The sudden, if not unexpected, appointment of John Bolton as President Trump’s national security adviser led the New York Times on Friday and the paper packed a year’s worth of predictable “hard-line” and “hawkish” labels in one edition. (The Times has used “hard-line” to describe Soviet Communists and Iranians who support the continuing Islamic death sentence against author Salman Rushdie, so it’s a pretty loaded term in Timesland.



The New York Times starkly revealed its disparate, biased, and hopelessly confused treatment of fascist and socialist ideologies on Saturday, with Trump indirectly lumped in with European fascist parties. Reporter Jason Horowitz was featured on Saturday’s front page, “In Italian Campaign, Gravity of Far Right Exerts Its Strongest Pull.” Horowitz threw out plenty of “far-right” and “hard right” labels to describe some of the unsavory populist parties emerging in Europe. But on the same front page, White House correspondent Peter Baker also used “hard right” to describe the Trump administration’s policy moves. Meanwhile, another reporter celebrated a popular German socialist and knocked "trickle-down economics."



A majority of Americans now support the tax reform package passed by Congress and signed into law by Donald Trump just over two months ago. Just don’t expect the media to tell you about it.



The media meltdown continues, in the wake of the release of the House Intelligence Committee memo detailing alleged misconduct by the FBI and the DOJ. In “Trump’s Unparalleled War,” on the front of Sunday’s New York Times, reporters Sharon LaFraniere, Katie Benner, and Peter Baker’s fancy they’ve uncovered a conspiracist in the White House who has launched “an unparalleled war on law enforcement.” It’s quite odd and hypocritical for the liberal New York Times, which giddily leaks sensitive information to wreck  terror-fighting programs and published the name of a covert CIA official, to suddenly hallow the nation’s domestic surveillance organization as a vital and sacred institution.



Reporter Peter Baker’s front-page “news analysis” in Wednesday’s New York Times, written before President Trump’s first State of the Union speech, tried to frame the president as an unpopular, divisive, uncompassionate exaggerator: “The Salesman Most Still Aren’t Sold On.” And Helene Cooper’s live coverage provided this snarky bit: “All of the invited guests were used to show how foreigners are bad. Except for the kid who put the flags all over the place."



The New York Times may be at its most liberal on the immigration issue, and when President Trump seemed to warm to the idea of a path to citizenship for some illegals, reporters abruptly warmed to him, at least compared to the “hard-line anti-immigration activists” in his party. The lead story by Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Trump Receptive To Working Out Citizenship Path," tempted Trump with chances of political victory, and provided the paper's usual “undocumented” euphemism for illegal immigrants.



President Trump is attacking the media once again, and the New York Times is playing scared, and playing the “dictator” card. The front page of Wednesday’s Times featured Steven Erlanger in Brussels shaming Trump, and suggesting he’s somewhat responsible for foreign dictators acting like foreign dictators, in “Globe’s Autocrats Echo Trump’s ‘Fake News’ Cry.”



On Monday’s Morning Joe, New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker was welcomed onto the panel to discuss his and his colleagues’ latest report about President Trump’s TV news-watching habits. In the course of discussing the piece, MSNBC National Affairs Analyst John Heilemann made a point of bringing up how Trump’s favorite nightly news show to hate-watch is, reportedly, CNN Tonight with Don Lemon. Heilemann tried and failed to get Baker to pin Trump’s dislike of Lemon on the President’s supposed hatred of African-American people before turning to Princeton Professor Eddie Glaude Jr., the show’s only black panelist, for backup. Glaude did not explicitly agree with Heilemann, but was clearly amused by Heilmann’s “slightly devilish” suggestion.



The New York Times eventually came around to publishing a review of a book it published in June titled Obama: The Call of History, a photo book with text by Times reporter Peter Baker. The reviewer was Rutgers professor James Goodman, who gushed like a good liberal Democrat about how much his late mother would love this coffee-table valentine. "Integrity like his cannot be photoshopped or feigned."



White House correspondents Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker were joined in Washington, D.C., by executive editor Dean Baquet in a conversation on covering the Trump administration, moderated by media columnist Jim Rutenberg on October 12. About 33 minutes into the talk, the subject turned to liberal bias, and there were the usual evasions and denials. Baker played dumb by suggesting readers were getting the editorials confused with the news (while admitting there were more liberals than conservatives in the newsroom) while Haberman insisted that reporters played things "straight  down the middle."



New York Times intelligence reporter Peter Baker did all he could to minimize the scandal that resulted in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and maximize the danger President Trump is now in, in Sunday’s “Trump Turns to Familiar Playbook: Clintons’.” Baker attacked Clinton special prosecutor Ken Starr and cited Democratic attack-dog James Carville as an authority to defend the integrity of Trump special counsel Robert Mueller.



Ken Dilanian, intelligence and national security reporter for NBC News, posted Tuesday on the emerging controversy over the “unmasking,” by President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice, of the identities of Trump associates whose names were originally redacted in intelligence reports. The title to Dilanian’s piece, “What Is Unmasking, and Did Susan Rice Do Anything Wrong?”  made it safe to assume that Dilanian’s answer would be “Of course she didn’t!”