There was no honeymoon for Boris Johnson, the new Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in the New York Times. The same old hostility greeted him, and his push to make good on the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union, known as Brexit: "After a lifetime of joking and blustering and maneuvering his way into jobs and then sabotaging himself with poor preparation and deceitful behavior, Mr. Johnson, 55, seems determined to prove he can put aside his court-jesterish ways and rise to the occasion."

The New York Times can’t stop whining about how the UK Conservative Party determines its membership. It’s an indirect way to bash Brexit, and Conservative front-runner for the Prime Minister slot Boris Johnson, under the guise of concern for democracy, which is why this obscure issue has become a Times obsession. The latest example appeared in the Sunday edition, “1% of Voters Will Pick Britain’s Prime Minister. The Rest Are Fuming.” The text box: “Brexit gridlock has many questioning a political system.” Just in time to oppose Brexit. How convenient!

The New York Times does not like British Conservative politician Boris Johnson, and certainly not his Brexit cause, and makes little attempt to hide it, even in its news coverage (and forget about the opinion section). Reporter Stephen Castle’s coverage of the debate between conservatives Johnson and Jeremy Hunt over who would become the Conservative Party’s new leader (and in effect the next Prime Minister of Great Britain) included this charming line on Brexit: "That cause is embraced with virtually cultlike certitude by almost all Conservative members now...."

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.

In an attempt to build up its already bulging "We'll never really know why they did it" file relating to Islamist radicals who have taken innocent lives, three reporters at The New York Times composed a 1,900-word report Saturday evening (for Sunday's print edition) about Manchester bomber Salman Abedi's family background. The reporters provided very little hard information about Abedi's motivations, despite the fact that readers who saw the paper's tweet which promoted the article were led to expect it: "What led Salman Abedi to bomb the Manchester arena?" But they did push hard the news that Abedi called his mom before he carried the attack.

The New York Times is still singing the Brexit blues. The Times Sunday Review was full of fretful opinions in the aftermath of the “Leave” vote. Mark Scott, the paper’s European technology correspondent, announced he was becoming an Irish citizen, and former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair contributed “Brexit’s Stunning Coup.” But for fans of 190-proof lefty smugness, the section highlight was the contribution by a sensitive soul stifled in hell (i.e. the south of England), Tom Whyman of the University of Essex: “Hell Is Other Britons.” Specifically, his neighbors.

Pot, meet kettle: New York Times reporter Stephen Castle unwisely waded into a media bias debate in “’Brexit’ Vote Gives Tabloids Chance to Unleash Anti-European Tendencies.” It also gave the Times a chance to unleash its snooty anti-tabloid tendencies against right-leaning media outlets that support England leaving the European Union, while being blind to irony: "Britain’s freewheeling tabloid press has never been shy about pushing an agenda." As if that’s not precisely what the Times does every day of the year.

The New York Times' ongoing all-front war on “Islamophobia” raged on in coverage of the election of Labour candidate Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London. Stephen Castle led hard with it in his Saturday story, which made the front page under a headline quoting the new liberal himself as making a grand triumph over hate: “Electing Their First Muslim Mayor, Londoners Chose ‘Unity Over Division.'” 

A report into the British Broadcasting Corporation handling of the Jimmy Savile child-sex abuse scandal was released Wednesday, and the upper management of the BBC got off lightly, though the management culture of the BBC came in for criticism. One prominent member of that management: Mark Thompson, who served as director-general of the BBC for eight years until earlier this year, when he became chief executive of the New York Times Co.

Interestingly, Thursday's front-page Times story from London by John Burns and Stephen Castle, "Report Faults Lax Leadership At BBC in Sex Abuse Scandal," featured Thompson more prominently than the report itself did. A text box on the Times's inside page reads, "An inquiry that some say went too easy on top management." From the Times: