The New York Times' long-standing support for amnesty for illegal immigrants -- and its contempt for the Republican Party's continued opposition -- leaped out of Thursday's front-page story by Jeremy Peters, a reporter whose hostility to the GOP is well-documented.
The New York Times' message to the new Republican congress? Don't cross Obama. That was the gist of three political stories on Wednesday. Sheryl Gay Stolberg's profile of grizzled Senate veteran John McCain included this harsh attack: "...despite hints that he is trying to reinvent himself from cantankerous Obama critic to elder statesman, Mr. McCain still seems to be in clobber mode."
The New York Times, perhaps stung by conservative criticism of its timid coverage of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, went along with the liberal masses in mocking Fox News, based on a tweet by Rupert Murdoch and an exaggerated claim by a Fox News analyst. The unconfined glee came through in a sniping article by Stephen Castle and Robert Mackey.
New York Times political reporter Jonathan Martin went snide and condescending in his "Political Memo" on Republican presidential prospects for 2016, "In G.O.P., a Divide of Ideology and Age." Treating the Republican Party like a dour religious sect, whose opposition to Michelle Obama's stringent "health" campaign is equivalent to being "a cheerleader of artery-clogging calories," Martin used all the bad buzz words ("stricter...brand of conservatism," "deviations from orthodoxy," "doctrinaire conservatives") to describe the right.
The New York Times smugly explained to Buzzfeed why it refuses to rerun the "offensive" images of the Prophet Muhammad published by Charlie Hebdo: "we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities." So why has the Times previously run cartoons that offend Christian and Jewish sensibilities, without any apparent concerns?
The New York Times ran a lead editorial Thursday in support of Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine in Paris where twelve people were massacred, evidently by radical Muslims angry at its satirical images of the Prophet Muhammad. But the Times' defense of free expression looks like hypocrisy, given the paper's pathetic past in condemning previous cartoonists for drawing Muhammad:
After a massacre that killed at least 12 at the offices of the satirical Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo, the New York Times issued this tweet: "The weekly
#CharlieHebdo has long tested limits with its satire..." So the Times is the self-proclaimed arbiter of satire, at least when it comes to mocking one particular religion, Islam?
As Republicans take control of both the House and Senate, the New York Times is preparing the political ground for GOP failure. Exhibit A: Monday's front-page story by Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse, who quickly got to the "sour note" of John Boehner's struggle for re-election as House Speaker. Exhibit B: Michael Shear's front-page story Sunday on the GOP turning to the courts for what they can't achieve through elections (sound familiar?).
Reporters Carl Hulse and Robert Pear teamed up in the New York Times to lament the decline of cooperation in Congress -- a hypocritical stretch in particular for Hulse, whose reporting invariably has a partisan Democratic tone. The slant was clear in this survey of wisdom from four retiring congressmen, two Democrats and two Republicans. While dubious talk of compromise emanated from the mouths of fiery liberals Rep. Henry Waxman and Sen. Tom Harkin, painting themselves in flattering fashion, the Republicans were quoted as having to fend off extremists on their right flank.
The big-government supporters at the New York Times offered two classic big-government news stories on the front of its Business section two days in a row. On Friday: "Government Spending, Edging Up, Is a Stimulus." The text box underlined the pro-government spending sentiment: "The public sector is once again adding to prosperity." On Thursday: "Hourly Wage Is Going Up for Millions." The online headline was biased: "States' Minimum Wages Rise, Helping Millions of Workers."
On the heels of news that Republican majority whip Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana may have addressed a white nationalist group founded by David Duke, New York Times reporter Jeremy Alford did his best to smear today's Republican Party by linking it to the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan: "Much of David Duke’s ’91 Campaign Is Now in Louisiana Mainstream." Guilt by association is popular in the media when yoking fringe right-wing figures to the Republican Party, though Democrats never have to worry.
Tuesday's lead New York Times editorial on the battle took the side of left-wing New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio in his tussle with the NYPD, under the striking headline, "Police Respect, Squandered." To which a regular reader of the paper could retort, what "respect" did the paper ever show the NYPD in the first place?
A Christmas Day article in the New York Times left no doubt which party they would leave a lump of coal for. The paper impressively managed to spin a current controversy into a problem solely for the Republican side -- as if crime has not long been a losing election issue for the Democrats -- by portraying the GOP as making knee-jerk, stiff-necked appeals to white fear.
A new congressional report on the IRS persecution of conservative groups in the run-up to the 2012 election? Nothing to see here, the New York Times' headline blared. The paper set the bar sky-high for anti-Obama scandal, using the evident lack of a smoking gun linking IRS persecution to the White House as an excuse to completely dismiss the scandal. The Washington Post was little better.
New York Times reporter Damien Cave reported from Havana that Obama's liberalized policy shift toward Cuba meant that that country was finished with its "venerable....leader" (not ruthless dictator) Fidel Castro, and also took a shot at "stiff-backed critics of Fidel’s government." As Miami bureau chief, Cave fostered a bizarre obsession with hypothetical inequality that might transpire in a freer Cuba.
Surprising news that President Obama would normalize relations with Cuba by establishing full diplomatic relations while easing restrictions excited reporters and editorial writers at the New York Times, who saw the demise of the "dinosaurs" and "aging...hard-liners" who opposed liberalizing ties to the authoritarian Cuban government.
An epic example of fanciful, fatuous liberalism featured in the most recent New York Times Sunday Review, a screed from Times food writer Mark Bittman that tried to tie in every single current event into a neat package labeled Republican Evil: "The police killing unarmed civilians. Horrifying income inequality. Rotting infrastructure and an unsafe "safety net." An inability to respond to climate, public health and environmental threats. A food system that causes disease. An occasionally dysfunctional and even cruel government. A sizable segment of the population excluded from work and subject to near-random incarceration. You get it: This is the United States, which, with the incoming Congress, might actually get worse."
Two recent Q&A sessions by New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg for the paper's Sunday magazine made for a convenient encapsulation of the paper's liberal double standards, with challenging, testy questions thrown at conservative Iowa Rep. Steve King in this Sunday's edition, versus a sympathetic, almost fawning session with lefty "Doonesbury" cartoonist Gerry Trudeau last month.
Saturday's front-page report on Jeb Bush, "Looking to ’16, Another Bush Stakes Out the Middle Ground," marks the latest New York Times profile to flatter the moderate Republican, at least in comparison to those "hard-line" right-wing conservatives. But such reportorial flattery from the Times would end the day Jeb Bush won the Republican primary, as John McCain found out in 2008.
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.