The New York Times does not like British Conservative politician Boris Johnson, and certainly not his Brexit cause, and makes little attempt to hide it, even in its news coverage (and forget about the opinion section). Reporter Stephen Castle’s coverage of the debate between conservatives Johnson and Jeremy Hunt over who would become the Conservative Party’s new leader (and in effect the next Prime Minister of Great Britain) included this charming line on Brexit: "That cause is embraced with virtually cultlike certitude by almost all Conservative members now...."
The New York Times' front page on Saturday featured political reporter Sydney Ember in Iowa savoring all the wonderful Democratic candidates primed to defeat President Trump in November 2020: “‘Beat Trump’ Fervor Lifts All 2020 Democrats.” Meanwhile, another odd article praised losing Georgia governor candidate Stacey Abrams for...being a Trekkie? "Ms. Abrams, with her precision and relish for the tax code, veers toward the Spockian."
New York Times reporter Sarah Lyall, fiercely anti-Brexit, has made it a pastime to belittle iconoclastic, shock-haired Conservative Party politician and Brexit proponent Boris Johnson, which she does in Sunday’s paper: “Witty and Shameless, He Aims to Run Britain – A Populist, Johnson Fits Trump’s Mold.” One can assume that the comparison to Trump is not intended as a compliment. She informed readers that "Moderate Conservatives regard him as stealthy and dangerous." But she didn't try to prematurely bury Johnson's political career, as she did in 2016 when she called him a liar in a news story.
New York Times reporter Sarah Lyall offered a disturbing look at the World Cup host city of Volgograd, Russia, where some actually have found World War II-related memories of one of the world’s cruelest dictators, Joseph Stalin. But the most important part of a story on Stalin is nearly absent: Why he is such a controversial figure in the first place. Whitewashing the crimes of Soviet Communism is a shameful habit at the Times, whose notorious "Red Century" series did the same to mark the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution.
The front of Tuesday’s New York Times featured a long essay by Sarah Lyall on Brexit, “A Mighty City Trembles at a Global Crossroad -- With Britain Leaving Europe, Can London Remain a Capital of the World?” The online headline was stark: “Will London Fall?” The NYT made a big production of it, with big photos over the fold on the front and inside, with Lyall “mourning” the supposed death of the famously “tolerant....open-minded” city. Counter-arguments about national sovereignty and overweening bureaucratic dictates were quickly dismissed as irresponsible right-wing journalistic myths. Lyall's reporting has betrayed a consistent bitterness over Brexit: Before the vote, she had mocked the movement in a front-page story by evoking Monty Python.
During the New York Times rather sedate and solemn (wonder why?) live election night coverage, reporter Maggie Haberman whined that “the amount of open misogyny during this campaign has been really striking, from a lot of Trump’s supporters.” Sarah Lyall’s front-page story in Wednesday’s edition (before most of the results were in) also took a feminist angle: “Many Women Feel Echoes of History in Vote for Clinton.” Its laudatory lines about Hillary Clinton’s imminent triumph were overtaken by events: “Women across the country felt history tapping them on their shoulder, propelling them out the door, following them into voting booths.” And two Times media and TV writers got together to talk Trump lies and his deplorable supporters.
The New York Times’ snobbish, condescending, and just plain crazed hostility toward Britain’s vote to leave the European Union trade zone continued after a political coup resulted in Boris Johnson, the intellectual figurehead of the successful Brexit campaign, dropping out of the race for conservative leader to replace Prime Minister David Cameron. Friday’s front page featured an insulting "memo from London" from reporter Sarah Lyall gleefully digging the dirt and then shoveling it over Boris Johnson's political career:
The liberal Euro-philes at the New York Times are at it again, mocking ignorant Britons for resenting the grand European Union trading bloc. London-based reporter Sarah Lyall made gentle mockery of the right-of-center push for England to exit the EU (a proposal known colloquailly as "Brexit") on Friday’s front page by evoking Monty Python, especially John Cleese: “On ‘Brexit’ Vote, British Ask If It Would Be Silly to Walk.” Lyall opened her news story with an editorialist anecdote: "Jackie O’Neill, a 54-year-old administrative assistant, was explaining the other day why Britain should vote to divorce itself from the European Union in this month’s referendum. As she enumerated her many grievances, I couldn’t help thinking of the scene in Monty Python’s 'Life of Brian' in which a bunch of disaffected Judeans sit around, complaining about the Romans."
British Prime Minister David Cameron was embraced by conservatives and euro-skeptics after rejecting a European Union agreement aimed at stabilizing the troubled economic union. Yet the tone of the New York Times news coverage is that he blundered, “isolating” Britain by failing to accept the accord’s requirements, including that members submit their budgets to the EU for approval even before being considered by their country’s own parliaments.
Sarah Lyall and Julia Werdigier reported from London Saturday, “In Rejecting Europe Pact, Cameron Is Isolated.”
The New York Times knows how to grab web traffic. One of its most popular articles right now is a Sarah Lyall dispatch from Thursday on the popularity in Britain of "dogging" -- public sex, sometimes with an audience of admirers. Lyall takes a long time getting around to critics (paragraph 12), and then it sounds like this:
Britons are a tolerant bunch, and most probably would not care who watched whom doing what in whatever configuration, as long as they all went somewhere else. Why, Puttenham residents wonder, do they have to do it 400 yards from the village nursery school?”
But the spirit of the current moment is absolutely captured when someone argues that trying to close down a highway rest stop that's a popular site, or policing the public sex will lead to yes, suicides:
“It was like, ‘Are you taking this seriously?’ ” Ms. Paterson said. “One cabinet member said, ‘If you close this site, there could be an increase in suicides because these people have nowhere else to go.’”
In a Friday story headlined "Britons Fault Health Service, Until Someone Else Does," Times London correspondent Sarah Lyall singled out Republican criticism of British health care, citing tiny protests, larger Twitter campaigns, and exercised editorials in The Economist magazine about "irresponsib