The New York Times news coverage upon the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was mostly respectful (which is more than can be said about the paper’s nasty editorial thrust). But the paper’s liberal bias shone through in pondering how Scalia’s death would resonate during the election year. Emily Bazelon’s Monday “news analysis" portrayed conservative rulings as “limiting” and “hobbling,” while abortion was assumed to be a “constitutional right."
The New York Times is again trying hard to hang the immigration issue around the collective neck of the Republican Party. A lead story by Alexander Burns, “Division Deepens In The G.O.P. Field On Immigration – Appeals In The South – Cruz and Trump Assail Moderate Rivals on ‘Amnesty’ Issue.” Note the quote marks in the headline around the word amnesty. There were more politically correct descriptors in Burns' text, with illegal immigrants called “undocumented immigrants." Meanwhile, amnesty was termed “what conservatives call ‘amnesty,’” and it was suggested that if conservatives don't stop talking about it, Republicans will be doomed for decades to come.
New York Times Phoenix bureau chief Fernanda Santos gave out surprising praise to Republican Gov. Doug Ducey in Wednesday’s edition -- though it’s less surprising when you realize why. Like her newspaper, Santos has a history of trying to discredit Republicans on illegal immigration. In August 2014, Santos suggested Arizona citizens who showed up to a forum to express concerns about border security were misguided because, after all, Mexico was "at least 200 miles away” (now illegal immigration is a national concern of enormous electoral import).
Catching up with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: He is definitely on Team Hillary, and on his nytimes.com blog unleashes contempt usually reserved for Republicans upon a segment of supposedly angry, sexist, web-trolling Bernie Sanders supporters, who Hillary’s feminist fans have taken to calling “Bernie Bros," making for an interesting internecine fight on the Democratic side.
New York Times sportswriter William Rhoden jumped on the latest leftist bandwagon on Sunday, heartily supporting controversial comments by the Super Bowl-bound Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton. Newton was quoted in the Charlotte Observer accusing critics of his showboating post-touchdown antics of being racist. It’s been twenty-eight years since Doug Williams became the first black quarterback to start a Super Bowl. Newton will be the sixth. Talented as he is, he’s not breaking any barriers or shocking anyone. But Rhoden took the complaint to heart and found it the most compelling storyline of next Sunday’s Super Bowl, pumping up Newton’s social justice brand into the next Muhammad Ali in “Dancing Around End Zones, Not Around Matters of Racism.”
New York Times media reporter Jonathan Mahler indulged in a celebration of a rival paper, the New York Daily News, and its recent hard turn to the left, as shown in the tabloid’s spurt of vulgar anti-conservative headlines – like the one calling NRA president Wayne LaPierre a terrorist – that have gone viral on social media, in “Drop Dead? Not The Newly Relevant Daily News." Mahler took us inside the liberal hive mind, buzzing with giddy self-congratulation over yet another puerile attack on Republicans, while dutifully reprinting the controversial covers that made liberals go giddy
The stunning indictment in Texas this week of two pro-life activists from the Center for Medical Progress is a source of merriment among liberals, and of smug front-page coverage by the New York Times. Under the umbrella of CMP, the activists ran a multi-city hidden-camera sting operation against Planned Parenthood that documented how the abortion provider allegedly sold organs from aborted babies, resulting in state investigations and hearings in Congress. Times reporter Jackie Calmes’ front-page report on Wednesday carefully linked the state indictment to Republican Party prospects, all the better to rub the ruling into the faces of the GOP: “Indictment Deals Blow to G.O.P. Over Planned Parenthood Battle."
The New York Times often uses its book review to make liberal political statements under the cover of criticism, whether by praising books by liberals that bash conservatives, or eviscerating books by conservatives that attack the left. Sunday brought the first kind, summed up by this online teaser: "Dark Money argues that the Koch brothers and a small number of allied plutocrats have essentially hijacked American democracy."
Thousands braved miserable conditions and an incoming blizzard to march against abortion on Friday, and the New York Times once again came up short in covering the story, though when compared to previous years there was a veritable “blizzard” of coverage. The paper’s Public Editor Margaret Sullivan chided the Times in 2014 for its sparse coverage of the annual March for Life, and recommended covering the “gathering with a staff reporter in Washington...The lack of staff coverage unfortunately gives fuel to those who accuse The Times of being anti-Catholic, and to those who charge that the paper’s news coverage continually reflects a liberal bias...” Yet 2015 march coverage amounted to a half-sentence in a hostile story, and in 2016 the paper also failed to devote a full story to the march.
The Economist magazine often provides valuable windows into world events. But when it comes to American politics, its reach exceeds its grasp, succumbing to the worst, self-satisfied Euro-cliches: A knuckle-dragging, ultra-conservative Republican Party vengefully attacking thoughtful, intellectual Democrats like Barack Obama. The two standards were on stark display in the January 16/22 issue, which covered President Obama’s State of the Union address and South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley’s response. The title gave away the slant: “Barack Obama – A voice in the wilderness.
With France wracked by Islamic terrorism and anti-Semitic attacks, Thursday’s New York Times offered some valuable public relations on behalf of poor, downtrodden, persecuted Muslim immigrants, with Suzanne Daley, formerly the national editor for the paper, issuing a classic bleeding-heart report that skipped all the problems and came complete with hostile labeling of immigrant critics: “Rap Gives Poor Youths A Voice In France – Artists Confront The Far Right.” It’s part of the Times’ strange, intermittent “banlieue” beat, in which Times reporters whitewash the violence and terrorist sympathies that fester within unassimilated Muslim-dominated ghettos in France, in favor of a tale making them victims of government persecution.
More proof arrived on Sunday that the New York Times will never forgive conservative Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for successfully taming his state's public unions and then surviving an expensive, union-funded recall election. Contributing “writer and musician” Dan Kaufman: “The Destruction of Progressive Wisconsin.” The text box: “Scott Walker has turned his state into a laboratory for the evisceration of labor.”
New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse and White House scribe Julie Hirschfeld Davis teamed up to paint the president as wringing his hands over the current divided state of U.S. politics. One potential culprit almost wholly exonerated? The president himself. Thursday’s report, “Obama’s Plea to ‘Fix Our Politics’ Has Both Sides Looking Inward,” portrayed Obama as regretful, while skipping his bouts of arrogance and the clear animosity he feels toward his GOP opposition. They also pinned the beginning of the division to Robert Bork's failed Supreme Court nomination, without mentioning Sen. Ted Kennedy's scurrilous anti-Bork speech.
The New York Times has long maintained a gross double standard of coverage when it comes to Israel’s security. Palestinian terrorists who target Jewish civilians are rarely if ever described as terrorists. Even violently anti-Israel groups like Hamas are at worst “militants” in the Times, or even noted for their “roots in charity.” The ultimate Palestinian terrorist, PLO leader Yassir Arafat, was merely a “father figure of Palestinian nationalism” with a “heroic history.” The Times stepped shamelessly across yet another line of balance in Tuesday’s edition, using the word “terrorism” in a headline about terrorism in Israel – when committed by Israeli Jews
Reasonable people agree that Americans fear of Islamic terrorism is irrational. Unfortunately, President Obama can't say that in public. That’s the thrust of New York Times reporter Peter Baker's “news analysis” on Tuesday’s front page, before Obama’s last State of the Union Address: “A Speech to Balance Terror and Reality.” Baker’s pre-game analysis dovetailed with the administration’s condescending attitude toward the terror fears of their fellow Americans.
In Sunday’s New York Times White House reporter turned columnist Frank Bruni bashed Ted Cruz and Donald Trump in vitriolic tones in “Obnoxiousness Is the New Charisma.” The text box said it all: “Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are smug, mean and in the lead.” Bruni also snuck in snide liberal media descriptions of Cruz and Trump and treated them as conventional wisdom, while revealing some possible cultural blind spots about the voters he deigns to comment on. Meanwhile, "conservative" columnist David Brooks penned "The Brutalism of Ted Cruz."
It’s an old New York Times labeling trick: Find the bad guys, and stamp the “conservative” label on them -- even if they are Soviet Communists -- the enemy of U.S. conservatives during the Cold War. The Times insists on describing Muslim migrants, in the news for sex attacks in Germany, as hailing from “conservative” societies (then turning around and accusing Western conservatives of “Islamophobia”).
The New York Times, an outlet that has respectfully pondered the idea of a flourishing “rape culture” in the United States, and which irresponsibly furthered false accusations against three Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape by a stripper in 2006, suddenly doesn’t think sexual harassment is worth talking about. Or at least not when the accused is Democratic “big dog” Bill Clinton, and the topic might risk his wife becoming president in 2016. After Donald Trump re-injected Clinton’s sordid sexual past into the news stream, the paper responded with an editorial accusing Trump of trying to “tar” Hillary Clinton in “sexist fashion” to her husband’s dark sexual past – even though Hillary herself tore down the reputations of her husband’s accusers in order to save the couples’ political skin.
New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters took a testy tone on Tuesday with Republican presidential candidates who dared raise substantive concerns about the Obama administration’s ineffectual response to the Islamic terror threat: “Republicans Turn Up Heat in Iowa as They Set Aside Good for Bad and Ugly.” The text box read: “A new mood for the new year among the G.O.P. contenders.” Actually, it’s the same old sour GOP, according to the paper’s previous reporting, which also accused Republican candidates of sounding “dark notes” on various other issues.
No more worrying about the corrupting effect of money in politics at the New York Times – as long as the loot is used to fight gun rights, state by state. Before President Obama’s executive actions on gun control announced Tuesday morning, Times reporter Eric Lichtblau helped paved the way, celebrating a billionaire’s vast political reach on Monday’s front page in “Battleground Shifts In Debate On Gun Control -- Obama Is Set To Act – Buoyed With New Cash, Groups Notch Small Wins vs. N.R.A.” The moneyman in this case would be former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg