While the New York Times allows inflammatory race-baiters like Al Sharpton to get away with spouting about racial justice, and global warming activists like Al Gore can fly around the world with impunity before returning to one of their energy-sucking estates, the paper reliably plays the hypocrisy card against conservative politicians who fail to adhere to moral values.
"Why was he holding back?" The New York Times sniped at President Obama from the left on the front of Tuesday's edition, disappointed by the insufficient fire displayed by the president over the recent incidents of black men being killed by police officers, with no conservative criticism or commentary offered.
The New York Times' labeling bias isn't just aimed at U.S. conservatives; the Times' global reach and bias extends overseas, as demonstrated in Wednesday's New York Times was crammed with dangerous and unpleasant right-wingers in Europe, Asia, and of course Israel.
New York Times environmental reporter Coral Davenport continues to push climate alarmism with a lead story on Monday, "Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks." Davenport's environmental reporting specialty is singling out U.S. conservatives for putting the world at risk.
Is there no beloved American tradition the liberal media won't try to sour? "A Warning on Nutmeg," a silly post from the New York Times' health section, failed to come close to justifying its alarmist headline, and functioned as a near parody of liberal media handwringing. But it's far from the first time the paper has flubbed Thanksgiving, either politically or by just being ridiculous
The New York Times continued to spread skepticism about the decision by a grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., not to seek criminal charges against a white police officer who shot a black teenager. The Times hypocritically upended its own liberal sensibility by suggesting more prosecutorial zeal would have been a good thing in this particular case. And a lead editorial likened the Ferguson police to "an alien, occupying force that is synonymous with state-sponsored abuse."
New York Times reporters covered in (mostly) fair fashion the grand jury announcement from Ferguson, Mo. announcing that no charges would be brought against the white police officer who shot black teenager Michael Brown. But a racially charged profile of Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's response was so hostile, you'd think he was a Republican.
New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan reluctantly waded into the paper's coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in her latest Sunday column, relaying criticism from both sides before throwing up her hands and defending her paper as fair and balanced. But anyone who's read Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren's coverage knows that's a sad joke.
Immigration is the issue where the New York Times' liberal slant is most obvious, and the paper's heavy coverage Friday and Saturday held true to form, after President Obama's prime-time Thursday announcement that he would bypass Congress and grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Obama even used the same "out of the shadows" phrase liberals -- and the Times -- use so often, while the Times insisted Republican resistance was futile.
More offensive anti-Israel moral equivalence in Wednesday's New York Times. Jewish worshipers were massacred by Palestinians while at prayer in synagogue in Jerusalem. Yet Palestinians evaded blame in the headline of the lead story by Jodi Rudoren and Isabel Kershner: "Israel Shaken by 5 Deaths in Synagogue Assault." But Rudoren's news analysis was even worse, blaming "extremists on both sides" in the wake of a Palestinian terror attack on Jews.
The Supreme Court's recent surprise decision to take up King v. Burwell, a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, sent former New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse on another aggrieved liberal rant against the conservative-dominated Court. Greenhouse failed to mention Obama-care architect Jonathan Gruber's inconvenient gaffes in several clips boasting about the deceitful selling of the program and crediting the "stupidity of the American voter" for its successful passage
President Obama has congressional Republicans right where he wants them, thanks to his clever constitutional bypass on immigration, if you believe the New York Times. Immigration is the issue the paper shows its most slant, and its latest story sports a familiar-sounding headline doubtless employed by the Times several times before: "Battle Over Immigration Poses Risks for G.O.P."
The New York Times and Washington Post both enthusiastically greeted the announcement of President Obama's plans (conveniently announced after the election, constitutional objections aside) to bypass Congress and declare amnesty for some illegal immigrants, or as the Times cutely put it, "to enforce the nation’s laws with discretion."
President Obama visited China and made a "landmark agreement" to limit greenhouse gases, and environmental reporter Coral Davenport was excited about the issue's political prospects for the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate (Hillary?), in Thursday's lead New York Times story.
Garry Trudeau, creator of the once-famous, sometimes controversial, always smugly liberal political cartoon Doonesbury, was interviewed for the New York Times Sunday magazine contrasting Ronald Reagan's "damaged brain" with Obama's, which contains "layers of complexity." The cartoonist's clear spite for the Bush family comes through, as he repeats a classless joke about the first President Bush, now 90.
New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan tweaked her paper for elitism in the Sunday Review section. Yet she whiffed on the hypocrisy of a newspaper whose support for Occupy Wall Street seeped into all sections and which obsessed over the "one percenters" -- yet hypocritically pandered to its hyper-rich liberal readership without a blink with stories about $160 flashlights, luxury dog houses, and other ridiculous amenities.
The New York Times liberal columnists (redundant?), given a night to marinade in the bitterness of enormous losses on every level of government for the Democrats, responded with various shades of bile, bias, and unconvincing happy talk.
The New York Times greeted the GOP takeover of the Senate with a mix of honest and sour reporting, emphasizing "angry" voters while downplaying the ideological significance of an "expensive" campaign "stumbling" to a close, while insisting that the Democrats succeeded in hanging on to their voting base and warning Republicans "about reading too much into their victories."
Jon Stewart, the smug, mugging hero of smarty-pants young liberals who watch The Daily Show, was interviewed by Chris Smith for the cover of New York magazine. Stewart got plenty of room to vulgarly bash various Republicans by name, praise Hillary Clinton, defend Obama and Obama-care, and again reiterate his call for a year of mandatory national service.
The New York Times saw grim tidings for Democrats in the congressional elections, but over the weekend, one could spot the paper subtly separating President Barack Obama from the travails of his party. And one headline should make the Hall of Fame for wishful thinking on the part of the liberal media.