New York Times reporter Michael Shear analyzed Donald Trump’s supposed admiration for strongmen, turning President Reagan’s admonition on its head against Trump: “For President, It’s Just ‘Trust,’ No ‘Verify.” Many conservatives have criticized Trump for his credulous remarks on what North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un knew about the treatment of American prisoner Otto Warmbier. But it’s a bit rich to hear the Times accusing someone else of embracing “strongmen," as Shear does: "...in more than two years in the Oval Office, the president has demonstrated an unmistakable pattern: He tends to believe what strongmen say."
Thursday’s Inside Politics led off with more kvetching about every aspect of President Donald Trump’s surprise visit to U.S. troops in Germany and Iraq, including how he didn’t meet with the Iraqi Prime Minister. Conveniently, they downplayed the positive symbolism of having a president visit troops and footnoted the similarities between Trump and Barack Obama in not meeting face-to-face with Iraqi leaders.
Monday’s pre-Election Day New York Times was absolutely stuffed with bias. First, the front page featured Kevin Roose and Ali Winston’s web warning, “Web’s Far Right Can Hear Itself As Trump Talks -- Cheering the Spread of Once-Fringe Views,” which conflated Trump supporters with neo-Nazis. Reporter Michael Shear went to West Virginia to mock Trump supporters as trapped in a “presidential bubble,” from his own liberal bubble of snotty smugness. And Jim Rutenberg took a trip down “Racist Republican” memory lane with the Willie Horton ad.
With elections fast approaching, Friday’s New York Times was packed with accusations of President Trump as a racist and hostile to immigrants, most intensely in the lead story by Michael Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis. The headline deck: “Trump Invoking ‘Crisis’ at Border As Voting Nears – Message For Midterms – A Presidential Theme Is Built Around a Fear of Immigrants.” Illegal immigrants, actually, but don’t count on the Times to ever clarify.
In Monday’s New York Times lead story on the continuing Kavanaugh controversy, reporters Michael Shear and Robin Pogrebin showed the Times eagerly marching down the field in step with the Democrats as they moved the goalposts on the FBI inquiry, which they once demanded but now consider insufficiently broad: “Democrats Irked By Limits Placed On F.B.I.’s Inquiry.” The online headline was more dismissive: “Democrats Denounce Limits on F.B.I.’s Kavanaugh Inquiry as a ‘Farce.’
The New York Times gave vastly different views of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford regarding their extraordinary testimony, consistently chiding Kavanaugh as "angry" and "aggrieved" and calling his judicial temperament into question -- as if anger wouldn't be a perfectly reasonable response to false allegations of sexual assault. The paper was clearly disappointed with Sen. Lindsey Graham for his fierce attacks on Democrats.
Breaking in just after noon Eastern on Tuesday for Inside Politics, panelists expressed support for liberal Senators and protesters repeatedly disrupting and trying to delay the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, declaring they “had no choice” and “definitely” have a point about Kavanaugh not being transparent with Americans concerning his time in the Bush White House.
As part of the liberal media’s obsession with Omarosa’s salacious allegations against the President from her book tour, Tuesday’s White House Press Briefing featured nearly four times as many questions about Omarosa-related topics as all other matters. Specifically, the breakdown was 39 Omarosa questions by 11 reporters to 10 questions for everything else from seven journalists (Afghanistan, Chinese influence in South America, ISIS, the Mueller probe, and Turkey).
New York Times reporters Michael Shear and Adam Liptak’s review of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his involvement in Ken Starr’s independent counsel investigation of President Bill Clinton, made the front page of Sunday’s edition. It conveniently served as a defense of the Clintons against the “puritanical” “hatred” of Republicans: “Court Pick, Soldier in the Battle to Impeach Clinton, Has Regrets.” The reporters's opening and closing quotes are from former Clinton adviser current Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, surely a nonpartisan source of objective wisdom on the matter at hand.
In Friday’s lead New York Times story on the Group of 7 meeting of industrialized nations in Canada which opened today, reporter Michael Shear set the table with sour grapes for Trump and sympathy for Europe’s more conventionally liberal leadership: “Anger Flares Up As The Group of 7 Heads to Quebec": "Mr. Trump is the black sheep of this family, the estranged sibling who decided to pick fights with his relatives just before arriving to dinner."
UPDATE, May 27: A writer at the BreakingDefense.com website estimates that Mainland China's defense spending on a Purchasing Power Parity basis is $434.5 billion, and that its spending plus Russia's PPP spending of $157.6 billion is only about 2 percent below the USA's $606 billion.
On Friday's The Five on Fox, Juan Williams sharply criticized President Donald Trump's speech that morning at the Naval Academy's graduation ceremony. Williams condemned Trump's speech as "wrapped in patriotism ... the flag, and ... the military," and claimed that his appearance was really about co-opting the military's "high approval ratings among the American people to transfer to him." Williams's attack, though predictable, was accompanied by a significant distortion of U.S. military spending compared to the rest of the world which the remaining show panelists did not challenge.
Sunday’s New York Times lead story on the multiple rallies of anti-gun kids was reported by Michael Shear and a teeming throng of at least 19 other reporters around the world: “With Passion and Fury, Students March on Guns – Rebuke of N.R.A. by Huge Crowds Across U.S.” This would be the anti-gun March for Our Lives, not the pro-life March for Life, which the Times virtually ignores every year. Almost the same with the paper’s reluctant, hostile coverage of Tea Party protests. But this anti-gun rally received several thousands words in the paper’s lead slot.