New York Times reporter Jackie Calmes got a prominent Sunday front-page spot for a rather humdrum story on economic recovery in a blue-collar Indiana town and why President Obama wasn’t getting the credit he deserved for it. Racism, perhaps? The puzzled headline: “Political Discontent Festers in Indiana Town Despite Jobs Surge.” Online it was more explicit: “Obama Gets Scant Credit in Indiana Region Where Recovery Was Robust.” Calmes, an Obama fan who in 2015 devoted 16,000 words to the corrosive effects of conservative talk radio in a report written on sabbatical at Harvard, acted disappointed that the blue collar denizens of Elkhart, Indiana weren’t sufficiently grateful to the king.
Carolina was in the mind of the liberal New York Times this weekend. The state’s Republican governor Pat McCrory recently signed religious freedom legislation that included a provision stating people in government buildings must use the restroom associated with their biological sex, the one on their birth certificate. In other words, the way public bathrooms have always worked. The Times, naturally, saw bigotry against transgenders and electoral doom.
The New York Times’ Ian Lovett reported Sunday on the University of California condemning anti-Semitism in its university system, especially in relation to the anti-Israeli BDS movement infesting college campuses. The problem has been festering for years -- and so has the Times’ oddly ambivalent response to the outbreaks of anti-Semitism on left-wing college campuses. While the paper is eager to forward propaganda by the Council on American-Islamic relations concerning any traces of “Islamophobia,” on or off campus, including beer cans tossed off balconies, the Times is quick to suggest radical anti-Jewish groups are being unfairly persecuted. It's a double standard that matches its slanted coverage of Israel and the Palestinians.
Nicholas Kristof’s Thursday New York Times column is yet another grossly timed, tone-deaf, inappropriate attempt to minimize Islamic terrorism and change the subject, “Terrorists, Tubs and Snakes.” The text box: “Brussels just survived bombings, but it could fall to climate change.” Kristof has made a bad habit of such callous columns that go to ludicrous lengths to contextualize the terrorist threat away. He has even insulted brave Muslim apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali. He’s also used terror attacks to push gun control, as he did after the Boston Marathon bombing, and after the 2011 assassinations in Tuscon. On Thursday, he urged us to get over our "irrational" fear of terrorism and fight the real enemy: Climate change.
New York Times reporter Mark Landler, a veteran fawner over Obama, sympathized with the president’s plight as his historic visit to Cuba was overshadowed by Islamic terror attacks in Brussels, in “Global Crises Overshadow Another Trip.” The president was portrayed as a passive victim of international events, as if the real tragedies are Obama’s interrupted vacations or squashed attempts at historic messages. And it would never be mooted in the NYT that just maybe, Obama’s passivity and lack of leadership in the wake of international crises like Islamic terror may play a role in failing to prevent such events in the first place.
As President Obama’s three-day Cuba excursion wraps up, the New York Times coverage from Havana took a few shots at the Communist nation’s persecution of dissidents, and the overall authoritarian nature of the regime. But the fawning over Obama’s “remarkable” visit went way over the top, including self-fawning: "Mr. Obama himself marveled aloud at the significance of his trip." On the last day of Obama’s visit: “Dissidents Praise ‘Closeness and Trust’ After Frank Meeting on Human Rights.”
Americans woke up to horror -- the deadly bombings in Brussels, for which Islamic State has claimed responsibility. Even after the capture, there were ominous hints about Brussels’ continued vulnerability in Tuesday’s New York Times, in a story by Alissa Rubin which went to press before the latest terror. Yet Rubin still managed to downplay the insular, hostile, terrorist-breeding ground nature of Brussels’ Molenbeek neighborhood. And a new sanctimonious editorial on anti-Muslim "xenophobia" was tougher on Republican politicians than the actual terrorists.
The New York Times really despises the Texas law raising safety standards for abortion clinics, and its reporting makes no effort to hide it. Health reporter Abby Goodnough reports on the case, soon to come before the Supreme Court, which will rule whether the regulations violate a 1992 ruling that states cannot impose “undue burdens” on women seeking abortions. The headline summed up the paper’s one-sided stance: “Under Texas Law, Women Pay More and Wait Longer for Abortions – Crowded Waiting Rooms As New Rules Force Half Of State’s Clinics to Shut."
Journalist Jane Mayer issued another twisted attack on her own Enemy No. 1, the libertarian industrialist Koch brothers, from her New Yorker magazine perch. “Who Sponsored The Hate?” left no doubt as to who she thinks is responsible for the current Trumpian climate of political vituperation. Mayer has for years issued dark, often conspiratorial threats about the Koch brothers, the Midwestern industrialists who are guilty of trying to convince voters of the rightness of their beliefs, to the abject horror of a big-government left which has spent a generation trying to do the same thing. She began with the now-standard liberal line that conservative ideologues are reaping what they sowed with the rise of Trump and his supporters.
Did you realize Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer” could be “weaponized” to instigate violence and that Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” was “authoritarian hold music” similar to Adolf Hitler? If not, then you just aren’t listening, man. Washington Post music critic Chris Richards made the front page of the Style section with “And the Bland Played On.” The original online headline to the post was kookier: “Authoritarian hold music: How Donald Trump’s banal playlist cultivates danger at his rallies.” The essay reads more like an obscure blog post gone awry than somethhing worth of prominent play in a national newspaper:
The New York Times did its best to begin the Supreme Court debate by mainstreaming Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee, as a “brilliant” “centrist” and moderate voice of reason. Reporters Michael Shear and Gardiner Harris treated the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit with kid gloves in the paper’s initial reporting Wednesday, with the same kind of pro-Democratic labeling slant the paper has always shown toward Supreme Court nominees.
New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse spread more publicity in support of classless Democratic pressure tactics on Senate Judiciary Committee. Using idisruptive, chanting college students borrowed from liberal activist groups, Democrats are trying to force a vote on a still-hypothetical Obama Supreme Court nomination to fill the seat of the late Antonin Scalia. Hulse's column, “A Court Seat Sits Empty, and Calls to Fill It Dog the G.O.P," follows his March 8 column on the same theme, and carried the same conclusion, the one Hulse virtually always arrives at in his reporting: Republicans are doomed to defeat by those wily Democrats.
It’s been ten years since the Duke lacrosse rape hoax, an occasion marked by “Fantastic Lies," the latest entry in ESPN’s acclaimed 30 for 30 documentary series, which aired last Sunday night. Former New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent made an appearance, but evidently spoke in only general terms about the media frenzy, while the New York Times’ own sorry complicity in the saga didn’t get much play. Neither did the Times itself carry a review of the show, no surprise, given that the entire saga marks a shameful episode in the newspaper’s journalistic history.
Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times editorial page editor since 2007, is leaving the position in late April. Over his term he repeatedly revealed himself to be a charmless and classless critic of conservatives. Rosenthal’s many lowlights are featured on the paper’s editorial blog, and he drove the Sunday Review section sharply to the left during his tenure. Before that, Rosenthal provided a vital (and phony) piece of liberal conventional wisdom that helped to doom the 1992 re-election campaign of President George H.W. Bush: Bush’s alleged shock to encounter a grocery scanner, which became a liberal media symbol of his inability to sympathize with the day-to-day lives of average Americans.
Hillary Clinton broke a cardinal rule of the angry left –saying something nice about a Republican who recently passed away. After she was savaged for saying Nancy Reagan had been out front in confronting AIDS, an angry backlash ensued, and Clinton quickly fell into line. Reporter Amy Chozick really let the leftist insults fly in the longer online version, hitting both the Reagans and Hillary in a nasty tone, under the solemn circumstances: "The problem with Mrs. Clinton’s compliment: It was the Reagans who wanted nothing to do with the disease at the time." Then she quoted notorious Reagan-hater Larry Kramer.
Don’t know much about...metaphors? The New York Times was shocked and appalled that a Republican senator predicted any Obama Supreme Court nominee would be treated like a piñata, and said such “violent imagery” made Sen. John Cornyn a “thug, threatening harm,” in a Friday editorial, “Republican Threats and the Supreme Court."
New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse damned with faint praise Republican majority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell in “McConnell Bets That Impasse on Court Now Helps G.O.P. Later.” Hulse characterized McConnell as “so crafty” while loosely wondering “what’s in his head?” as “far right politicians” praise McConnell for his stance on blocking any Supreme Court nominee from President Obama. That led Hulse to his favorite theme: Republicans losing elections as McConnell’s conservative stance may mean “Senate Republicans could pay a big price in November and beyond.
If you didn’t know the New York Times was in the tank for amnesty, Sunday’s stories would prove it. Reporter Jeremy Peters laid on a family guilt trip by strongly hinting that Sen. Marco Rubio was a hypocrite on immigration because of how his grandfather got to America: “Rubio’s Policies Might Shut the Door to People Like His Grandfather.” Turning to the New York Times Magazine, there was the 9,000-word cover story, “10 Shots Across the Border -- This Is The Wall Where A Mexican Teenagers Was Killed By A U.S. Agent Firing Through The Fence. Is the Border Patrol Out Of Control?” Gee, what do you think, New York Times? At the back of the magazine, Democratic activist Ana Marie Cox spoke to amnesty activist and Univision newscaster Jorge Ramos for the back of the magazine’s Talk page.
The New York Times on Friday and Saturday let its readers know that the Republicans were getting what they deserved for pandering to right-wing extremism and xenophobia, while Hillary Clinton had successfully gained the sensible center. Friday’s lead editorial, “The G.O.P.’s Monster in the Mirror,” began with a little implied Trumpian vulgarity, then smeared the two Republican senators in the presidential race as extremist. Paul Krugman doubled down, calling the field racist, while Ted Cruz was heckled and Hillary Clinton hailed on Saturday's front page
Republicans reaping what they sow was the theme of two New York Times stories on Thursday. Reporter Jennifer Steinhauer’s “Congressional Memo” suggested turnabout was fair play: “Ryan Now Faces Tea Party Forces He Helped Unleash.” It’s what Speaker Paul Ryan and the GOP get for setting off “flare-ups over racially charged issues” and trying “to roll back voting rights.” And reporter Michael Barbaro had far too much fun mocking NJ Gov. Chris Christie's endorsement of Donald Trump.