In June, Bennhold tried to make the UK government investigation sound ludicrous and prejudiced, summing up the situation with the regretful: "But stereotypes die hard." But a new British government investigation shows the situation in Birmingham, England even more disturbing than previously thought, as Bennhold confirmed in Wednesday's Times, albeit after some throat-clearing and hesitation.
Yet Rudoren clearly slanted against Israel in her unbalanced condemnations of rhetoric vs. reality in the region, claiming that discussion of the dead in Gaza on Israeli news programs lacks a "human, moral" context, ignoring the years of dehumanization of Jews as monkeys and pigs on official Palestinian media.
The New York Times' coverage of the ongoing situation in Israel, which began with the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers, continued this past week to be marked by intense anti-Israel bias in tone and labeling, and overwhelming emotionalism over the deaths of Palestinian civilians in the crossfire (Israeli deaths from terrorism rarely if ever merited such heart-felt treatment). After the tragic deaths of four young Gazan boys on a beach, the Times let its photographer hint at something sinister: "Children, maybe four feet tall, dressed in summer clothes, running from an explosion, don’t fit the description of Hamas fighters, either."
James Taranto performed an invaluable service from his Opinion Journal "Best of the Web" perch this week, revealingNew York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, a notorious liberal crusader on various fronts, to be perhaps the most gullible of the paper's many liberal writers. (He's also suggested Mao Tse-Tung and Saddam Hussein weren't that bad.)
Taranto teed up Kristof with this example of corruption of the peer-review process in scientific research:
Breaking story from the New York Times: Obama attended a pretentious dinner party in Rome back in March, hob-nobbing with particle physicists and captains of industry. Reporter Julie Hirschfeld Davis, whose articles on Obama outside the White House give the president free rein to insult the GOP, on Tuesday slobbered over Obama the intellectual, and his fabulous dinner guests from all over the world, drinking Drappier Champagne and talking of "the importance of understanding science, the future of the universe, how sports brings people together, and many other things," according to party hostess Linda Douglass.
Douglass, an Obama-defending reporter at CBS and ABC who joined the Obama campaign in 2008 and became an Obama-care spokesperson, is the wife of John Phillips, U.S. ambassador to Rome. The Times left out Douglass's journalism past, merely calling her a former Obama aide.
"A Damaging Distance," Ethan Bronner's news analysis for the New York Times Sunday Review, blamed the "growing human distance between Israelis and Palestinians" not on Palestinian terrorist attacks against civilians, but Israel's security measures to stop it.
Bronner's tenure as Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the Times was marked by pro-Palestinian bias, including slanted labeling, calling hard-line Israeli supporters "extreme right" without bestowing similar labels on the hard-left of Israel. He also helped spread the truly dehumanizing characterization of Jewish settlers as "rampaging" during protests. He left a consolation card for the Palestinian cause upon his departure in March 2012.
Three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped on June 12 while hitchhiking home in the West Bank. They were found dead on June 30, murdered by Hamas militants. Palestinians attacked the ambulance carrying their bodies. Later Hamas launched rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, while Israel countered with air strikes on specific terrorist targets.
The paper's coverage of the ongoing situation has been marked by intense anti-Israel bias in tone and labeling, and a false moral equivalence between the behavior of "extremist" Israelis and merely "militant" Palestinian terrorists.
The New York Times used a recent Hillary Clinton statement from an online chat to briefly, tentatively bring up an old issue, first uncovered by the Washington Free Beacon, that could resonate uncomfortably with her liberal feminist fans: Hillary's cavalier and casual attitude on how a case against one of her then-clients, an accused rapist, collapsed, and her questioning the credibility of the victim, a 12-year-old girl.
The headline over Tuesday's meager 300-word story by Amy Chozick (pictured) read "Clinton Defends Her Handling of a Rape Case in 1975." The placement of that weirdly specific date in the headline makes one wonder if the Times is hinting to readers that this is ancient history that no longer matters.
One must perversely admire the gall of the New York Times editorial page. Sunday's lead editorial, "The Real IRS Scandal," says that the "real scandal" at the politicized agency isn't its targeting of citizens with anti-Obama views before the last election, isn't the suspiciously lost emails by an agent who pled the fifth before Congress, but a lack of sufficient funds because of the GOP.
Republican-fostered cuts to the agency's budget have evidently meant less audits of "the rich," which in turn spells "bad news for building roads, keeping the air clean, protecting the nation’s security, and countless other vital government tasks." A commenter accurately accused the Times of changing the subject.
Sam Tanenhaus's 6,300-word cover story for the New York Times' Sunday Magazine, "Can the G.O.P. Be a Party of Ideas?" is marinated in the same superior smugness that distorted his 2009 hit-piece book on the conservative movement.
Tanenhaus, currently a "writer-at-large" for the Times, is still hailed in liberal circles as an expert on the conservative movement, even though his slim, slanted 2009 book The Death of Conservatism (talk about wishful thinking) proved rather ill-timed, coming as it did before the Tea Party resurgence. The book ludicrously labeled President Obama a centrist in a long line of Democratic centrists, including ... George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. Tanenhaus also likened the conservative movement to "the exhumed figures of Pompeii, trapped in postures of frozen flight, clenched in the rigor mortis of a defunct ideology." So when the Times wants an "objective" view of the conservative movement, it's obvious Tanenhaus is the guy to provide it.
Liptak, the paper's Supreme Court reporter, covered the emergency injunction issued by the Supreme Court on behalf of a Christian college in Illinois related to religious freedom and Obama-care. Briefly, the majority gave Wheaton College a reprieve from being forced to fill out forms to submit to insurers as an alternative way to deliver "free" contraception to employees/students under Obama-care. But Liptak managed to find a blunt violation of "women's rights" in that complicated tangle.
Jackie Calmes, New York Times reporter (and reliable water-carrier for Democrats), made Thursday's front page with a story on the competitive Senate race in North Carolina, a seat the Democrats desperately need to keep in order to maintain their hold on the U.S. Senate.
The nudging headline read: "To Hold Senate, Democrats Rely on Single Women." In the lead we revealingly learn that the decline of marriage has been a boon for the Democratic party (what it says about the well-being of the country being apparently less vital).
Julie Hirschfeld Davis's recent New York Times stories, featuring President Obama letting himself off the White House leash, have given the president free rein to mock in rambling fashion his Republican opponents in the runup to the congressional elections.
The Supreme Court on Monday delivered its verdict in the closely watched Hobby Lobby case, ruling 5-4 that the Christian-run craft store doesn't have to obey the Obamacare mandate that requires health care plans to pay for birth-control drugs that may induce abortion. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion stated that requiring such closely-held corporations to provide such coverage violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Yet New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak's lead story Tuesday, under the banner headline "Court Limits Birth Control Rule," managed to quote liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent in the second sentence.
Even if the Republicans win the Senate this year, it's still bad news, according to New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse. Hulse, whose reporting reliably supports Democratic wishful thinking, found a potential dark cloud for Republicans if they take over the Senate in 2014 in Tuesday's "Congressional Memo, "Mavericks Could Fracture a G.O.P. Senate Majority."
The "Memo from Birmingham" in Monday's New York Times, "Reading, Writing and Allegations," by reporter Katrin Bennhold, partially whitewashed the problem of Islamic separatism and possible tolerance for extremism at a high school in Birmingham, England.
Bennhold, playing lightly over allegations against Park View School, strove to make a recent UK government investigation sound ludicrous and prejudiced.
Timothy Egan, the liberal New York Times reporter turned ultra-liberal columnist, flashed hostility to Wal-Mart (and capitalism in general), as well as a broad ignorance of economics in his latest Sunday Review column, "Corporate Daddy."
For some time now, Republicans in Congress have given up the pretense of doing anything to improve the lot of most Americans. Raising the minimum wage? They won’t even allow a vote to happen. Cleaner air for all? They may partially shut down the government in a coming fight on behalf of major polluters. Add to that the continuing obstruction of student loan relief efforts, and numerous attempts to defund health care, and you have a party actively working to make life miserable for millions.
As Iraq descends once more into chaos in the wake of Obama's withdrawal of U.S. troops, New York Times reporter Jennifer Steinhauer took a lazy, snarky tone in a Thursday news profile of "neoconservative" John Bolton, he of the "sea-otter mustache" (and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations) who has been outspoken against Obama's foreign policy: "Former Envoy Pipes Up in Conservative Chorus of ‘Told You So’ on Iraq."
On Tuesday, New York Times reporter Coral Davenport nudged Obama from the left ("Governments Await Obama’s Move on Carbon to Gauge U.S. Climate Efforts") to show "how serious [he] is" in getting with the international program to stop global warming. The effort apparently involves the president shackling the coal industry of his own country.
The article's upshot: Global warming will overwhelm island nations and cause mass destruction, and it's mainly America's fault. Yet even reporter Davenport eventually admits that it's China, not the United States, that is currently the world's most harmful polluter, though China gets a pass.
New York Times reporter Michael Barbaro issued a gushing profile Sunday of Jeb Bush, former Republican governor of Florida, possible presidential contender, and, apparently, the smart Bush: "Jeb Bush Gives Party Something To Think About." By contrast, President George W. Bush, who "left Yale with gentleman’s C’s after four years" (shouldn't that at least be "graduated Yale"?) is a potential millstone around Jeb's neck.
There is much praise of Jeb Bush's voracious book reading and formidable intelligence, but a Barbaro tweet reveals a side agenda – denigrating GWB: "My deep dive into the intellectual life of Jeb Bush, who's definitely not his brother." (Barbaro has previously gone to silly extremes to denigrate Republican politicians.)
On Thursday, New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse, long a reliable mouthpiece for Democrats, spelled out some handy tips for the Democrats as they struggle to retain seats in the Republican-held House of Representatives, under the headline "Democrats Seek Issues to Lure Midterm Votes After Races Buoy G.O.P.," a headline considerably more balanced than Hulse's actual story, which simply regurgitated the Democrats's simplistic, unflattering, poll-tested descriptions of the Republican Party.
Hooray for havoc? The New York Times's new Upshot project got unusual prime print placement for its Tuesday story predicting – hoping? -- that disasters accompanying the upcoming weather event El Nino could boost prospects for climate change legislation. It will "probably increase global temperatures, perhaps to the highest levels ever...offering vindication to maligned climate models and re-energizing climate activists." Evidently floods and landslides are a small price to pay for that.
The New York Times is obsessed with the disturbing rightward shift in North Carolina, and used the uninspiring hook (the start of a state legislative session) to run yet another ominous story. It was reporter Trip Gabriel's turn on Sunday to document how not even North Carolina's governor is right-wing enough for the newly conservative state legislature: "North Carolina Governor Tested by Own G.O.P. as Legislators Return." (Though the North Carolina left still hates Gov. Pat McCory enough to get him disinvited from a local music festival.)
Times reporter Kim Severson has also provided sympathetic coverage of left-wing protests against "the newly conservative Republican leadership in North Carolina [which is] raising its voice against the loss of the state’s centrist government and what they see as diminished recognition of the poor and minorities."
The online subhead hinted at it: "Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Tom Cotton of Arkansas are running for the Senate as common-man conservatives but share high-flying pedigrees." Weisman's article is sprinkled with "gotcha" attempts that don't stick:
The New York Times is desperately trying to reduce Republican complaints of the IRS persecution of Tea Party groups and the White House cover-up of the massacre of Americans in Benghazi to cynical GOP campaign ploys trotted out in an election year.
The paper's strategy is exemplified in Thursday's story by Jeremy Peters, "House Vote on Former I.R.S. Official Signals Element of G.O.P. Election Strategy." The House voted 231-178 to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt for refusing to testify before Congress, and requested a special prosecutor to investigate the agency’s targeting of Tea Party groups. But you would have a tough time figuring that out from Peters's shallow, partisan, politically obsessed reporting, light on details but heavy on suggestions of unfair GOP politics. Peters couldn't even finish his lead sentence without referring to how Republicans hoped to employ the IRS issue, as well as Benghazi and Obama-care, to their advantage in the mid-term elections.
While his New York Times columnist colleague Maureen Dowd made liberals nervous with some pungent punches at the Clintons (their "opprobrium and well-known taste for vengeance") in her Sunday Review piece, Thomas Friedman's "It's Not Just About Obama" was surely soothing, as he rose in "partial defense" of Obama's passive foreign policy, saying that the enemy is us and our collective failure to raise taxes to save the environment. And of course, President Bush.
Even though the Supreme Court voted 6-2 to uphold Michigan's ban on affirmative action, New York Times's Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak in his lead story in Wednesday's paper first quoted Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, the "most passionate and most significant dissent of her career."
Liptak also promoted liberal ex-Justice John Paul Stevens's tirade against money in politics in a Tuesday interview, with the reporter lamenting that the Citizens United case -- in which the Court made the pro-free-speech ruling that government can't ban election spending by corporations -- had become "a judicial landmark."
The actual article by reporter Jonathan Martin was equally shallow, a partisan-driven analysis that failed to mention the bizarre, confusing math problems that have gotten parents up in arms. Martin left out the inconvenient fact that even the liberal governor of New York State is a critic, as reported a few days previous in the Times, and that the state teacher's union had withdrawn its support until fixes are made.
The New York Times resolutely refused to see a pattern of jihad on the part of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in its sympathetic front-page Tuesday profile of his prison conditions. Yet on Wednesday the Times ran an op-ed that used an anti-Semitic killer in Kansas to represent the hidden domestic terror threat of military veterans.