In a Thursday New York Times op-ed, columnist Timothy Egan, who previously "worked for 18 years as a writer" at the Times, went after Wal-Mart as "net drain on taxpayers, forcing employees into public assistance with its poverty-wage structure." In his view, working at Wal-Mart and receiving its "humiliating wages ... certainly keeps you poor."
At the company's blog, David Tovar, Walmart's vice president for corporate communications, armed with a photocopy of Egan's op-ed and a red pen, ripped Egan's contentions to shreds (portion presented was reformatted to fit the available space; HT Instapundit):
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.
Protests are usually designed as attention-grabbers, publicity-seeking events. But liberal reporters cannot be dragged to a conservative protest. Thursday’s “March for Marriage” was blown off by The Washington Post and The New York Times. Attendance too small? The Post has written 10,000 words glorifying three anti-nuke protesters. The Times thinks four illegal aliens hiking is a hot protest story.
Only pro-gay news is news. Friday’s Times led the National section with “Presbyterians Allow Same-Sex Marriages,” complete with happy color photo. Friday’s Post wrote a story previewing the Obama administration’s move to include same-sex couples in family-leave policies (updated version online).
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.
The Washington Post and The New York Times can’t seem to locate the story (never mind the outrage) of destroyed hard drives at the IRS. The latest IRS scandal scoops have been buried deep in the paper. But both biased rags put Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on the front page Friday in an alleged campaign-finance scandal pushed by Democratic district attorneys.
Neither paper revealed the prosecutors were Democrats, but the Post won the sliming sweepstakes with the headline “Prosecutors: Wis. governor involved in illicit scheme.” The second paragraph explains “Walker has not been charged, and his legal jeopardy is unclear.” So why is this on the front page? No reason, except liberal journalists unleashing their 2016 campaign phobias.
The networks have mostly ignored new stories on the Internal Revenue Service claiming on Friday they lost two years of lost e-mails from IRS official Lois Lerner (and then six others) in the investigation of IRS attempts to inhibit conservative groups in the Obama years. But what about America's leading newspapers? Not Saturday. Not Sunday. Not Monday.
The Watergate hounds at The Washington Post didn’t report on Lerner’s “lost” e-mails in the paper until Tuesday, on page A-17. Today’s paper floods the zone on a Patent Office decision on “Redskins”– including a front-page spread and a gooey top editorial – but this is chopped liver. The New York Times also arrived on Tuesday, on page A-15.
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."
Much to the dismay of the newspaper that has an obsession with peddling Democratic attacks on the Koch brothers, Hulse was unable to find anyone besides three progressive activists that had anything negative to say about them. Instead, he found that the Koch brothers are held in high regard in the community where, among many generous donations, the Wichita State University basketball arena was renamed the Charles Koch Arena in 2003 after he gave $6 million to have it completely renovated. Here’s more from Hulse:
Jimmy Carter is not a saint. If you doubt that, read Steven Hayward’s The Real Jimmy Carter. But The New York Times never noticed that book. Last Sunday, they boosted Randall Balmer’s Carter book Redeemer, which pitches Carter metaphorically as...Christ-like.
It’s bad enough that Balmer uses his book to claim nastily that the Religious Right was organized by the late Paul Weyrich around segregationism. Reviewer Molly Worthen began by claiming “Jimmy Carter may be the most pious man ever to have occupied the White House. He was ‘born again’ at age 11 and has taught Sunday school for decades.”
Like many analysts in the “mainstream media,” New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters sought to explain how David Brat -- a 49-year-old economics professor and virtually unknown candidate -- won the Republican primary in Virginia on Tuesday, unseating Eric Cantor, a seven-term incumbent who has served as the majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Peters' explanation? During a lengthy article the following day, he asserted that the upset victory was made possible by the intervention of “potent voices of the conservative media,” including GOP radio talk show hosts Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin.
The New York Times has sunk, yet again, to a new low. Only this time, they may have created an even bigger conundrum for President Obama.
In a clear and desperate attempt to whitewash Obama's ill-fated swap of what is increasingly appearing to be an army deserter for five unrepentant deadly dangerous terror leaders (two of whom have been named war criminals by the United Nations) for a U.S. soldier, The Times has gone into overdrive, now seemingly blaming those with whom Bowe Bergdahl served for his apparent desertion.
On Thursday, the editorial board at the New York Times, reacting to the growing firestorm over the release of five hardened terrorists from Gitmo in return for the Army's Bowe Bergdahl, went after Bergdahl's "army unit’s lack of security and discipline." It then incredibly claimed that a classified army report described in a separate Times dispatch that day suggested that those alleged conditions were "as much to blame for the disappearance" of Bergdahl as ... well, the sloppy editorial didn't specifically say.
On Sunday, two Times reporters continued the offensive against Bowe Bergdahl's platoon and its members, apparently wanting readers to believe that the unit's occasionally "raggedy" attire and alleged poor leadership somehow explain Bergdahl's "disappearance."
The seething anger at seeing the Obama administration being raked over the coals by critics of the Bowe Bergdahl exchange of five hardened terrorists for a soldier who left his post, including many Democrats and most prominently his fellow unit members, was apparently too much for the editorial board at the New York Times. On Thursday, they let loose with a poorly sourced and hastily drafted editorial originally entitled "The Politics of the Bergdahl Case." Tim Graham at NewsBusters alluded to this editorial on Friday in covering fake conservative David Brooks's completely predictable defense of President Obama's decision.
Several revisions later — five in all, tracked by an impressive site called NewsDiffs.org — there is a more pointed title ("The Rush to Demonize Sgt. Bergdahl"). The Times has also had to make two corrections, including an important qualification to a statement made by Arizona Senator John McCain which negated the Times's attempt to go after him (of course, the Times pretended that it didn't). The editorial went on to outrageously impugn the motives, integrity and basic decency of Bergdahl's comrades in Afghanistan and sympathizers who have had the unmitigated gall to help them tell their story to the press.
The feminist film critics can exhale now. Someone has finally concocted their dream movie: an “abortion comedy.” Because apparently nothing sounds funnier than an unplanned one-night stand and a courageous destruction of God's most beautiful and most innocent creation.
It's called "Obvious Child." Feminist lingo sells this monstrosity. Former “Saturday Night Live” cast member Jenny Slate plays Donna Stern, a standup comedian who “is forced to face the uncomfortable realities of independent womanhood for the first time.” A “drunken hookup – and epic lapse in prophylactic judgment – turns out to be the beginning of a hilarious and totally unplanned journey of self-discovery and empowerment.”
The New York Times knows just how to rebuild the Republican Party in California...in the image of The New York Times. In Thursday’s paper, correspondent Norimitsu Onishi highlighted the Republican nominee for governor, Neel Kashkari, “a social moderate backed by the Republican establishment.”
“Social moderate”? In the next paragraph, we learn Kashkari “is of Indian descent and supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights, all positives for a party that has been steadily losing influence because of California’s increasingly diverse and liberal electorate.” So he is a social liberal, which the Times thinks is where all “moderates” belong. He's not one of those unelectable "Anglo" conservatives.
The New York Times on Thursday kicked off what could be an attempt to find a 2014 version of Todd Akin. Writer Jonathan Weisman pronounced the accession of senatorial candidate Chris McDaniel as a "major headache" for Republicans and hyped Democrats as "gleeful" over the run-off campaign between the Tea Party favorite and incumbent Senator Thad Cochran.
Repeating liberal talking points, Weisman parroted, "Already on Wednesday, Democrats were quietly expressing glee and moving to elevate the McDaniel candidacy, hoping to make him this campaign cycle’s equivalent of Missouri’s Todd Akin, whose provocative comments on rape created problems for Republicans around the country in 2012."
Alana Goodman at the Washington Free Beacon reports that the Hillary Clinton camp held a secret meeting with editors and reporters at The New York Times to complain about their coverage. The message: Back off.
Goodman writes “sources familiar with the meeting describe it as an attempt to brush back and even intimidate the staff of the Times.” This could be especially intimidating after the newspaper's publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. tossed out female executive editor Jill Abramson.
Dan Rather loves telling people about the time he tried heroin...for journalism. Now liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in a Tuesday column about traveling to Colorado to experience the progressive new world of legalized pot. Suffice it to say, her experience was, well, quite the adventure.
Dowd detailed how she inhaled a pot-filled candy bar, and the resulting psychological effects. Let’s just say her encounter with marijuana was something less than a stoner’s fantasy. She describes, that, after about an hour, she “felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made it from the desk to the bed, where I curled up and lay in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours.”
When the government pushes to destroy America’s biggest source of energy, you can certainly trust the media to jump on board.
On June 1, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled drastic new limits on carbon emissions, mandating steep emission cuts within 16 years. It’s a move that may cost hundreds of thousands of jobs each year, but only 13 of the 20 major United States newspapers discussed the issue in editorials. Eleven of those papers actually promoted the new regulations with editorials or official endorsements – from their editorial board.
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.)
During the Pentagon Papers controversy over the release of Vietnam-related military and other documents in 1971, if a columnist had written that "the private companies that own newspapers, and their employees, should not have the final say over the release of government secrets, and a free pass to make them public with no legal consequences," and that "that decision must ultimately be made by the government," he or she would have been tagged in the press as a "(Richard) Nixon defender" and "an enemy of press freedom."
How ironic it thus is that Thursday, in his New York Times review of Glenn Greenwald's new book ("No Place to Hide"), current liberal Vanity Fair columnist and former CNN "Crossfire" host Michael Kinsley used that very language as he went after Greenwald, who has been NSA eavesdropping leaker Edward Snowden's go-between for the past year, with a vengeance. And yes, he did it at the Times, the very newspaper which was at the heart of the Pentagon Papers litigation that was ultimately decided in its favor.
The New York Times has been touting a study purporting to show that 4 percent of death row inmates have been "falsely convicted." "Falsely convicted" is not "innocent." But after being processed through the lawyer-to-journalist telephone game, "insignificant procedural errors" quickly becomes "27 guys didn't do it!"
What the study actually shows is that those sentenced to death are more likely to have their convictions overturned than those sentenced to prison.
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.
One would think that Florida Democratic Congressman Joe Garcia can only get so many free passes from the national press before they'll have to acknowledge his serious problems. We'll see.
Back in January, the Associated Press and the rest of the national establishment media managed to limit their coverage of the arrest and ultimate guilty plea of Garcia's chief of staff for illegally plotting to obtain absentee ballot to local outlets. They did this even though — or perhaps because — the Congressman excused the man's attack on election integrity, for which he received a wrist-slap sentence of 90 days in jail, as "a well-intentioned attempt to maximize voter turnout." A week or so ago, there was an ear wax incident, which I'd rather skip. Earlier today, America Rising posted a far more important video, wherein the congressman bizarrely claimed — he says he wasn't serious, but it doesn't sound like it to me — that additional money spent on Mexican border security proves that "communism works."
During the Obama administration, the Associated Press has annually gone through the motions of noting its lack of transparency in responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. In March, its coverage of 2013 FOIA results led with the following sentence: "The Obama administration more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data." Then everyone went back to work defending the administration against the information seekers.
Part of that defense includes mischaracterizing the legal hurdles those who file FOIA requests must overcome to get the administration to do what it is legally required to do right off the bat. Three sentences from recent coverage of Judicial Watch's attempts to pry information out of the State Department will make my point.
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.
Last night (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I pointed to the track record of Dean Baquet, who has ascended to the hallowed perch of executive editor at the New York Times, and observed that "someone who has clearly been a troubling and disruptive presence is now in charge."
Two incidents spanning seven years support my contention. The first occurred in 2006 at the Los Angeles Times, where Baquet, then that paper's editor, petulantly refused to make budget cuts the paper's Tribune Company parent demanded, took his complaints public in the paper itself, metaphorically barricaded himself in his office, and dared the Trib to fire him (they did, two months later). The second occurred in April of last year, when Baquet, now at the New York Times, got into an argument with now deposed Executive Editor Jill Abramson, "burst out of Abramson’s office, slammed his hand against a wall ... stormed out of the newsroom ... (and was) gone for the rest of the day." Now we learn from David Carr at the Old Gray Lady itself that, in essence, Baquet did an "it's her or me" number on Abramson (HT Ann Althouse) to grease the skids for her firing.
At the Politico, concerning Dean Baquet, the new Executive Editor at the New York Times, Dylan Byers wonders: "How will ... (he) handle the necessary digital transformation facing 'All the news that’s fit to print.'?" The better question is: How will he handle the financial constraints Times management will almost inevitably have to impose on a stagnant if not shrinking newsroom operation?
To say that Baquet didn't deal with such matters well when he was in a similar position at the Los Angeles Times eight years ago is an understatement. The working press seems to consider him some kind of hero for standing up to senior management at the Tribune Company, the paper's owner. The fact is that his childish, passive-aggressive posturing made his firing inevitable, and that he should have been sent packing months earlier than he was.
Via Mediaite, we learned New York Times publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. issued a new statement Saturday on the controversy over the dumping of executive editor Jill Abramson. He said the issue wasn’t pay, but Abramson’s management style causing a loss of “the support of her masthead colleagues.”
“Equal pay for women is an important issue in our country — one that The New York Times often covers,” Mr. Sulzberger wrote. “But it doesn’t help to advance the goal of pay equality to cite the case of a female executive whose compensation was not in fact unequal.”