The New York Times invariably provides guilty liberal spin to any crisis, including the coronavirus pandemic. Tuesday’s front page featured “Spit On, Yelled At, Attacked: Chinese-Americans Fear for Their Safety -- As bigots blame them for the coronavirus and President Trump labels it the ‘Chinese virus’ many Chinese-Americans say they are terrified of what could come next.” An editorial also lectured in an attempt to limit the spread of the fact that the virus originated in China: “Once again, a mysterious, fast-spreading and sometimes lethal disease is exacerbating racism and hatred...."

The media is ready to convict President Trump of “treason” for his shaky summit in Helsinki with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and has been obsessed with Trump’s supposed “collusion” with Russia during the 2016 election campaign. But this new-found fear of all things Russia is more than a little politically expedient. The New York Times is just one outlet that dismissed the very idea of Russia as a threat back in the spring of 2012, mocking then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney:" Two decades after the end of the cold war, Mitt Romney still considers Russia to be America’s ‘No. 1 geopolitical foe.’ His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender."

The New York Times shamelessly shoehorned gun control into Martin Luther King’s civil rights legacy by way of Richard Oppel Jr.’s tilted history lesson of the 1960s on Wednesday, “Killing Led, at Last, To Gun Restrictions,” part of the series “King’s Legacy: A Fight for Social Change.” Oppel lamented, in the paper’s alleged news section, that if only America had only been wise enough to pass severe gun restrictions generations ago we wouldn’t have a violence problem today.

The New York Times has sunk, yet again, to a new low.  Only this time, they may have created an even bigger conundrum for President Obama.

In a clear and desperate attempt to whitewash Obama's ill-fated swap of what is increasingly appearing to be an army deserter for five unrepentant deadly dangerous terror leaders (two of whom have been named war criminals by the United Nations) for a U.S. soldier, The Times has gone into overdrive, now seemingly blaming those with whom Bowe Bergdahl served for his apparent desertion.

On Thursday, the editorial board at the New York Times, reacting to the growing firestorm over the release of five hardened terrorists from Gitmo in return for the Army's Bowe Bergdahl, went after Bergdahl's "army unit’s lack of security and discipline." It then incredibly claimed that a classified army report described in a separate Times dispatch that day suggested that those alleged conditions were "as much to blame for the disappearance" of Bergdahl as ... well, the sloppy editorial didn't specifically say.

On Sunday, two Times reporters continued the offensive against Bowe Bergdahl's platoon and its members, apparently wanting readers to believe that the unit's occasionally "raggedy" attire and alleged poor leadership somehow explain Bergdahl's "disappearance."

New York Times reporter Richard Oppel Jr. got emotional in defense of Obama while trailing GOP candidate Rick Santorum through the Midwest: “Santorum Questions Education And Obama.”

Oppel pounced on a Santorum comment on Obama’s “phony theology,” and falsely conflated the remark with rumors that Obama was a Muslim or not American, saying that such talk “got so bad at one point” during the 2008 campaign that John McCain had to correct one of his supporters. (Never mind that the “Birther” myth started among Hillary Clinton supporters in April 2008).

New York Times reporter Richard Oppel Jr. twice used the term “trickle-down economics” (without the quote marks) in Thursday’s dispatch from the Republican Jewish Coalition Forum in D.C., where several Republican candidates made speeches: “G.O.P. Candidates, at Jewish Coalition, Pledge to Be Israel’s Best Friends.”

“Trickle-down economics” is a derogatory term for the Reaganesque idea that tax cuts for the rich encourage investment, leading to economic growth that benefit everyone. It’s a favorite of Times columnist Paul Krugman and liberals in general, but the Times has generally refrained from using the term as a straight description in news stories. But Oppel did it twice, with no quote marks around the phrase to show that it’s not actually a neutral journalistic description, but a liberal Democratic interpretation of conservative policy. In contrast, the Times invariably places conservative catch-phrases like "death tax" in protective quotation marks, so that readers get the hint that it's just partisan rhetoric.

When Gov. Rick Perry attacked President Obama as an elitist, New York Times reporter Richard Oppel Jr. didn’t just quibble with or criticize the attacks as overboard, but banished them to the “realm of falsehood," in Friday's “Perry’s Latest Attacks Distort Obama’s Words and Past.

The New York Times greeted Rick Perry’s “20-20” flat-tax plan with predictable hostility. In Wednesday's “Perry Calls His Flat Tax Proposal ‘Bold Reform,” Richard Oppel Jr. took only two sentences to sniff “the plan would grant a major tax cut for the wealthy”. He also saw it “requiring drastically austere federal budgets,” of the sort we haven’t seen since...well, President Bill Clinton, actually.

Richard Oppel Jr.’s front-page New York Times story on Monday, “Snag for Perry: Offensive Name At Texas Camp,” catches up with a long, thinly sourced Washington Post article on a hunting camp in Texas, leased by Perry’s family, whose name included a racial epithet written on a rock by a camp entrance.

Although the Perry connection is extremely tenuous (the camp’s name predated the Perry family's involvement, and the family had the rock painted over years ago) both the headline (“snag”) and a photo caption wishfully insisted the new controversy had already knocked Perry off stride: “His presidential campaign has been on the defensive in recent days.”