President Obama’s speech at a memorial service for the five police officers assassinated in Dallas while patrolling a Black Lives Matter protest led Wednesday’s New York Times. The paper portrayed Obama flatteringly as having “spoke hard truths to both sides” at the service, while downplaying how the President politicized the memorial by thumping for gun-control, ranting about how a Glock pistol was easier to get than a book. The story was unnecessarily sycophantic, while tamping down criticism of Obama’s politicized tone: “Obama Consoles And Challenges A Shaken Nation." The Times also failed to catch -- then conveniently excised -- a flubbed Biblical quotation by Obama.
Back in May, New York Times reporter Mark Landler praised President Obama for saving the U.S. economy and insisting “Many historians agree.” In his “White House Letter” of July 4, “Globalization Demands Obama’s Oratorical Skills,” he went further, calling in Obama to save the world economy against the ugly forces of “nativism and nationalism” of Trump and the Brexiteers with his silver-tongued oratory. The text box portrayed the president as delicately nudging the thugs with nuanced rhetoric: “Making a delicate case amid a rising tide of nativism.
The New York Times was extraordinarily slow to the draw in covering the controversial Phoenix airport meeting between U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. Its first in-house recognition of the Monday evening meeting took place Thursday evening, over 48 hours after the first media reports of it had appeared. That report by Mark Lander was relegated to Page A17 of the paper's Friday print edition.
In the wake of Congress's official report on the Benghazi massacre, the front page of the New York Times Wednesday eagerly absolved Hillary Clinton of any fault in the attack in Libya that killed four Americans: “Benghazi Panel Finds No Misdeeds by Clinton.” The paper’s inside-the-paper analysis by Mark Landler and Amy Chozick found further vindication, not addressing Hillary Clinton’s moral culpability in the attack but merely treating it as a partisan victory for the Democratic Party’s nominee, just one more hurdle to get past on the way to the presidency: “An 800-Page Report Down, and a Server of Emails to Go.”
Some of the endless Brexit-result bashing from the New York Times on Saturday got personal. In her “reporter’s notebook," European culture correspondent Rachel Donadio didn’t hide her contempt for the “open xenophobia” and evident ignorance of the Leave side: "This week, it wasn’t Greece that was kicked out. It was Britain that voted to leave, after a campaign of open xenophobia." Also, White House reporters Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Mark Landler sadly revealed just how much the voters of Britain have disappointed President Obama
As his final term wanes, the New York Times is making excuses for the economy’s performance under President Obama, with the president himself guiding the way. Economics reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin’s interview of Obama for the cover of the Times Sunday magazine dug in in defense of Obama. The subhead: “Eight years after the financial crisis, unemployment is at 5 percent, deficits are down and G.D.P. is growing. Why do so many voters feel left behind? The president has a theory.” And Sorkin let him unfold the tale without journalistic pushback. And reporter Mark Landler gushed of Obama's self-defense: "Many historians agree."
New York Times reporter Mark Landler, a veteran fawner over Obama, sympathized with the president’s plight as his historic visit to Cuba was overshadowed by Islamic terror attacks in Brussels, in “Global Crises Overshadow Another Trip.” The president was portrayed as a passive victim of international events, as if the real tragedies are Obama’s interrupted vacations or squashed attempts at historic messages. And it would never be mooted in the NYT that just maybe, Obama’s passivity and lack of leadership in the wake of international crises like Islamic terror may play a role in failing to prevent such events in the first place.
The New York Times is one of the media's prime carriers of sickly White House assurances about Ebola, dictating unfounded claims that it has the disease under control, while dismissing calls from Republicans and health experts for banning flights out of infected countries as paranoid, unscientific overreaction.
The New York Times fessed up in its Tuesday edition about an erroneous claim it made nearly two weeks earlier. Mark Landler, in his reporting on President Obama's September 10, 2014 prime time address on ISIS, asserted in an article the following morning that "unlike Mr. Bush in the Iraq war, Mr. Obama has sought to surround the United States with partners."
The family of Steven Sotloff, the second American journalist beheaded in the past two weeks by members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria -- or ISIS -- is reportedly “outraged” at President Barack Obama and his staff for making “deliberate leaks,” which the relatives interpret as “an attempt to absolve the administration of inaction.”
While this might seem to be the basis of an extensive news article investigating that angle of the conflict between the terrorist group and America, the New York Times reported on it -- in the final three paragraphs of a lengthy article in its Tuesday edition.
One way to know if a journalist is asking a softball question is when the President of the United States compliments the reporter after he or she asks it. That happened twice on Tuesday as Barack Obama talked to reporters about the government shutdown. The President called on Sam Stein of the liberal Huffington Post website. Stein dutifully wondered, "With Speaker Boehner so far unwilling to hold a vote on a clean CR, what assurances can you give to those affected by a shutdown who are concerned about an even longer impasse?"
He added, "And how worried are you personally that your preferred solution to this -- a clear CR at sequestration levels -- may do harm to the nation's economy and your second term agenda?" Finding the question appropriately fawning, Obama responded, "Sam, you're making an important point." The President looked favorably on a similar query from a New York Times journalist. [See video below. MP3 audio here.]
At the White House on Thursday, President Obama let his radical leftist slip show when he accepted a 67 year-old letter from from Ho Chi Minh to U.S. President Harry Truman given to him by Vietnam's current president Truong Tan Sang and spoke of the letter's contents: "... we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson. Ho Chi Minh talks about his interest in cooperation with the United States. And President Sang indicated that even if it's 67 years later, it's good that we're still making progress."
Darlene Superville at the Associated Press relayed what Obama said in the final paragraphs of her report on Sunday without a hint of historical knowledge about mass murderer Ho Chi Minh's motivations for writing that letter. Perhaps she's too young and was so consistently indoctrinated by her teachers about how the U.S. was the "imperialist" and Ho Chi Minh was the "freedom fighter" to know any better. Based on his bio, New York Times reporter Mark Landler doesn't appear to be able to claim that kind of historical ignorance, but he has definitely retained a capacity to make excuses for repressive, murderous regimes. Excerpts from his coverage and a correct rendering of the history follow the jump (bolds are mine throughout this post):