Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe lasted into the second week of the news cycle after he being fired by Attorney General Sessions over the weekend. His dismissal was accompanied by a shift in tone by the press, and by Monday, the usual suspects on MSNBC’s Morning Joe had memory-holed McCabe’s alleged transgressions for which the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility had recommended his firing in the first place.
At the New York Times, Wednesday's print edition version of Adam Goldman's and Matt Apuzzo's story on Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's departure from the FBI claims he "abruptly stepped down ... after months of withering criticism from President Trump ... (and) pressure from the head of the bureau ..." That isn't where the Times started when news of McCabe's departure first broke Tuesday. None of the story's original or six subsequent iterations seen at NewDiffs.org mention the "insurance policy" controversy which has tarnished McCabe's tenure.
Imagine if it was discovered that a couple of FBI officials had targeted a newspaper reporter to the extent that they not only searched out the reporter's home address and spouse's name but also, most creepily, the names of his children. Would that not be a major story in that reporter's newspaper since it involved an obvious attempt at government intimidation?
Well, it would normally be a blockbuster story in almost any newspaper with the very notable exception of the New York Times when such a report would prove incompatible with its political motivations. Such an example happened this week after a January 8 report in The Hill revealing that FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, bureau lawyer Lisa Page exchanged disparaging messages about the reporter they were targeting, Matt Apuzzo of the New York Times. The reaction from the Times? Nothing. No report. Zilch. Nada.
The New York Times is still treating FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the case of Hillary Clinton’s emails as a leading factor in her loss. But the 7,500-word lead story in Sunday’s New York Times: “In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election – Behind-the-Scenes Handling of 2 Inquiries Thrust F.B.I. Into Center of Race” also contained a hidden “bombshell” that the Times should acknowledge to defend its own journalistic integrity against Democratic criticism.
The New York Times two-column lead story Tuesday was predictable: FBI director James Comey’s testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee, where he announced that the FBI is in fact “investigating whether members of President Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.” (The Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch were relegated to page 20.) “Comey Confirms Inquiry On Russia And Trump Allies," breathlessly reported that Comey had “placed a criminal investigation at the doorstep of the White House.” As a snotty sidebar, Tuesday’s front page also featured reporter Michael Shear, “G.O.P. Reply Is to Change The Subject.” Shear also eagerly used the “criminal investigation” formula.
Would an Attorney General Jeff Sessions wreck civil rights? Several newspapers seem to think so, including Monday’s New York Times, which tried to poison the well against him as his confirmation looms. The long front-page profile of Sen. Sessions of Alabama, Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, hid its hostility and labeling slant under the benign headline, “Bonding by Bucking the Establishment.”
Carolina was in the mind of the liberal New York Times this weekend. The state’s Republican governor Pat McCrory recently signed religious freedom legislation that included a provision stating people in government buildings must use the restroom associated with their biological sex, the one on their birth certificate. In other words, the way public bathrooms have always worked. The Times, naturally, saw bigotry against transgenders and electoral doom.
An official with the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign sent a lengthy missive to Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, indicating “grave concern” over a controversial report the newspaper carried regarding the former secretary of state's private email account.
That's pretty audacious when Mrs. Clinton destroyed her own e-mail server and the State Department's getting scolded by judges over her department's slowness to respond to record requests from Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State.
News broke on Hillary Clinton's email controversy Thursday night, and Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo led with this sentence in their initial report on nytimes.com: "Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday." But after pushback from the Clinton camp, that tough lede became a laughably evasive accusation "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state...."
The New York Times continued to spread skepticism about the decision by a grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., not to seek criminal charges against a white police officer who shot a black teenager. The Times hypocritically upended its own liberal sensibility by suggesting more prosecutorial zeal would have been a good thing in this particular case. And a lead editorial likened the Ferguson police to "an alien, occupying force that is synonymous with state-sponsored abuse."
More pampering of Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder on the front page of the New York Times: Wednesday's edition featured "Shared Vision, Varying Styles," yet another defense of Holder (and criticism of Obama from the left) in a "news analysis" in the paper's off-lead slot by White House reporter Peter Baker, with Matt Apuzzo.
Strangely for a story on racial matters under Obama, the story made no mention of Obama's infamous judgment that Boston police had "acted stupidly" after a racially fraught incident in July 2009 involving the arrest of black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Also nothing about Holder playing the race card by blaming opposition to the administration's policies on "racial animus."
So it appears the Associated Press has discovered what conservative and libertarian economic critics have been saying all along: top-down government regulation to promote "green energy" has numerous unintended consequences, including negative repercussions for the environment.
In their November 12 article, "The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push," AP writers Dina Cappiello and Matt Apuzzo laid out how "the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today," adding (emphasis mine):