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
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson purchased the Las Vegas Review Journal newspaper last month, and the New York Times is obsessed. The paper put a conspiratorial Sunday front-page spotlight on Adelson (who is, not coincidentally, a major Republican donor) and his legal clashes with a Nevada judge: “Mogul’s Purchase of Las Vegas Newspaper Is Seen as Power Play." Also suspect: A free paper Adelson distributes in Israel “has been accused of supporting the conservative positions of Benjamin Netanyahu.” Of course, the Times never worries about being accused of supporting the liberal positions of Barack Obama.
The rich are "horrible people" -- at least those who lean to the right -- declares economist turned pompous New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in Friday’s “Privilege, Pathology and Power.” The text box: “Can we survive rule by self-centered billionaires?” (Liberal billionaire activist George Soros had no comment.) Krugman channeled opportunistic moralism, citing “science” to confirm his prejudices that rich people who disagree with him politically are bad, bad folks, though Krugman is no prince of humility and civility himself.
Donald Trump called out Hillary Clinton for hypocrisy in accusing the GOP of being anti-woman, yet relying on serial philanderer Bill Clinton’s help while running for president. But you wouldn’t have learned that until deep into the front-page story in Wednesday’s New York Times. Political reporter Amy Chozick spent the first several paragraphs piling up shallow evidence of the former friendship between Trump and Bill Clinton in order to accuse Trump of treachery, while dodging and ducking the serious sexual accusations long festering around the former president.
In Saturday’s New York Times, reporter Matt Flegenheimer took a hostile tone in an ostensibly light-hearted story about Jeb Bush’s surprising reserves of humor in Saturday’s “Bush Camp Suggests (Very) Secret Weapon: Its Candidate Is Funny.” Turns out Jeb! has a decent line in dry wit, but the Times resolutely refused to be amused by the struggling Republican candidate: “Who says @JebBush doesn’t have a sense of humor!” his top adviser, Sally Bradshaw, asked on Twitter....The list is long: allies, foes, former aides."
The New York Times’ Christmas Day editorial got off to a wonderful start with a tribute to the astronauts of Apollo 8, the first humans to orbit the moon. But it quickly fell back to earth, as the liberals on the editorial board took advantage of the season to interpret peace on earth and goodwill toward men as a Christmas wish list for the left wing, celebrating Black Lives Matter, gay marriage, the climate change accord, and Syrian refugees, while putting America on the naughty list.
On Christmas Eve the New York Times pushed the NBA’s new gun control campaign (that's NBA, not NRA), both on the front page and the front of the Sports section. The sports editors really performed a full-court press, taking a local angle with an over-the-top deck of headlines above an enormous picture of New York Knicks player Carmelo Anthony: “Trying to Drown Out The Din of Gunshots – No Stranger to Despair, Anthony Joins Other Stars in Speaking Up for a Cause.” As long as it’s a cause approved of by the liberal Times, anyway.
Liberal blinders fastened tight, the New York Times set up inflammatory race-baiter turned MSNBC host Al Sharpton as an arbiter of someone else’s racism on Tuesday’s front page. Maggie Haberman and Steve Eder’s report, “Trump’s Rise Divides the Black Celebrities He Calls His Friends,” is just the latest in a depressing series of Sharpton suckups from the New York Times. The Times has taken enormous pains over the years to ignore Rev. Al’s numerous racial controversies all the while calling him a civil rights “leader.
New York Times White House reporter Julie Hirschfeld Davis is sending Barack Obama into 2016 in style, with three successive stories focusing on various flattering angles of the president, who is shedding the lame duck stereotype and laying down accomplishments -- at least according to Davis -- although the poor president can’t enjoy a holiday getaway without world events intruding. On Monday she penned “Relishing a Respite in Hawaii, but Reality Is Never Far Away,” which portrayed as a burden the president’s visit with families of the victims of the San Bernardino attacks
The lead story in Saturday's New York Times heaped praise upon the passage of a package of spending increases: “Avoiding Rancor, Congress Passes A Fiscal Package -- $1.8 Trillion Measure – Spending Rise and New Tax Breaks Suggest End of Austerity." This big-spending budget earned Ryan some strange new respect, with reporter David Herszenhorn praising his “deftness in pacifying rebellious conservatives.” A copy editor gave Ryan a pat on the back in a text box: “A successful effort by Republicans to show that they can govern effectively.”
President Obama spoke off the record to news columnists, in a defensive response to Republican criticism that he has seemed passive and uninterested in the face of Islamic terror attacks against the United States. In a news story about the meeting New York Times reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris revealed this damning admission from the president: "In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments." So why was that sentence was deleted from the version that appeared in Friday’s print edition?
Thursday’s New York Times was particularly dense with bias against the "hard-right" and "far-right" Republican Party, starting on the front page, where a story about Latino candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio turned into a criticism of GOP immigration policy, and reaching the back page, with an editorial hitting the Republican Party for its "Appalling Silence on Gun Control" (the candidates "dwelled darkly" about the actual threat of Islamic terorrism instead).
The latest from New York Times reporter Kirk Semple on the front page of Tuesday’s Times, “Muslim Youth in U.S. Feel Strain of Suspicion,” demonstrates that the paper’s strongest impulse after Islamic terror attacks is not to investigate what went wrong but to fret over perceived, anecdotal “Islamophobia” among their fellow citizens. It’s much like his previous, anecdote-heavy, statistic-free “CAIR” package (as in Council on American-Islamic Relations) that Semple delivered in late November, an article completely dominated by CAIR sources in which Semple quite comfortably accused his fellow Americans of Islamophobia on the basis of anecdotes.
In his Thursday front-page New York Times profile of "gruff" Sen. Ted Cruz, Matt Flegenheimer took pains to portray the Texas senator and Republican candidate as an unlikeable, socially awkward “bomb-thrower” ideologue (“appraised as grating and pompous as a matter of bipartisan consensus”) in “Cruz the Gruff Taking a Turn At Being Nice.” The online headline was no less hostile: "After Making Enemies, Ted Cruz Tries to Make Friends.” Never mind his surge in Iowa. Flegenheimer’s opinionated profile piece, which characterized Cruz’s demeanor as growling and rhetoric as “apocalyptic,” was more suitable for a guest essay in the magazine than an ostensibly balanced front-page news story from a political reporter.
Reporters Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman made Sunday's New York Times front page with a deep and deeply fear-mongering analysis of “demagogue” Donald Trump’s stump speeches: "95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Trump’s Tongue." But things that two Times reporters find “ominous” may not scare a more moderate reader, such as pointing out that ISIS chops off the heads of their victims.
The front page of Saturday's New York Times, next to the paper's already infamous front-page gun-control editorial, claimed that "Shootings in California Reshape the Campaigns." The language used by reporters Michael Barbaro and Trip Gabriel, was quite revealing. See how the Republican presidential candidates "angrily demanded...[rode a] rising tide of bellicosity... seethed with disgust for Democrats...Their language was almost apocalyptic..." Meanwhile they missed the "nuance" of Democratic gun-control proposals. And the paper's religion reporter Laurie Goodstein seemed to fear "Islamophobia" more than Islamic terrorism, though FBI stats show that anti-Semitic attacks are far more common.
After the massacre by radical Islamists who killed 14 and wounded 21 more in San Bernardino, Calif., the New York Times took its tasteless grandstanding on gun control literally to the front, in a rare front-page editorial, "The Gun Epidemic" calling for bans on civilian ownership for certain types of rifles and ammunition. After joining the New York Daily News' anti-prayer brigade, the publicity stunt of an editorial briefly bowed to reality to admit that yes, there have been mass murders in countries with stringent gun control laws. Their rebuttal is a perfect encapsulation of liberal wishful thinking: "But at least those countries are trying."
Patrick Healy reported in Thursday's New York Times that "Skittish Over Terrorism, Some Voters Seek a Gutsy Style of Leader." "Skittish" [excitable, easily scared] is a pretty condescending way to characterize the American public's legitimate fears of terrorism. But far worse is Healy's inference that Republican rhetoric on Syrian refugees had stoked threats against mosques. He also linked the rough treatment of a Black Lives Matter activist who disrupted a Trump rally to a shooting at a BLM protest in Minneapolis
The New York Times' coverage of the international climate change summit in Paris remained on an aggressive boil, as Coral Davenport and Gardiner Harris' report from France Tuesday, "Citing Urgency, World Leaders Converge on France for Climate Meeting," hit the same set of alarmist notes Davenport did in her previous story from Paris. And Justin Gillis, the paper's most alarmist environmental reporter, accused libertarians and conservatives of bad faith, taking funding from Big Oil, and "cherry-picking" data under the headline "Why do people question climate change? -- Hint: ideology."
Hyperbole much? The New York Times brought predictably alarmist and overheated coverage to the climate talks in Paris, while lauding President Obama's attempt to make a legacy fighting "global warming." Environmental Reporter Coral Davenport gushed: "On Sunday night he arrives in Paris, hoping to make climate policy the signature environmental achievement of his, and perhaps any, presidency." In a later story she warned "If the talks fail...then nations will continue on a trajectory that scientists say locks the planet into a future of rising sea levels, more frequent floods, worsening droughts, food and water shortages, destructive hurricanes and other catastrophic events."