New York Times
The New York Times is lining up excuses for why the Democrats’ brilliant impeachment case against Trump is not sinking in with Republicans: Conspiracy! That’s the thrust of an op-ed by professor Nicole Hemmer, “Scandalize! Minimize! Repeat as Necessary -- Right-wing media have been laying the groundwork for Trump’s acquittal for half a century.” She made dubious use of space by defending President Lyndon Baines Johnson, described even in left-wing papers as an awful man with credible allegations of election-stealing and sexual misconduct.
New York Times writer Ginger Thompson on January 25, 1999 went so far as to compare the Clinton impeachment — in the first sentence of a front page story — to Nazi Germany: “As she watches Republicans in Congress push ahead with impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, Ellen Mendel of Manhattan says she feels the same despair that she did as a girl in Nazi Germany when the efforts of a stubborn group of leaders snowballed, crushing the will of the people.”
Since the beginning of the trial to impeach President Donald Trump, the New York Times has eagerly trumpeted the case laid out by the House impeachment managers, especially Rep. Adam Schiff of California. Congressional reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg gushed over Schiff, who had “secured his place as a liberal rock star -- and villain to conservatives -- with the fiery closing argument he delivered Thursday night, imploring senators to convict and remove Mr. Trump because ‘you know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country.’”
“News analysis” is a euphemism in the New York Times (and other papers) for “editorial we want on the front page.” On Thursday, the paper echoed the hacky excitement shown by CNN and others over the Democratic impeachment managers. Here’s the headline from Thursday’s “news analysis”:
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said Jan. 16 that President Donald Trump broke the law when he withheld aid from Ukraine. The union for that “independent, nonpartisan” agency naturally supports Democrats. Just don’t expect the media to tell you about it.
The New York Times editorial board's decision to endorse two candidates, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, was met with both confusion and mockery. After an overly pretentious process, the board settled on the dual endorsement which isn't really an endorsement. Still, editorial board deputy editor Kathleen Kingsbury joined MSNBC Live guest host Chris Jansing on Monday to try to defend and rationalize the decision.
The New York Times has endorsed not one but two, count them, two candidates for President. The beneficiaries of the Times split decision, after much self-important public soul searching, are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. As the result, the immediate winner is...comedic entertainment in the form of widespread mockery of this split decision. Even many liberal sources are brutally mocking the paper's inability to settle upon just one candidate to endorse.
New York Times media reporter Michael Grynbaum's story dealt mostly with media griping about restrictions on the impending impeachment trial coverage. But the lead paragraph rehashed last week’s spat between Sen. Martha McSally, Arizona Republican, and CNN reporter Manu Raju. The print story oddly included two photos of McSally: a CNN screengrab of her “lashing out...,” and one from Fox News. But attacks on journalists are treated differently when it’s heroic liberal congresswoman Nancy Pelosi making them, especially against a right-leaning reporter.
The New York Times made an enormous deal out of its presidential endorsement in 2020, recording all their interviews with the candidates, with transcripts, and ending in a one-hour episode of their show The Weekly on the FX cable network. Then they announced a weird, gimmicky result: they would endorse two candidates – Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. What made it funnier was the notion that Klobuchar represents the “realist” wing of the Democrats, and Warren the “radical” wing...when their American Conservative Union voting scores are nearly identical.
The New York Times’ double standard on ideas it considers “conspiracy theories” was ably demonstrated in Sunday’s New York Times by reporters Annie Karni and Jeremy Peters: “How a Pelosi Conspiracy Theory Spread, From Twitter to Fox to Trump.” That headline hit the paper’s two main enemies: Fox News and President Trump.
On the front page of Saturday’s New York Times, reporter Lisa Lerer wondered why so many women were reluctant to vote for a woman (i.e. Elizabeth Warren) to run for president in “Taking Feminism to Heart, if Not to the Caucuses – Beating Trump Matters More Than Electing a Woman, to Some.” As is often the case, unfettered abortion rights was a priority: "Ms. Schlenker has seen how the current political moment has convinced her daughter that her rights could be taken away, and that sexism remains a force in both of their lives."
It’s one of the most blatantly biased things a media outlet can do: openly endorse a candidate running for office. But during CNN’s S.E. Cupp Unfiltered Saturday evening, Cupp and chief media correspondent Brian Stelter lauded The New York Times for making a televised spectacle out of their Democratic endorsement announcement happening soon. They would admit the Times had an editorial board that leaned far-left and would endorse “anyone but Donald Trump.”