On the front page of the New York Times sat "Religion Laws Quickly Fall Into Retreat," a label-heavy (14 "conservative" labels) 1,500-word story on Indiana's controversial religious freedom law. The Times' coverage has also been consistently slanted with both that labeling bias and scare quotes surrounding the term "religious freedom."
If it's Thursday, it must be...yet another front-page New York Times story on the issue that is going to tear the Republican Party apart and doom prospects in 2016 (the actual issue changes every week, of course).
On cue with the ginned-up controversy over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, came reporter Jennifer Steinhauer's story, under a liberally stacked deck of headlines: "Rights Measures Expose Divisions In G.O.P.'s Ranks – Debate Enters '16 Race – Laws Seen as Targeting Gays, and Posing a Peril to Business."
After several slanted stories seemingly designed to cripple the nascent Scott Walker for president campaign before it has even been launched, the New York Times descended into utter silliness in its latest snipe at the Wisconsin Governor: He's allergic to dog dander. That was the actual subject of a front-page Times story on Wednesday by political reporter Jason Horowitz.
Reporter Julie Hirschfeld Davis penned a hypocritical tribute to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts in Tuesday's New York Times: "Praising a Senate Mentor, and the Example He Set."
Davis was marking President Obama' speech in Boston at the opening of the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, previously hailed in theTimes. Not even one "liberal" label managed to squeak in to Davis's tribute to (yawn) "the lion of the Senate," nor did a word of the dark side of the Kennedy mystique, like Chappaquiddick. The most glaring omission of all from the Times' encomiums: Sen. Kennedy's vicious attacks on Reagan's Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin hit the New Hampshire hustings for his condescending Page 1 story, "Bush and Walker Point G.O.P. to Contrary Paths." Martin made it clear where those paths lead: Either up to the sunny moderate climes of colorful diversity with Jeb Bush, or down a dispiritingly white conservative lockstep path with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. In Martin's condescending take, Jeb Bush is on a mission to tell hard truths to his party: That Republicans "must accept a changing country: that the path to the presidency will be found through appealing to voters who may not look like them."
Adam Davidson of National Public Radio lumped people who oppose illegal immigration with racists and homophobes (like his grandfather) in the New York Times magazine:
When I was growing up in the 1980s, I watched my grandfather -- my dad’s stepdad -- struggle with his own prejudice. He was a blue-collar World War II veteran who loved his family above all things and was constantly afraid for them. He carried a gun and, like many men of his generation, saw threats in people he didn’t understand: African-Americans, independent women, gays. By the time he died, 10 years ago, he had softened. He stopped using racist and homophobic slurs; he even hugged my gay cousin. But there was one view he wasn’t going to change. He had no time for Hispanics, he told us, and he wasn’t backing down. After all, this wasn’t a matter of bigotry. It was plain economics. These immigrants were stealing jobs from “Americans.”
Did you know that Republicans are in "unquestioned" "lockstep" support for Israel? That's how some New York Times headline writers saw it in an analysis by reporter Peter Baker, "For Republican Candidates, Support for Israel Is an Inviolable Litmus Test."
The initial online headline portrayed the GOP as mindless slavish drones for Israel: "Republicans, in Shift, Demand Lockstep Support for Israel." The extremely unflattering language crept into the story's text box: "Anything but unquestioned backing of the Jewish state can mean trouble."
Political reporter Trip Gabriel's front-page report from the Iowa hustings in Thursday's New York Times was, even by the paper's standards, an amazingly dense thicket of ideologically loaded labeling, with the word "conservative" or "hard-line" or "right wing" cropping up in seemingly every sentence: "Conservatives Are Looking to Unite Behind an Alternative to Bush." In all, the word "conservative" appeared a whopping 18 times in headlines and non-quoted material in Gabriel's 1,200-word story -- a total of 28 labels in all.
The front page of Wednesday's New York Times featured Lizette Alvarez's "Out of Cold War Past, Broadcasts to Cuba Face an Uneasy Future." For conservative fans of hypocritical liberal media irony, the text box is a keeper: "Accusations of a lack of balance, fairness and objectivity." This from the liberal fortress known as the Times.
New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan on Monday made a mea culpa for her past criticism of her paper's reporting on the racially-charged Ferguson case, when she called out a Times lead story for including the views of anonymous sources who supported police officer Darren Wilson's account of the shooting of Michael Brown -- a view eventually vindicated by the Obama Justice Department.
Timothy Egan, liberal New York Times reporter turned left-wing Times columnist, made Friday's paper accusing some conservative Republicans born disadvantaged as being "Traitors to Their Class." Egan's columns are typically online only, but the paper liked this one enough to feature in print. One can see why; it has the easy, superior mockery of Republicans who grew up poor but have the audacity to insist on free market solutions to poverty, as opposed to raising the minimum wage, and with a bloody Marxist edge: Not only are these Republicans wrong about economics but they are in fact "traitors to their class" who "actively despise the poor."
Former New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, pontificating from her regular perch at nytimes.com, unapologetically urged the conservative Supreme Court justices to embrace left-wing emotional and political symbolism on voting rights: "Would the court really have had the nerve to do it, with the memories of the march’s veterans still echoing for the world to hear and with President Obama making perhaps the best speech of his presidency? In the full glare of that public spotlight, would there really have been no member of the Shelby County majority who might have found his way (yes, the five were all men) to a different result?"
The morning after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's surprisingly easy victory against left-wing opposition, the New York Times was still sore. Columnist Thomas Friedman: "It is hard to know what is more depressing: that Netanyahu went for the gutter in the last few days in order to salvage his campaign -- renouncing his own commitment to a two-state solution with the Palestinians and race-baiting Israeli Jews to get out and vote because, he said, too many Israeli Arabs were going to the polls -- or the fact that this seemed to work."
Jodi Rudoren, the Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times, is often criticized as anti-Israel and hostile in particular to conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the wake of a tighter-than-expected reelection campaign and Netanyahu's controversial speech to Congress, in which he warned of the dangers of a nuclear Iran, the Times truly "doubled down" on its hostility, accusing the PM of being panicky, power-hungry, and appealing to racism.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman found a new way to be hostile to Israel, by employing the paper's new left-wing hobby horse, "income inequality." In his column "Israel's Gilded Age," Krugman longed for the socialist 1960s ideals of the Israeli kibbutz, and had a conspiratorial take on Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress warning of the dangers posed by a nuclear Iran.
New York Times reporter Amy Chozick played human shield on behalf of Hillary Clinton against attacks by potential Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina: "With Pointed Attacks, Getting Into Position as Party’s Foil to Clinton."
New York Times reporter Patrick Healy's news analysis" surveyed the splintered GOP presidential field, the barren Democratic one, and claimed that "Early In 2016 Race, Clinton's Toughest Foe Appears to Be the News Media." Healy really seems to think the press, and presumably the Times, has given Hillary Clinton a rough ride over her career. NewsBusters begs to differ.
After former President George W. Bush failed to make the cut in the New York Times' photo collection of the march commemorating Selma, the Times on Monday showed its idea of political balance. It led the paper with yet another hammering of an incompetent, ultraconservative Republican Congress, while another front-page report critical of Hillary Clinton was hidden under a mild headline and peppered with anti-GOP caveats.
A gushing profile of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in Saturday's New York Times captured reporter Jennifer Steinhauer's typical Democratic slant: "Through It All, Pelosi Keeps House Democrats Moving In One Direction." After being compared to Brett Favre and Cher, Pelosi was sympathetically portrayed by Steinhauer as an underestimated politician "positioned to play vital role for President Obama" and suffering endless personal attacks by Republicans:
Frank Bruni's latest for the New York Times sported an intriguing title: "Despicable Us -- Scott Walker, the Media and the 2016 Presidential Campaign." Would Bruni be apologizing on behalf of both his paper and other outlets, which have had to retract false criticisms of Wisconsin's GOP governor? No. His media criticism was simply window dressing, an excuse to mock conservative candidates past and present.