The New York Times’s lead story Monday morning was of course the mass murder of 29 people in two mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso. The second paragraph cast some blame at “angry words directed at immigrants...by right-wing pundits and President Trump.” The theme of Monday’s paper was to tie President Trump to the El Paso mass murderer. Peter Baker and Michael Shear’s “news analysis,” “In Texas Gunman’s Manifesto, An Echo of Trump’s Language,” handed flailing Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke (and several other Democratic opportunists) a microphone to blame Trump.
Over the last few days, President Donald Trump has used his Twitter account to go after Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings and “civil rights leader” Al Sharpton. The New York Times could not resist, featuring not one but two front-page stories Tuesday, while egregiously calling the racially inflammatory Sharpton a “civil rights leader” and blotting out his past offenses against decency. The Times lead story led with the race card: "President Trump widened his war on critics of color on Monday with new attacks on the Rev. Al Sharpton and other political opponents."
The New York Times gave former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony on Capitol Hill a negative review in Thursday’s edition, terming it “shaky” and “halting,” even “excruciatingly awkward,” while tucking in rumors that he wasn’t fully engaged in the prosecution. Can one detect some frustration, even embarrassment in the paper’s coverage, now that the former special counsel, whose reputation for tenacity and “straight-arrow,” law-and-order omniscience the Times helped inflate, has flopped hard in public view? Now that Mueller’s shaky command of the details in his own report is public knowledge, we learn there were hints beforehand, which the Times apparently chose not to share.
Wednesday was Mueller Day on Capitol Hill. For seven hours the special counsel provided testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, carried live for those Americans still interested in his completed investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. electoral process in 2016. The Times saw "conservative conspiracy theories" and griped that Rep. Devin Nunes was "desperately trying to portray Mueller, the F.B.I., the Democrats and the media as working together to take down the president.” Where could Nunes have gotten that idea?
The front page of Saturday’s New York Times featured White House correspondent Peter Baker’s “news analysis” on Iran and attacks on oil tankers, “Trump’s Foggy Truth Meets Fog of War.” Ostensibly on the controversy over Iran’s culpability in the attack on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, but Baker, whose reporting has grown harsher and more partisan against President Trump, used the crisis as a springboard to attack Trump as a liar who can’t be trusted while the threat of conflict looms: "...for a president known for falsehoods and crisis-churning bombast, the test of credibility appears far more daunting."
On Tuesday's Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, host Andrea Mitchell fretted that President Trump could lead the country into a war with Iran and was assisted with that assessment thanks to New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker and former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin.
While promoting planned House Democratic hearings on the Mueller report, on her Monday show, MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell complained that President Trump “had three weeks head start” when it came to “branding this as case closed.” She advised Democrats that it would be up to them to keep pushing the case against Trump.
After a 22-month investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller investigating Russian ties to the Trump campaign and possible presidential obstruction of justice, the final 448-page report on the investigation has been released, confirming the previous summary by Attorney General Bill Barr that Mueller found no collusion and uncovered insufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction. Which didn’t stop the New York Times from sounding bitter, and in particular targeting Barr for sounding too much like an advocate for Trump (who, after all, was not charged with anything).
Was Hardball host Chris Matthews speaking to viewers Wednesday night from the past? Because it sure felt like Matthews had rewound back to March 22 because, just as things were on the day the Mueller report officially concluded, the mood of the MSNBC pundit was DEFCON-1 screeching all hour about how the Mueller report rollout “looks like an inside job.”
On Friday's MSNBC Live with Katy Tur, as fill-in anchor Chris Jansing hosted a discussion on President Donald Trump talking about possibly sending illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities instead of releasing them near the border, the group of mostly MSNBC reporters and contributors repeatedly used the word "illegal" to prejudge such an action as well as other label previous actions by the administration, even while refusing to apply the word to describe the illegal immigrants they were discussing.
New York Times reporter Peter Baker managed to peel himself away from the Mueller report long enough to lavish almost 1,400 words on a biography of the late first lady Barbara Bush, The Matriarch, on Thursday: “To Barbara Bush, Donald Trump Represented ‘Greed, Selfishness.’ The story’s text box expanded the argument: “Because of Mr. Trump, Mrs. Bush gave up on her party.” Baker reveled in Barbara Bush’s hostility toward Trump, and Nancy Reagan.
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.”