John Broder

New York Times energy reporter John Broder, who is notoriously receptive to climate-change hysteria and dismissive of skeptical arguments, played defense for President Obama in Tuesday's "Obama Energy Policies Differ From Romney's Portrayal." The online headline is harsher: "Romney Misleads on Obama and Energy Prices." But did he really?

Note: The link goes to an online version of the story that is significantly altered from the story that appeared in print Tuesday morning, from which this text comes:

 

On February 28, as reported at the Politico, Obama administration Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a House panel the following in response to a question he interrupted about his interest in having an "overall goal" of lowering gas prices: “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy.” Yesterday, also as carried at the Politico, Chu effectively retracted that statement, as well as his more infamous September 2008 assertion that he would like to see gas prices in the U.S. resemble those seen in Europe.

A search on Chu's full name (not in quotes) at the Associated Press's main national site and through Google at its hosted2.ap.org site returns nothing relevant to either story. It would not be unreasonable to assert that the Politico, with little or nothing in the way of direct subscriber or member outreach, it the place where many negative stories about the Obama administration get posted -- and go no further.

Three liberal New York Times reporters teamed up Thursday morning to fact-check the Republican debate (and defend Obama) at the Reagan library.

John Broder, Nicholas Confessore, and Jackie Calmes cowrote “Attacking the Democrats, but Not Always Getting It Right,” which was not labeled or presented as "news analysis" (a label the Times is using less of lately) but as a factual news story. The text box read: “The candidates’ arguments run into factual hurdles.”

New York Times environmental reporter John Broder, who in February 2010 called skeptics of global warming “deniers” and “relatively uninformed,” warned on Thursday’s front page that worrisome “Republican orthodoxy” on the evils of the Environmental Protection Agency “may prove a liability in the general election, pollsters and analysts say.” The headline had loaded language: “Bashing E.P.A. Is New Theme In G.O.P. Race.”

Opposition to regulation and skepticism about climate change have become tenets of Republican orthodoxy, but they are embraced with extraordinary intensity this year because of the faltering economy, high fuel prices, the Tea Party passion for smaller government and an activist Republican base that insists on strict adherence to the party’s central agenda.

"Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes."

For years I have personally challenged mainstream media outlets to admit how much money Nobel Laureate Al Gore HAS and WILL make by spreading global warming hysteria.

On Tuesday, the New York Times will feature a front page story that discusses exactly that.

Readers are strongly encouraged to strap themselves in tightly, for the Times' John Broder is about to take them on a journey beyond their wildest dreams:

News of Sen. Ted Kennedy's death late Tuesday night didn't make the Wednesday print edition of the New York Times, but a 6,000-word obituary by John Broder was posted on nytimes.com this morning: "Edward Kennedy, Senate Stalwart, Dies."

Broder's obituary left room for the lowlights of Kennedy's career, including Mary Jo Kopechne's death at Chappaquiddick and Kennedy's ruthless personal attack on conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. But the opening paragraph offered a sharp contrast with another ideologically polarizing senator, Jesse Helms of North Carolina, who died on Independence Day last year. Broder's opening paragraph:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a son of one of the most storied families in American politics, a man who knew triumph and tragedy in near-equal measure and who will be remembered as one of the most effective lawmakers in the history of the Senate, died late Tuesday night. He was 77.

The Chicago Sun-Times today includes Mary Mitchell's column, "We can deny it, but race slithers into campaign."  The subheadline reads "Obama, his campaign trying to transcend it -- but can't."  The article makes a startling assertion about Senator Barack Obama:

Obama tries to avoid talking about race, as do his surrogates, staffers and supporters.

Say what?  Obama's recent remarks that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills" clearly referred to his race.  Even his chief strategist admits that.

And it was hardly the first time he introduced the subject. In June, Mitchell's colleague Lynn Sweet mentioned a pool report from the New York Times's John Broder:

New York Times reporter John Broder's front-page Week in Review story was titled "Gore-Lieberman: A Hyphen Apart? Try Poles." Much like the story itself, Broder's lead was a lazy attempt at provocation. (NewsBuster Warner Todd Huston also dissected the piece on Sunday.)

Imagine for a moment the Supreme Court had gone the other way in Bush v. Gore in 2000. We would now be in year eight of the Gore-Lieberman administration. Well, maybe not the Lieberman part.

To the New York Times there is only one issue in America: the war.

To show how pathetic The New York Times and John Broder are at analyzing the current political climate, all one has to do is read "Gore-Lieberman: A Hyphen Apart? Try Poles." Here the Times clearly reveals that they see but two types of American politician: the good guys against the war, and the evil ones for it. That's it. To the Times there is no other issue, no other divide, no other substantive thought, no other thing that separates our leaders one from the other. There is only the war and nothing else.

In this empty piece, the Times posits that should Al Gore had won in 2000 instead of George W. Bush, the second Gore administration would have seen a dump Lieberman movement that would have resulted in a different Gore vice-president in 2006.