New York Times

Journalists sometimes ignore facts and evidence in order to promote an ideological narrative. For example, journalists peddled the Duke Lacrosse and University of Virginia rape hoaxes even after they were debunked.  They also continue to distort the facts about a 1991 Supreme Court nomination, in which the FBI and members of the U.S. Senate rejected as unfounded claims that Judge Clarence Thomas…

The Sunday New York Times front-page “news analysis” was positively gleeful over the apparent certainty that the last-minute assault accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would cost the Republican Party control of the House in November: “For Nominee, G.O.P. Takes A Big Gamble – Risking House Seats to Retain Senate Control.” It sounds like the GOP may as well pack it in right…

Rounding up New York Times coverage of the Kavanaugh saga from Saturday: It had the gall to issue a front-page fact-check on only one side of Thursday’s gripping Supreme Court testimony, in “At Points, a Judge’s Defense Misleads and Veers Off Course.” Needless to say, Christine Blasey Ford didn’t get one. The paper’s “gender editor” Jessica Bennett also took a crack at the case on Saturday,…

Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak was brazen in advancing a particularly audacious partisan argument -- that getting angry at being called a rapist by millions of people means you lack judicial temperament – on the front of Saturday’s New York Times: “Nominee’s Diatribe Poses Threat To Court’s Neutrality, Some Fear.” The online headline added an adjective: “A Bitter Nominee, Questions of…

The New York Times editorial page on Friday joined the paper's news pages in criticizing Brett Kavanaugh’s “angry” tone in defending himself against uncorroborated assault allegations during his Senate Judiciary Committee testimony on Thursday. And former executive editor Jill Abramson doesn't seem to know what “corroborating evidence" means.

The New York Times gave vastly different views of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford regarding their extraordinary testimony, consistently chiding Kavanaugh as "angry" and "aggrieved" and calling his judicial temperament into question -- as if anger wouldn't be a perfectly reasonable response to false allegations of sexual assault. The paper was clearly disappointed with Sen. Lindsey…

The front page of Thursday’s New York Times featured more sliming of youthful Kavanaugh as a drunk in “An Emerging Portrait of a Student ‘Frequently Unusually Drunk.’” The text box: “Ex-Classmates of Judge Recall Hard Partying.” The jump-page headline snuck in a slimy adjective: “Worrisome Portrait Emerges of a Student ‘Frequently Unusually Drunk.” Thursday’s front page also featured the headline…

New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse, always eager for signs of Republican trouble, gleefully piled on to the Kavanaugh scrum with “Resume Glittered, but the Reality Was Something Else Again” in Wednesday’s edition. Not to be outdone, Sydney Ember filed a fan letter in the guise of an interview with “fiery” Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, infamous for saying Kavanaugh’s…

The front page of Wednesday’s New York Times swallowed whole Democratic talking points in the fast-moving barrage of allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The paper is moving on from the original accusation of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford and is now moving on to paranoid guilt by association, having fully embraced the shoddy New Yorker story regarding his latest…

On Tuesday's Deadline: White House, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace gushed over allegedly right-leaning New York Times columnist Bret Stephens excoriating Senator Ted Cruz in his latest column, in which he cracked that the Texas Republican would "sell his family into slavery" to win an election.

Tuseday's New York Times featured co-lead stories on the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh: "Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, facing new allegations of sexual impropriety and growing doubts over his confirmation to the Supreme Court..." The Times reveled in the unsubstantiated left-wing sliming of Kavanaugh’s “clean-cut” image." More dubiously sourced “innuendo” against Kavanaugh appeared in the other…

Despite the fact that even Senate Democrats remain quite wary of embracing Michael Avenatti's wild charges against Brett Kavanaugh based on bizarre extrapolations of seemingly innocent comments in his high school yearbook, the New York Times is now following his lead in debased speculation.

Monday’s front page showed the New York Times will play every conceivable angle to push the Democrats over the top in the November elections. The latest line of attack: the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, and especially the long-delayed sexual assault accusation leveled against him. Reporter Jonathan Martin’s “G.O.P., Aiding Pick for Court, Risks Backlash -- Boon Becomes Possible Liability in…

The front page of the New York Times Sunday Review confirms it's now a bulletin board for the revolution-minded angry left. Michelle Alexander’s debut column used the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh as a hook for a loosely formatted shout-out to a hodge-podge of left-wing causes loosely lied to the anti-Trump “resistance." Meanwhile, Jennifer Weiner focused her ire solely at the patriarchy in…