One of the more annoying double standards displayed by the left-leaning press is how they ask genuine follow-up questions of Republicans and conservatives who try to dodge their questions, while letting Democrats and liberals slide when they engage in similar behavior. A perfect example of this occurred Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, when, prompted by a Latino Victory Fund ad portraying supporters of Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie as murderous, Confederate flag-waving. pickup truck-driving racists, Chuck Todd asked DNC chair Tom Perez if he believes all pickup truck owners really are racist — and then let him slide without getting a definitive "yes" or "no."
Immigration is the issue where the New York Times’ liberal lean is most obvious, a truth underlined in Friday’s edition, showing the paper still grieving over President Trump’s decision to eliminate the unilateral, constitutionally dubious Obama administration diktat, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which temporarily protected from deportation illegals who came to the United States as children.
For two days running, the front page of the New York Times has delivered Democratic talking points about President Trump’s new tax cut plans. The banner over Thursday’s front page said it all, in big bold letters: “Tax Overhaul Would Aid Wealthiest.” The coverage lacked the vital context, pointed out by James Piereson in the Weekly Standard this week, that taxes have already been slashed for the poor and middle class, and it’s hard to structure a tax cut that doesn’t “favor the wealthy” in raw monetary terms.
Next Sunday’s New York Times Sunday Magazine will feature a long essay by left-wing historian Rick Perlstein: “I Thought I Understood the American Right. Trump Proved Me Wrong.” Approach with caution, warn two prominent conservative writers. National Review's Jonah Goldberg warns: “Perlstein’s essay offers a really good insight into how the Times has jettisoned so much credibility in the age of Trump.”
As if trying to poison the Potomac water for the new president on his first day in office, the New York Times Inauguration Day off-lead story tried to wrong-foot Trump the moment he takes his hand off the Bible: “With an Oath, Complications In Hotel Lease – Ethical ‘Minefield’ for the President-Elect” by Eric Lipton and Susanne Craig. The jump-page headline, “At Trump Hotel in Washington, Champagne Toasts in an Ethical ‘Minefield.’” The online teaser was blunt: “From the moment he is sworn in, Mr. Trump may be in violation of a lease with the federal government.” Less-hostile explanations were ignored.
Bill who? At a time when Mrs. Bill Clinton is running a race for president and suggesting husband Bill will play a role in her administration “in charge of revitalizing the economy, because, you know, he knows how to do it,” the media has been happy to cover he story as seen here in The New York Times.
At the Democratic convention, Bill Clinton accused Republicans of fabricating a “cartoon alternative” to the real Hillary Clinton. The Washington Monthly’s Martin Longman claims that Democrats don’t need to create cartoon versions of conservatives since there’s already “something cartoonish about the right,” and in that regard Donald Trump “seems like a natural successor” to Sarah Palin and (wait for it) Ronald Reagan and (wait again) Dwight Eisenhower. Conservatism, concluded Longman, has “always been a charade. It’s also a cloak or a mask for selfishness and greed that they gussy up in Bill Buckley style and sell us as intellectualism."
Appearing on Fox News’s Special Report on Monday, The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes blasted the media for trying to dismiss the Clinton Foundation scandal as just another Republican attack line against Hillary Clinton: “What amuses me as I follow other media outlets covering this is they continue to try to cast this as if it’s about Republicans. ‘Republicans are attacking Hillary Clinton on the Foundation e-mails. Republicans say – ’ This isn’t about Republicans, this is about Hillary Clinton having made repeated representations that have turned out to be false.”
The New York Times had a mediocre Pulitzer Prize haul this week. Among the Times selections that didn’t win the prize for editorial writing (thought it made the final three) were a package of gun control editorials. Mark Hemingway at The Weekly Standard eviscerated one particularly ignorant, wildly hyped Times gun-control editorial in that package, while accusing the Pulitzers of “a pathetic attempt to further burnish the reputation of the New York Times." Hemingway wrote under the headline "New York Times Is Pulitzer Finalist for Wildly Inaccurate Gun Editorials."
Reviewing Newsweek veteran Jon Meacham’s biography of former President George H.W. Bush, Thomas J. Duesterberg observed in The Weekly Standard that Meacham portrays the 41st President‘s life through a liberal prism. For instance: “The policies of Ronald Reagan are viewed from a decidedly unsympathetic and formulaic viewpoint, which follows the consensus, left-of-center perspective.”
The New York Times has not merely climbed aboard the bandwagon of Truth, which exalts the fraudulent September 2004 CBS 60 Minutes report about President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard Service. It's now serving as the film's de facto lead apologist.
The most recent example demonstrating how deeply in the tank the Old Gray Lady has gone is Stephen Holden's Thursday film review published in Friday's print edition. Holden's praise comes from an alternative universe where genuine "truth" clearly doesn't matter, and uses a tortured analogy which in reality disproves his attempt at making a point (bolds are mine throughout this post):
The disgraceful determination of Hollywood to rewrite history not favorable to the left, its causes and its personalities has perhaps reached its nadir with the laughably misnamed movie Truth.
The film is about Dan Rather's September 2004 60 Minutes report on President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard Service during the 1970s. In Rather's words, "The nuanced, not preachy, script makes clear our report was true." The script may say that, but the historical record doesn't. On October 2, John H. Hinderaker and Scott W. Johnson's writeup detailing how bogus that report was from top to bottom appeared online at The Weekly Standard. Reading that essay in its entirely is undoubtedly important; but in this case, so is ridicule. Megan McArdle at Bloomberg View supplied that back in July.