Ahead of President Trump’s decision on whether the U.S. would withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, on Tuesday, all three network morning shows hyped how “European allies have desperately tried” to lobby in favor of the Obama-era agreement. Hosts and correspondents also warned of dire consequences if America left the deal, predicting everything from higher gas prices to Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
The New York Times is still finding ways to stay on the snobbish losing side against the popular movement for national sovereignty known as Brexit, by relating any violent crime against an immigrant or Muslim to the U.K’s June 2016 vote to withdraw from the European Union. Reporter David Kirkpatrick made Saturday’s front page by tying Brexit to “Islamophobia” in a sympathetic profile of a mosque in the London suburb of Barking under an overheated headline: “They’re Loathed as Outcasts, but This Is Home.” The subhead is “Losing London – A Backlash Against Muslims.” Two other recent articles played the Brexit card, blaming the vote for hate crimes and causing political controversy in general.
The front of Wednesday’s New York Times sported a 2,600-word enterprise piece by Katrin Bennhold with a peculiar focus on fellow journalists, those of the allegedly right-wing tabloid irresponsible variety: “Did Tabloids Cause ‘Brexit’? It’s Covered With Inky Fingerprints.” Bennhold condescendingly blamed the right-wing tabloid press for Brexit (while her paper steadfastly denies its own pro-Clinton, anti-Trump slant throughout the last presidential campaign).
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.
Mark Thompson, chief executive of the New York Times, has written a highly padded opinion piece that boils down to one important thing he wants to get across to you rubes: Trump = Hitler. Oh yeah, he includes one very slight caveat so you don't think of him as your usual leftwing loon. The rest of his piece is mostly yawn inducing padding which serves as filler for his basic premise.
So let us get to Thompson's unintentional humor as he stresses that Trump is like Hitler because, get this, they both spoke off the cuff. I kid you not.
Wednesday’s New York Times was crammed with condescension and hostility toward racist Brexit voters. Rachel Donadio had previously “credited” “a campaign of open xenophobia” for the victory of the Leave choice. On Wednesday she peppered some left-wing British in writing and theatre fields with loaded questions, and they delivered the artists’ predictable low opinions of their fellow citizen-xenophobes who’d had the bad taste to vote for national sovereignty. And two other reporters toured two struggling towns that had voted Leave, and predictably found racism, xenophobia, and economic ignorance.
When liberal newspapers attack less liberal newspapers: Jim Rutenberg’s Mediator column, “Fair Play in a Fact-Challenged Political Landscape,” on the front of the Monday July 4 Business Day, started with a media conflict involving a pro-Donald Trump commentator but pivoted to a denunciation of supposedly misleading journalism on Brexit from conservative newspapers before the vote. (The Times often singles out less liberal media outlets like the New York Post for scorn when events don’t turn out the way the paper wishes.) Then Rutenberg turned for Platonic political truth to...the liberal Politifact.
Liberals and their newspapers have a very simplistic formula for analyzing female politicians: you’re either “for women,” or you’re a token of an anti-woman political movement. One of two women will be the next prime minister of Britain, but since they’re in the Conservative Party, who at The Washington Post is happy?
In Saturday’s paper, Post reporter Karla Adam wrote a pejorative article headlined “Women question feminist values of Britain’s next leader.” Adam spends all her time relaying what “some” people (that is, leftists) think is wrong with all this.
What could be better than a new Star Trek movie? Its first openly gay character, of course!
The internet has been exploding with the news that USS Enterprise helmsman Hikaru Sulu will be portrayed as gay in the upcoming film Star Trek Beyond. Sulu will appear briefly in a scene with his “husband.” According to The Hollywood Reporter, “the two have a daughter together.”
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: