“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 New York Times offered up a silly time-waster of a “news analysis” from Charlie Savage and Michael Shear in Saturday’s paper, one that elevated Trump’s mean tweets about former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch to “witness tampering" They huffed: “President Trump on Friday attacked Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former United States ambassador to Ukraine he summarily removed this year, even as she testified in the impeachment inquiry about how she felt threatened by Mr. Trump. Did his behavior amount to witness tampering?"
The New York Times was mightily miffed by Attorney General William Barr daring to call spying by its proper name before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In Saturday’s Times, legal reporter Charlie Savage savaged the attorney general in “Barr Again Questions Russia Inquiry, Siding More Closely With Trump.” Savage was suffused with suspicion toward Barr, portraying his motives as partisan. Savage’s hit accused the attorney general of possibly “fueling conspiracy theories” right in the lead sentence.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested, and the front page of Friday’s New York Times featured Scott Shane and Steven Erlanger’s recap of Assange and the effect of his leaking of classified national security information (and Democratic Party secrets) in “A Divisive Prophet of the Public’s Right to Know.” The paper noticed that the tide of sophisticated opinion, once favorable to the Assange, turned in 2016, when Assange’s actions started hurting Democrats and helping the hated Donald Trump. But Shane and Erlanger didn’t make an issue of the glaring political hypocrisy on display or mention the strange new disgust toward Assange coming from the Democratic left.
Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 elections is over, after finding no Trump-Russia conspiracy and issuing no indictments against Americans. With “collusion” a dead letter, the liberal press is investing hope in the other charge, “obstruction of justice.” A story by the New York Times focused on that other avenue in “Barr Goes Beyond Mueller in Clearing Trump on Obstruction, Drawing Scrutiny.” The Times unleashed this snide comment that's apparently already been discredited: "Mr. Mueller failed to reach a conclusion on whether to prosecute Mr. Trump after nearly two years of work, but Mr. Barr, with Mr. Rosenstein’s help, decided in a single weekend."
The battle for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as Justice on the Supreme Court has resulted in a great tragedy. Michael Avenatti's appearances on television are likely due to be sharply cut back. Why? Because liberals in the mainstream media are now placing the blame for the failure of the Democrats to derail the Kavanaugh confirmation squarely at the feet of Avenatti.
The front page of Sunday’s New York Times brought the expected comprehensive dissection of President Trump’s second Supreme Court justice nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in 4,500 words: “Trump’s Choice: Beltway Insider Born And Bred – Father Was A Lobbyist – Supreme Court Nominee Is Being Promoted as Business Friendly.” A photo caption online made the ideological toneclear: “The Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, center with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Mike Pence, is the culmination of a 30-year conservative movement to shift the judiciary to the right.”
The days before the release of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act memo alleging a pattern of malfeasance by the FBI and Justice Department in its surveillance of members of the Trump campaign were marked by dread and hysteria in the media, and the New York Times participated.
Robert Mueller is the liberal New York Times new favorite prosecutor. (Being criticized by Donald Trump and the Republican Congress will do that to you.) Reporters Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage praised deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s defense of Mueller in “Firm Defense of Mueller As Republicans Attack.” And a Times lead editorial personally mocking Fox News hosts as conspiratorial drunks in “Fox News v. Robert Mueller.”
President Trump’s pardon of controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, scourge of illegal immigrants and a promoter of the “birther” conspiracy theory about Barack Obama, made the front of Sunday’s New York Times. Legal reporter Adam Liptak began the chorus of disapproval with “President Pardon of Arpaio Follows the Law, Yet Challenges It.” Yet the same paper treated another controversial presidential action -- the commutation of military secrets leaker Bradley Manning – in quite sympathetic tones.
In a December 2 dispatch covering Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's request for a presidential pardon appearing at Page A18 in Saturday's print edition, New York Times reporter Charlie Savage insisted that President-Elect Donald Trump's 2015 campaign rally assertion that U.S. soldiers had died searching for Bergdahl after his desertion was false. Savage even claimed that allegations made by soldiers serving in Afghanistan at the time that "five to seven Americans had died searching for him ... (were) proved false."
On the eve of the final presidential debate, Wednesday’s New York Times went after Donald Trump cover to cover, with attempts to shame the Republican nominee and a cavalier dismissal of his allegations of election rigging as racist and paranoid, though the Times was quite amenable to Democratic conspiracy theories about Bush stealing the 2004 election. Wednesday’s off-lead story by Trip Gabriel was headlned “Few Answering Call by Trump To Watch Polls – Fraud Warnings Raise Intimidation Fears.” The text box cried racism: “Increasing worry about intimidation focused on minority communities."