New York Times
For sheer hilarity and hyperbole it's hard to beat a recent headline on a Washington Post editorial opposing President Trump's decision to remove the U.S. from the nonbinding and unenforceable Paris climate agreement. "Trump turns his back on the world," it screamed. A close second goes to the headline on a New York Times piece by columnist David Brooks: "Donald Trump Poisons the World."
Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller harped on something New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet said Wednesday at the Recode conference in California. In discussing the Times editorial pages -- and the liberal reader anger over signing up Bret Stephens from The Wall Street Journal -- he used the royal "We" in describing the Left, until he caught himself, and "I'm not 'we,' I'm a journalist."
New York Times public editor Liz Spayd signed off with a final column on Friday warning that the Times and other liberal media outlets may destroy their own credibility by shirking truly independent reporting for relentless partisan spleen-venting. Liberals inside and outside the Times clearly did not want to listen to this -- thinking Spayd spent far too much time harping on liberal bias when conservatives will never be satisfied with the media.
The New York Times will never stop pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants. In last Sunday’s Magazine, contributing writer and Latino activist Marcela Valdes devoted 6,000 words on the evil of Arizona's crackdown on "undocumented" (illegal) immigrants, and how to resist U.S. immigration law: “Is It Possible To Resist Deportations In The Age of Trump?” The text box: “Living under draconian state laws, Arizona activists honed an effective strategy for keeping undocumented immigrants in the country. Can the same tools still work today?”
If you can’t say something nice....by tradition, newspaper obituaries hold back criticism in the name of respect for the deceased and their grieving admirers, with even political figures granted reverence. But often conservatives are the exception, with outlets like the New York Times granting themselves free reign to criticize. Sunday obit of Hall of Fame pitcher and conservative Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, written by Richard Goldstein, shows the differing standards by which liberal and conservative politicians are held, even in death. It started with the headline: “Jim Bunning, Hall of Fame Pitcher Turned Cantankerous Senator, Dies at 85.”
In an attempt to build up its already bulging "We'll never really know why they did it" file relating to Islamist radicals who have taken innocent lives, three reporters at The New York Times composed a 1,900-word report Saturday evening (for Sunday's print edition) about Manchester bomber Salman Abedi's family background. The reporters provided very little hard information about Abedi's motivations, despite the fact that readers who saw the paper's tweet which promoted the article were led to expect it: "What led Salman Abedi to bomb the Manchester arena?" But they did push hard the news that Abedi called his mom before he carried the attack.
Muslim “feminist” Linda Sarsour has gotten criticism from conservatives for her vulgar, sexist, intolerant remarks about Muslim apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali (still the target of death threats), as well as her blandished descriptions of Sharia law and public appearances with convicted terrorists. Eli Rosenberg profiled her before her controversial commencement address at the City University of New York, slated for June 1. The Times went all out to make her a martyr: “A Graduation Speaker Raises Ire Before Taking the Podium -- Threats and Messages of Hatred Flow As Sarsour Plans to Speak at CUNY." The caption under a flattering photo of Sarsour: “Linda Sarsour said she became a target of far-right conservatives after the Women’s March. ‘I’m everything they stand against,’ she said.”
Berlin-beat reporter Alison Smale reported in Friday’s New York Times her version of the media’s latest favorite anti-Trump take: The cold reception of President Trump compared to the embrace of the cool Barack Obama, in “Europeans’ Welcomes for Trump and Obama Are a Study in Contrasts.” While Trump was quoted as being a “danger for the world,” “rock-star” Obama was happily sprinkling “political stardust” over the prospects of left-wing European politicians.
More euphemistic, politically correct terminology about illegal immigrants from the New York Times, as Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Ron Nixon reported in Friday’s paper. The soft-pedaling even made the headline: “Proposed Budget Takes Broad Aim at Undocumented Immigrants -- Money for Jails, Not for Benefits.” The phrase “undocumented immigrants” (which the Times itself has admitted is a euphemism) was used six times in the story, while the accurate phrase “illegal immigrants” was avoided completely. Illegal immigration is an issue where the paper’s bias comes through quite clearly, combined with a deep aversion to any slowdown in federal spending ofwhat it calls the “social safety net.”
New York Times reporter Mike Ives covered the furor over Yang Shuping, a Chinese student who just graduated from the University of Maryland, praising the United States and criticizing her home country in her commencement speech: “Chinese Student, Graduating in Maryland, Sets Off a Furor by Praising the U.S.” Yet Ives, who works in an industry that relies on free speech, comes off as almost apologetic on behalf of the Communist Chinese and the loyal social media thugocracy who harassed Shuping into making a meek apology. Ives’ report managed to totally leave off the “Communist” descriptor of the authoritarian China regime. Meanwhile, the Washington Post's coverage made clear the regime’s intimidation of the student for speaking her mind.
At NBC and Newsweek, it's still the late-1960s. The movie Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?, with its then-edgy portrayal of an engaged interracial couple visiting the white fiancee's parents, has recently debuted. Apparently the ink hasn't yet dried on the Supreme Court's Loving vs. Virginia decision, which nullified all remaining interracial marriage bans. What else can possibly explain the breathtakingly ignorant tweets emanating from those two media outlets acting as if America might not be ready for the idea that Rachel Lindsay, the first black woman in the history of The Bachelorette, might end up getting engaged to someone of another race?