conventional wisdom dispersed by the liberal media, at least.



Like a Monty Python skit gone tragic, the New York Times actually ran a chart labeling Democratic lawmakers against Obama's controversial nuclear deal with Iran as "Jewish?" or not (the "Jewish?" part was removed online after outcry). The four chart headings read: "Democrats against the deal – Jewish? – District and estimated Jewish population – Vote with party." Under "Democrats against the deal," the names were arranged out of alphabetical order solely to enable the Times to stack all the "Yes" names that qualified as "Jewish?" at the top of the chart.