The New York Times petulantly refused to grant President Trump any credit for the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, who died in a U.S. raid in Northwest Syria. David Sanger’s Monday “news analysis,” “Strategies Spurned by Trump Led to Triumph in Operation.” The online subhead read: “The president cast the death of the ISIS leader as validation of his disengagement strategy. But it required intelligence agencies and allies he has spurned.”
New York Times reporters David Sanger and Neil Genzlinger marked the passing of Joseph Wilson, who became a media hero in 2003, when he published an op-ed in the New York Times challenging the Bush administration’s case for war in Iraq. He became a fierce anti-war activist against President Bush and the case for war against Saddam Hussein. The Times used Wilson’s death as a chance to push an incomplete, if not false, narrative regarding the evidence of Hussein’s weapons capability in the run-up to the Iraq War, just as it did at the time.
New York Times national security correspondent David Sanger’s “news analysis” on the font page basically took Iran’s side in the fraught geopolitical confrontation over the recent attacks on oil fields in Saudi Arabia, against U.S. President Trump and his “tirades and untruths.” The online headline suggested Trump could be lying about the Iranian threat: “Trump’s Challenge: Can His Word on Iran Be Trusted?” Sanger used Trump’s exaggerations and fibs in his partisan speeches to suggest his word can’t be trusted on Iran (meanwhile, the Times has a history of whitewashing the mendacity of the Iranian regime).
The sudden, if not unexpected, appointment of John Bolton as President Trump’s national security adviser led the New York Times on Friday and the paper packed a year’s worth of predictable “hard-line” and “hawkish” labels in one edition. (The Times has used “hard-line” to describe Soviet Communists and Iranians who support the continuing Islamic death sentence against author Salman Rushdie, so it’s a pretty loaded term in Timesland.
On Wednesday's New Day on CNN, viewers could see a contradictory message as CNN regulars repeatedly embellished the Sixth Congressional District of Georgia as being solidly Republican -- even though there were also a few times when CNN regulars conceded that Donald Trump only beat Hillary Clinton by about a point in the district. But the CNN regulars still kept going back to painting the district as solidly Republican, using the tags "deep red," "rock solid," "Republican stronghold," "really conservative red," "really ruby red Republican," and "deeply Republican" to refer either to the Sixth District or the state of Georgia in general.
"Dark” was the New York Times’ theme for Donald Trump’s Inaugural Address, even in the banner headline that began the paper’s coverage of the 45th President. It also happened to be liberal Democrats' favorite criticism of the speech. Mark Landler wondered: "The question left hanging after this angry jeremiad: How will the new commander in chief be able to work with these people to govern the country?"
The New York Times went to enormous (and utterly unsubstantiated) lengths to portray former Texas Gov. Rick Perry as a oil-man rube over his head as the potential Energy Secretary, in “Perry Seeks Cabinet Job He Initially Misconstrued.”
After its favored candidate lost the presidential election in shocking fashion, the New York Times is suddenly wide awake to the threat posed by Russia. It devoted 8,000 words and Wednesday’s front page to “Hacking The Democrats – How Russia Honed its Cyberpower and Trained It on an American Election.” The accompanying photo of the filing cabinet broken into during Watergate made it clear the Times considered this a national (and Democratic) tragedy. But the paper has not always been so concerned about the Russia threat, especially when it’s a Republican presidential candidate sounding the alarm. It's tone toward WikiLeaks has also changed since it was gleefully puttting hacked foreign policy memos in print.
Though the press apparently wants everyone to forget about it, the fact is that barely two weeks ago, over Thanksgiving weekend, the Obama administration told the world, apparently only through the New York Times, its designated mouthpiece, that "we stand behind our (nation's) election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people."
The statement was "issued" to the Times on Friday, November 25, and was provided, according to the paper, "on the condition that it be attributable only to a senior official." Just 14 days later, on Friday evening, December 9, the Washington Post published its claim of "a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency." Why should anyone believe that the intelligence landscape concerning Russia's actions changed so quickly in two weeks?
Thursday’s New York Times was particularly dense with bias against the "hard-right" and "far-right" Republican Party, starting on the front page, where a story about Latino candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio turned into a criticism of GOP immigration policy, and reaching the back page, with an editorial hitting the Republican Party for its "Appalling Silence on Gun Control" (the candidates "dwelled darkly" about the actual threat of Islamic terorrism instead).
CBS This Morning brought on New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson on Friday with all the honors, with Charlie Rose lauding her for leading her paper to four Pulitzer Prizes this year as “the first female” in the top job, and asking her how she’d put an “Abramson imprint” on the paper. But the interesting part came later.
Abramson agreed with her reporter David Sanger that the Obama administration is worse than the much-criticized Bush administration when it comes to cracking down on reporters seeking interviews with government sources. It was almost funny, as three different CBS hosts asked the question, like they could not accept the answer:
Well, if you can't say anything good about how your guy's foreign policy is going, you can at least try to trash one of his predecessors so your guy doesn't look so bad.
That would appear to be the idea behind David E. Sanger's attempt at the New York Times today to falsely inform readers that the two towering leaders of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, angrily disagreed over the UK's choice to retake the Falkland Islands after Argentina had seized them. Sanger linked back to a previous Times story which clearly pointed to the real disagreement, but never described anything resembling anger. Additionally, a cable from Secretary of State Alexander Haig during that era directly refutes Sanger's contention.