Latest from Clay Waters
The front of the New York Times "Business Day" section on Tuesday featured media reporters Sydney Ember and Michael J. de la Merced's story “Sinclair Will Pay $3.9 Billion For Tribune.” With the imminent sale of Tribune Media to the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the Times has rediscovered a convenient concern for media bias -- conservative bias, that is. The online headline was more opinionated: “Sinclair Unveils Tribune Deal, Raising Worries It Will Be Too Powerful."
The New York Times can make even a local museum opening into an opportunity to fight the Trump presidency. On Sunday, Nick Madigan came out fighting for science under a loaded partisan headline: “A Shrine to Science Rises as Science Comes Under Siege.” Madigan was ostensibly marking the long-delayed opening of a sleek new science museum in Miami with a 500,000-gallon aquarium tank, but waited only three paragraphs before lighting into Florida’s Republican governor for insufficient panic in the face of the theory of “climate change,” the emergency nature of which the paper has been trying to convince the public of for years (that is, when it’s not appealing to its well-heeled readership by sponsoring $135,000 tours “Around the World by Private Jet” on a Boeing 757.)
New York Times Public Editor Liz Spayd again mixed it up a little with the paper’s intolerant liberal readership in “Bret Stephens Takes On Climate Change. Readers Unleash Their Fury.” Spayd has often criticized the paper from the left, but unlike her five predecessors in the Public Editor slot she’s also been willing to note that the Times often functions as a liberal echo chamber. She began by quoting Jim Thomas, a critic of the paper’s new conservative (and very anti-Trump) columnist Bret Stephens, “a gay man living in a red state” who evidently thinks himself tolerant because “He has friends who voted for Donald Trump and he interacts daily with people whose political views he finds questionable.”
Gloom and doom greeted gave the president’s surprise victory on health care on the front of the New York Times. The paper gave the hard-fought legislative victory the same partisan treatment it gave to Trump’s tax cut proposals. The health care bill that would reverse parts of Obamacare, which squeaked through the House of Representatives, was a legislative victory fraught with “peril” from the paper’s perspective, with baleful predictions that echoed the Times’ treatment of the (shockingly successful) Trump presidential campaign.
The front of Thursday’s New York Times featured more wishful thinking on the part of the paper, which is still waiting for that off-year anti-Trump electoral surge: “Atlanta’s Suburbs Wonder if Newcomers Will Turn Them Blue.” Fausset threw some old, extraneous accusations of racism into the bargain, while emphasizing alleged conservative intolerance of liberals (in a world where the evidence of political intolerance is weighted in the other direction).
The front of Wednesday’s New York Times sported a 2,600-word enterprise piece by Katrin Bennhold with a peculiar focus on fellow journalists, those of the allegedly right-wing tabloid irresponsible variety: “Did Tabloids Cause ‘Brexit’? It’s Covered With Inky Fingerprints.” Bennhold condescendingly blamed the right-wing tabloid press for Brexit (while her paper steadfastly denies its own pro-Clinton, anti-Trump slant throughout the last presidential campaign).
Tuesday’s New York Times celebrated the Communist holiday May Day in its own predictable way, signing on to whatever the left was marching in outrage about this year. This time around the goals seemed a bit confused, beyond inchoate hatred for the elected president, but the paper enthusiastically played along with the “extraordinary” gatherings anyway: “On May Day, Marchers Fight for Myriad Goals,” by Jennifer Medina and Vivian Yee.
New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani made the front of the Arts section Tuesday with her disgusted take on a new biography of Barack Obama by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David Garrow, “On Obama; And On, And On, And ON -- A biography takes a long, long look at the former president’s early years.”
The New York Times is rather desperately still trying to make the idea of a recent, election-related surge in hate crimes stick, even after so many infamous “hate crimes” have been exposed as hoaxes in the Trump era. The latest, from reporter Audra D.S. Burch, made the front of the National section of Monday’s Times, covering three-fourths of the page: “Lawmakers Seek Harsher Hate Crime Penalties.”
Saturday’s New York Times featured the paper unwittingly showing its anti-Trump tilt, with a full page "story' featuring the first 99 days of headlines from its coverage of the Trump Administration, in “(Almost) 100 Days Of Front Page Headlines About No. 45.” While the Times obviously thinks its headlines stand by themselves as some objective and reliable historical recording of the ebb and flow of the Trump Administration, in fact the word, subject, and tonal choices reveal a political double standard.
For two days running, the front page of the New York Times has delivered Democratic talking points about President Trump’s new tax cut plans. The banner over Thursday’s front page said it all, in big bold letters: “Tax Overhaul Would Aid Wealthiest.” The coverage lacked the vital context, pointed out by James Piereson in the Weekly Standard this week, that taxes have already been slashed for the poor and middle class, and it’s hard to structure a tax cut that doesn’t “favor the wealthy” in raw monetary terms.
The New York Times has an unhealthy obsession with firearms. Recently the paper came in for mockery for a signed editorial that actually attacked the National Rifle Association for featuring guns in its gun museum. On Wednesday it trustingly latched on to a dubious study showing a correlation between gun ownership and road rage killings. Christopher Mele penned “Firearms and Drivers, A Lethal Combination – Rapid Rise in Road Rage Since 2014.”
Television critic James Poniewozik was featured on the front of the New York Times Arts section on Tuesday with another look by the paper at the “newly relevant” Hulu version of the feminist dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The Trump-baiting headline: "Making Dystopia Fresh Again -- Drawing on an Atwood novel that feels newly relevant." And another bogus lefty reference to current events is snuck in: Offred is a captive. Nevertheless, she persists...."
The New York Times is still treating FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the case of Hillary Clinton’s emails as a leading factor in her loss. But the 7,500-word lead story in Sunday’s New York Times: “In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election – Behind-the-Scenes Handling of 2 Inquiries Thrust F.B.I. Into Center of Race” also contained a hidden “bombshell” that the Times should acknowledge to defend its own journalistic integrity against Democratic criticism.
After a series of phony “hate crimes” supposedly inspired by Donald Trump’s election, the liberal media obsession with uncovering an epidemic of anti-immigrant violence in Trump’s America has died down somewhat. But on Monday, Geeta Anand reported from Mumbai that the coverage of alleged racial and ethnic attacks in the United States has had an effect -- though of course Anand blamed Trump, not her media colleagues: “For Indians, America Under Trump Is a Land of Vanished Opportunity."
New York Times Public Editor Liz Spayd is on a roll. Last week she criticized the paper’s op-ed page for its whitewash of an op-ed about a Palestinian hunger strike to protest supposedly arbitrary arrests by Israel. The paper failed to mention why contributor Marwan Barghouti was in prison: He was convicted of five counts of murder and membership in a terrorist organization. Her latest weekly column for the Sunday Review weighed how effectively the paper had burst its “hermetic bubble” in the first 100 days of the Trump administration: “New Voices, but Will They Be Heard?”
Since when does modern poetry make the front page? When it can be used to attack President Trump. The front of Saturday’s New York Times featured the breaking news that poets don’t like him. It's a convenient excuse to mainline left-wing anger straight onto the front of the paper, and proving it will leave no angle behind in its quest to denormalize the president: “American Poets, Refusing to Go Gentle, Rage Against the Right.”
Amanda Taub’s “Interpreter” piece on the upcoming election in France, in Friday’s New York Times was snottily headlined “A Small French Town Infused With Us-vs.-Them Politics.” That town, Frejus, was no doubt also infused with current events, as suggested by the Times’ own lead story on Friday: “Gunman In Paris Shoots Officer; Terrorism Seen.” Taub managed to completely ignore that issue in favor of condescending theories about France’s “us and them” ethnocentrism, making Taub’s think piece chiding the town’s punitive politics (doubtless written before the attack) look both out of date and sanctimoniously naïve.
Is there any more the media can do to promote a new Hulu show, The Handmaid’s Tale, as an ominous parallel to the Donald Trump administration? Yes, apparently: A feature on the front of next Sunday’s New York Times Arts section, yet again promoting the show, based on the dystopian feminist novel by Margaret Atwood, which drops on Hulu April 26. Katrina Onstad, a Canadian journalist and movie critic, filed from the fraught set in Toronto earlier this year, after the trauma and travesty of Trump’s victory.
Reporter Somini Sengupta continued demonstrating her strange hostility toward Nikki Haley, the U.S envoy to the United Nations, in “Trump Envoy Aims to Show That Rights Are a Priority” in Wednesday’s New York Times. The text box read: “A discussion in the Security Council draws criticism.” It’s a follow-up to Sengupta’s previously, and widely condemned, Haley-bashing and ardent defense of the United Nations, which is evidently not at all “corrupt” like Haley rudely claimed. Sengupta tried to put Haley on the backfoot from the lead in her new story.