Does the New York Times truly want a quota system for artistic excellence? That’s the gist of Friday's piece by reporters Nicole Sperling and Brooks Barnes, “Female Filmmakers Slighted Yet Again.” With the Times’ approval, the art police are manning (oops, sorry) the perimeters, marking the limits of permitted creativity: "Some are also troubled by the large number of Oscar contenders that feature (white) men lamenting a changing world."



New York Times non-fiction book critic Jennifer Szalai emerged as the paper’s latest defender of Fusion GPS, the Democratic opposition-research firm led by former Wall Street Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, the deluded duo responsible for the discredited Russian “dossier” from former British spy Christopher Steele. They’re now trying to shore up their reputation with a book, “Crime in Progress,” and Szalai helped them along, praising the book.



Move along, nothing to see here but right-wing conspiracy-mongering. That was the New York Times’ message covering the Inspector General report on how the F.B.I. came to investigate ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. Though the report was highly critical of the F.B.I., reporter Mark Mazzetti’s lead “news analysis” on Tuesday appeared under the banner headline “Report Debunks Anti-Trump Plot In Russia Inquiry.” The paper did at long last debunk the Russian dossier, albeit on page 18.



New York Times reporters Jeremy Peters and Katie Benner caught up to a weeks-old story, keyed to a speech by Attorney General William Barr to The Federalist conservative legal society that frightened the left. On Monday’s front page, they tried to transform Barr into a “far-right...authoritarian” bogeyman: “Right Rejoices As Barr Assails Liberal Culture -- No-Apologies Style Fits the Party of Trump.” They wrote: "His politicization of the office is unorthodox and a departure from previous attorneys general in a way that feels uncomfortably close to authoritarianism, critics said."



In the latest entry in the New York Times’ increasingly shameless attacks on Brexit, the Conservative Party in Britain, and those who voted to leave the European Union. Patrick Kingsley reported for the front of Sunday’s paper, “A Brexit Road Trip, With Disunity at Every Stop.” Kingsley pined for the days of coal mines, an odd position for an environmental paper to take. But the sudden concern for coal miners was just another cynical weapon to attack Brexit, Margaret Thatcher’s free-market efforts, and conservatism in general.



The nation's leading newspapers have asserted their role as the most important "independent fact-checkers" in politics. So why do they fail to fact-check their own interviewees? On Twitter, Jeryl Bier noted The New York Times had to add an embarrassing correction to a two-month old story on Friday. Reporter Trip Gabriel did an entire story on a Trump voter iin Erie, Pennsylvania changing his mind....except records showed the man never voted for Trump. He never voted in 2016.



Ever since the surprise referendum result in June 2016, the New York Times and rest of the mainstream press has been virulently anti-Brexit. That has translated into hostile coverage of Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has called an election to strengthen his position as he attempts to make Brexit a reality. The New York Times is clearly stretching to attack Johnson with any weapon to hand, including actor Hugh Grant.



Saturday’s New York Times ran a full-page lead National section story claiming “Transgender People See Protections Slip Away.” The story by reporter Lola Fadulu is the latest overheated, un-journalistic genuflection to the aggressive side of the transgender movement, while conveniently conflates “gender identity” with post-surgery transgender people. In October 2018 the paper embarrassed itself with its panicky coverage of the Trump administration’s initial stand under the headline “At Rallies and Online, Transgender People Say They #WontBeErased.’ 



New York Times impeachment testimony coverage on Thursday almost completely ignored the labored, pseudo-clever mean pun from law professor Pamela Karlan, who bizarrely named Trump’s 13-year-old son Barron to make some unrelated point. The controversy, which inflamed Republicans and even made some liberals cringe, was relegated to the last two paragraphs of the paper’s large front-page story.” The hidden bias was the partisan manner in which the main congressional players and witnesses were described by congressional reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak.



The gay mafia’s campaign to rid the world of biological imperatives is not just invested in changing the future but also about re-writing the past. The New York Times Style Magazine unveiled it’s weekend cover on Wednesday, which depicts queer artists who specialize in updating art of the past with today’s unhinged sexualities.



At this point, it’s no longer surprising that the liberal media aren’t willing to give President Donald Trump an inch of positive coverage, especially when approval trends shift in his favor. A new Dec. 2 report from CNBC revealed that “Sixty percent of small business owners approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president.”



This week, Paul Krugman of The New York Times posited a theory: Red states cause depression and suicide. In a column titled “America's Red State Death Trip,” Krugman wrote: “In 1990, today's red and blue states had almost the same life expectancy. Since then, however, life expectancy in Clinton states has risen more or less in line with other advanced countries, compared with almost no gain in Trump country. At this point, blue-state residents can expect to live more than four years longer than their red-state counterparts.”