Michelle Cottle, the lead New York Times editorial writer for national politics, issued a surprising signed lead editorial in Thursday’s edition, “Hillary Clinton’s Master Class in Distraction” (perhaps a quasi-lead editorial, as it carries the paper’s “Editorial Observer” tag, but it is in the regular editorial slot). Cottle actually mentioned respectfully the case of Juanita Broaddick, who credibly accused  then-Arkansas attorney general Bill Clinton of raping her in a hotel room in 1978.



New York Times’ Susan Chira, a “senior correspondent and editor on gender issues,” handed her paper’s mighty megaphone to angry anti-Kavanaugh women in “After Kavanaugh, Some Women Feel Powerless, Others Pumped Up.” Chira had nudged against the conventional liberal wisdom that all women were against Judge Brett Kavanaugh in a Sunday Review piece. But her Wednesday piece read as emotionally charged feminist propaganda: "The words they choose: Despair. Rage. Fear. Hopelessness. Determination."



After a bizarre, early-presidential ploy by presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren involving a DNA test, the online headline over the New York Times story spun mightily on her behalf: “Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Results Put Trump on Defensive, but Also Raise Questions,” by Jonathan Martin. Martin tried to link Trump’s anti-Warren “Pocahontas” jibe to the tawdry “birther” issue, though in this case Trump’s mockery is based in fact.



As congressional elections loom, New York Times reporter Julie Hirschfeld Davis revealed Monday that “Republicans Find an Unexpectedly Potent Line of Attack: Immigration.” (Unexpected to the Times, at least.) The text box: “Heart-rending images are countered with fear-laden appeals.” Davis’s Monday story tilted the playing field with tone and labeling choices: "But Republican candidates across the country, leaning on the scorched-earth campaign playbook employed by President Trump, saw an opening nonetheless, painting Democrats as the ones pursuing an extreme immigration agenda that would fill the country with “sanctuary cities” where violent criminals roam free."



Monday’s New York Times obituary by Robert McFadden for American beer pioneer William Coors (of the brewing company that carries his name) violated the usual tasteful norms for an obit, starting with the headline and the text box: “William Coors, Ultraconservative Leader Of Brewery Based in Colorado, Dies at 102.” The text box: “A chairman’s speeches were often labeled racist, sexist and homophobic.” McFadden led off with hostility "William K. Coors, who led one of America’s biggest beer makers for decades, but whose ultraconservative speeches and anti-union policies incurred boycotts and the wrath of organized labor, civil rights groups and minorities, died on Saturday at his home in Golden, Colo."



The Asian-American author of a New York Times column claims that ending discrimination against Asian-Americans in college admissions would do them "egregious harm." It's not simply that The New York Times found an Asian-American willing to write a column—in the context of the lawsuit against Harvard— supporting continued discrimination against Asian-Americans in college admissions.



Reporter Matt Flegenheimer prodded the Democratic party to abandno a moral high ground he is deluded into thinking the party currently holds, in “Democrats Debate if High Road in Politics Is Leading Anywhere – Party of ‘We Go High’ Is Just Getting Angry,” on the front of Saturday’s New York Times. As if the Democrats haven’t been in full angry mode for years, culminating in aggressive protests and actual violence committed against congressional Republicans, and then the anti-Kavanaugh mobs.



The New York Times carefully sandwiched the disturbing Democratic trend of increasing mob behavior by liberals and Democrats -- culminating in the hysterical reaction to Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation -- into a story that made it about a hypocritical Trump. Reporter Peter Baker put the onus on the president, not the mob-instigation of his political opponents in “‘Unhinged’? No, Trump Tells Opponents, You Are.” The online headline underlined that Trump-centric spin: “Trump’s Contradiction: Assailing ‘Left-Wing Mob’ as Crowd Chants ‘Lock Her Up.’



Stopping coal use is a priority of climate alarmists and the environmental left, and a common talking point when the liberal media issue dramatic warnings. Sometimes, those talking points aren’t even vaguely true. Just ask The New York Times.



The New York Times is still leading the cheers for Democrat Beto O’Rourke in his quest to unseat Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in November. In Wednesday’s lead story for the National section, Elizabeth Dias devoted 1,900 words to sudden respect for Christian evangelicals: “In Deep-Red Texas, Evangelical Women Trickle Toward O’Rourke -- Citing moral imperative to fight Trump’s agenda.”



It’s evidently going to take some time for the post-Kavanaugh confirmation healing to begin at the New York Times. With near unanimity the paper’s columnists, some of them former reporters, are reacting with anger and contempt over Trump’s victory against the Democrat’s Supreme Court smear campaign. Columnist Paul Krugman  rehashed his tired old line about “The Paranoid Style in G.O.P. Politics.” The text box read “Republicans are an authoritarian regime in waiting.” Not to be outflanked, columnist Michelle Goldberg claimed “Trump Gives Dictators the Green Light.”



New York Times editors must have thought Alexandra Alter’s article a timely response to conservative Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation: “How Feminist Dystopian Fiction Is Channeling Women’s Anger and Anxiety.” They even placed it on Wednesday's front page. Thanks to President Trump’s attacks on women’s rights America’s, women are just a few weeks away from mandatory Handmaid’s Tale uniforms, judging by this ominous overview of recent novels in the genre.