Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s latest disturbing comment, this time describing the 9-11 terror attacks dismissively as “some people did something....”, provided fodder for the New York Times to get offended. Not offended by Omar’s comment, of course, but against Donald Trump and New York Post for tough responses. Maggie Haberman and Sheryl Gay Stolberg tried to artificially widen Trump’s Twitter attack on Omar’s 9-11 comments into an assault on all Muslims in America on Tuesday’s front page: “Trump Rekindles Campaign Threat Of Islamic peril.” It began: "President Trump has often seen the political benefits of stigmatizing Muslims."
Reporters and columnists took a petulant tone in Wednesday’s New York Times in the aftermath of the Mueller report and the Trump Administration’s triumphant reaction. One can visualize gritted teeth and pursed lips of the paper’s journalists reporting on Trump administration insiders, celebrating vindication, But fear not, there is hope for the Democrats. Wednesday’s lead story, “Move to Nullify Health Care Act Roils Democrats,” had this cheery text box summary: “A chance to shift the conversation from the Mueller report.”
One word perfectly sums up the tone of the conversation on Sunday’s edition of Reliable Sources: hyperbolic. Throughout the hour, CNN White House Correspondent Jim Acosta effectively compared President Trump to Kim Jong-un while host Brian Stelter suggested to a New York Times White House correspondent that rather than covering a White House beat, she was covering a “criminal beat.”
In a This Week discussion about the prospects for different Democratic 2020 candidates on Sunday, ABC’s faux Republicans Matthew Dowd proclaimed that the Democratic Party was much closer to what the rest of the country believed than the Republican Party was. On top of that, Newsweek and Daily Beast writer Michael Tomasky suggested that a candidate with low name ID like Washington Governor Jay Inslee could “very easily” beat President Trump.
“Trump Court Pick Causes Stir With Abortion View,” in Wednesday’s New York Times contained a hefty dose of extraneous “conservative” labeling: 12 “conservative” labels in non-quoted material in a 1,200-word story. Meanwhile, Times science reporter Denise Grady tried to quell any qualms from the paper’s liberal readership under the soothing headline: “‘Executing Babies’: Here Are the Facts Behind Trump’s Misleading Abortion Tweet -- Infants are rarely born alive after abortion procedures, and if they are, doctors do not kill them.”
New York Times political reporters Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni clearly objected to President Trump meeting with “hard-right” activists led by Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in Sunday’s “Trump Is Said To Have Met Wife of Justice And Activists.”
New York Times religion reporter Elizabeth Dias went to Kentucky to see how the locals were handling the unearned vitriol aimed at their sons at Covington Catholic High School after the viral video of the infamous confrontation at the Lincoln Memorial, for Tuesday’s “A Digital-Era Frenzy Sweeps Up a School Steeped in Tradition.” While the mainstream media has been forced to back off their more inflammatory and false charges against the boys, who were abused and confronted by both the Black Israelites and a drumming Native American activist, Dias maintained a churlish tone:
The liberal media had been left reeling after a weekend of spreading misinformation and smears against a group of innocent Catholic high school students who were being harassed in front of the Lincoln Memorial. At the start of the Monday’ edition of his show, on Fox News Channel, Tucker Carlson shamed those who jumped to the conclusions that fit into their narrative. Naming names, Carlson also called out those on the right who did the same thing.
On Thursday night, correspondent Randi “Kush” Kaye offered an hour-long special on the White House Briefing Room that served as nothing more than a pompous exercise in lamenting how they believe the Trump administration has been unfair to them and are unraveling American democracy. The endeavor was dominated by attempts to make viewers to feel bad for CNN, fondly look back on past administrations, and offer hissy fits about how, thanks to online and social media outlets, they’ve lost the ability to control the minds of the American public.
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.
New York Times reporters Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman had the unenviable task of trying to rationalize the effort by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate President Donald Trump's tweets for signs of obstruction of justice for a crime that has not been alleged in "Mueller Examining Trump’s Tweets in Wide-Ranging Obstruction Inquiry."
The result is an example of the desperation of liberals to reach even by ridiculous means their beloved impeachment, or, in this case, imtweetment.
New York Times reporters Katie Rogers and Maggie Haberman were offended that President Trump doesn’t like to watch CNN, using a leaked anecdote from Air Force One for a full-page story Wednesday: “A Bit of a Stir’ Aboard Air Force One: A TV Tuned to CNN.” The headline writers went overboard. The text box: “A president who rages against reality wants to keep the remote control for himself.” The online headline: “Spotting CNN on a TV Aboard Air Force One, Trump Rages Against Reality.” So in Timesland, “reality” equals CNN?