The New York Times invariably provides guilty liberal spin to any crisis, including the coronavirus pandemic. Tuesday’s front page featured “Spit On, Yelled At, Attacked: Chinese-Americans Fear for Their Safety -- As bigots blame them for the coronavirus and President Trump labels it the ‘Chinese virus’ many Chinese-Americans say they are terrified of what could come next.” An editorial also lectured in an attempt to limit the spread of the fact that the virus originated in China: “Once again, a mysterious, fast-spreading and sometimes lethal disease is exacerbating racism and hatred...."



The New York Times kept up its feverishly partisan coronavirus reporting Monday:  “How Response to Virus Is Already Being Seen Through Partisan Lens.” The text box: “Could harsh rhetoric make an outbreak harder to fight?” Of course the paper only perceived partisanship on the part of Republicans. The reporters milked a single anecdote for all it was worth: "Rob Maness, a Republican commentator, recently wrote a column, outlining his concerns about how the coronavirus outbreak could disrupt supplies of medicine. He was not ready for the backlash -- from his fellow conservatives....Already, the partisanship has seeped into how many Americans, in particular Mr. Trump’s supporters, view the crisis.



The front of the National section in the New York Times took full advantage of President Trump’s vulgar comment about life in Haiti to accuse him of racism, felicitously timed to appear on Martin Luther King Day. Reporter Sabrina Tavernise’s full-page article was headlined “In Trump’s Remarks, Black Churches See a Nation Backsliding.” 



Remove him from office or just call him a racist? That was the dilemma faced by two New York Times columnists this weekend. First, the prickly Charles Blow ventured into the Midwest to rant against Donald Trump at the Cleveland Public Library, while his colleague Nicholas Kristof put odds on Trump's removal.



Considering that it's coming from the New York Times, reporter Sabrina Tavernise's account of what happened in Ohio to swing it from a close Obama win in 2012 to a near-blowout for Donald Trump in 2016 was reasonably well-done, but still had glaring flaws. Her story's human interest elements were strong, but the accompanying statistics provided were sparse, and really needed to be there to tell the full tale. Tavernise's biggest failures were first, not describing how historically large Trump's Buckeye State victory margin was, and second, neglecting to attribute a large portion of that margin to sharply lower overall turnout among Democrats. Those two elements enabled her to avoid entertaining the possibility that Ohio — but to be clear, not necessarily the rest of the nation, or even the Midwest — may have just experienced a potentially seismic electoral realignment.



There's something odd with a Sunday New York Times report on gun ownership in America.  They claim the number of Americans owning guns are at its lowest since the 1970s.  They attribute it to a reduction in violent crime, which contradicts the media narrative that we need more gun control, and the increased rates of Americans settling in urban areas.  The problem is two years ago; the number of Americans owning guns was at 47 percent. Now, it's 35 percent.  So, there was a twelve-point drop in two years, and a little over three months after Sandy Hook. 

How could that be right? Here's what the Times duo of Sabrina Tavernise and Robert Gebeloff reported:



On Thursday, New York Times reporter Sabrina Tavernise filed a report on death rates among the young in America and misleadingly equated it to a failure of America to achieve universal health care, in the badly titled "For Americans Under 50, Stark Findings on Health."

The Times tretched the definition of poor "health" in America past the credibility breaking point, to include death rates from guns, cars, and illegal drugs. Gun deaths and car accidents have nothing to do with health care, and drug addiction has a peripheral link.



New York Times reporter Sabrina Tavernise pushed nanny-state initatives in "deeply conservative" Oklahoma City on the front of Tuesday's Science Times: "Door to Door in the Heartland, Preaching Healthy Living."

Like a missionary, Michael Bailey, a county health worker, spends his days driving his beat-up Nissan around this city’s poorest neighborhood, spreading the word in barber shops and convenience stores about the benefits of healthy diet and exercise. “Look at the kids,” he said. “Overweight, huffing and wheezing. Their lives will be miserable if this doesn’t change.”



Obama-Care isn't dead yet, but Peter Baker's lead New York Times story Sunday on Obama-Care laid out a provisional autopsy in anticipation of the Supreme Court's decision, expected Thursday, that may eviscerate some or all of the president's major piece of legislation: "Supporters Slow to Grasp Health Law's Legal Risks – Initial Confidence Proved a Miscalculation, Raising What-Ifs About Strategy."

But a couple of other Times stories, including one by Jodi Kantor took a sympathetic and defensive view of Obama-Care that suggested the measure had suffered because of Republican deception and a failure to understand the bill's benefits.