Analysis of The New York Times

The New York Times is the newspaper that serves as a de facto authority in the news business.  Regardless of its openly liberal, anti-war (when the President isn't a Democrat), anti-Republican editorial slant, news items that appear in the Times are repeated by other newspapers and broadcasters without the slightest hesitation or doubt.  This is largely because of the NYT's many decades of experience and — until recently — its reputation for accuracy and objectivity.  Unfortunately, the NY Times has become a talking points memo for radical leftists in the Democratic Party.  That's perfectly okay, and the First Amendment guarantees the protection of such a newspaper (except when the newspaper publishes information that is beneficial to our enemies while we are at war, but that's rather unlikely).  If the opinions expressed in the NY Times reflect those of the American mainstream, beyond New York City, this country is in serious trouble.



New York Times Foams at the Mouth:  DHS Seeking to Expel Wide Range of Illegal Aliens.  [Scroll down]  The NYTEB said it:  they are living in this country outside the law.  If they crossed the borders without permission or overstayed their visa, then they are unlawfully present.  They also complained about creating an atmosphere of fear.  Good.  Criminals should be worried.  Illegals have no one to blame but themselves.  This is not on the citizens of the U.S. We didn't make them come here illegally/overstay visas.  They CHOSE to do that.  They chose that for their children, in many cases.  They do not help their case when they demand, DEMAND, that the United States give them money, services, welfare, healthcare, housing, food, education, the right to vote, and citizenship.  They aren't asking.  They're demanding.  They're out in the streets insulting citizens, they freak out over citizens flying the flag of the U.S., they fly the flags of Mexico and other nations, and they demand the return of the American southwest to Mexico.  Being humble would help their case: they are anything but.

GOP Missing the Real Elephant in the Room.  [Scroll down]  The New York Times' big headline this week is, "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."  How can they know that?  The article begins with, "phone records and intercepted calls" between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence agencies.  The campaign officials being U.S. citizens, not to be spied on by the CIA or NSA without cause and warrants.  How could the NY Times have this information?  Is the Times tapping phones?  Doubtful.  Instead it appears that U.S. intelligence agencies are listening in on phone calls and other communications of American citizens.  And then passing on the information to friendly news agencies.

New York Times Claims Trump/Russia Connection, Then Admits They Can't Prove Any Connection.  In a lengthy hit piece published Tuesday [2/14/2017] scandalously titled "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence," the New York Times cites more leaked intelligence information targeting Team Trump that shows "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials" in the year before the election.  The implied allegation is obvious:  Trump colluded with the Russians to take down Clinton and thus steal the presidency.  There's only one problem:  by the third paragraph of the 1300-word article, the Times admits that its sources "said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation."

NYT Opinion:  President Trump Should Target Guns Rather than Muslim Terrorists.  A February 11 New York Times opinion piece claims President Trump missed the mark with his executive order on immigration, suggesting he would have kept Americans safer by targeting guns instead of Muslim terrorists.  The author tries to support this suggestion by pointing to things that have caused more American deaths than have been caused by Muslim terrorists.  However, this deductive process is ruined by fact that the author does not bother naming all the things that cause more American deaths than have been caused by guns.

NY Times Seems Pretty Upset Over An Illegal Alien Felon Being Deported.  President Trump persists in the absurd claim that America will be safe and great again only after an assault on "bad dudes" and "criminal aliens," whom he has promised to arrest and remove by the millions. [...] First, illegals should realize what can happen when they are in the country illegally and commit any crime, especially a felony.  Second, the NYTEB is suggesting that they continue breaking the law by seeking sanctuary.  They are advocating for lawlessness.  Such is the state of the Liberal News.

Jeh Johnson Hyped Denying Visa-Free Travel to Those Who Visited NYT's '7 Muslim Countries'.  In multiple congressional testimonies last year, then-Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson hyped the action he was taking — under a law signed by President Barack Obama — to deny visa-free travel to the United States to citizens of Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries who had visited Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia or Libya.  "Foreign terrorist travel, the prospect of foreign terrorist travel to our homeland keeps me up at night," Johnson, for example, testified in the House Homeland Security Committee on July 14, 2014.

Linda Sarsour Rekindles the Left's Love Affair with Radical Extremism.  The profile was titled "Linda Sarsour Is a Brooklyn Homegirl in a Hijab," but Sarsour is much more than that.  Designated a "champion of change" by the Obama White House, she was a delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention and a Bernie Sanders surrogate.  In January, she served as one of the four national co-chairs of the Women's March on Washington.  Currently, she is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against Donald Trump's executive order on refugees.  The [New York] Times did not err in portraying Sarsour as a new left-wing champion, but like others who have lauded her, it omitted some details.

NYT Warns Trump:  Designating Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Org Could Make 'Entire Muslim World' His Enemy.  The New York Times editorial board thinks President Trump shouldn't designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization because it could make Trump the enemy of all Muslims.  The liberal paper published Thursday an editorial Thursday [sic] titled "All of Islam Isn't the Enemy" arguing against the move, which the Trump administration is reportedly considering as a possible option.

Iceberg Story, Slim.  In the post-November 8 universe, one man's fake news is another man's vitally important scoop.  The third-most emailed article in today's [2/7/2017] New York Times is surely both things depending on who's reading it. [...] Here's the gist of it:  A crack is growing in the Larson C Ice Shelf, "in an area already vulnerable to warming temperatures" and may soon create a very large iceberg. [...] This is literally a story about an iceberg that could form — and then do no appreciable damage.  And lest you think there's any new information here, the Times reports that scientists have been monitoring the thing since 2014.

New York Times:  Our Readers Are Too Dumb To Understand Global Warming Numbers.  I recently wrote about the wretched reporting on the claim that 2016 was the "hottest year on record," using as my main example a New York Times article by Justin Gillis that gave his readers none of the relevant numbers they could use to evaluate that claim.  None of them.  If you search for the actual numbers, you will eventually find that the effect they are claiming, the actual amount by which this year was hotter than previous years, is smaller than the margin of error in the data.  Shortly afterward, I got a revealing response from Gillis.  I'll fill in all the details for you, because the whole thing is an important case study in why you can't trust mainstream reporting on global warming.

Useful Idiots No More.  The media is forever demanding that Christians take a "serious look" at their religion's lack of modern enlightenment, then declare any criticism of the Koran "Islamophobia."  "A Sinister Perception of Islam Now Steers the White House," blared a Thursday [2/2/2017] headline on the front page of the New York Times.  Could anyone imagine it running an equivalent headline about Obama's White House and Christianity — "A Sinister Perception of Catholicism Now Steers the White House"? Later, the paper changed "sinister perception" to "dark view of Islam."

'Illegal' Press Leaks by U.S. Have Become 'Systematic,' A Legal Filing in N.Y. Alleges.  A New York-based FBI agent who played a leading role in a string of recent insider trading prosecutions is under criminal investigation for what federal prosecutors, in a recent court filing, call "unquestionable misconduct by an agent of the Government... improper and inexcusable."  It's the sort of story that ordinarily might be splashed across the front pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal — except that in this case, the misconduct of which the FBI agent, David Chaves, is suspected was leaking grand jury information to the Times and the Journal.

NYT tries to humiliate Trump by claiming he takes female hormones for hair.  Can you recall the NYT ever publishing salacious details about Obama's health?  Do we all not recall the New York Times' reticence to talk about Hillary Clinton's fainting spells and concussion?

NYT snubs top-selling book on abortionist Gosnell.  It sold out in three days on Amazon and is the fourth bestselling hardcover nonfiction title in the country, but the New York Times did not include a new book about Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell on its best seller list to be published Sunday [2/5/2017].

NYT: Anything Obama Did Was Constitutional.  Anything Trump Does, Isn't.  A tiny handful were affected by this order — likely less than a dozen.  And the reason the judge didn't issue a "broader ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump's actions (for some reason, the Democrat Operators With Bylines at NYT can't seem to bring themselves to call him that) was simple:  The judge understood that Trump's Executive Order was perfectly constitutional.  I would further expect this temporary order to be overturned as soon as the Trump administration can lodge an appeal with an appellate court.

Trump's orders on immigrants bring hypocritical and hysterical uproar.  The mainstream media and opportunistic politicians are in high dudgeon over President Trump's executive order to ban immigrants form certain terrorist-infested regions from entering America.  Journalists are putting blinders on to justify their attacks.  These include the New York Times's Maggie Haberman who made a fool of herself on Twitter by questioning whether any immigrants since 9/11 have been implicated in terror attacks.  She was quickly answered by many Americans who do not make a living at America's "paper of record" — numerous immigrants have been involved in terrorism in America since 9/11.  By the way, Haberman, the New York Times White House correspondent, was revealed to be a partisan Democrat hack by Wikileaks.

More about Islamic terrorist attacks that are reported as "isolated incidents".

NY Times Offers Well-Placed, Positive Take on March for Life.  What a difference an election makes:  The annual pro-life March for Life, long ignored by the New York Times, led the paper's National section (page A8) on Saturday, driven by a little political star power in the form of Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway and Vice President Mike Pence.

NYT Editorial Board Horrified That Trump Wants To Fight 'Radical Islamic Terrorism'.  The New York Times' editorial board took a stand Thursday against President Donald Trump's vow to eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth.  The Times' editors worried that Trump's approach to fighting radical Islamic terrorism — which they referred to with scare quotes — is "more likely to further inflame anti-American sentiment around the world than to make the United States safer."

New York Times Quietly Runs Stunning Correction On Editorial Attacking Electoral College.  The New York Times quietly issued a major correction to an editorial attacking the electoral college in December, admitting it has in fact defended the electoral college at a time when it was politically expedient for Democrats.  The paper ran the editorial calling for an end to the electoral college in December, when Democrats were harping on the fact that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton beat President Donald Trump in the popular vote, and calling for reforms to make the system more "fair."  Obviously seeking to avoid the editorial position as politically motivated, the editorial emphasized what turned out to be a false claim that the paper has opposed the electoral college system for 80 years.

Requiem for a Lightweight.  The mainstream media tried hard in the transition period to continue to wound Trump, sticking shivs in his proxies, his nominees.  The NYT published a demonstrably false article claiming Rick Perry didn't even know the scope of the duties of the Department of Energy; they promoted the Democratic falsehood that Tom Price had violated his ethics obligations.  The Washington Post headed a story "Trump picks former Governor Sunny Perdue, who once led a prayer for rain, as agriculture secretary," making that seem like an outlandish thing only a hick or primitive shaman would indulge in.

Fake News Plus Fascism:  New York Times Urges Boycott of Breitbart.  In two op-ed articles for the New York Times' Sunday Review [1/8/2017], the Gray Lady attacks Breitbart News and its founder, Andrew Breitbart, and encourages an effort to "destroy" the company by appealing directly to advertisers not to support the website.  One article, "How to Destroy the Business Model of Breitbart and Fake News," written by someone actually called "Pagan Kennedy" (was "Antichrist Roosevelt" not available?) celebrates the flagging effort of anonymous Twitter trolls who have tried to target and intimidate companies whose ads appear alongside Breitbart News articles, via third party platforms.  These would-be censors of the totalitarian left have decided that since they cannot defeat conservative views and arguments on the merits, they would prefer to eliminate them.

Stop trying to undermine Trump legitimacy.  House Speaker Paul Ryan stood stone-faced behind House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as she addressed the new 115th Congress.  Before handing him the gavel, she tossed a Molotov cocktail at the GOP — saying our democracy cannot be "subverted by the dark operations of a foreign regime."  Pelosi was referring, of course, to reports that Russia had attempted to influence the American election in favor of Donald Trump, who it is believed is friendlier to the Russian regime.  Just days before U.S. intelligence agencies released findings to that effect, she was surfing a wave of stories like one in the New York Times that bore the headline "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking."  This tapestry of vagueness has led to confusion about what exactly happened during the election.

No, Trump's Dismissal of Obama's Ambassadors Is Not an Unprecedented Crisis.  President-elect Donald Trump's order for all politically-appointed ambassadors to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day is "breaking with decades of precedent by declining to provide even the briefest of grace periods," according to the New York Times.

Media Suddenly Find 'Courage' to Stand up for First Amendment.  "Thank you, Mr. President.  During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving this in office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?"  That was the obsequious question asked by a New York Times reporter during one of President Barack Obama's first press conferences, in April 2009.

'Modest,' Yet 'Vibrant': New York Times Gushes Over 'The Fashion of Islam' Exhibit.  The same liberal media that tout women's rights, gender equality, equal pay, the freedom for a woman to express herself by choosing how to dress, is the same media now pushing the narrative that "modest" Islamic fashion is the hottest style to hit the catwalks.  Yes.  For the moment, The New York Times has thrown their feminist beliefs out the window, opting to promote a fashion that is often viewed as oppressive to women because it forces them to cover their entire body and face for fear of receiving unwanted glances from anyone other than their husbands.

NYT Says GOP Stole Supreme Court Seat From Obama.  The New York Times' Christmas Day editorial tags Senate Republicans for "stealing" a seat on the Supreme Court that should have been filled by President Barack Obama.  The Times accuses Republicans of impugning the institutional integrity of the court by a hyper-partisan charade, arguing the justices derive their legitimacy from their separation from the two political branches of government.

NYT: 'Fake News' Backfires as Breitbart, Conservatives 'Appropriated the Term'.  The New York Times' Jeremy W. Peters is rather salty that conservatives immediately saw the "fake news" panic's endgame and turned the tables on establishment media.

After Claiming They Were Always Against Electoral College, New York Times Backtracks.  As if the New York Times didn't already issue enough corrections, they did it again Wednesday [12/21/2016].  After publishing a long-winded rant in Tuesday's paper calling for the electoral college system to be abolished, the editorial board was forced to apologize for making inaccurate claims about the paper's historical stance on the electoral college.  The original article entitled, "Time to End the Electoral College," was just as bad as it sounds.  The article was full of false claims, from claiming the electoral college was built on slavery, to claiming that voters in California and New York get less representation than voters in Texas and Idaho.  On top of that, apparently, the paper can't even get their own history right.

Three reasons why the New York Times' War on Christmas denial is all wrong.  The New York Times recently published an article purporting to trace the history of the "War on Christmas."  The article concludes that "there is no evidence of an organized attack on Christmas in the United States," and expressed skepticism about the "alleged liberal antagonism toward the holiday."  As the author would tell it, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly stirred up the passions of his viewers based on a book written in 2005 by another Fox News host, John Gibson, entitled "The War on Christmas."  John Gibson interviewed me for that book, and I detailed the legal battles I and others had fought against Christmas censorship from the mid-1980s.

The New York Times' Fictitious Image of Gun Carriers.  Sometimes someone inadvertently performs a public service by bringing an unbelievably stupid and dangerous idea to the surface, where it can be exposed for what it is.  The New York Times can be credited — if that is the word — with performing this public service in a recent editorial against proposals to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed guns.  They refer to what they call the National Rifle Association's "fantasy that citizens can stand up to gunmen by shooting it out."  Nobody has suggested any such thing.  Data collected over many years — but almost never seeing the light of day in the New York Times or the rest of the mainstream media — show many thousands of examples of people defending themselves with a gun each year, without having to pull the trigger.

Supreme Court Freakout at the New York Times.  The New York Times was once known as The Grey Lady.  Today, a more apt moniker would be The Hysterical Bag Lady.  The Times editorial board is home to the most immoderate, shrieking Leftism you will find this side of the Nation.  On Christmas Eve, the Times editorialized on The Stolen Supreme Court Seat.  It is a classic of the post-Trump-election freakout genre: [...] This is the substance of the Times's complaint:  that Senate Republicans "broke with longstanding tradition" by deferring the next Supreme Court selection until after the November 2016 election.  How do the editorialists support their claim?  By citing their own paper.

NY Times calls for end to Electoral College.  The New York Times is calling for an end to the Electoral College.  Americans would prefer by overwhelming majorities to elect a president using a popular vote system, the newspaper's editorial board said in a piece published Monday.  "They understand, on a gut level, the basic fairness of awarding the nation's highest office on the same basis as every other elected office — to the person who gets the most votes," the editorial said.

NYT: Global Warming Is Turning Polar Bears Into 'Climate Refugees'.  The New York Times actually agrees that Arctic-dwelling polar bears are "climate refugees," fleeing for their lives from melting sea ice, which of course according to all the radical politicians, activists and media outlets, is caused by humans... these basket cases are really looking for anything to call a 'refugee'.

Fake News, the New York Times Way.  Not a day goes by now when the New York Times doesn't run an article about the danger of "fake news."  So, I was reminded of the greatest bit of "fake news" ever published:  the New York Times's cover-up of Stalin's murder of 7 million people.  For which the New York Times won (and jealously keeps) a Pulitzer Prize.

NY Times Has Great News:  Our Republic Is Ending, Becoming Either Nazi Germany Or The Roman Empire!  The Sore Loser Symphony continues.  Trump Derangement Syndrome reigns.  Buzzfeed's Chris Geidner lays out the Sore Loser playbook for how Democrats will attempt to block Trump.  Michael Moore has his own Sore Loser request for the Electoral College.  And then there's Sore Loser Paul Krugman, who had nary a bad word or complaint about Obama during the past 8 years, proclaiming we're either heading towards Nazi Germany or the Roman Empire.

NY Times Hiring Fake Journalist to Cover Trump White House Evokes 'Fake But Accurate' History.  The New York Times just hired to cover the Trump White House the Politico reporter busted by WikiLeaks for allowing Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta to vet an article about the candidate. [...] He surely did in asking a partisan to review his work for accuracy.  The request for secrecy in a profession dedicated to transparency indicates he knew as much.

Remember when peat bogs were going to release deadly carbon?  Never mind.  Readers may recall the NYT sounds of alarm over peat bogs releasing all manners of hellish CO2 into the atmosphere due to warming.  Well, they're all wet.

Gingrich Slams The NYT: Totally Fake Conspiratorial BS Stories.  This past Sunday [12/11/2016], former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appeared on Fox's MediaBuzz and discussed the viral topic of 'fake news' in relation to the New York Times. [...] Newt is a smart man.  And he isn't fooled by the pathetic attempts of the New York times to pretend to take the alleged 'fake news epidemic' seriously.  Especially since they are a major peddler of false stories and factless ramblings meant to support the Liberal narrative.  The Old Gray Lady has not been taken seriously by anyone outside of the Democrat Party for many years at this point.

New York Times Hires Reporter Who Sent Stories To Clinton Staffers For Approval.  Politico's Glenn Thrush, who was exposed in WikiLeaks emails sending stories to Hillary Clinton staffers before publication, will be joining the New York Times to cover the White House, The Huffington Post reported Monday [12/12/2016].  "We're thrilled that Glenn Thrush is joining The Times," Elisabeth Bumiller, The New York Times' Washington bureau chief, told The Huffington Post.  "He's a premier political journalist, a master of breaking news and long-form story telling and a stellar addition to our White House team."

New York Times Hires Glenn Thrush After Wikileaks Humiliation.  The New York Times has hired Politico's chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush, after Wikileaks outed chummy and even subservient emails from Thrush to Democratic operatives in the 2016 election cycle.  Thrush became the face of Democratic collusion with journalists during the 2016 campaign, after emails revealed by Wikileaks showed him asking Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta for approval on language before publishing a story about the campaign's fundraising strategy.

NYT executive editor: 'We don't get the role of religion in people's lives'.  The New York Times' executive editor said that his newspaper — and "media powerhouses" across the nation — "do not understand what motivates devoutly religious Americans."  Dean Baquet sat down Thursday [12/8/2016] with NPR for an extended interview on the media landscape following Donald Trump's presidential election win on Nov. 8.  Host Terry Gross essentially engaged in an after-action review in terms of what media outlets can learn from the election cycle.  When Mr. Baquet was asked whether he is "wrestling" with how to cover President-elect Trump, he used the question to pivot to ways to reach religious readers.

Tucker Carlson Takes on NY Times Over Liberal Bias.  Tucker Carlson faced off with New York Times editor Liz Spayd tonight [12/2/2016] over the paper's liberal bias.  Carlson argued that the Times became an advocacy organization for Hillary Clinton against President-elect Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.  Spayd, who recently wrote that better campaign coverage was needed, acknowledged that there is a lack of ideological diversity at the paper.

At Walter Reed:  NYT Hailed Obama's 'Sacred Duty' to Troops, But Bush Staged Photo Op.  Presidential visits to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed should be non-political events worthy of non-partisan coverage, but the New York Times manages to shows its colors even in those solemn moments.  In the half-page "Obama's Sacred Duty:  Visiting the Wounded — Trips to Walter Reed Take Toll and Inspire" for Wednesday's [11/30/2016] edition, reporter Gardiner Harris brought a somber, emotional, personalized tone to the proceedings. [...] Yet the tone was quite more brusque and abrupt, almost guilt-tripping, when it came to former President George W. Bush's visits to the wounded at Walter Reed during the Iraq War, even down to the terse headlines, like this one from November 2004: [...]

NYT Columnist Calls Trump 'Least Successful' Candidate Of Our Time.  New York Times columnist Gail Collins calls President-elect Donald Trump one of the "least successful" presidential candidates in American history in an op-ed Thursday [12/1/2016].  Although Trump pulled off an unprecedented comeback in the polls to win the election, Collins points to his loss in the popular vote as evidence he's actually one of the least successful candidates ever.  "The one positive effect of the recount, besides reassuring people who worry the Russians might be capable of hacking a massive American vote tally, is the way it reminds the nation, every day, that Donald Trump is one of the least successful successful presidential candidates in American history," she writes.

Democrats, Not Trump, Racialize Our Politics.  The most absurd Democratic meme to emerge from the party's ballot-box defeat is the claim that it is Donald Trump, rather than Democrats, who engages in "aggressive, racialized discourse," in the words of a Los Angeles Times op-ed.  By contrast, President Barack Obama sought a "post-racial, bridge-building society," according to New York Times reporter Peter Baker.  Obama's post-racial efforts have now "given way to an angry, jeering, us-against-them nation," writes Baker, in a front-page "news" story.  Tell that valedictory for "post-racial bridge-building" to police officers, who have been living through two years of racialized hatred directed at them in the streets, to the applause of many Democratic politicians.

An Obituary of The New York Times.  Working with the government to suppress stories, covering up election fraud in the ruling party and ruthlessly campaigning against the main US opposition leader, The New York Times has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance.  Remembered only in history books as a relic of the Cold War, much like its sister newspaper Pravda of the Soviet Union.

NYT accused by its public editor of bias in Trump, Clinton coverage.  The public editor for The New York Times said Sunday that the number of complaints the newspaper received over its coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign spiked to five times its normal level.  Complaints to the paper included claims that its coverage was biased against Trump during the general election as well as accusations from readers that it favored candidate Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primaries.

New York Times "Seems To" Utilize Professional Alinsky Rule — Division, Isolation and Marginalization.  This inferential approach to news is not uncommon, we find it whenever the media are working earnestly to create the "appearance of" something.  This approach is also how the professional left has historically divided their opposition into smaller, more easily dispatched, entities.  Divide and conquer.

Tidal Wave Of NYT Readers Vote NO On 'Echo Chamber Of Liberal Intellectualism'.  New York Times readers are writing to the publication at a rate on par with what was seen after 9/11 with an angry message:  "I expect more from The Times."  That's what reader Judy Barlas told NYTimes editor Liz Spayd for her article, "One Thing Voters Agree On:  Better Campaign Coverage Was Needed." Barlas supported Sen. Bernie Sanders, and felt like the Times pushed a narrative that then-competitor Hillary Clinton was always going to win the Democratic nomination.  Times readers are writing and calling the Times and commenting on articles in droves to express, according to Spayd, "a searing level of dissatisfaction" with the 165-year-old paper's coverage of the 2016 presidential election.

An Open Letter To The New York Times:  Hey, About Your Epic Failure in the Presidential Election.  [Scroll down]  I point first to the banner headline across the top of page one on Wednesday, November 9, the day after the election.  With a solipsistic slant more appropriate to a journal of social psychology, it declared:  "DEMOCRATS, STUDENTS, AND FOREIGN ALLIES FACE THE REALITY OF A TRUMP PRESIDENCY."  It was a headline that will live in journalism infamy.  Bloomberg editor Mark Halperin explained why.  Said Halperin, "This is the day after a surprising, underdog, sweeping victory, and their headline is not 'Disaffected Americans have a champion going to the White House' or 'The country votes for fundamental change.'  The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run the New York Times are about what's happened."  Halperin observed that the headline was like a self-parody of the clueless editorial elite.  "I mean, it's amazing!" he exclaimed.  "I mean, it's The Onion!"

NYT caught lying about President Trump.  The New York Times gave lip service to mending its ways after the American public repudiated the media and elected Donald Trump as the 45th president.  But today, the public caught the New York Times lying about Trump again.

Seven questions for the New York Times.  On Sunday [11/13/2016], the publisher and the executive editor of the New York Times published a letter to the paper's readers, promising to "rededicate" the paper to its "fundamental mission".  That mission, they said, is to "report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you."  This is as close as the Times is likely to come to apologizing to its readers for a year and a half of unbalanced — and often unhinged — coverage of the presidential race.

Democratic Propaganda Disguised as Election Analysis.  Julie Bosman and Monica Davey in a N.Y. Times article, "Republicans Expand Control in a Deeply Divided Nation," use understatement and a rhetoric of "thoughtful analysis" to make their case that Republican victories are negative events even though the people have spoken.  By publishing this article, the N.Y. Times once again becomes an instrument of partisan politics under the guise of high-minded journalism.  The authors have mastered the art of writing to project a sense that the reader is getting an overview of where we've been, where we are, and where we're going.  But in fact, the article is filled with bias against the Republicans.  Distortions abound.

AP, NY Times Ignore California Startup CEO's Trump Assassination Threats.  On Sunday, Matthew Harrigan, the President and CEO of PacketSled, Inc., posted specific threats to assassinate President-elect Donald Trump on Twitter and Facebook.  The company's board placed Harrigan on administrative leave on Monday [11/14/2016] and announced his "resignation" very early Tuesday morning.  That a company CEO could do what Harrigan did has to be national news, right?  Well, not yet.  Searches on the company's name at 10:30 a.m.  Tuesday morning at the Associated Press's main national site, its Big Story site, and at the New York Times returned no results, even though the tweets involved occurred about 1½ days ago.  And where are the lamentations about the "climate of hate" which might have brought such a person to do something so completely unhinged?

NYT: 'Vibrant Washington Fears Trump Will Drain Its Culture'.  Jason Horowitz writes in The New York Times that the Beltway elite fear that President-elect Donald Trump's "drain the swamp" mentality will greatly reduce the posh culture of Washington, D.C., which expanded under Barack Obama's presidency.

The New York Times can't improve until it admits bias.  The New York Times is so, so very sorry that its presidential election coverage was so, so very wrong.  Please have pity on them, Times publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. begged his paper's readers the other day.  "We aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism.  That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor...," Sulzberger said in a letter.  Tell me, how is the paper going to "rededicate" itself to "honesty" if it can't even admit that it was dishonest during this past election?  The Times' coverage was blatantly slanted against Republican Donald Trump, so much so, in fact, that even its own Public Editor — who is supposed to be the referee of ethics — slammed her employer.

NY Times Brass Say Sorry for Blowing Election, as Liberal 'Narrative' Crumbles.  It turns out the Times can't really shape public opinion, much as the it has tried over the years.  The latest evidence is a fascinating story posted to Deadline on Friday [11/11/2016], by former Times-man Michael Cieply describing how editors put news reporting on the backburner in favor of trying to shape the news itself, by establishing a narrative of coverage and then finding facts and assigning stories to fit it.

The Media and the Pollsters have lost their clout by incompetence and deceit.  The entire media, even Fox news, reflected the bias against Trump, a bias well-documented in the Wikileaks disclosures of the Podesta emails, showing the media conniving to feed Clinton debate questions and coordinating their coverage with Hillary and the DNC. [...] Newsweek, which last sold for one dollar, was forced to recall 125,000 copies of its souvenir Madam President edition.  We're just not so into you fools any more.  And apparently even the editor of the NYT — the paper which published a piece suggesting it was okay for journalists to abandon objective reporting to help Hillary, has now relented and said "that the paper would "reflect" on its coverage of this year's election while rededicating itself to reporting on "America and the world" honestly."  Online friends remain skeptical of this new found "humility" of the formerly dominant media.

What a dramatic departure this will be:
New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly.  The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday [11/11/2016] promising that the paper would "reflect" on its coverage of this year's election while rededicating itself to reporting on "America and the world" honestly.  Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper's embattled publisher, appealed to Times readers for their continued support.

New York Times:  We blew it on Trump.  The Gray Lady feels the agony of political defeat — in her reputation and in her wallet.  After taking a beating almost as brutal as Hillary Clinton's, the New York Times on Friday made an extraordinary appeal to its readers to stand by her.  The publisher's letter to subscribers was part apology and part defense of its campaign coverage, but the key takeaway was a pledge to do better.  Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. admitted the paper failed to appreciate Donald Trump's appeal.

Has The New York Times Become a Democratic Party Newspaper?  It wasn't until 1851 that Henry Raymond started the New York Times, ushering in a new era in journalism as a paper of "non-partisan, independent thought."  How times have changed.  Although many newspapers still have the word "Democrat" in their titles and a few have the word "Republican" there really aren't any newspapers today that could be regarded as organs of a political party — unless ... (strange as it may be) ... you count The New York Times itself!  Even though the Times is still regarded by journalists as "the paper of record," its unsigned editorials and the editorials of its flagship writer, Paul Krugman, are increasingly hard to distinguish from the party line of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Mark Halperin Rips NY Times' Anti-Trump Bias Following Election: 'This Is The Onion'.  Bloomberg's Mark Halperin singled out The New York Times in particular for it's [sic] biased coverage of Donald Trump's presidential victory Thursday [11/10/2016], saying that its post-election headline could have come straight from the satirical newspaper The Onion.  "I love The New York Times.  I think it's a great institution..." Halperin said on MSNBC's Morning Joe, holding up a copy of the print version.  "Look at the headline of this story."  The front page headline of The Times read "Democrats, Students And Foreign Allies Face The Reality Of A Trump Presidency."  "This is the day after a surprising underdog sweeping victory," Halperin pointed out.

New York Times executive editor: 'New York is not the real world'.  New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet said his newspaper's insular world view is at fault for so wrongly misreading the election that saw Donald Trump become the president-elect.  In an interview with Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg, Baquet said he and his publication at large did not see Trump's coming success on Election Day because they do not understand much of the country's voters.

A Coup Against the Constitution.  A New York Times editorial Monday [11/7/2016] on the Senate's role in the confirmation process not only gets it wrong, the analysis betrays a fundamental liberal disagreement with the U.S. Constitution. [...] Specifically, the editorial casts the suggestion that the Senate has a role to play in deciding who is ultimately confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court as a radical departure from how the American Republic was meant to work.  It does so by an absurd suggestion that the Senate's decision not to rubber stamp a president's nominee would be equivalent with Al Gore's refusing to abide by the Supreme Court's decision settling the 2000 presidential election — had he done so.  This is not how the Constitution works.

New York Times Ultra-Concerned About Hillary's Male Tormentors.  She decided to stick with a man who was credibly accused of sexual assault and rape, a guy who received oral sex in the White House while president.  Hillary had to know what kind of person he was.  She hitched her wagon to Huma Abedin, who was in a relationship with Weiner, and decided to stick around after the first sexual allegations.  Hillary let her stick around.  Seriously, if Hillary can't take the heat in the rough and tumble world of politics, perhaps she should get out.  Much of this sounds like the old "she can dish it out, but she can't take it" recipe.  Oh, and of course, this lays the foundation for calling all opposition to Hillary, should she win the presidency, as sexxxxxist, just like we've had almost 8 years of calling all opposition to Obama as raaaaacist.

NY Times Writer: 'It Would Be Helpful' for Clinton if Natural Disaster Struck a Red State.  In an interview with Slate's "Political Gabfest" podcast, New York Times staff writer Emily Bazelon speculated about how a natural disaster striking a Republican state would be helpful for Hillary Clinton if she won the presidency.  Bazelon was asked how Clinton could best unify the country if she won the election next week.  "I'm not wishing this upon anyone, but it would be helpful for her to have a natural disaster to deal with in a red state where she could go and be..." she said to laughter from the live audience.

New York Times reports 95.7 percent fall in quarterly profit.  The New York Times Co reported a 95.7 [percent] fall in quarterly profit, hit by restructuring charges related to headcount reductions.  Net profit attributable to the newspaper publisher fell to $406,000, or break-even per share, in the third quarter, from $9.4 million, or 6 cents per share, a year earlier.  Revenue fell to $363.6 million from $367.4 million.  The company, struggling to transition to digital, said online ad revenues grew 21.5 percent and now account for more than 35 percent of its advertising receipts.

The Left's Vision.  No one has presented the social vision of the left more often than Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times — and no one has been more certain that those who do not happen to share his vision "just don't get it," as he has repeatedly declared.  Mr. Kristof's essay "Growing Up Poor in America" in the October 30th New York Times is a classic example of the mindset of the left.  It begins with the story of a poor black teenager in Arkansas, being raised by a single mom.  Sometimes he goes hungry and his home does not have even one book.  But it does have television sets with huge screens, and apparently there is money enough to buy marijuana. [...] Of such youngsters he says, "as a society, we fail them long before they fail us."

The New York Times Invents a Narrative on Comey.  [Scroll down]  For some reason, it took two reporters to invent the story.  After a brief rehash of Hoover's villainy in the first paragraphs — just in case the reader missed Prof.  Pavlov's bell — the third paragraph concludes:  "[T]oday, after his second sensational public statement on the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's email, some critics and historians are comparing [Comey] to Hoover."

NYT Writer Frames Hillary Clinton As The Victim Of Testosterone.  Frank Bruni, a writer for the liberal fish-wrapping known as the New York Times, has the entire history of Hillary Clinton's corruption figured out.  It's far more nuanced than mere commoners can grasp, apparently, but just to break down Bruni's main gist:  Men are pigs.

The New York Times:  No Longer Troubled By Clinton's Big-Time Russian Connections.  The Clinton campaign, stung by the resumption of the FBI email probe, has returned to Donald Trump's taxes and his alleged Russian connections.  They ask indignantly:  Do voters not know that a former Trump campaign manager consulted for Ukraine's ousted president and that another attended an ill-timed meeting in the Kremlin.  Clinton supporters add to their list of grievances against James Comey for his reticence to confirm that Russia is behind WikiLeaks.  I guess Comey has become a Putin puppet along with Trump.  If we go back to April 24, 2015, a New York Times investigative report illustrates why the Clinton campaign should think twice about accusing the Trump campaign of cozying up to Russia.

Hacks at New York Times and Washington Post Rather Perturbed About FBI Dropping Bomb on Hillary's Campaign.  [Scroll down]  See?  This is mostly the Comey's fault, and suddenly transparency is required.  From the FBI.  Of course, the NYTEB has barely asked for the same from Hillary during this whole time, and, certainly, you can imagine the resulting editorials, including on the reopening of the case, had she been a Republican, and they would have been vastly different.  Not to be outdone, the Washington Post Editorial Board, which had previously only chided Mrs. Clinton over her poor conduct, questions the timing. [...] Obviously, their concern is for Hillary's POTUS chances.  They certainly weren't concerned with the provocations of so far unfounded accusations against Trump, ones which have no actual hard proof that he sexually assaulted anyone decades ago.  Just someone saying.  Imagine, again, the difference had Hillary been a Republican.  They would have cheered this reopening, saying it is good for our democratic process.

Times, Post Seem Rather Upset About FBI Reopening Hillary Server Case.  [Scroll down]  See?  This is mostly the Comey's fault, and suddenly transparency is required.  From the FBI.  Of course, the NYTEB has barely asked for the same from Hillary during this whole time, and, certainly, you can imagine the resulting editorials, including on the reopening of the case, had she been a Republican, and they would have been vastly different.  Not to be outdone, the Washington Post Editorial Board, which had previously only chided Mrs. Clinton over her poor conduct, questions the timing [...]

Yes, Obamacare Rate Hikes Do Hurt People with Employer Plans.  Among the most frequently repeated talking points promulgated by the White House and its media allies about Obamacare's latest premium spikes is that they only affect the "small" number of people who buy coverage on the individual market, leaving those with employer-based coverage unscathed.  The New York Times dutifully parrots the party line, "These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance."  This is just another in the long list of lies the law's apologists have told to save the President's "signature domestic achievement."  In reality, this premium spike will adversely affect the lives of 177 million Americans.  But before we get to the people with job-based coverage, let's take a look at the actual Americans the Times so lightly dismisses as insignificant.

The Truth About the Late Tom Hayden — Whitewashed by the MSM.  The worst claim in the [New York] Times' obituary is that Hayden was a "peace activist" who "opposed violent protests but backed militant demonstrations." He could be called a peace activist only if one views someone who supported a Communist victory in Vietnam as a proponent of "peace."

Leaks: Clinton Ally Lays Out How To Get NYT To Cover Hillary More Favorably.  A confidant of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta laid out in an email how to get The New York Times to change how the paper covered the former secretary of state, according to leaked emails.  Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden told Podesta how former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg met with Arthur Sulzberger, NYT's publisher, to get the paper to cover him more favorably.

New York Times Examines Mass Shootings and Gun Laws.  Every time a horrific crime committed with a gun gets national attention, politicians will usually recommend more stringent gun laws as a response.  (With the phrase "gun control" out of vogue, you usually hear these days about "common sense gun safety laws.")  The New York Times, who last year ran a nearly unprecedented front-page editorial calling for the banning and confiscation of a commonly used and rarely abused class of civilian firearms, investigated today how and whether laws, either existing or proposed, would have impacted "all 130 shootings last year in which four or more people were shot, at least one fatally, and investigators identified at least one attacker."

Matthews Confronts NYT Reporter On Bias:  Know Any Pro-Life Reporters?  MSNBC host Chris Matthews confronted a New York Times reporter on media bias during a "Hardball" segment Monday, asking whether she knows anyone at the paper who is pro-life.  "And really this is something I think that is kind of an effective argument," NYT reporter Yamiche Alcindor told Matthews, referring to GOP nominee Donald Trump's argument the "elite media" is biased against him and is helping rig the election.  "Because people really do feel when they go and get the news that they are really getting it from these people who have some sort of plan to rig this election, or rig the economy, or don't want to cover the real issues."

New York Times Names A.G. Sulzberger Deputy Publisher.  The New York Times brought a new generation of the Sulzberger family into its top ranks on Wednesday, naming Arthur Gregg Sulzberger the deputy publisher.  The appointment positions him to succeed his father as publisher and chairman of The New York Times Company.  Should he ascend to that position, Mr. Sulzberger, 36, would represent the fifth generation of his family to serve as publisher since the family patriarch, Adolph S. Ochs, purchased the newspaper in 1896.

Clinton Campaign And Harry Reid Worked With NYT To Smear State Dept Watchdog.  The Clinton campaign coordinated with Nevada Sen. Harry Reid to use The New York Times to smear the State Department's deputy inspector general as State's internal watchdog was investigating Clinton aide Huma Abedin, The Daily Caller can report.  The scheme is revealed in a series of emails hacked from the Gmail account of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta.  The most damning message is a Nov. 13, 2015 email that Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon sent to Phil Schiliro, a former White House official and longtime Democratic operative who has helped the Clinton campaign in various capacities.

NY Times Suddenly Very Concerned Over People Complaining About Vote Rigging.  [Scroll down]  Say, where was the NY Times when Democrats were going ape over the supposed theft of the 2000 election?  Liberals still say Bush stole the election.  They, somewhat quieter, say Bush stole the 2004 election by rigging Ohio.  Where was the NY Times EB when Democrats, including elected ones, were saying that Bush would cancel the 2004 and 2008 elections over some sort of manufactured incident.  Where was the NY Times pre-elections when Democrats were complaining about the elections being rigged via Diebold voting machines and other things?

New York Times:  Michelle Obama has good rhythm because she's black.  Have you ever seen Michelle Obama dance on TV, realize what a good dancer she is, and wonder why she has such good rhythm?  Well, wonder no more.  The New York Times has the answer:  because she's black.  The Times recently invited the most fervent supporters of Obama to write love letters to her, and one of them, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, said Michelle Obama has good rhythm precisely because she is black.

Corruption and collusion.  Modern journalists have little in common with those I was privileged to know when I was a copyboy at NBC News in Washington in the '60s.  Today's "journalists" will disagree, but as numerous surveys have shown, the public trust in what is collectively called the media has sunk to an all-time low.  Only the media think they don't have to change and can continue to sell a product more and more people refuse to buy.  WikiLeaks dumps of Clinton campaign emails with reporters should contain enough proof for any reasonable person that big media is in the tank for her.  In what may be unprecedented, The New York Times allowed Hillary to edit her own quotes.

Can the New York Times Discuss Whether Mohammed's Flying Horse Really Visited the Temple Mount?  So the New York Times lapsed into what has been called Temple Trutherism by trying to deny the existence of the Jewish temples on the Temple Mount. [...] But let's have some equal time here.  The Temple Mount is holy to Jews because of the Temples.  So the New York Times chose to discuss whether the Temples really existed.  It's holy to Muslims because Mohammed supposedly flew there on a flying horse (with a woman's head).  Can we get a discussion of whether that really happened?  Or does the New York Times only find it acceptable to mock Judaism, not Islam?

'This is war': Trump drafting lawsuit against NY Times.  Donald Trump's campaign was drafting a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times late Wednesday night, hours after the news organization published a story in which two women accused the Republican presidential nominee of sexual assault, sources confirmed to the Washington Examiner.  Within hours of threatening to take legal action against the major publication for launching a "completely false, coordinated character assassination against" him, Trump had requested that his attorneys draft a major lawsuit against the Times.

The New York Times tossed its integrity out the window just to bash Donald Trump.  There is apparently nothing wrong with America that can't be blamed on Donald Trump.  He is single-handedly destroying the Republican Party, trashing presidential debates and spoiling the reputation of locker-room talk.  And — breaking news alert! — Trump is even changing journalism.  His habit of saying things that nobody ever said before is forcing reporters to unleash their partisan views instead of just giving the facts.  Some of these charges may be true, but the one about Trump changing journalism is demonstrably false.  All the more so because it comes from the editor of the New York Times, who happens to be the actual guilty party.

Liberal Media Ignore Recent Wikileaks Release.  Major news outlets have devoted very little attention to the Wikileaks release of thousands of John Podesta's emails.  The New York Times, allegedly America's "paper of record," has only written five stories about the leaks.  None about Hillary saying Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund ISIS, the state department coordinating with the Clinton campaign, or journalists' coziness with the Clinton campaign.  Possibly the reason the Times didn't cover the latter is because two of their writers were exposed in the leaks for their close relationship with the Clinton campaign.

Hillary Campaign E-Mails Singled Out NYT's Haberman for 'A Very Good Relationship' for Spin Help.  Buried within the latest batch of e-mails from the hacker Guccifer 2.0, the Clinton campaign specifically singled out then-Politico and current New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman as someone they "have...a very good relationship with" and thus could assist them in the spin "achiev[ing] our objective and do the most shaping."  The Glenn Greenwald-led site The Intercept pulled together the damning e-mails that, in the words of Greenwald and Lee Fang, prove that "a central component of the Clinton campaign strategy is ensuring that journalists they believe are favorable to Clinton are tasked to report the stories the campaign wants circulated."

A Banana Republic, If We Choose to Keep It.  ## Then there's the story currently front and center in the campaign, namely the New York Times revealing Donald Trump's 1995 tax returns.  The paper learned that he took a $916 million loss that may have allowed him to avoid paying taxes "for up to 18 years."  In a true testament to the utter corruption that informs our mainstream media, virtually every subsequent story has focused political permutations that attend this revelation.  Except that's not the real story.  The real story is the possibility someone in the federal government violated federal law — the violation of which "shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."  The Times itself might be off the hook, due to a Supreme Court decision that allows the media to disseminate information illegally obtained so long as they didn't participate in illegalities.  Yet it is revealing that Times executive editor Dean Baquet stated at a Harvard panel discussion last month he would be willing to risk jail time to publish such material.

Trump Lawyers Gearing Up For Fight With The New York Times.  Lawyers representing Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sent a letter to The New York Times threatening a lawsuit after the paper published several pages of Trump's 1995 tax returns.  The Manhattan mogul tapped Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, a leading litigation firm whom he's lavished with praise in the past, to lead his response.  Marc Kasowitz, a veteran litigator, told the Times he would execute "prompt initiation of appropriate legal action" should they publish Trump's returns.  He said that Trump had not authorized the release of his tax returns and their publication would therefore be unlawful.

The Hillary Administration the Media Yearns for Will Be a Disaster.  [Scroll down]  And what was the presenting complaint this time — that Trump had a business reversal and used that to avoid taxes.  No matter this was perfectly legal, conventional really, and that the New York Times, that daily cheat sheet for dimly-informed progressives that first revealed this latest of Trump's "malfeasances," had done the same itself to the tune of millions — this time it was Donald using the tax code.  Bad! [...] Meanwhile, actual crimes, not imaginary ones, had been committed and continued to be revealed, although hardly anyone was commenting or saying much about it.

Obamacare Is Dying, And The GOP Should Be Its Death Panel.  When The New York Times tells you Obamacare is "ailing" and must change to survive, rest assured that the law is in serious trouble.  Then again, people who read The New York Times might be under the impression the only way to fix a collapsing state-run program is to pass another, more intrusive state-run program — in this case, a "public option."  In truth, it was probably something of a shock to most Times readers that the Affordable Care Act had struggled at all.  For years, left-wing punditry has been churning our [sic] prodigious quantities of Obamacare fanfic, praising and hailing every ACA stumble as another unrealized measure of success.

New York Times forfeits ethics in publishing Trump taxes.  [Susanne] Craig wrote in her story — showing a $916 million loss by Trump that may have allowed him to legally not pay federal income taxes over the past two decades — that she'd been "on the hunt" for Trump's taxes for some time.  The Trump campaign, however, argues the documents were obtained illegally. [...] Federal law clearly states it is illegal to publish someone's tax returns without authorization.

NYT gets tax welfare.  The Obama administration illegally gave the New York Times IRS information on Donald John Trump, which the New York Times illegally published, and which it extrapolated as meaning Trump paid no federal income taxes for several years — or maybe he paid a billion dollars a year in taxes.  What we do know as a fact is the New York Times not only paid no taxes in 2014 but received tax welfare of $3.5 million from the IRS.  We know whatever Trump did with his taxes is legal because for five years (at least) President Obama has targeted Trump as an enemy of Obama's corrupt regime.  They would have prosecuted by now.  Near as I can tell, he took a huge loss one year and can carry that over loss for several years.

Hijabi women furious Americans don't smile at them on airplanes.  Muslim women are being beaten, killed, and sold into slavery in the Muslim Middle East.  But these are small potatoes compared to the indignities fundamentalist Muslim women are suffering in America.  In America, sharia-compliant women complain that Americans do not smile enough at them on airplanes.  This is why the New York Times has chosen to put a spotlight on the indignities hijab-covered women suffer every time they go to the airport.

New York Times Publishes Tax Returns of a Private Citizen, in Shallow Attempt To Assist Hillary Clinton.  The New York Times has published part of the tax returns of a private citizen in an effort to score political points for a candidate they endorse, Hillary Clinton.  That should be the real headline people pause and think about.  The front pages of the tax returns themselves are essentially a non-issue, representing the 1995 gross business loss incurred by candidate Donald Trump who operates a massive conglomeration of business entities.  The anti-Trump political angle is easily identifiable within the extensive article use of:  "could have", "might be", "may have", phrases used throughout the woven narrative.  Journalistic "narratives" are rarely based on facts.

Bombshell Or Something:  Trump Might Possibly Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes For 18 Years.  [Scroll down]  If the part where he didn't pay taxes afterwards is true, then, so what?  He followed the laws.  Mr. Trump didn't pass the law.  Would you not follow the laws, take advantage of the laws?  Of course you would.  Democrats who constantly call for higher taxes, for everyone paying their "fair share," they themselves take advantage of all the "loopholes" [...] in the tax law to reduce their tax liability.  Virtually everyone takes advantage of the tax code to reduce their tax liability.  Nearly 45% will had a net zero federal tax liability in 2016, up from 42% in 2013.

New York Times violates law to publish partial Trump tax return from 90s and speculate about his taxes.  Trump Derangement Syndrome has led the New York Times to willfully violate federal law in order to speculate about what taxes Donald Trump may or may not have been paying.  In a front-page article, built on crime and conjecture, the Times ends up with very weak beer on Trump, but a convincing case for its own irresponsibility and criminality.

The New York Times Paid No Taxes in 2014.  The New York Times has excited the Clinton campaign and the rest of the media with a revelation that Republican nominee Donald Trump declared a $916 million loss in 1995 that might have resulted in him not paying taxes in some subsequent years.  The implication, reinforced by CNN's Jake Tapper on State of the Union on Sunday morning [10/2/2016], is that Trump "avoided" paying taxes, when in fact his tax liability was zero.

New York Times Gives up on Ohio as Hillary's Chances Fade.  Hillary Clinton is lagging in the usually must-win state of Ohio and as a result, the New York Times has decided that Ohio just isn't as important as it used to be.

New York Times Declares Ohio No Longer 'Bellwether' as Trump Pulls Ahead.  The New York Times, the so-called "paper of record," has declared that the all-important swing state of Ohio is no longer an important battleground in the presidential election — now that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is winning it.  Trump pulled ahead of Clinton in the Buckeye State in the RealClearPolitics poll average on Sep. 13, and has never looked back.

NY Times Exec.  Editor:  Trump Must Be Called 'Liar,' But Hillary's Just a Normal Exaggerating Politician.  On Thursday's [9/22/2016] Morning Edition, National Public Radio host Steve Inskeep interviewed New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet regarding the paper's provocative decision to overturn journalistic convention in the wake of Donald Trump's success and to start reporting his alleged misstatements as "lies." But when asked about HIllary, Baquet apparently forgot Clinton's 25 years of public prevarication. [...] Perhaps the Times executive editor hasn't been paying attention to current events for the last 25 years.  Lying to the public about her private server and classified emails, and of course her career record of whoppers, from Whitewater up to her recent pneumonia diagnosis.

NYT's Maureen Dowd:  My Lefty Pals Want to Censor Trump, Any Anti-Hillary Stories.  On Sunday's [9/18/2016] Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd asked New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd to explain "Upper West Siders panicking" over the latest polls.  Dowd said liberal friends won't read any interviews she does with Trump, that "they would like to censor any stories about Trump and also censor any negative stories about Hillary.  They think she should have a total free pass."

The 'New York Times' Empire of Fantasy.  Leftism, like a zombie virus, eats the brains of respected institutions and renders them empty, animated monsters who feast on the flesh of the republic.  Thus the New York Times, a genuinely great institution forty years ago, the paper of record that ran all the news that was fit to print, is now a shambling, drooling phantom of its former self, a record of little more than Democrat talking points, running all the news that fits with its point of view.  I once called the Democrat-Media complex an Empire of Lies, but the Times has gone way beyond that now.  In a leading editorial last week, the Times showed itself to be the google-eyed emperor of an Empire of Fantasy, the Willy Wonka of a candy cane world that exists only within the confines of its pages.

Can Anyone Save The New York Times From Itself?  It is impossible to imagine a world without The New York Times. But it is also increasingly impossible to imagine how The New York Times, as it is currently configured, continues to exist in the modern media world.

NYT's Stupid Questions Edition:  What Religion Would Jesus Be?  To begin with, I wish that when the New York Times writes about Christianity, they'd interview an actual Christian.

NY Times Again Sends Memo Reminding Reporters Not to Editorialize on Social Media.  For the second time in three months, The New York Times sent a memo to reporters reminding them not to editorialize about sensitive political issues.  Back in June, Times higher-ups sent a memo to reporters warning against editorializing in the wake of the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting.  "People following Times newsroom staffers online expect them to be well-informed and thoughtful," wrote associate managing editor Philip Corbett.  "But we should leave the opinions to our colleagues on the Opinion side."

New York Times Can't Stop Pushing the Myth of Obama's Literary Genius.  [Scroll down]  For years, Obama has encouraged this fiction.  "I've written two books," he told a crowd of teachers in Virginia in July of 2008.  The crowd applauded.  "I actually wrote them myself," he added with a wink and a nod, and now the teachers exploded in laughter.  They got the joke:  Republicans were too stupid to write their books.  No one much cared about Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, a policy brief written by committee and published in 2006.  It was his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, that emerged as the sacred text in the cult of Obama.  "There is no underestimating the importance of Dreams from My Father in the political rise of Barack Obama," New Yorker editor David Remnick would later write in his exhaustive look at Obama's life and career, The Bridge.  The problem, of course, is that Obama did not write either of his books in any meaningful way.

Hillary's media is torching its standards to cover the election.  There is nothing more to learn about Hillary Clinton's home-brew server, deleted e-mails, chronic cough or anything else that makes her look bad, according to The Washington Post.  And The New York Times, stung by Clinton's woeful performance at last week's presidential forum, believes the debates are going to be a total disaster unless moderators get much, much tougher with Donald Trump. [...] America's two most prominent newspapers used to compete for Pulitzer Prizes and readers, but now they're competing to see which can suck up more to Clinton.

NY Times:  Iran Ransom Story Is 'Fake,' Because Obama Says SoThe New York Times editorial board declared firmly Tuesday [8/23/2016] that the accusation that the Obama administration paid a ransom to ensure the release of American hostages was "fake," and the Obama administration's diplomatic actions deserve to be lavishly praised.  We know this, they argue, because the Obama administration says so.  That's only a barely an exaggeration.  The easiest way to describe the editorial, "The Fake $400 Million Iran 'Ransom' Story," is lazy; it literally just takes the administration's talking points and repeats them verbatim: [...]

'Mischief'?  A "Pandora's box of constitutional mischief" is the phrase the New York Times is using to describe a convention of the states to consider amendments to the United States Constitution.  The Gray Lady is in full panic mode over such a convention, having awakened from its Rumpelstiltskinian slumber in respect of America's supreme law.  It's discovered that we are now six states away from the 34 states needed to call for a states' convention that would, in the Times' phrase, be "unprecedented" in our Republic's history.  Which would be, in our view, precisely one of the convention's virtues.  It would mark the first time the states asserted their full constitutional authority.  It would take two thirds of the states to convene such a meeting.  The parlousness of our politics derives from the failure of anyone to step up to deal with the deep issues.  This has brought us to what the editor of the New York Sun has called our "constitutional moment."  The sooner we convene the states to address the deep issues, the sooner we'll return to a calmer political life.

The Editor says...
This sounds a lot like someone playing a board game, who has never read the rules, falsely accusing another player of cheating.  The provision for a convention of the states is right there in the Constitution, for anyone willing to read it.

If You Only Read The New York Times And Washington Post, You Have No Idea The Soros Leak Happened.  On June 4, 2016, the New York Times editorial board wrote an article titled "Big Money Rearranges Its Election Bets."  "Both parties are busy exploiting the power of barely regulated super PACs to accept unlimited six- and seven-figure donations for candidates," the editors wrote.  "At the same time, campaigns are concealing the names of other rich donors in 'dark money' operations palmed off as tax exempt 'social welfare' agencies supposedly dedicated to doing good, not to bare knuckle politics."  But two-and-a-half months later, when the internal workings of a powerful political network palmed off as a tax-exempt "social welfare" agency supposedly dedicated to doing good were released to the public — unveiling the big money ties to many of the left's top social causes — the Times kept its readers in the dark.

New York Times Tech Columnist Calls on Google to Hide Hillary Health InfoNew York Times tech columnist Farhad Manjoo is calling on Google to "fix" its search engine results to hide evidence of Hillary Clinton's failing health.  "Go online and put down, 'Hillary Clinton illness,' and take a look at the videos yourself," Rudy Giuliani recently said on Fox News, during an argument about how sick Clinton really is.  Manjoo of the Times called for Google to "fix" the problem of search results possibly hurting the Democratic nominee.

And None So Deaf as They Who Will Not Hear.  The possibility that president Obama may not be as great as they thought has gradually dawned on the New York Times. [...] Even the administration's supporters were left totally surprised by the trail of disasters so intense it propelled Donald Trump to a presidential nomination.  Jesse Bernstein in Tablet thinks that the root cause of the blindness was insufferable smugness of the intellectual elite.

NYTimes:  Journalists Drop Objectivity to "Get Trump".  The NYT writes a think-piece — rather, a feel-piece — explaining why they think journalistic ethics they used to pretend to follow are no longer operative, and offers a defense as to why they shouldn't pretend any longer.

New York Times Blames Donald Trump for Biased Media Coverage.  [Scroll down]  In 2008 — to pick an arbitrary starting point — journalists swooned over the prospect of Barack Obama as the first black president, and coordinated to discuss attacks on Obama's critics.  In one particularly noxious episode, a photographer working for the Atlantic photoshopped a cover image she had shot to cast McCain as a bloodthirsty monster.  In 2012, journalists plotted together to make Mitt Romney the target of Benghazi coverage, rather than Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — and CNN's Candy Crowley infamously threw the second presidential debate to Obama.  They played along with spurious attacks on Romney's record, such as his supposed responsibility for the death of a worker's wife and the alleged mysteries in his tax returns.

New York Times Plays Down ISIS Tie to Brutal Murder of French Priest.  Earlier today [7/26/2016], 84-year old Catholic priest Father Jacques Hamel was murdered his when one of two assailants who allegedly yelled "Allahu Akbar" and said they were from "Daesh" (ISIS) burst into his French church and slit his throat.  Father Hamel was killed around 9 AM while celebrating mass in St. Étienne Church in the village of Saint-Etienne-du Rouvray in northern France.  Father Hamel, two Catholic nuns, and two parishioners were taken hostage by the assailants.  One of the hostages was critically injured.  The two terrorists were shot dead by French security forces as they left the church.  UK newspapers The Telegraph and The Daily Mail called the assailants "Islamic gunman" and said the killers claimed they were from Daesh. [...] The first story by the New York Times on this incident referred to the killers only as "attackers" and did not mention ISIS, Daesh or the words "Islamic" or "Islamist."

The Dumbest Idea.  A recent article in the New York Times saw as a problem the fact that females are greatly under-represented among the highest rated chess players.  Innumerable articles, TV stories and political outcries have been based on an "under-representation" of women in Silicon Valley, seen as a problem that needs to be solved.  Are there girls out there dying to play chess, who find the doors slammed shut in their faces?  Are there women with Ph.D.s in computer science from M.I.T. and Cal Tech who get turned away when they apply for jobs in Silicon Valley?  Are girls and boys not allowed to have different interests?

NYT Cuts Obama's Bible Flub, Praises His 'Scripture'-Quoting Speech.  President Obama's speech at a memorial service for the five police officers assassinated in Dallas while patrolling a Black Lives Matter protest led Wednesday's New York Times.  The paper portrayed Obama flatteringly as having "spoke hard truths to both sides" at the service, while downplaying how the President politicized the memorial by thumping for gun-control, ranting about how a Glock pistol was easier to get than a book.  The story was unnecessarily sycophantic, while tamping down criticism of Obama's politicized tone. [...] The Times also failed to catch — then conveniently excised — a flubbed Biblical quotation by Obama.

The New York Times And The Left Have Blood On Their Hands.  The New York Times has been in the forefront of the left's hysterical, hate-filled attacks on police officers and whites.  Also appropriately, on the day of the Dallas murders, the Times published two white-hating, police-hating pieces.  One was by Michael Eric Dyson, a radical black professor of sociology at Georgetown University.  The Dyson column is nothing more than a racist hit piece on "white America."

Comey's Non-Indictment Indictment of Hillary a 'Ready-Made Attack Ad'.  The New York Times' Patrick Healy, who can't seem to decide which side of the Hillary question he comes down on ("historic" or "corrupt"), follows up yesterday's big non-news with the newspaper's customary political angle:  is it good for the Democrats, or bad for the Democrats?

New York Times Censors Another Best-Selling Conservative Author....Writing on Free Speech.  Every week, Nielsen's BookScan produces a ranking of book sales around the country, and is estimated to capture 70 to 80 percent of all retail sales.  Most organizations, including The Wall Street Journal, use BookScan as their way of ranking best-sellers.  According to BookScan's list on Wednesday [6/29/2016], The Intimidation Game was the sixth bestselling hardcover book in the nation for the past week.  It came out on June 21 from Twelve Books.  When The New York Times announced its latest weekend best-seller list on Wednesday evening, The Intimidation Game was nowhere in the the top 15.  In fact, it wasn't even on the extended list of the top 20 hardcover bestsellers, despite outselling books that did make the list.

New York Times braces for big change.  This summer, The New York Times is ushering in a transformation more radical than it has seen in almost half a century, perhaps since the great Abe Rosenthal overhaul of the 1970s, which created the wide-ranging, multi-section Times we know today.  Back then, the Times was grappling with economic headwinds and the rise of TV.  Now the Times — like all newspapers — is grappling with economic headwinds and the rise of the smartphone, and its future is on the line once again.

The New York Times and Obama Still Baffled by Orlando Jihad Killer's Motive Even After Reading This.  When you want to see the President get angry and emotional, watch him talk about Republicans.  Listen to his straw men, his invective, his bromides all designed to smear his political opponents.  By contrast, his speech after the Orlando terror attack was utterly devoid of emotion.  He wasn't in the least bit angry.  He was sullen.  He truly could not care less.

New York Times editorial board falls on grenade of reality to save lib narrative.  Here are the facts as they are known:  The FBI director has said that ISIS has radicalized sympathizers in all 50 states under a president who said he would "degrade and ultimately destroy" the "JV team."  Over the weekend, a Muslim who was a registered Democrat entered an Orlando nightclub, and, after having pledged his allegiance to ISIS, slaughtered nearly 50 people and wounded even more than that.  The New York Times editorial board's conclusion?  We don't know what sparked his rage but America really needs to do something about Republicans!

New York Times quietly backs away from story on Orlando terrorist's weapon.  After widespread complaints on social media, the New York Times has quietly backed away this afternoon from inaccurate reporting on the weapon used in Saturday's Orlando terror attack.  Second Amendment supporters and others have repeatedly questioned why "AR-15 Rifles Are Beloved, Reviled and a Common Element in Mass Shootings" was so quick to incorrectly draw a common theme between other domestic incidents and this one based on the killer's weapon of choice.

NYTimes Editorial:  Congress Should Secretly Suspend Second Amendment Rights.  A New York Times editorial advocates for a new law allowing a secret court to take away citizens' right to own a gun at the discretion of the federal government.  Citing the Orlando terror attack that left 50 dead including the shooter and 53 wounded at a gay nightclub, the piece advocates for a "no-buy" list similar to "no-fly" lists.  Under the law, suspected terrorists would not be able to buy a gun.  In an attempt to ensure the integrity of the lists and preserve due process, the author proposes people only be added to this no-buy list after a secret court rules they are ineligible, similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court hearings where the federal government obtains permission to wiretap.  Under this proposal, an American who has never been convicted of a crime could be denied their right to buy a gun simply because a secret court decided it should be that way.

The Editor says...
If the Bill of Rights is secretly suspended, you could be secretly arrested, tried and imprisoned. That's the kind of country the New York Times wants us to live in.

Who wrote that op-ed?  The New York Times isn't sure.  The New York Times has sparked an international incident by publishing an op-ed article under the byline of a foreign official who never agreed to it, according to his supporters.  The newspaper this week blundered into the bloody politics of South Sudan, the fledgling east African nation, by posting a column ostensibly written by that country's president and first vice president, Salva Kiir and Riek Machar, respectively.  The column argues for an internal, government-led "truth and reconciliation" commission to investigate atrocities stemming from South Sudan's two-year civil war rather than an international war-crimes tribunal that was part of a peace agreement brokered by the United States and Great Britain last year.  Only one problem:  Machar's supporters say he didn't sign on to the editorial and doesn't agree with it.  They suggest the Times was effectively hoodwinked by Kiir's faction into running the column with his name on it.

The New York Times Fails Logic Class, Chapter 46,080.  For the last 20+ years every hiccup in the economy has been met with "very low" interest rates.  Rates have now been at emergency levels for a period of time approaching eight years.  It hasn't worked to lift people out of that malaise, and the reason is obvious:  The lower rates are the cheaperit is in "today's terms" to borrow and those who can and do borrow first have "first mover" advantage.  Those entities are never those with fewer privileges and poorer net positions in life.  That means it's never any of those who face said daily hardship that reap said advantage — it is instead those who exploit that segment of the population and they use it to screw everyone else!

White House Secretly Squashed IRS Resistance to ObamaCare's Illegal Subsidies.  The New York Times reports on a secret meeting from 2014, exposed thanks to sworn testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, at which a vanload of IRS officials were told to stifle their complaints about billions of dollars in flagrantly illegal ObamaCare funding. [...] The Times makes a fitful attempt to spin this as a "Republicans pounce" story, stressing that we're only learning about Fisher's testimony because Ways and Means Democrats "feared Republicans would release selected excerpts" as part of a "witch hunt," which would in turn be part of a "crusade to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which has been twice upheld by the Supreme Court."

The New York Times and Hillary Clinton:  A Romance.  The New York Times is to be applauded for its inventiveness. [...] The editors concede that "Mrs. Clinton can be fiercely protective of her role and prerogatives." Now, "role", I understand: it must mean as wife of a governor, as First Lady and as Secretary of State.  But "prerogatives"?  My Oxford English Dictionary defines a prerogative as "The special right or privilege exercised by a monarch or head of State over all other people, which overrides the law and is in theory subject to no restriction."  We know that Barack Obama feels he possesses such prerogatives, the Constitution notwithstanding.  But this is the first time a Hillary Clinton supporter has suggested that she can reasonably claim to protect her very own prerogatives.

The New York Times is Super Excited About Massive Gun Registration Schemes!.  Despite anti-gunnite talking points, most law abiding gun owners are not against background checks.  We have no problem with making sure that the person attempting to purchase a firearm is not a bad person.  But, do background checks actually stop Bad Guys from getting guns?  For the most part, no.  Hence, the NRA is not suggesting that we do away with the backgrounds check system, they just think it's absurd to expand it, because it will almost never stop a bad character from getting a gun.  And they are against the gun registration schemes of the anti-gunnites, because it is simply a big government control scheme.

Years After Hiroshima Comes the Blah.  Americans educated in the schools and universities of this great republic have been taught (or should I say propagandized) for over two decades that President Reagan was an intellectual lightweight and a warmonger.  There is a lot of evidence cited.  Through President Reagan's eight scary years in the White House columnists at the New York Times and the Washington Post, along with mainstream media and the professoriate in general, regularly came up with endless evidence of how the President was building up our military and threatening nuclear warfare with the Soviets.

New York Times quite perplexed about failing socialist states in South America.  The Editorial Board of the NY Times is Very Concerned about the state of the nations in South America, noting just how bad it all is, thanks to Leftism.

Anatomy of a NY Times Hit Piece.  A girlfriend of Donald Trump was used and abused in a NY Times hit piece and she's speaking out.  She told the Times a charming story of how she met Trump and how he was a perfect gentleman.  In the story Trump asks her if she brought a bathing suit to a party he was throwing at his Florida mansion.  She didn't, so Trump provided one.  When she came out to the pool he announced, "now that's a stunning Trump girl."  She loved the experience, every bit of it.  The Times spun it to make it seem like Trump was an ogre and that she was appalled.

Steer Clear of the Clinton Scandals, It Will Backfire, Ever Helpful New York Times Warns Trump.  Steer clear of the Clinton scandals, it's bound to backfire, the New York Times warned presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday [5/17/2016].  It's been the paper's same helpful advice to Republicans since 1992.  Patrick Healy, a fierce journalistic defender of the former first lady, took up arms for Hillary Clinton and her "decades of experience and qualifications" defeating various forms of "boorishness."

NYT's Texas Reporter Intimidated by 'Hard-Right' 'Paranoia' of His Fellow Texans.  The entire front page of Sunday's New York Times National section was swallowed up by an essay from Texas correspondent Manny Fernandez, "A Look at What Makes Texas Texas," a cultural cringe in 1,700 words from Fernandez, who isn't a Texas native but moved to Houston in 2011 to cover the state for the NYT[.]  It's part of the paper's occasional "Assignment America" series.  Other entries, from reporters with home ties to their respective regions, managed to avoid partisan politics.  But Fernandez stills seems slightly freaked when confronted with some of the state's more provincial customs, his "hard-right" neighbors, or the "fear, anger and sometimes paranoia that lurks beneath the surface of Texas politics."

New York Times Lets Slip the T-Word:  Taquiya.  [Scroll down]  It's almost like terrorists won't tell you the truth unless you repeatedly interrogate them and subject them to pressure.  Perhaps in some sort of isolated facility accompanied by gentle flowing streams of water.  But it's interesting that the New York Times even used the term "taquiya".  When Ben Carson mentioned taquiya, the media hurriedly rushed to throw together their usual "fact checks" to disprove the idea.  Sunni Islamist groups have generally maneuvered the media into repeating their talking points on the term backed by the usual "interfaith scholar" who are treated as authorities on Islam.

New York Times boss sued over alleged ageist, racist and sexist hiring practices.  Mark Thompson, the chief executive of the New York Times and former director-general of the BBC, is facing a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit alleging that he introduced a culture of "deplorable discrimination" based on age, race and gender at the newspaper.  The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two black female employees in their sixties in New York on Thursday, claims that under Thompson's leadership the US paper of record has "become an environment rife with discrimination".  The class action lawsuit, seen by the Guardian, alleges that the Times, which promotes its liberal and inclusive social values, preferentially favours its "ideal staffer (young, white, unencumbered with a family)" at the expense of older female and black employees.

French dis-connection:  The New York Times flees its own labor utopia.  The New York Times, which has never met a pro-union rule it didn't like, has suddenly found notoriously pro-labor France too expensive a place to do business.  So, as The Post's Claire Atkinson first reported, the paper is eliminating 70 positions from its Paris operation, with editing and print-production functions relocated to New York and Hong Kong.  To be fair, the Times editorial page has faulted French labor laws.  But that hasn't stopped it from pushing similar insanity here at home.

New York Times plans to cut hundreds of jobs later this year.  The New York Times Co. is preparing to lay off a few hundred staffers in the second half of the year, The [New York] Post has learned.  Chairman and Publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr.'s management team has been talking with some of the Times' unions to come to a deal to provide reduced severance to those affected, sources told The Post.  "There's a goal of a couple of hundred people," said a source familiar with talks.  "They don't want to pay out big packages, and they're having negotiations with the unions."

NYT Columnist Kristof Wants to Debunk the 'Crooked Hillary Myth'New York Times columnist Nick Kristof sounded angry in a headline to his Sunday [4/24/2016] column:  "Debunking the 'Crooked Hillary' Myth."  Online, they spit out some of the venom, merely asking:  "Is Hillary Clinton Honest?  Kristof's column concluded:  "She's not a saint but a politician, and to me this notion that she's fundamentally dishonest is a bogus narrative.  He even dismisses fellow Times columnist William Safire who called Hillary a "congenital liar" in 1996:  "this narrative goes way too far."

Dear New York Republicans:  Let's talk about New York values.  [T]rue conservatives fully understand what Sen. Cruz meant with those words.  He didn't mean the New Yorkers who rallied together for 9/11.  Instead, he meant:  [#1] The New York Times, which is nothing more than a house organ for the Democrat party. [...] [#2] The New Yorker, which was once a soft Left magazine that aimed to make its middle-class readers feel cultured, but that is now a hardcore Leftist publication that actively, aggressively proselytizes for the Democrat party and for Democrat causes (especially climate change).

NY Times Bosses Warn Managers:  Meet Diversity Goals or Get FiredWashington Post media blogger Erik Wemple reports that The New York Times is getting very serious about diversity goals in recruiting, hiring, and promoting.  Chief Executive Mark Thompson raised eyebrows at a gathering of managers on the business and news sides of the newspaper.  According to three Wemple sources, "Supervisors who fail to meet upper management's requirements in recruiting and hiring minority candidates or who fail to seek out minority candidates for promotions face some stern consequences:  They'll be either encouraged to leave or be fired."

"The Panama Papers" — Notice Which Newspaper Could Not Be Trusted With the Intel.  We've been waiting to write an outline regarding the "Panama Papers", because one of the more interesting aspects in the distribution is how the sources within the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung refused to share the massive file of information with the New York Times.  Instead, Süddeutsche Zeitung shared the data through an International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with the including the Guardian and the BBC.

Former NY Times Editor's Pratfall: 'Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest'.  The leftist British newspaper The Guardian has signed former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson as a regular columnist on the presidential election.  Already, she's pleasing the Left with ridiculous columns, such as the brand-new one, headlined "This may shock you:  Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest."  It's only shocking because it's like claiming:  "This may shock you, but the sky is green and the grass is blue."  Hillary's terrible ratings for dishonesty?  Sexism.  Abramson concluded:  "It's fair to expect more transparency.  But it's a double standard to insist on her purity."  No one expects any presidential candidate to have "purity" or complete consistency in their political rhetoric and actions.  No one at this point even expects "fundamental honesty" from Mrs. Clinton.

The New York Times abandoned its ethics to take down Trump.  For decades, the editorial page of The New York Times has served as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.  But in a sign of the left's panic over Donald Trump, the Times has moved beyond pushing an agenda to becoming a political hack, dirty tricks and all.  That's the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the fishy aftermath of a Trump meeting with the edit board.  The meeting happened in early January, but only on the eve of Super Tuesday did word spread about something the leading Republican candidate supposedly said in an off-the-record segment.

The NY Times Editorial Board Calls on Hillary to Release Speech Transcripts.  The question of Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches has led to many calls on the left for her to release the transcripts of those speeches.  She was confronted about it during last week's MSNBC Democratic town hall, and Bernie Sanders has been particularly tough on the subject.  And now the New York Times editorial board is calling on Clinton to release them.

Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts.  "Everybody does it," is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate.  But that is Hillary Clinton's latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts.  A televised town hall on Tuesday [2/23/2016] was at least the fourth candidate forum in which Mrs. Clinton was asked about those speeches.  Again, she gave a terrible answer, saying that she would release transcripts "if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans."

Hillary Clinton Emails: Secret Negotiations With New York Times, Trade Bill Lobbying Revealed In Latest State Department Release.  The latest batch of emails dating back to Hillary Clinton's tenure as U.S. secretary of state shows her appearing to lobby members of the Senate on controversial trade bills and her office communicating with the New York Times about holding a sensitive article.  The State Department release of documents on her private email server Friday [2/19/2016] came the day before the Democratic presidential candidate heads into the Nevada caucuses.  In response to an inquiry made by the Times, Clinton aides discussed to what degree to cooperate with the newspaper, concerned that a story about a U.S. plan to retrieve Americans could lead to its failure.

Bernie Sanders: 'Democratic Socialist' Or Out-And-Out Stalinist?  Democratic front-runner Bernie Sanders says concerns about his honeymoon trip to the USSR in the '80s are "silly."  He'll have a harder time explaining his months-long stay at a hardcore Stalinist camp in the '60s.  It's clear the self-avowed socialist is even further left than he has admitted.  Fifty years ago, during the height of the Cold War, he sought out communist indoctrination.  The Israeli press earlier this month broke the story that Sanders, who is Jewish, spent several months at an Israeli commune co-founded by a Soviet spy.  The revelation is just now wending its way through the American media, where it's been confirmed by none other than the New York Times, though the pro-Democrat paper predictably buried the story on its back pages.

1987 New York Times Editorial Urges Senate to Block Reagan's SCOTUS Nominee.  In early October of 1987, when President Ronald Reagan had more than a year left on his final term that would end in January of 1989, The New York Times editorial board openly championed the idea of the United States Senate blocking Reagan's Supreme Court nomination.  Their rationale?  The fact that Democrats had regained control of the Senate in 1986.

David Brooks Misses A Lot More Than The Crease in Obama's Pants.  As much as I loathe Donald Trump, I loathe Barack Obama even more and would not miss him for a nanosecond.  After all, if it weren't for Obama's deference to our enemies and disdain for America and her Allies, there would be no chance that Trump would be a viable presidential candidate.  Brooks praises Obama's integrity for running an administration which has been "remarkably scandal-free."  Well, how about Fast & Furious, The VA, The IRS & Benghazi?  If the Obama Administration is willfully giving guns to Mexican drug gangs, allows veterans to die waiting for health care, makes a concerted effort to stifle free speech while refusing to help the four Americans under assault from terrorists doesn't merit the word scandal in David Brooks' book, then he demonstrates no capacity for reason.  Then again, the New York Times only prints the news it sees fit printing and Fast & Furious, the VA, the IRS, and Benghazi don't fit into their agenda.

David Brooks' Disgraceful Attack on Ted Cruz.  [Scroll down]  Who could ever imagine that similar dishonest and disgraceful sentiments would come from a supposed "conservative" columnist in an attack on, of all people, the decidedly conservative Ted Cruz?  Wonder no longer.  Over there at — you guessed it — the New York Times, the "conservative" columnist of record, David Brooks, has mounted a Kennedy-style attack on Senator Cruz.  Brooks has become a Borker.

Jane Mayer and the New York Times Dive Into the Gutter.  Jane Mayer of the New Yorker is not just a bad reporter, but a detestable one.  She habitually deceives her readers in order to advance a left-wing agenda.  One of her most outrageous hit pieces, published in the New Yorker in 2010, focused on Charles and David Koch and was the source for much of the slander that the Left has directed toward them since that time.  Now we learn that Ms. Mayer his written a book called Dark Money.  (In the leftist lexicon, "dark money" is money spent on conservative causes rather than liberal ones.)

Faux Feminists at NY Times Suddenly Think Bringing Up Sex Harassment 'Way Out of Line'.  Fascinating: The New York Times, an outlet that has respectfully pondered the idea of a flourishing "rape culture" in the United States, and which irresponsibly furthered false accusations against three Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape by a stripper in 2006, suddenly doesn't think sexual harassment is worth talking about.  Or at least not when the accused is Democratic "big dog" Bill Clinton, and the topic might risk his wife becoming president in 2016:  "Mr. Trump is way out of line bringing up Mr. Clinton's philandering."  After Donald Trump re-injected Clinton's sordid sexual past into the news stream, the paper responded on Friday [1/8/2016] with an oddly written, bottom-of-the-page editorial, "Donald Trump Drags Bill Clinton's Baggage Out."  They do not approve, and accuse Trump of trying to "tar" Hillary Clinton in "sexist fashion" to her husband's dark sexual past — even though Hillary herself tore down the reputations of her husband's accusers in order to save the couples' political skin.

The Times stumbles onto...  The New York Times made itself a fool for the Rathergate film Truth.  The Times not only published Stephen Holden's breathless review of the film, the Times celebrated the film in a TimesTalks event featuring Robert Redford, Cate Blanchett, Dan Rather, and Mary Mapes, hosted by Times Magazine staff writer Susan Dominus.  Holden also included Truth in his year-end best-of-2015 list (it's number 7!).  The Times went all in for this tribute to the greatest journalistic fraud of our era, as I noted in the City Journal column "Truth and the New York Times."  In its year-end review of possible Oscar contenders, however, Times op-ed columnist Joe Nocera stumbles onto the truth and blurts it out.

Obama Says He Does Not Watch Enough Cable News to Grasp Terrorism Fears.  President Obama reportedly told a group of news columnists this week that he does not watch enough cable news to grasp terrorism fears in the country following terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.  The characterization of Obama's comments was included in an article from Friday's issue of the New York Times and has since been edited out of the piece without correction, Mediaite first reported.  Several journalists also drew attention to the excerpt on social media before its removal.

The New York Times Just Memory-Holed This Devastating Obama Admission.  [Scroll down]  The version of the New York Times story that was published early Thursday evening [12/17/2015] indicated that Obama knew he was out of touch with the country on terrorism, and he thought that was due to not watching enough television.  Obama critics immediately pounced on the stunning admission from the president, expressing shock that he would claim that a lack of TV time was the real reason for him not understanding Americans' anxiety about terrorism.  As of Friday morning, however, the passage containing Obama's admission was gone.

Obama: I Didn't Realize How Nervous People Were About Terrorism Because I Don't Watch Enough Television.  Kind of a weird statement from a guy who seems to learn quite a lot about world events by first hearing about them in the press, no? [...] This is a dangerously out-of-touch, cloistered "leader" — the type of man who'd give a news-free speech on national security without mentioning the major, controversial steps he'd just taken to undermine national security.  Incidentally, the [New York] Times stealth-edited this highly newsy nugget, disappearing it down the memory hole.  I wonder why.  The paper says it was due to length constraints, but that excuse doesn't fly.  They ended up adding more words to the final version than they erased.  It's almost as if they're protecting a political ally.

Comparison of the original and revised versions  of the NYT article debated in the three articles immediately above.

Why the War on Guns Has Failed.  In the wake of the San Bernardino attack, liberals are in a total panic over guns.  The New York Times broke a 95-year precedent to editorialize about gun control on its front page.  But the Times seems restrained compared with the full-on meltdown at the New York Daily News, which has taken to calling the head of the NRA a "terrorist."  I have no desire to rehash the all-too-familiar debate over whether such policies would have their intended effects or whether they'd pass constitutional muster.  Let's just stipulate I am skeptical on both counts.

The Most Pressing Issue in 95 Years.  The Peace of Versailles, Buck v. Bell, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Ukrainian famine, the internment of Japanese-Americans, the Tuskegee experiments, the Holocaust, McCarthyism, the Marshall Plan, Jim Crow, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy Assassination, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Kent State, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Watergate, withdrawal from Vietnam, the Killing Fields, the Iran hostage crisis, the Contras, AIDS, gay marriage, the Iran nuclear deal:  These are just a few of the things the New York Times chose not to run front page editorials on.  But, the "Gun Epidemic" in America?  That deserves a front-page editorial.  Not only that, it deserves to be bragged about that this is the first time since 1920 they've run a front page editorial.

Here is an excerpt from that front-page editorial:
End the Gun Epidemic in America.  It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.  These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.

The Editor says...
I think the editors of the New York Times should read the Federalist Papers.

More criticism of the NYT editorial:
How the 'New York Times' and Loretta Lynch Made Me Join the NRA.  I don't know which is worse, Ms. Lynch or the NYT.  Actually they're closely related, but let me start with the paper.  They published an editorial Friday ("End the Gun Epidemic in America"), contra the 2nd Amendment and calling for the confiscation of arms: [...] The amazing, and revealing, aspect of the editorial is that only days after the San Bernardino attack the words "Islam," "ISIS," "jihad" or anything resembling them are not mentioned in this editorial (as if they were complete anathema), only the amorphous "terrorism."

Democrat Party Organ The New York Times Calls for Forcible Gun Confiscation.  The press release outlet best known for its fanatical dedication to the socialist agenda — you may know it as The New York Times — has finally issued the Democrats' long sought-after call for government confiscation of America's guns. [...] Of course, the Times fails to note that the recent Paris terror attacks (and many other examples of mass shootings in Europe) occurred under strict gun control regimes.  They refuse to describe how disarming law-abiding citizens might prevent killings by Jihadists and the criminally insane (but I repeat myself).  Oh, and box-cutters were used to kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11.  A home-made IED killed and crippled more than 100 people at the Boston Marathon.  Knives and automobiles are the weapons of choice these days for slaughtering Israeli Jews.  The enemies of mankind will always find ways to kill en masse.  Disarming Americans is not only unlawful and functionally impossible, it is a predicate for more terror and tyranny.

Chris Christie: New York Times gun control op-ed "liberal claptrap".  Republican presidential candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesn't think highly of a New York Times editorial calling for stricter gun control laws in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting.  "It's typical liberal claptrap from the New York Times," Christie told "Face the Nation" host John Dickerson in an interview set to air Sunday [12/6/2015].  "The fact is that what we need to be focused on here are two issues:  taking criminals who commit crimes with handguns and putting them in jail.  And we have to work on our mental health system in this country to give doctors and caregivers greater latitude to involuntarily commit folks who have mental health issues and who don't want to take their medication and help themselves."

New York Times throws front-page temper tantrum on gun control.  In a remarkable display of mush-headed illogic, the New York Times has run a front-page editorial for the first time in 95 years advocating gun control measures it admits would be ineffectual.  In the 447 words prompted by the San Bernardino slaughter, there was not room for the word "Islam" or "Islamic" — only for a demand to take guns away from law-abiding Americans.

There's a reason you've never heard of Eduardo Sencion, Kesler Dufrene and Salvador Tapia.
The Media's Cover Up of Immigrant Mass Shootings.  The San Bernardino shooting has just happened and the shooters are unknown, but in response to Robert Dear Jr.'s murder of three people at a Colorado Springs shopping mall last week, The New York Times exulted:  "Even as politicians and those in Congress pump up public fears at the supposed threat of refugees fleeing Syria, every day in America people — mostly white men — are walking into movie theaters, restaurants, churches, grade schools and health care centers armed to the teeth, determined to take as many people out as they can."  Mostly white men???  I know it didn't happen here, but is the Times really going to ignore the murder of 130 people in Paris two weeks ago?

What Climate Change Looks Like: Walrus Crowding.  December 1, 2015[:]  This week, we're featuring images that show how global warming has already impacted the world.  Packed shoulder to shoulder, an estimated 35,000 Pacific walruses congregated on Alaska's northwest coast near Point Lay last fall.  Normally the mammals find ocean ice sheets to rest on, but as waters have warmed the ice sheets have disappeared.  In seven of the last nine years swarms of walruses swam ashore for refuge, as shown above, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
[Date stamp and italics in original.]

The Walrus and the New York Times.  The Times is peddling ignorance here.  Actually, the congregation of walruses on land is an age-old phenomenon known as "hauling out."  It has nothing to do with the volume of sea ice at any given time.  In fact, the Times is not just peddling ignorance, it is recycling it.  Today's Times piece is paraphrased from a much-derided column by Gail Collins that ran in October 2014.

The Editor says...
I don't know about Gail Collins, but a 2014 article in Time, apparently written by Jack Linshi, used the same photograph.

Fit to print? NY Times smears GOP 'bigotry,' 'insanity'.  The New York Times opined Thursday [11/26/2015] that Sen. Bernie Sanders has the right idea on immigration, and that most Republicans support a plan that gone "well beyond the usual nativist bigotry." [...] The paper cheered Sanders this week for offering a plan that "turns away from the insanity."

When the Third World Attacks.  Give me a break, New York Times.  The Paris terrorists were 100 percent Middle Eastern, although most were born in Muslim ghettos in Europe.  After 50 years of the most backward, dysfunctional cultures pouring into the civilized world, the media are forced to blatantly lie to us whenever immigrants attack:  This has nothing to do with refugees!  Ismail Omar Mostefai is "a Frenchman."  Ismail is "French" in the same way that Caitlin Jenner is a "woman."

With Blood Still in the Streets of Paris, New York Times Defends Islam.  Blood still stains the streets of Paris.  France is in a deep state of shock; it is a nation of walking wounded.  A British survivor of the concert at Bataclan tells how ISIS terrorists "tortured wounded victims by slitting their stomachs with knives."  The media isn't reporting these gruesome details.  They are over Paris — not even a week has passed and the New York Times, the Associated Press and the rest of elite herd are promoting and proselytizing for Islam.

New York Times Executive Editor: It's 'Disingenuous' for Carson to Argue Liberal Bias.  Can prominent liberal journalists ever get their brain around the idea that conservatives are sincere and not cynical when they protest liberal media bias?  Ben Carson has repeatedly made the point that his memoirs are being nitpicked at a much higher rate than Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's.  But New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet suggested to Charlie Rose on PBS on November 9 that he doesn't really "believe" that.

The Climate Change Inquisition Begins.  According to The New York Times, its sources "said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science."  See what they did there?  To have a different view of climate science is to "undermine" it because there is no scientific study of the climate except that which they agree with.

Ignoring the Obvious.  [A] front-page story in the New York Times last week dealt with how Success Academy, a high-performing charter school network in New York City's low-income and minority neighborhoods, has been accused of "weeding out weak or difficult students."  The Times' own story opens with an account of a child who was "not following directions," who "threw tantrums," was screaming, threw pencils and refused to go to another classroom for a timeout.  Yet the headline declared that charter schools "Single Out Difficult Students."

Post-'Migrant' France Fails to Live Up to New York Times's Standards.  Just when you think the pages of the New York Times cannot get any more self-parodical, along comes this shiny gem by Pamela Druckerman: [...] Paid!  Free!  No guns!  Birth control!  Abortion!  Health insurance!  And free stuff for illegals, too!  Truly, [France is] a Leftist's paradise.

Another fake hate crime.  Reading a hard copy of the New York Times this morning, I find Monica Davey's story "Suspect is charged in St. Louis church fires." [...] Not wanting to go too far out on a limb, she puts it this way:  "The authorities said Mr. Jackson was black."

Dumbest Global Warming Study Ever Wins Raves From New York Times.  Stunning visuals and melodrama aside, what's really melting faster than a river during summertime is the Times' credibility.  The notion that these "researchers" are doing anything close to collecting data that could predict future melting of Greenland's ice sheet is absurd.  These researchers are taking measurements at a single river.  One.  They claim they can then somehow extrapolate this data into a prediction of the fate of the entire ice sheet.  But thousands and thousands of these summertime rivers appear on the Greenland ice sheet, which is 660,000 square miles in size.  Four times the size of California.  Data from one section of one 60-foot wide river is going to tell us precisely zero about anything related to the ice sheet's future.

Unprecedented Bias.  As a public relations professional who deals with the media every day I am disgusted by the media's intellectual dishonesty in their coverage of the ongoing conflict in Israel.  Journalists have a responsibility to cover issues with accuracy and what we've seen thus far has been an infusion of bias and misinformation. [...] People who consistently read mainstream news sources, such as The New York Times, may be surprised to learn they are not as informed as they think they are.

Clinton's E-mail Cover Is So Full of Holes, Even the NYT NoticedNew York Times' journalists Eric Lipton and Michael S. Schmidt suddenly noticed that Hillary Clinton's explanations surrounding her e-mail scandal have "evolved over time" and wrote up an analysis about it in Wednesday's [10/21/2015] edition.  While it can't be labeled a full takedown, the piece at least notes a pattern of deceit, even if their conciliatory language is an obvious attempt to protect the Democratic candidate.

Can the New York Times Discuss Whether Mohammed's Flying Horse Really Visited the Temple Mount?  So the New York Times lapsed into what has been called Temple Trutherism by trying to deny the existence of the Jewish temples on the Temple Mount. [...] But let's have some equal time here.  The Temple Mount is holy to Jews because of the Temples.  So the New York Times chose to discuss whether the Temples really existed.  It's holy to Muslims because Mohammed supposedly flew there on a flying horse (with a woman's head).  Can we get a discussion of whether that really happened?  Or does the New York Times only find it acceptable to mock Judaism, not Islam?

NYT's 'Conservative' Brooks: Actual Conservatives Are 'Dangerous'.  Those of us who actually watch President Obama on a daily basis recognize the inherent threat he and his supporters represent.  That isn't a false crisis mentality.  That's reality.  Not every comparison to Nazi Germany is justified; most aren't.  But refusing to guard against the possibility of tyranny makes tyranny inevitable.  [David] Brooks says the real problem is those troglodyte conservatives and their hatred for political compromise.

The paper of record shills for a movie that claims to exonerate Dan Rather — against all evidence.
Truth and the New York Times.  [Scroll down]  In the second part, based on documents supposedly from the "personal file" of Bush's commanding officer, Rather reported that Bush had defied an order to take a physical necessary to maintain his flight status and, among other things, thus failed to discharge his military obligations.  The segment was produced and written by Mary Mapes.  In researching the story, Mapes spoke to witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the Texas Air National Guard's personnel needs.  She was told that they needed pilots at the time, and that no influence would have been necessary to secure Bush's admission.  The documents on which Rather based the second segment proved to be fabricated on Microsoft Word in the computer era, not typewritten in the early 1970s by Bush's commanding officer or anyone else.  The content and format of the documents also betrayed their fabrication.  The story began to fall apart within a few hours of its broadcast.  On September 20, 12 days after the broadcast, Rather extended an apology "personally and directly" to viewers for his inability to authenticate the documents.

The NY Times Complains About the Competition.  [Scroll down]  It's a funny thing:  papers like the Times are always telling us about the torrent of financial support for the GOP, yet in virtually every contested election, more money is spent on behalf of the Democrat.  Moreover, with respect to this election cycle, the Times never considers the possibility that more money is flowing into the GOP side because its candidates are more numerous, more diverse and more appealing.  The Democrats have nothing on offer but elderly, warmed-over leftists.

New York Times: [There are] No Israeli Victims Of Palestinian Terrorism.  Why-oh-why do I still read the New York Times?  Am I that much of a masochist?  Here's why. Because those who rely upon it run media/entertainment/publishing empires, corporations, and governments.  These Masters of the Universe do not understand that the articles about Israel and the Muslim world in the Paper of Record are all, essentially, toxic propaganda; to them, it is mother's milk, God's own word.  Verily, it is The Atheist's Bible.  That's why I steel myself every single day.

New York Times Mistates Federal Gun Law, Hillary Gun Record.  The New York Times published a piece Monday [10/5/2015] that misstated federal gun law and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's position on gun control.  In a piece detailing Clinton's new gun control proposals, the paper implied that gun sales made at gun shows or online are different than sales made elsewhere.  "A central issue in Mrs. Clinton's proposals are the background checks on prospective gun buyers, which are required for retailers at stores," New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote in the piece.  "But under federal law, they are not required at gun shows or over the Internet with private sellers."

Deconstructing The New York Times Propaganda On GOP 2016 Race.  The recent NYT article "Party Rules To Streamline Race May Backfire", written by Jonathan Martin, showcases two distinct disconnects:  #1) an actual understanding of what's going on, and #2) the NYT bubble-perspective on the GOP motives.

NYT: Media may have underestimated impact of Hillary e-mail scandal.  No kidding.  For quite a while, the media either downplayed or flat-out ignored Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal, or cast it in terms of the danger of Republican overreach.  The New York Times actually stands out as an exception to this, as they have broken much of the news about this scandal — so much so that Media Matters' chief and Hillary apologist David Brock recently accused them of being "a megaphone for conservative propaganda."

David Brock: NY Times Is a 'Megaphone for Conservative Propaganda'.  David Brock, top attack dog at progressive site Media Matters, is unleashing an attack on a surprising target.  In a forthcoming book titled, "Killing the Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot to Derail Hillary Clinton and Hijack Your Government," Brock alleges the NY Times is out to get Hillary Clinton.  Politico reports Brock accuses NY&Nbsp;Times's senior political editor Carolyn Ryan of having it out for Clinton.  Brock also claims he has spoken to members of the Times's staff who confirmed it.

How To Write A New York Times Op-Ed In Three Easy Steps.  Today we'll talk about how to write a New York Times op-ed in 45 minutes or less.  We all like labor-saving tips!  The main point to keep in mind is that your op-ed is not intended to elucidate, educate or amuse.  These are status pieces meant to strike a pose, signaling that you are a good person.  After reading your op-ed, readers should feel the warm sensation of being superior to other people — those who don't agree with you.

After Clinton Cronies Complain, Big Shakeup at NYTimes.  Ever since the start of the campaign, Hillary Clinton boosters have been complaining about coverage of their candidate in the New York Times.  And today [9/8/2015] the paper announced that Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan is being demoted — or shifting roles! — at the paper. [...] Hillary boosters are publicly connecting what they see as bad coverage with Ryan's new role at the paper.

Another Day, Another Bogus New York Times Attack on Clarence Thomas.  Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.  The New York Times has a long history of publishing misleading negative items about Justice Thomas.  For example, early in Thomas' tenure on the Court, the Times famously described Justice Antonin Scalia as Thomas' "apparent mentor," a cheap shot designed to portray Thomas as an intellectual lightweight.  Yet as we now know, Thomas has been the one influencing Scalia — an influence that Scala himself has repeatedly acknowledged.  Yet the demonstrably false notion of Thomas as Scalia's "sidekick" continues to persist in many quarters of the American left.  I realize that Clarence Thomas' legal views are unpopular among many of the reporters and editors who work at The New York Times.  But their bias against him is no excuse for this sort of specious journalism.

NYT's Barro: 'Massive' Gun Grab Only Way To Impact Violent Crime.  Give Josh Barro credit for candor.  When it comes to guns, the New York Times correspondent makes no bones about the kind of draconian, Second Amendment-defying approach he thinks is necessary.  Forget about expanded background checks or other such measures.  The only way to have a "big impact on violent crime," according to Barro, is to emulate Australia and "really take away massive amounts of guns that people have, reduce the rate of gun ownership substantially."

NY Times fine with 'maternity tourism,' but 'anchor babies' is racist.  The New York Times is pushing back against Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jeb Bush for employing the phrase "anchor babies" when referring to illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S. and giving birth to children who are then automatically granted citizenship.  Both Bush and Trump have used the term in public while campaigning and discussing their positions on immigration policy.  When challenged by reporters who said the term is "offensive," Trump said he would continue to use it and Bush said he was specifically referring to Asian immigrants.

How Political Machines End.  Ross Douthat, writing in the New York Times ruefully writes "I simply do not believe that the Obama Justice Department is going to indict the former secretary of state and Democratic front-runner for mishandling classified information, even if the offenses involved would have sunk a lesser figure's career or landed her in jail."  The observation is almost tantamount to arguing that the rule of law no longer exists; that the political class can literally do whatever it wants.

Iran Deal: 'No Plot to Destroy Israel,' Says New York Times.  The New York Times reports that Iran has "no plot to destroy Israel."  Never mind the fact that Iran's so-called "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has just published a book about how the regime hopes to do exactly that.  Never mind that last year, he tweeted answers to "9 key questions about the elimination of Israel." Never mind that Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the head of the Basij militia of Iran's Reovlutionary Guards, declared in March that "erasing Israel off the map" was "non-negotiable" in the ongoing talks toward a nuclear deal with the west.

Hillary Clinton campaign blasts 'egregious' errors by The New York Times.  Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is accusing The New York Times of "egregious" errors and the "apparent abandonment of standard journalistic practices."  The campaign is angry over a story The Times published one week ago about fallout from Clinton's use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State.  It was originally headlined "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton's Use of Email."  The Times' story, which was based on unnamed sources, quickly unraveled.  Clinton herself was not the target, and the case was not criminal.

Obama v. the Clintons: Proxy War Erupts at the New York Times.  Media folks have long viewed the New York Times as something akin to the Kremlin back in the heyday of its beloved Soviet Union. [...] As careful readers have noticed, there is a proxy war going on inside the Times regarding the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua.  On one side is the Obama administration, most likely in the person of Valerie Jarrett, furiously leaking damaging information about Mrs. Clinton during her disastrous tenure as secretary of state; on the other are the die-hard aging Clinton partisans (the Times once was filled with them) who are quick to rise to her defense.

With its Planned Parenthood editorial, the New York Times repeats a shameful history.  [Scroll down]  Last week, the New York Times editorial board finally responded to week-old revelations of Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing the ways they "crush" human fetuses and use "less crunchy" methods to better preserve their body parts for research.  Despite the fact that a great many of the protestations were moral objections from a variety of religious groups, the New York Times failed to address these concerns at all.  Instead, it focused on the deceptive investigative techniques of those who obtained the video and, in an unintended twist of irony, lauded the use of aborted fetuses to provide researchers with "lifesaving tissue."  For the record, religious pro-life advocates like me are not panicking because we are opposed to organ donation.  We are panicking because we are opposed to taking organs from donors without their consent.

Want longer battery life? Avoid the New York Times and The Grauniad.  Software developer Santeri Paavolainen says the code powering today's websites is taxing browsers so much, it's having a significant impact on power consumption.  The programmer came to that conclusion after a casual examination of news sites including the New Scientist, the BBC, Forbes, The Guardian, and The New York Times, as well as Google and its YouTube video vault.  Paavolainen used an electrical power meter and a 2013 Retina Macbook Pro running on 50-per-cent-brightness with Flash disabled by default to work out the amount of power devoured when browsing various sites.

Proposed Raise for Fast-Food Employees Divides Low-Wage Workers.  Advocates for workers across the country cheered last week when New York became the first state to recommend a $15-an-hour minimum wage specifically for fast-food workers.  But in New York City, the decision has created a stark new divide between low-wage workers who will receive the boost in their paychecks and those who will not.

The Editor says...
The article immediately above (from the NYT) appears on its surface to be about an increase in the minimum wage, but in reality it is a pathetic anecdote about how difficult it is to get by on a minimum wage job.  The article includes no discussion of the merits of the minimum wage per se, just a tear-jerking infomercial for big government.

New York Times tries to set record straight on botched Clinton email story.  Four days after a major error in a story about Hillary Clinton's emails, the New York Times has published an editors' note laying out what went wrong.  The note, published late Monday night, said The Times' initial story was based on "multiple high-level government sources," but acknowledged that as the paper walked back its reporting, corrections were slow to materialize, and substantial alterations "may have left readers with a confused picture."

Hillary Clinton's Worst Fears Are Coming True.  [Scroll down]  The New York Times had revealed [7/23/2015] that two independent inspectors general requested that the Justice Department open a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton for possibly jeopardizing national security by handling classified information on her personal "homebrew" email server.  By morning, however, the Times story had been edited several times.  Struck from the account was the contention that Clinton had "mishandled sensitive government information" and in its place was the claim that "information was mishandled" by... someone.  The lead reporter on that story confessed that the alterations were made at the Clinton campaign's "reasonable" request.

Hillary camp rips NY Times, but email story still dogs her.  Hillary Clinton's email mess has been like a low-grade fever that keeps returning in nastier form.  And the problem is she's never taken the cure — by answering all the outstanding questions — as part of her media-averse approach.  Now the Clinton campaign is on the offense against the New York Times, branding its latest story on the controversy "false" and "discredited."

Fmr NY Times Sr. Reporter Reams Paper over Hillary Email Story.  On Friday [7/24/2015], the Times push-alerted its readers that the Inspector General was opening up a criminal inquiry into whether Clinton discussed classified information on her private, non-secure server while Secretary of State.  This would have constituted a major development in the email story, which until now Clinton had been weathering, and seriously imperiled the frontrunner's campaign.  But no quickly was it published than it began to crumble, as ranking member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said the documents the Times thought it had obtained were merely FOIA requests.  The Times reworded the post at the Clinton campaign's requests, walking back much of the criminal element of the story, and Clinton's direct involvement in the actions described therein.

Hillary Clinton's Vast Non-Right Wing Problem.  Is Hillary Clinton a criminal, one who broke the law when she decided to homebrew her emails and compromise national security?  That's the question Attorney General Loretta Lynch faces, according to a report in The New York Times.  It seems that Clinton may have stored "hundreds of potentially classified emails" on her personal server in possible violation of the law.  That Clinton's move was stupid and bad politics is beyond doubt.  But even worse, it may have been criminal, according to the two Inspectors General who want a Justice Department investigation into the latest Clintonian escapade.

Media Matters Founder Calls on NY Times to Review 'Flawed' Clinton Reports; NYT Hits Back.  Media Matters founder David Brock is once again going after The New York Times for its reporting on Hillary Clinton, and today the Times hit back.  In other instances earlier this year, Brock called out Times reports on how Clinton used private email as Secretary of State, and even said that the Times shouldn't "outsource your journalism to Rupert Murdoch's publishing house."  Brock today [7/24/2015] released a public letter to the Times, calling them out for an "extraordinarily troubling pattern... of flawed reporting" when it comes to Clinton.

Round One.  Something is setting the cat among the pigeons.  The New York Times reported that a "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account" in connection with the mishandling of classified material.  A reproof from the Clinton campaign caused the New York Times to issue what it called a correction.

New York Times Edits Clinton Email Story At Her Request.  The New York Times altered its story about two inspectors general calling for an investigation into whether Democratic Party front-runner Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her secret private email server.  The change to the lede paragraph came at the request of the Clinton campaign, Politico reports.  "It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them," Times reporter Michael Schmidt said, according to Politico.

New York Times alters Clinton email story.  The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night [7/23/2015], but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.  The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."

NY Times changes story about criminal inquiry into Hillary Clinton emails.  How much pull does Hillary Clinton have with the press?  Politico's Dylan Byers noticed a subtle but monumental change to an article in the New York Times this morning [7/24/2015] that altered the thrust of the piece.  The State Department's inspector general is requesting a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's outside email accounts because he suspects that hundreds of classified documents were stored on the server.  Without explanation or notice, the Times changed the focus of the article.

Still Fronting for Fidel at the New York Times.  The left's longtime moral-political blindness to communist dictatorships never ceases to amaze, and few cases have been as consistently and wondrously spectacular as the New York Times, from the likes of Walter Duranty apologizing for Stalin in the 1930s to Herbert Matthews resurrecting Fidel Castro in the 1950s.  As to the latter, the Times has fronted for the Castro regime for a half-century and counting.

NY Times Very Upset Over Planned Parenthood Sting.  [Scroll down]  Of course, the rest of the editorial is all about protecting PP, and attacking the group that shot the videos.  There is no concern that PP is illegally selling aborted baby parts.  No outrage.  Heck, they aren't even upset that PP was using ultrasound to make the abortion cleaner to get the parts.  Aren't abortion on demand proponents against ultrasound for abortion?

More about Planned Parenthood.

New York Times Caves, Places Ted Cruz Book 'A Time for Truth' on Bestseller's ListThe New York Times acknowledged on Wednesday [7/15/2015] that the Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) book, A Time For Truth, belongs on its best-seller list and gave it a no. 7 ranking in nonfiction, after snubbing it and accusing the Cruz campaign of making "strategic bulk purchases."  Harper Collins sent an inquiring email to The New York Times last week after the book's impressive sales were ignored by the paper.

NY Times Taking a Beating In Its Battle With Ted Cruz.  Cruz's new book, A Time for Truth, is a hot seller, apparently #3 among hard cover nonfiction books.  But the [New York] Times refused to list it on its best seller list, claiming that its "sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases."  Both Cruz and his publisher, HarperCollins, have denied the charge, and Cruz has challenged the Times either to provide evidence to back up its claim, or else apologize.

Amazon: 'No evidence' of bulk sales for Ted Cruz book.  The New York Times' refusal to put Ted Cruz's memoir on its best-seller list is once again being called into question — this time by Amazon, the largest Internet retailer in the country.  On Sunday [7/12/2015], an Amazon spokesperson told the On Media blog that the company's sales data showed no evidence of unusual bulk purchase activity for the Texas senator's memoir, casting further doubt on the Times' claim that the book — "A Time for Truth" — had been omitted from its list because sales had been driven by "strategic bulk purchases."

Hmmm... No bulk sales?  Then I wonder what the problem is.
Amazon backs Ted Cruz: We've seen no bulk purchases that should keep him off the NYT bestseller list.  Hard to believe the Times would be so petty in its disdain for Cruz that they'd kick him off the list and then lie about it, especially when, as their spokesman notes, right-wing authors like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter routinely make the cut.  But maybe Cruz is a special case.  Unlike Beck and Coulter, he's an electoral threat.

Cruz demands NY Times apologize for 'lying' about 'A Time for Truth' sales.  Ted Cruz's campaign blasted The New York Times on Friday after it was revealed that the Texas Senator's new book, "A Time for Truth" would be kept off the bestseller list, despite reported sales putting the book at No. 3 on the list.  The GOP presidential contender's book reportedly sold 11,854 copies in its first week, more than "all but two of the Times' bestselling titles," Politico reported Thursday [7/9/2015].

Ted Cruz vs. the New York Times.  Ted Cruz's new book, A Time for Truth, is the third best-selling hardcover nonfiction book in the United States, according to Bookscan.  But when the New York Times's top 20 best seller list came out, A Time for Truth was nowhere to be seen, even though the #1 and #2 books tracked the Bookscan list.

HarperCollins Refutes New York Times Claim That Ted Cruz Tried To Game Bestseller List.  Publishing giant HarperCollins is publicly pushing back against the New York Times' claim that Ted Cruz's new book, A Time For Truth, was disqualified from its bestseller list because sales were limited to "strategic bulk purchases."  In a statement provided to BuzzFeed News, HarperCollins publicity director Tina Andreadis said the company looked into the matter and "found no evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or organization."

New York Times blocks Ted Cruz book from bestseller list. Conspiracy?  Ted Cruz has a new book out — a memoir/campaign manifesto titled "A Time for Truth."  Published on June 30, it sold about 12,000 copies in its first week, which is pretty good nowadays for a tome that doesn't have "shades" or "gray" on its cover.  Despite these sales, The New York Times has told publisher HarperCollins it won't put "Time for Truth" on its nonfiction bestseller list.  The problem isn't overall numbers.  On those, "Time" would rank second or maybe even first.  The issue is that the NYT deems those numbers somewhat squishy.

N.Y. Times keeps Cruz off bestseller list.  The New York Times informed HarperCollins this week that it will not include Ted Cruz's new biography on its forthcoming bestsellers list, despite the fact that the book has sold more copies in its first week than all but two of the Times' bestselling titles, the On Media blog has learned.  Cruz's "A Time For Truth," published on June 30, sold 11,854 copies in its first week, according to Nielsen Bookscan's hardcover sale numbers.  That's more than 18 of the 20 titles that will appear on the bestseller list for the week ending July 4.

Hillary and the Hippie.  Political observers are still speculating over whether the July 4th New York Times' report on the loony biography of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was meant as a hit-job or an encomium.  He is closing in on the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.  Joe Biden is standing in the wings.  Other ambitious Democratic pols are smelling blood.

New York Times Debunked: Scott Walker's 'I'm Not Going Nativist' Conversation Never Happened.  A conversation about immigration between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore, reported on by the New York Times this week, never happened.  "We have spoken with Stephen Moore and the conversation that was reported did not happen and he will tell you that.  I would recommend you reach out to him," Walker spokeswoman AshLee Strong told Breitbart News on Thursday [7/2/2015] in response to an article by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman.

NY Times Loves How Communism Is Good For Cuba's Environment.  Well, yeah, when people have no money, live in 3rd world conditions, sure, that's great! [...] I have to wonder how many who work at the NY Times will forgo their own trips to the beach, either down at the Jersey Shore or along the Long Island coastline.  Oh, and they forget about the deplorable environmental conditions in other Communist countries, such as the Soviet Union and China.  They also do not seem too concerned over the environmental degradation caused by "green" companies like Solyndra.

New York Times: Until Catholics Like Muslims Try To Kill Us, We Will Go On Offending Them.  The New York Times has a consistent position on art that offends religions.
1. Mohammed cartoons will not appear
2. Works mocking Christianity and Judaism will[.]

NYT Passes on Muhammed Cartoons, But Prints Condom Pope.  Honestly, at this point, the only people who fail to see the disconnect between demurring on an image that offends one religion but accepting an image that offends another work for the New York Times.  And while all of them have, at one time or another, answered a question about their double standards with some iteration of "the two scenarios are simply different," the reality is that the NYT knows full well that Catholics, and members of other religions whose methods of conversion have developed beyond the 14th century, are unlikely to show up to their offices with an automatic weapon.  They just don't feel comfortable acknowledging it because it might cost them their heads and a swath of readers who still think CAIR is an active contributor to the cause of American civil rights.

Obama Prefers the Lie to the Truth.  It is worth going back to a story in 1992 to note that the New York Times has not only not changed, but has gotten worse.  At the same time it was fabricating stories about George H. W. Bush, it at least defended abolition of the minimum wage as an economically sound idea.  Today, it is incapable of nothing other than affirming the prejudices of people like Barack Obama.  In the George W. Bush administration, the New York Times was willfully messing up chronologies to make political points.  The list goes on and on.

The Times' and the Clintons' Converging Conflicts of Interest.  The latest revelations to turn up in this mutual backscratching world of the Democrat-Media Complex was reported by The Washington Free Beacon's Alana Goodman, who happens to be a former AIM intern.  "A little-known private foundation controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton donated $100,000 to the New York Times' charitable fund in 2008, the same year the newspaper's editorial page endorsed Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, according to tax documents reviewed" by the Free Beacon, Goodman reports.  Mrs. Clinton received the Times' endorsement in January 2008, over then-candidate Barack Obama. The Times has refused to tell Goodman when in 2008 the donation was made.  Was this donation it made before, or after, the endorsement?  Did one of them affect the other?

Why the Times is obsessed with smearing Marco Rubio.  The presidential race is barely under way, yet The New York Times has already "endorsed" its top choice for character assassination. [...] It's no surprise the liberal paper of record will bash leading GOP contenders.  But two hit jobs in one week on a guy who's at best third in a Republican field of nearly 20?

Marco Rubio, average American.  Marco Rubio bought a bunch of stuff he probably couldn't afford.  Welcome to America.  So The New York Times has pulled together another hit piece — this one insinuating that Rubio, who the newspaper evidently believes is the GOP front-runner, is both a reckless spendthrift and a financial failure.  The story confuses offshore fishing boats with "luxury speedboats" and pickup trucks with SUVs to render a distasteful account of Rubio's financial life.  But what we really learned is that though Rubio is not great with money, the senator from Florida has relatively modest desires, considering his fame.

New York Times' Top Shareholder Is a Clinton Foundation Donor.  Even as the New York Times reports extensively and critically on the Clinton Foundation and its activities during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, as with other news outlets, multiple high-dollar donors to the foundation are associated with the paper, including the Times' top shareholder, Carlos Slim.  Slim, a Mexican telecom tycoon whose net worth of nearly $80 billion makes him the second richest man in the world, became the top shareholder of the New York Times earlier this year after he doubled his shares to take control of 16.8 percent of the company.

'New York Times' Won't Reveal When Clintons Donated.  The New York Times is clamming up about the specific date Bill and Hillary Clinton contributed $100,000 to the paper's charity group in 2008, but denies the donation played a role in its coverage and endorsement of Clinton in the Democratic primaries that year.  The Washington Free Beacon reported on Sunday [6/7/2015] that the Clinton Family Foundation, a little-known philanthropic organization controlled by the Clintons, donated $100,000 to the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund in 2008.  The charity is administered by the paper and run by top brass at the Times Company.

Highlights From the New York Times' 2008 Hillary Clinton Endorsement.  In June 2007, just as the Democratic presidential primary was heating up, Bill and Hillary Clinton wrote a $100,000 check to a New York Times charity group.  In January 2008, the Times editorial board endorsed Hillary over her much trendier rival, Barack Obama.  The endorsement makes for an intriguing read in retrospect.

Who were those "science advisors" behind the NY fracking ban?  Last week we talked about the bombshell EPA report which said that fracking didn't have any demonstrated, systemic effect on ground water quality.  (Well, it was a "bombshell" unless you work at the NY Times, which didn't find that it merited much of a mention.)

The lamest of negotiators.  Could it be that The New York Times is fed up with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama?  The Times — probably the most dogmatically liberal newspaper in the nation — has twice recently reported on its former best friends in strongly critical terms.

Clinton Donated $100K to New York Times Group the Same Year Paper Endorsed Her.  A little-known private foundation controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton donated $100,000 to the New York Times' charitable fund in 2008, the same year the newspaper's editorial page endorsed Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, according to tax documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.  The Clinton Family Foundation, a separate entity from the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, has been the family's vehicle for personal charitable giving since 2001.  It is funded directly by the Clintons and distributes more than $1 million a year to civic and educational causes.

Clinton Foundation Donation Not Publicly Listed by NYTimes.  A $100,000 donation given to a New York Times charity campaign in 2008 by Bill and Hillary Clinton's family foundation is not included in a Times list of large gifts from various other foundations, such as George Soros's charitable foundation.

Jeanette Rubio's main offense? Driving while Latina.  My people have been slandered by The New York Times.  Yes, in a shameless act of what those on the left would call a "micro-aggression" against all Latinas ever pulled over for driving-while-applying-lipstick, the Times has condemned Jeanette Rubio — wife of U.S. senator and Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio — for her driving record.

The New York Times' Rubio Derangement Syndrome.  It took several years of George W. Bush's presidency for the mainstream media to develop full-blown Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), but the New York Times — the MSM's very flagship — seems to have contracted Rubio Derangement Syndrome (RDS) over a year before there is even a Republican nominee, let alone a sitting president.  First the Times exposed Rubio for being some senatorial version of Speed Racer (sorry, Marco, four traffic violations in seventeen years just won't cut it) and now they're after him for the cardinal sin of having difficulty paying off his student loans.

Marco Rubio slams NYT for 'arrogantly' using student loan debt to question financial acumen.  Marco Rubio's campaign fired back at The New York Times over its critical piece on the Florida senator's financial acumen.  The newspaper wrote on Tuesday [6/9/2015] of Mr. Rubio's student loan debt, mortgage, recent retirement savings withdrawals, and "strikingly low savings rate."  The piece comes just days after the newspaper reported on the Florida Republican's history of minor traffic violations.

Financial Expert Quoted in NYT Rubio Hit Job is Obama Donor.  A story in Tuesday's [6/9/2015] New York Times probing Sen. Marco Rubio's (R., Fla) "struggles with finances" during his career quotes a financial expert critical of Rubio who donated money to President Obama.  Harold Evensky, a financial adviser "who reviewed Mr. Rubio's public financial disclosures" at the newspaper's request, donated $500 to Obama in 2007 according to online records, but the Times does not note that in its piece.

Media Bias Jumps the Shark With Marco Rubio 'Luxury Speedboat' Story.  Just how desperate is the mainstream press to cast Sen. Marco Rubio as someone who can't handle his money?  Desperate enough, apparently, to describe a family fishing boat as a "luxury speedboat," which the New York Times did this week in its front page hit piece about Rubio's alleged "history of financial struggles."  That same Times story also portrayed a home Rubio bought — after getting an $800,000 advance on a book — as some sort of mansion in Florida, when it is, in fact, just one home crammed into a cul-de-sac next to many other similarly sized, middle-class dwellings.

Rubio's boat
Even lefty MSM laughing at NY Times story on Rubio 'luxury speedboat'.  Not exactly a cigarette boat.  In fact, exactly the kind of boat you see fishermen using all over Florida, more or less the Ford Focus or Toyota Camry of fishing craft.  The obvious comparison is to John Kerry's yacht, the one he docked in Rhode Island to avoid Massachusetts taxes.


New York Times 'Reporter' Who Can't Tell a 'Luxury Speedboat' from a Fishing Boat Upset that People Think He's an Idiot.  For the second time in a week, the New York Times made an attempt to do some damage and, once again, it was a spectacular failure.  [Michael] Barbaro could have avoided his embarrassment if he'd engaged in the most basic of journalistic activities:  making a phone call.

Media warn Marco Rubio is dangerously middle-class and not wealthy.  The [New York] Times revealed recently that Rubio incurred four traffic tickets over 17 years, not exactly disqualifying events.  Other reports had Rubio and his wife Jeannette spending money to upgrade their Miami home's air conditioning and buy a new refrigerator.  You may remember back in 2007 another freshman senator named Barack Obama suddenly paid off nearly four dozen overdue tickets just before launching his bid to move his family and mother-in-law into the rent-free White House.  No, of course you don't remember that because the media skipped over such inconvenient legal blemishes in its enthusiastic coverage of the "reform" Chicagoan.

NY Times Reporter: Rubio Traffic Ticket Story 'Why People Don't Run for President'.  As part of the Fox News Sunday political panel, New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg attempted to defend her paper's hit piece on Marco Rubio but instead seemed to confirm the backlash against the Times:  "When you run for president, every aspect of your life, and even your spouse's life, is open to public scrutiny.... So this is kind of the game, right?  This is what happens, this is why people don't run for president."

Rubio's 'luxury speedboat' is a fishing boat.  In an effort to showcase Sen. Marco Rubio's history of financial struggles, The New York Times reported Tuesday [6/9/2015] that the Florida Republican had spent "$80,000 for a luxury speedboat" even as he faced outstanding debts.  But while Rubio did indeed spend $80,000 on a boat, the vessel in question is not the glamorous "luxury speedboat" the Times article portrayed.  It is, in fact, an offshore fishing boat.

Democratic Oppo Firm's Fingerprints on NYT Rubio Hit.  The New York Times Friday [6/5/2015] report that Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and his wife Jeanette have been cited 17 times for traffic violations was written after the citations were pulled by liberal opposition research firm American Bridge, according to Miami-Dade County court records.  Records show that each of the citations mentioned by the New York Times were pulled in person by American Bridge operatives on May 26, 2015.

When Biases Collide.  A couple of [New York] Times reporters spent Friday morning [6/5/2015] basking in praise for their "nice scoop" — the less-than-remarkable public knowledge that Marco Rubio was written four traffic tickets over the course of two decades — but, as Brent Scher of the Washington Free Beacon pointed out, neither of the reporters in the byline — Alan Rappeport and Steve Eder — nor the researcher also credited by the Times for the piece — Kitty Bennett — ever accessed the traffic records in question.  But somebody did:  American Bridge, a left-wing activist group, had pulled the records just before the Times piece appeared, and the Times employed some cagey language, with the relevant sentence beginning:  "According to a search of the Miami-Dade and Duval County court dockets... ."  A search?  Yes.  Whose search?  A piece of the news that apparently is not fit to print.

'New York Times' shows its 'gotcha' colors.  So Friday's New York Times contained an enormous scoop — one so important that it was bylined by two reporters, Alan Rappeport and Steve Eder, and a researcher, Kitty Bennett.  The scoop?  That Marco Rubio had some traffic tickets.  Well, actually, only four in 18 years. [...] Er, except that maybe the Times didn't do the digging.  The Washington Free Beacon's Brent Scher reported that the Times likely got the records from a Democratic opposition research firm, American Bridge.  "Records show that each of the citations mentioned by the New York Times were pulled in person by American Bridge operatives on May 26, 2015. ... Neither of the reporters, Alan Rappeport and Steve Eder, appeared on the docket records for any of the traffic citations for Rubio and his wife.  An additional researcher credited in the New York Times, Kitty Bennett, also does not appear on any of the court records."

Times Hit Piece Ignores Scott Walker's Success.  The article is more sophisticated than the awkward and error-filled attempted hit on Walker by Gail Collins from the Times editorial page, who blamed Walker for layoffs that took place before he had been elected.  And it avoids the kind of over-the-top claims that require corrections.  But the piece nonetheless makes clear that its authors believe Walker's views are far out of the mainstream and that he owes his success to wealthy conservatives eager to exploit a simpleton as the vessel for their ideological goals.

Surprise! NYT's Embarrassing Rubio Hit Piece Came From Democratic Super PAC.  A reporter at the Washington Free Beacon discovered that The New York Times' embarrassing story attacking Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio for traffic violations was almost certainly planted by a Democratic super PAC. [...] Missing from the headline is the important context that the candidate himself only had four violations to his name, over the span of two decades.

Media: Never Mind Hillary's Scandals, Let's Talk About Marco Rubio's Wife's Driving Habits.  Remember how the media left Barack Obama completely unvetted, ignoring even the most damaging stories from his past, while a squirming mass of reporters fought over every scrap of trash in the dumpster behind Sarah Palin's house?  It's happening again.  For some reason, the New York Times decided to devote two reporters to the urgent task of reviewing Senator and presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio's driving record over the past 18 years.  And they still couldn't make much of a story about it, so they decided to add his wife's record to the story.

New York Times ignored Jonathan Gruber bombshell.  The New York Times had first shot in 2014 at the video of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber mocking the "stupidity of the American voter," but took a pass.  Though the Times eventually followed up on reports of the MIT economist's now-infamous remarks on the passage of the Affordable Care Act, it did so only after they had generated a national scandal.  Times' reporter Robert Pear was the "first real journalist" that tipster Rich Weinstein contacted with the newly unearthed footage, he told the Washington Examiner.

Two Conservative Jewish Women are Driving the Left Insane.  This month the left lost its mind over Ayelet Shaked.  The daughter of an Iraqi Jewish immigrant, Ayelet Shaked was an infantry instructor who worked for Israel's elite Golani Brigade and a computer scientist who worked for Texas Instruments.  Now she's a mother of two married to a former fighter pilot.  She's also Israel's new Justice Minister.  The New York Times compared her to Michele Bachmann and had her quoting Ayn Rand.  The Financial Times compared her to Sarah Palin.  So did Italian, Spanish and Norwegian media outlets.  These analogies are not based on anything except the gender and politics of all three women.  They are shorthand signals, telling liberal readers to hate Ayelet Shaked just as they hated Palin and Bachmann.

GOP Exposes Second Hillary Clinton Email Address NY Times Ignored.  The New York Times has published two articles on the relationship between former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton and longtime confidant Sidney Blumenthal.  It has been known for some time that Blumenthal, barred by the Obama White House from working at State, nevertheless ran "a secret, private intelligence network" for Mrs. Clinton's benefit, "apart from the State Department's own Bureau of Intelligence and Research."

There's a war on free speech — and radical Islam is winning.  The New York Times ran an editorial distinguishing between "free speech" and "hate speech" writing that the event "was not really about free speech.  It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom."  CNN's Chris Cuomo wrote on Twitter that "hate speech is excluded from protection," later claiming it was a "clumsy tweet."  Fox's Bill O'Reilly got into the act, saying the organizers of the event "spurred a violent incident."  Alia Salem, executive director of the Dallas and Fort Worth chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, floated restrictions on the First Amendment freedoms, stating, according to the New York Times, that, "The discussion we have to have is:  When does free speech become hate speech, and when does hate speech become incitement to violence?"

Times Editors Hate Geller's 'Hate Speech' and Love Others' 'Free Speech'.  Yesterday, the New York Times editorial page informed us of the fine distinctions between "free speech" and "hate speech."  We are instructed that "the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech.  It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred."  It turns out that the difference is what lies in the heart of the creator.  And the Times knows what's in the heart of the creator.  The cartoons of Charlie Hebdo, which lost a dozen employees when jihadists sprang into their office with machine guns in an incident that later evolved from an attack on ideas to an attack on Jews, are according to the Times, worthy of defense because the publication "has always been graphic satires of politicians and religions, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim."

The New York Times Loves Blasphemy, Except When It Targets Muslims.  The New York Times editorial board tore into the nearly-murdered organizers of the Garland, Texas "Draw Mohammad" event Wednesday [5/6/2015], calling it "hate speech" and "an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom."  "Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism," the Times editorial reads.  "As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash."

New York Times: Not Entirely Clear What Motivated Mohammed Cartoon Gunmen.  Completely and utterly unclear what might have led two devout Muslims to try and kill cartoonists drawing Mohammed.  It's not one of those obvious things like plastic bottles destroying the planet or all the problems in the Middle East being caused by the Jews.  This is a great big mystery which we may never solve.  Was it Global Warming?  Or maybe some of that airborne PTSD?  Maybe it was economic inequality.

More about The Islamic terrorist attack in Garland, Texas.

NY Times Blamed Reagan/Bush for LA Riots, But No Blame in Baltimore.  Is President Obama responsible for the Baltimore riots?  If you take a look at how The New York Times portrayed the reaction to the Los Angeles riots of 1992, apparently so. [...] Today, as the events in Baltimore unfold — now with formal charges including murder brought against six Baltimore cops — there is one striking aspect that is not present as it was in Los Angeles.  That would be blaming the President of the United States.  Yes, that's right.  As Los Angeles burned, the media was quick to finger the real culprit as then-incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush.  Not to mention his predecessor, Ronald Reagan — then four years gone from the White House.

Iran's Foreign Minister Publishes Op-ed in NYTimes.  Continuing its tradition of providing a propaganda platform for America's enemies, the New York Times has published an op-ed by Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif in which he demands that the United States choose "between cooperation and confrontation, between negotiations and grandstanding, and between agreement and coercion."  Enjoying the freedom of expression his government denies to its opponents, Zarif argues that the West should work with it toward regional peace.

NY Times puzzled over 'disappearance' of 1.5 million black men.  Homicide plays a large role.  But what causes homicide?  Is it all the racist white policemen shooting black men in the back?  As nearly all of us know, most black homicides result from black-on-black crime.  The New York Times knows this, too, but to go the final step, and tell why so many black people are dying, is something its editors and reporters have a curious lack of interest in exploring.  And you'll find no one marching in Ferguson, Missouri or anywhere else acting out in outrage about this.  The other large cause is "incarceration."  Homicide.  Incarceration.  The Times throws these nouns out there, as if they were autonomous beasts with their own minds who gobble up black men on their own.

The New York Times doesn't have a clue about the meaning of the Second Amendment.  [Quoting Noah Webster:]  ["]Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.["]

The nation's most embarrassing editorial board humiliates itself once again.  If you're in the market for overwrought hyperbole designed to overcompensate for a lack of substance, The New York Times has you covered.  The Times editorial board is many things, but cutting edge arbiters of cultural phenomena is not one of them.  Take, for example, their latest criticism of Republicans.  Get this:  They're racist.  But The Times is warning that what was once the GOP's "brutal racism" toward the president has evolved into a new, more insidious form of racially inspired criticism that is subtler than its previous incarnation.  You might call it "dog whistle" racism.  At least, that's what MSNBC took to calling it at least three times per hour over the course of the entire 2012 presidential election cycle.

New York Times fears Netanyahu demands will cost Iranian jobs.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "unworkable" demands on Iran threaten not only to scuttle a potential nuclear deal between Washington, D.C., and Tehran but may also lead to job loss in the Islamic republic, the New York Times editorial board warned this week.  One of Netanyahu's supposedly "unrealistic" demands regarding the pending nuclear agreement calls for Iran to shutter its underground enrichment facility at Fordo.  For the Times editors, this is unreasonable.

New York Times Tries to Play the Race Card, Rewrite History.  In its lead editorial Sunday [4/12/2015], the New York Times plays the race card, accusing Republicans of criticizing President Barack Obama's foreign policy because he is black.  The editors, like many on the left, refuse to acknowledge that it is Obama's own radical policies, and imperious style, that led to the backlash that delivered Congress to the opposition in the first place.  However, since the "paper of record" attempts to rewrite history to back up its claims, the editorial is worth deconstructing.

NYT's editorial on NRA convention as accurate as you'd expect.  One can imagine that the New York Times editorial board had practically leaped with delight when they thought they'd found hypocrisy and irony in the NRA convention show.  Their op-ed for today practically cackles with glee as they excoriate the premier gun-rights group for barring working weapons from their annual gathering.  The problems with it start in the lead paragraph — indeed, in the very first sentence.

Kansas Tries to Stamp Out Abortion.  During the past four years, the state of Kansas has become ground zero in the war to criminalize all abortions, and in the process to remove a woman's ability to control what happens in her own body.

The Editor says...
I'll state my rebuttal in the simplest terms, so that even the editors of the New York Times can understand it:  Abortion isn't about what a woman does with her own body, it's about killing babies.  Abortion is homicide because a baby is a separate person that must necessarily grow inside a woman's body.  The position taken by the New York Times (in the one-sentence excerpt above) is like saying it's okay for me to murder my dinner guests because I have control over what happens in my house.

NYT Writer: Christians 'Must Be Made' to Embrace Gay Lifestyle.  In the wake of the Indiana donnybrook over religious liberty, which somehow was transformed overnight into a question of gay rights, it couldn't be long before the New York Times weighed in against Christians.  Yet who could have expected the draconian measures the Times would propose?  Either Christians fully embrace the gay lifestyle, or you will be coerced into doing so.

NYTimes Hypocrisy: It Denounces Corporate Speech in Citizens United, Cheers When Against Indiana.  When the issue was the Citizens United ruling and the resulting ability of corporations to directly spend money on political advertising, well the Times worried about the supposed corrupting influence of the practice and the drowning out of the common man's voice, which is not amplified by hordes of corporate cash. But fast-forward to this week and it's a far different story.

Obama's Strategy on Climate Change, Part of Global Deal, Is Revealed.  The White House on Tuesday [3/31/2015] introduced President Obama's blueprint for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by nearly a third over the next decade. [...] The United States and China are the world's two largest greenhouse gas polluters.

The Editor says...
The article immediately above appears in the New York Times, and it reeks with left-wing bias.  First of all, the reduction of CO2 emissions by "nearly a third" in this country would require us to return to the 18th century.  Second, CO2 is plant food.  It is not a pollutant.  We should inject CO2 into the atmosphere at every opportunity, because it makes the crops and the rain forests grow better.

New York Times worried about Bergdahl getting a job.  The New York Times is worried.  Not about everyday Americans getting jobs under the corrupt Obama regime, but about deserter Bowe Bergdahl's job prospects.

NYT: 'Jealous,' 'Hoarding' Americans Should Let In 11 Million Immigrants Annually.  The United States should absorb as many as 11 million immigrants each year into its economy, NPR "Planet Money" founder Adam Davidson writes in The New York Times Magazine.  "Few of us are calling for the thing that basic economic analysis shows would benefit nearly all of us:  radically open borders," he writes.  His proposal would double the current U.S. population in only 29 years to over 637 million people.

Van Susteren Slams NY Times Story on Clinton Emails.  Ever-blogging Fox News anchor Greta van Susteren called out the New York Times Monday morning [3/23/2015] for its exclusive use of anonymous sources in an article about Hillary Clinton's emails.  The article was by Michael Schmidt, who broke the story of Clinton's use of a personal email account several weeks ago.  This morning the Times published a follow-up on the 300 emails Clinton had submitted to the House Select Committee on Benghazi.  This collection first alerted the committee to existence of the personal email account.  The committee now plans to subpoena more.

NY Times Public Editor Retracts Criticism of Ferguson ReportingNew York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan retracted her criticisms over the Times' early Ferguson reporting Monday morning [3/23/2015], calling her initial critique "substantially flawed."  Sullivan's retraction follows the Department of Justice's report earlier this month essentially vindicating officer Darren Wilson's side of the story in the shooting of Michael Brown.  The report concluded that Brown did not have his hands raised when Wilson shot him, undercutting the subsequent "hands up, don't shoot" slogan adopted by Ferguson protesters.  Sullivan's is the second retraction, after Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart retracted his earlier columns on Ferguson last week.

NYTs Caught Manipulating Story That Didn't Fit Their Narrative.  In a story published Monday [3/16/2015], The New York Times reported online that family members of Jeffrey Williams, the 20 year-old man suspected of shooting and wounding two Ferguson police officers, confirmed that Williams had been one of the Ferguson protesters.  This morning, at the same url, that crucial piece of news disappeared from the story.  No update or editor's note explained the removal (that has now been returned).

Of Course Obama Wants to Take Hillary Down.  We can believe Ed Klein's sources claiming Valerie Jarrett is the White House point woman for the destruction of Hillary Clinton.  Evidence:  It was the New York Times which broke the story.  The Democratic press does not eat its own, ever.  Yet here was the Gray Lady, setting the headlines for Drudge.  People asked how Hillary could have been so stupid.  The answer is that in the normal course of mainstream reporting, there is no Democrat crime too large for the press to cover up.  She knew she was perfectly safe. [...] To make it even clearer that something was going on behind the scenes:  the fact that Secretary of State Clinton was using private email had come out in the news two years ago.  Raking up an old story detrimental to their team is not normally what the New York Times does.  The Times followed the emerging scandal with article after article.  They didn't just want to embarrass Hillary, they were out to destroy her.

Could Obama Bypass the Supreme Court?  It is time to talk about President Obama's contingency plan for health care.  The Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the provision of tax credits on federal insurance exchanges.  While the legal issues are dry lawyers' fare — how to interpret several interconnected phrases of the Affordable Care Act — the practical stakes are high.  The government estimates that millions of Americans will be left without affordable health insurance if it loses.

The Editor says...
The New York Times, official newsletter of the Democratic Party, is trying to sound the alarm about the awful things that will happen in this country after socialized medicine is outlawed.  "Millions" is not a very accurate estimate of the number of people affected.  Medical insurance is not a right, and whether or not it is a necessity or a priority is up to the individual, not the government.

White House, NYT leave Bushes out of lead photos from Selma march.  The decision by The New York Times to run a front-page image on Sunday of President Obama — and family — leading a march to mark the 50th anniversary of the Selma civil rights clashes, while leaving out of the image former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura, apparently was mirrored in the "official White House photo" of the event.  The official White House blog's Sunday entry on the Alabama march led with a similar image, focusing on Obama and his family, as well as civil rights figures, but leaving out the Bushes.

Few say Obama has helped race relations, as 2 presidents (not 1) mark Selma.  The peaceful scene Saturday [2/7/2015] was designed to display unity in the face of ongoing racial difficulties, often involving police force.  The photo [in this article] shows the actual scene as modern-day marchers joined hands and arms in unity and hope.  Both in shirt-sleeves, the last two presidents — Obama and George W. Bush with wife Laura — set out at the head of some 10,000 supporters.  But consumers of the weekend news could be excused if they did not realize the two-term 43rd president was present at the historic memorial.

New York Times Crops Selma Picture To Remove President George W Bush.  Yesterday Debbie Wasserman Schultz cropped a picture of President Obama on stage to remove the image of President George W Bush also being present.  The first reason was obvious, bias.  However, the second reason was more subtle — the absence of President Clinton and Hillary.  Today [3/8/2015] the New York Times cropped out President Bush for the same reason.

Just to be fair, here is the NYT's rebuttal:
'There Was No Crop' of Selma Photograph.  Many readers wrote to me over the weekend, upset that a front-page photo of President Obama and his family leading a commemorative march in Selma, Ala., did not include former president George W. Bush and his wife, Laura.  The Bushes were also in the front line of marchers.  Twitter was ablaze with criticism of The Times, many conservative news organizations wrote critical articles — and my email inbox overflowed.  Some readers said they were canceling their Times subscriptions.  Others were simply disappointed.

Brooks: Netanyahu Address To Congress a 'Political Disaster,' 'Substantive Disaster' For Israel.  On Friday's [2/27/2015] "NewsHour" on PBS, New York Times columnist David Brooks was critical of the notion of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing a joint session of Congress due to the politicization of the state of Israel.  "I think it's a political disaster," Brooks said.

NYT 'Legal Scholar' in Support of Obama Executive Amnesty Was His Harvard Law Professor.  In her story about the ruling — and the injunction that federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued ordering the immediate halting of the implementation of Obama's amnesty — New York Times reporter Julia Preston argued that Hanen's ruling would be "quickly suspended" by a higher court.  "Some legal scholars said any order by Judge Hanen to halt the president's actions would be quickly suspended by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans," Preston wrote.  Preston, however, only quoted one legal scholar:  Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard.

Iraq Had WMDs After All.  Until now, I have been willing to go along with the conventional wisdom that Iraq did not possess significant stockpiles of WMDs prior to the 2003 war.  Leftover chemical munitions were discovered here and there during and after the invasion, but it was plausible to think that they were odds and ends, not part of a usable stockpile subject to the regime's control.  Today, however, the New York Times dropped a bombshell:  in the aftermath of the Iraq war, the CIA purchased from an unidentified intermediary no fewer than 400 Borak warheads filled with sarin, a deadly nerve gas.

NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all.  President Bush "lied" about Iraq's WMDs — thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated by the likes of Ron Fournier and Jon Stewart as a kind of progressive catechism.  Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

NYT Columnist Blames Scott Walker for Teacher Layoffs That Occurred Before He Was Governor.  There are two problems in this section of Collins's column:  First, she accuses Walker of dishonesty, but she's just quibbling over semantics.  Is it really inaccurate to describe someone named an "outstanding first-year teacher" by the Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English as a "teacher of the year" for short? [...] Walker has been telling this story for four years, and no one thought his description of Sampson was dishonest until Gail Collins heard about it.

NYT Defends Houthis: 'Very Reassuring' that 'Death to America' Slogan Not Meant Literally.  The Yemeni rebels, the Houthis, have taken control of the capital, including the airport and the United States embassy.  The Houthis forced US Marines leaving the country to leave them their weapons.  The rebels have also seized abandoned vehicles once used by US officials.  New York Times reporter Rod Nordland met with the Houthis who reassured him that they were just keeping US vehicles for safekeeping.

Ted Kennedy Institute Gushed Over By NYT, But [the] Bush Library [is] a 'Disturbing' Threat to 'Academic Freedom'.  Ted Kennedy, the late liberal "Lion of the Senate" (as he's invariably called) had his hugely exaggerated bipartisan reputation polished to a gleam in a story in the New York Times Arts section by Robin Pogrebin, "In the Mold of a Senator Who Bartered — Edward M. Kennedy Institute Aims to Teach Collaboration."  Next month the institute will open in Boston as a legacy of the Massachusetts senator who died in 2009.  Yet the George W. Bush Presidential Library was considered by the Times "disturbing" and a possible threat to academic freedom when it opened.

Annals of Dhimmitude: New York Times Celebrates Early America's 'Islamic Roots'.  If you ever doubted for a moment that the Gray Lady has become a crack whore for the Obama administration, put your doubts aside.

The New York Times Commits One of Its Funniest Blunders Ever.  [Scroll down]  The paper eventually realized its mistake and corrected it, although without acknowledging the correction.  I suppose it was just too embarrassing.  You can see how this kind of thing might happen; people occasionally have such synapse failures.  But some people expect more from the Times editorial board.  (I don't, but some others do.)  In fact, the Times editorial board is no better than, or different from, a minor-league left wing blogger.  Actually, that's where they get a lot of their material.

Army of 'fact checkers' and 'proof readers' at NY Times fails again.  How out of touch with the rest of the country are employees of the New York Times?  An editorial skewering Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was a typical Times hit piece on a potentially dangerous opponent in 2016 — typical except earlier versions of the editorial referred to Mr. Walker as "Mr. Scott." [...] The governor of Wisconsin is just not imporant enough to register on the Times' radar.  Besides, he's a Republican.  Those two factors make errors like "Mr. Scott" possible.

An Epic Fail from the New York Times.  New York governor Andrew Cuomo, not content with President Obama's proposal to make junior colleges free, recently introduced his own plan for New York to essentially waive the first two years of student debt payments for college graduates living in the state. [...] But what's most interesting about this initiative isn't in the nuts and bolts of its implementation or the political prospects for its passage:  It's how the New York Times chose to cover it — unrelentingly positive, of course, capped with a profile of a recent college graduate meant to typify the plight of the debt-laden young professional.

The Most Dishonest Year on Record.  Last week, according to our crackerjack mainstream media, NASA announced that 2014 was the hottest year, like, ever.  No, really.  The New York Times began its report with: "Last year was the hottest in earth's recorded history."  Well, not really.  As we're about to see, this is a claim that dissolves on contact with actual science.  But that didn't stop the press from running with it.

Was 2014 Really the Warmest Year Ever?  The New York Times features one of the most misleading headlines ever: "2014 Was the Warmest Year Ever Recorded on Earth."  The first paragraph drives the hysteria home: [...] It would be hard to pack more misinformation into a single sentence.  First, the Times headline, and countless others like it, convey the impression that 2014 was the hottest year ever!  But note the paper's reference to "recorded history."  If you keep reading, you see that "recorded history" goes back only to 1880.  But in 1880, the Little Ice Age had just ended, and the Earth was beginning to warm after several hundred years in the deep freeze.  So, yes, temperatures are a little warmer now than they were then — happily.  Indeed, the Earth may still be recovering to more average temperature levels after the Little Ice Age.

NYT Suggests No Place for Christians in Positions of Authority.  Apparently, The New York Times is in favor of faith in the public square — if the purpose is to mock it.  Editors at the Times poured gasoline on the fire of Atlanta's latest controversy with an editorial that should shock even their most liberal readers.  Just when you thought the media couldn't sink any lower, the Times takes on the same First Amendment that gives it the freedom to print these vicious attacks on Christians.  In a stunning column yesterday [1/15/2015], the newspaper argues that men and women of faith have no place in public management of any kind.

Carlos Slim Is About to Be Top New York Times Shareholder.  Billionaire Carlos Slim is poised to become the largest shareholder in the New York Times Co. (NYT) after already almost doubling his money from an investment that helped the newspaper get through the financial crisis.  Slim, who has amassed a $73 billion fortune by spotting depressed valuations, loaned $250 million to Times Co. in January 2009.

New York Times Endorses Thought Crimes.  Kelvin Cochran, the Fire Chief of Atlanta, published a book (with permission from the Ethics Office for the City of Atlanta), in which he expressed his Christian faith on sex, marriage, and life. For that, the New York Times says he included "virulent anti-gay views."  Actually, Cochran endorsed orthodox Christian views.  He was fired more than a year after the book came out.  A retiring lesbian fire captain suddenly felt brave enough to complain.  The Mayor, needed urban, white liberals for his next election threw the Fire Chief under the bus. [...] It does not matter that there is no evidence of discrimination.  His thoughts preclude him from his job.

NY Times Editor: Charlie Hebdo Cartoons 'Innately Offensive' to Muslims.  The New York Times published two stories today about the latest cartoon cover of Charlie Hebdo, but still refuses to print the cartoon, saying it is needlessly offensive to Muslims.  In a story titled, "New Charlie Hebdo Cover Creates New Questions for U.S. News Media," editor Dean Baquet says the image is "innately offensive" to Muslims.

The Official Apologist for Murder and Terror of The New York Times: Nicholas Kristof.  On the day when journalists were massacred in Paris, while blood still ran wet where they had fallen, and as eye witnesses described the killers' shouts of "Allahu Akbar" — "Allah is great" — the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof asked the world not to judge the killers too quickly:  most urgently, he said, don't jump to the conclusion they are Muslims.  Really?  Even when they sounded the Muslim prayer?  Even when they called their deeds, loud and clear in the streets of Paris, "vengeance for the Prophet"?

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd self-destructs.  It was absurd and petty.  But what we didn't know at the time was that it was also a perfect case of projection.

NYT gets weepy over cop-killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley.  He was a victim! The man who cold-bloodedly shot Officers Ramos and Liu gets a shocking amount of sympathy and understanding from the New York Times today.  The three (!) writers assigned to the story, Kim Barker, Mosi Secret and Richard Fausset present us such empathy as:  ["]In reality, Mr. Brinsley's short life was a series of disappointments.[..."]

Will the Last Employee of the NY Times Please Turn Out the Lights?  We have long ripped the New York Times as the ultimate in biased, hard-left news coverage.  But as red ink has compelled one layoff after another, and the paper's management has become ever more comically inept, the situation has deteriorated.  The New York Times now lacks the basic competence to put out a newspaper.

As I Was Saying About That 'Torture' Report.  It's basically a sham, a false-flag operation with the hapless Dianne Feinstein as the designed drop-box, designed to make the Bush administration look bad, the Democrats look "moral" (stop laughing) and the White House look innocent (no, really, stop laughing).  For proof, you need look no further than this glowing tale of the bond between two men as lovingly depicted by the Chief Stenographers of the Obama administration, the New York Times: [...]

NYTimes Fails to Disclose Clinton Paid for Interviews About Administration.  In a five year span, the William J Clinton Foundation gave five grants totaling $851,250 to the University of Virginia's Miller Center.  One year in particular, 2007, the Clinton gift was specifically marked:  "Oral history project of Clinton presidency."  Well, today the New York Times has a front page feature on the newly released oral history project about the Clinton presidency.  The one the Clintons helped pay for.  But nowhere in the 2,600 word piece do Times writers Amy Chozick (who is on the Clinton beat) and Peter Baker (longtime White House reporter) disclose the obvious conflict of interest.

Finding Meaning in Ferguson.  The New York Times has now pronounced on the "meaning of the Ferguson riots."  A more perfect example of what the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "defining deviancy down" would be hard to find.  The Times' editorial encapsulates the elite narrative around the fatal police shooting of unarmed Michael Brown last August, and the mayhem that twice followed that shooting.  Unfortunately, the editorial is also a harbinger of the poisonous anti-police ideology that will drive law-enforcement policy under the remainder of the Obama administration.

Gruber, the Grey Lady, and Gullibility.  [Scroll down]  Finally, on Nov. 18 (a day earlier online), the Grey Lady cleared her throat and delivered a huffy editorial.  It included nearly as many lies as words:  [For example,] Republicans "were well aware of what was in the bills."  This was not even true of earlier versions, but certainly not of the 11,000-page final version, which had to be passed so we could find what was in it.  In a media-orchestrated campaign, it was hustled through the House as if the health care system would come crashing to the ground in hours if nothing were done.

When the Forces of Media Disruption Hit Home.  Right now, The New York Times is in the middle of a round of buyouts in an effort to cut 100 positions, to stretch existing revenue over a smaller cost base.  The packages are generous — three weeks of salary for every year worked for union employees — and those who have been at the newspaper for at least 20 years are eligible for an additional payout of 35 percent of the total severance.  Buying out those folks — layoffs will follow if the goal of 100 jobs is not met — also allows the organization to invest in new technologies and the people who build them.

A Cornucopia of New York Times Thanksgiving Bias: Remember Bush's 'Fake Turkey'?  Perhaps the silliest and most biased Thanksgiving commentary came during the heat of the 2008 campaign, when the Times and the rest of the media was finding new and inventive ways to mock GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.  A post from the paper's former editorial page blog, "A Sarah Palin Thanksgiving," was almost a parody of liberal prissiness.

New York Times responds to criticism about Darren Wilson's address.  On Monday [11/24/2014], the [New York] Times published a scoop by Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson reporting that Wilson had married fellow officer Barbara Spradling in a "quiet wedding" last month.  It noted that the two "own a home together" and identified the town and the name of the street.  Breitbart's John Nolte writes, "the New York Times had no qualms whatsoever about publishing almost all the information needed for Officer Darren Wilson's enemies to track him and his wife down at home."  Other outlets, including the New York Post and Fox News, have highlighted the newspaper's decision.  "If anything happens to that man, his family or that home, I hold them — the culpability is with [the New York Times]," said Fox News's Sean Hannity.

New York Times Publishes Darren Wilson's Address Info.  The New York Times has posted a correction to the story:  "An earlier version of this post included a photograph that contained information that should not have been made public.  The image has been removed."  However, the "information that should not have been made public," in the Times' view, is not the name of the street where Officer Wilson's home is located.  The story still contains that information.  The Times has merely removed the photo of Wilson's marriage license from the article.

The Big Money Behind the Push for an Immigration Overhaul.  When President Obama announces major changes to the nation's immigration enforcement system as early as next week, his decision will partly be a result of a yearslong [sic] campaign of pressure by immigrant rights groups, which have grown from a cluster of lobbying organizations into a national force.  A vital part of that expansion has involved money:  major donations from some of the nation's wealthiest liberal foundations, [...]

The Editor says...
Yes, this article came from the New York Times, and was written by a professional.  Even so, I challenge you to show me the dictionary that omits the hyphen from "years-long."  And when I say dictionary, I mean a dusty old book that can't be changed on a whim by a committee, like the alleged dictionary your smart phone coughs up on demand.

Spinning for Hillary.  In the old Soviet Union, Kremlinologists would read the state party newspaper Pravda not so much for the news it contained, but to glean what the commissars wanted readers to believe the commissars were thinking.  The closest we have to that in America is the New York Times.

The Great (and Deliberate) "Typo" Lie.  Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the King v. Burwell challenge to the Federal subsidies in Obamacare, the defenders of the law are busy once again trying to trot the deliberate and intentional lie that the provision in Obamacare that limits the subsidies to those who are on "State" exchanges is a "typo" and that clearly Congress meant to include all exchange customers in the subsidies provision.  Paul Krugman, who is even worse at being a lawyer than he is at being an economist, trotted out a representative sample of this patent dishonesty yesterday [11/9/2014] in the New York Times.

When You've Lost the New York Times....  Even the New York Times is starting to figure out that Obama and his roving clownshow of an administration is simply in over its head.

NYT's Frank Bruni Wants You To Get Right With God, Er, 'Science'.  In recent news coverage of the Ebola virus, I noticed that reporters tended to use the word "science" the way some people refer to Jesus. [...] Take this Frank Bruni column.  (Please!)  OK, let's all go through it together.  It's headlined "Sinners, Meet Jesus," no, wait, it's "Republicans, Meet Science."  It begins with his frustration that yet another passionate warning from the UN about climate weirding failed to yield a worldwide turn toward progressive policies.  The phrase "science" is used 11 times in the typically painful-to-read column.  What I notice about the uses is how well they could be switched out with Jesus with little or no changes to the surrounding words

What could be simpler?  If you're about to lose an election, cancel it!
Midterm elections trigger an anti-democracy spasm on the Left.  A GOP takeover of the Senate is by no means guaranteed, but many on the Left are already considering extreme measures to counteract a Republican-controlled Congress.  Basically, the Left is deciding this week that democracy isn't really that great.  The New York Times runs an op-ed by a Duke professor and student today shouting "Cancel the Midterms," in part because they are "almost certain to create greater partisan divisions, increase gridlock and render governance of our complex nation even more difficult."

The New York Times' 'Cancel the Midterms' Rant Is a Call for Monarchy.  What [...] is going on at Duke University that a professor of public policy, drawing on the hard-won wisdom of a junior, could write a New York Times op-ed piece that lacks even a junior-high civics-class familiarity with the U.S. Constitution?  And who's minding the rear gate at the Grey Lady's opinion section that the paper would publish something so shoddy?  You'll be asking yourself these and other questions after reading "Cancel the Midterms," a passionate call to return the former (and future?) British colonies in America to a more kingly state.  The piece is by Duke professor David Schanzer and student Jay Sullivan (2016).

The Love Affair With Obamacare.  Americans love Obamacare, the New York Times propagandizes today.  It's not the only media outfit running with this story today, suggesting a coordinated campaign effort a week before the election.  According to the New York Times, it is too soon to tell if Obamacare is working, except with the young.  There, Obamacare seems to be working.  But, here's the kicker.  With the Obama Administration claiming Obamacare would reduce costs, the New York Times finds it only has at the margins.  The paper also speculates that the exchanges will work better next year.  And, most importantly, the paper has to admit Obamacare has not been as affordable as promised.

Sorry, New York Times: ObamaCare Is Not Working.  The New York Times on Monday featured a huge news package claiming that ObamaCare is delivering on all its main promises. But the Bible of the liberal press has badly misled its flock.  'After a year fully in place," the Times story begins, "the Affordable Care Act has largely succeeded in delivering on President Obama's main promises."  So case closed, right?  After all, a team of New York Times "reporters and data researchers" came to that conclusion.  In a word, no.  To claim success, the Times gets things wrong or ignores the law's most glaring failures.

NY Times Triples-Down as Communist Mouthpiece.  The past 10 days have seen three hysterical editorials from the New York Times pleading for a U.S. economic lifeline to the Castro brothers' terror-sponsoring regime (i.e. to end the so-called embargo).  It's the economy, stupid — Venezuela's that is.  Those plummeting oil prices (20% in the past few months) are playing havoc with the Cuban colony's already-rotten economy.  Venezuelan subsidies to Cuba last year, mostly in the form of essentially free oil, were estimated to total $10 billion.  That's more than double what the Soviets used to send.

You Don't Say, New York Times.  Up until yesterday's attack in Canada these things were classified as "workplace violence," or by some other euphemism.  Now, we learn that it is "extremism" that is behind the attacks.  Progress of a sort.  Next question for the Times:  What kind of extremism are we talking about here?

NYT Editorial Board Shakes Fist at the Heavens.  It's rare I encourage NRO readers to check out a New York Times editorial, but this one is too delicious.  The Times is furious at Democratic Senate candidates for their refusal to embrace Barack Obama.

Predatory Journalism at the New York Times.  The New York Times is again on the warpath against what it calls "predatory lending."  Just what is predatory lending?  It is lending that charges a higher interest rate than people like those at the New York Times approve of.

The New York Times Mirrors Obama's Falling Numbers.  There's a reason The New York Times is being forced to shrink its newsroom.  And that veteran employees are jumping at the chance to bail.  The New York Post reported today that more than 300 Times' staffers have responded to a buyout offer from management that is intended to eliminate 100 employees.

NY Times Says: Obama Is Angry at Administration's Incompetence!  [Scroll down]  So the Times story is basically a plant by the Obama administration.  Multiple "senior officials" have bent reporters' ears, trying to put the administration in the best possible light with regard to the ebola fiasco.  No doubt they were confident the newspaper would act as their mouthpiece, reporting the administration's spin as news.

How the NYT blatantly spins for Obama on Ebola.  Just look at the New York Times, always an industry leader:  It's become the official stenographer of the Obama White House.  On Saturday, The Times ran a story about the president and his response to the Ebola outbreak that read like it was dictated word for word by the president's top men.  If I were a stockholder in the New York Times Co., I would certainly hope the paper was properly compensated for the front-page placement of this naked political advertisement.

New York Times: 'Seething' Obama Has Been Let Down by CDC.  Whether it's his IRS targeting his political opponents, his NSA spying on journalists, his EPA blowing an oil spill, his HHS fumbling a Website designed to sell only one product (ObamaCare), or his CDC proving itself so inept you wonder if anyone there has even bothered to see the movie "Outbreak," President Obama's Palace Guards in the mainstream media are always there to assure us the President is very, Very, VERY angry and disappointed.  As though the guy in charge is the helpless one, the real victim.

The New York Times Rediscovers Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.  When it was first reported in May 2004 that Saddam-era chemical weapons shells had injured U.S. troops, the editors of the New York Times dismissed that, "Finding some residual weapons that had escaped a large-scale destruction program would be no great surprise and if the chemicals had degraded, no major threat."  Now, a major New York Times report on the issue has been followed by an editorial warning of "A Deadly Legacy in Iraq":  some 5,000 chemical shells have been discovered over the years in Iraq by U.S. or U.S.-trained Iraqi forces.  Many more such munitions litter the wreckage of an old Iraqi weapons facility northwest of Baghdad, which the Islamic State captured in June.

Obama Donor Argues Pedophilia 'Not a Crime' in NYT Op-Ed.  Here's a tidbit of information The New York Times left out of the bio of a professor who argued pedophilia is "not a crime" in a recent Op-Ed — she's also a President Obama supporter.  Rutgers law professor Margo Kaplan penned a New York Times op-ed Oct. 5, headlined:  "Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime."  "A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction," Kaplan argued in the op-ed.  Besides teaching law, Kaplan also writes for RH Reality Check, which prides itself in helping people "safeguard their sexual and reproductive health and rights against false attacks and misinformation."  In 2012, Kaplan donated $250 to Barack Obama's campaign.

Pedophilia Deserves Civil Rights, Says New York Times' Op-Ed.  The nation's tough anti-pedophilia laws are unfair to pedophiles, according to an op-ed published by The New York Times' editors.  "One can live with pedophilia and not act on it," says Margo Kaplan, an entrepreneurial assistant law professor at Rutgers University, and a former lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Must We Talk Nonsense?  The New York Times editorial board — a motley collection of knuckleheads — is wrestling mightily with the fact that everything they believe just happens to be untrue.  Most especially, all that end-the-war-in-Iraq stuff hasn't turned out as well as they hoped and their militant-Islam-is-no-worse-than-any-other-religion meme is beginning to seem a bit shaky and, oh yeah, even though there's no such thing as evil, these ISIS guys look suspiciously like what evil would look like if it were, you know, evil.

You Can't Keep A Good Myth Down.  First, this past Sunday, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof repeated the canard about guns being dangerous to their owners.  A "study in the journal Injury Prevention," he wrote, "found that the purchase of a handgun was associated with 2.4 times the risk of being murdered and 6.8 times the risk of suicide."  No kidding.  As a lifelong subscriber to Injury Prevention, I could have told Kristof that people who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods or who have friends or professions that increase their likelihood of being killed — or who plan to commit suicide — are astronomically more likely to buy handguns than people whose lifestyles do not put them at such risks.

New York Times Plans Cutbacks in Newsroom Staff.  The New York Times plans to eliminate about 100 newsroom jobs, as well as a smaller number of positions from its editorial and business operations, offering buyouts and resorting to layoffs if enough people do not leave voluntarily, the newspaper announced on Wednesday [10/1/2014].  Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the newspaper's publisher, and Mark Thompson, its chief executive, said that in addition to the job cuts, NYT Opinion, a new mobile app dedicated to opinion content, was shutting down because it was not attracting enough subscribers.

Tom Friedman says Reagan had it easy compared to Obama.  The rationalizations for Obama's failures are already beginning, and Tom Friedman employs the laziest of all strategies, tearing down a great man to make a small man look bigger.  In his Sunday [9/28/2014] column in the New York Times, Friedman makes a number of highly dubious points.

NYT: On second thought, Bush did pull together a coalition on Iraq.  And it only took them two weeks to realize their error!  It seems that the Paper of Record had no record of the broad coalition built by George W. Bush for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including ground troops from more than a dozen nations, when it attempted to explain the difference between the approaches of Bush and Barack Obama on war in Iraq and now Syria.

David Limbaugh's book banished from NYT best seller list.  The New York Times Book Review, which has a history of belatedly recognizing conservative bestsellers, has banished conservative legal author David Limbaugh's latest, Jesus on Trial, from its upcoming best seller list despite having sales better than 17 other books on the list.

After 30 Years Of Lies, NY Times Admits "Assault Weapons Are A Myth".  In a stunning op-ed released Friday [9/13/2014], the NY Times finally admitted that "assault weapons" are a made-up political term fabricated by anti-gun Democrats.  Op-ed writer Lois Beckett also admitted that once the term was manufactured and used to outlaw a class of weapons that dishonest anti-gun Democrats had used to con an entire nation, nothing happened.

Sotloff Family Furious with White House... and The NYT Buried It.  The family of Steven Sotloff, the latest American journalist beheaded by ISIS, is reportedly "outraged" at the Obama administration for "deliberate leaks" they interpret as "an attempt to absolve the administration of inaction."  This reporting comes Wednesday from no less a source than the New York Times, which chose to bury the news under more than two dozen paragraphs: [...]

NY Times Desperately Tries to Keep Indictment in Play.  The New York Times tried to keep the politicized hit job against Texas Gov. Rick Perry alive in Wednesday's [8/27/2014] edition, insisting the dubious partisan indictment (from a Democratic district attorney's office that has filed failed charges against prominent national GOP figures) actually has merit, with a "complicated back story" and "deep roots," while pouting that Perry's team has had "substantial success in the court of public opinion" so far.  No thanks to the overexcited Times coverage.

The New York Times Censors Anti-ISIS Ad.  Why did The [New York] Times condemn the American government from trying to suppress images of alleged abuse on the part of the American military while seeking to suppress the horrors of the world's most monstrous terror organization that decapitates Americans?

Taxpayer-Funded Millionaire Fails to Comprehend the World.  Millionaire and public intellectual Paul Krugman takes homes a $225,000 salary (to do no actual work) from the publicly funded City University of New York.  And that's only a fraction of his total earnings, which include a six-figure salary from the New York Times, where he writes columns that regurgitate Democratic Party talking points in an authoritative voice.

White House: Obama Expresses His Grief By Golfing.  The internal newsletter of the Democrat Party, which makes itself available to outsiders under the name "The New York Times," field-tests the most pitiful spin ever attempted.  We know you're in the bag for this failing Administration, guys, but you can still exercise some discretion over which emailed White House talking points you build into "news" stories.  You'd have been doing your man a favor by scuttling this one: [...]

The beatification of Michael Brown.  It is essential to the Democrats' hopes for a strong black turnout in November that the manufactured narrative of evil white cops assassinating an innocent black teenager be maintained.  As Richard Baehr noted to me, "...after the video appeared of the robbery and theft, a new narrative was needed for Michael Brown.  It is not only the robbery/ assault/in the store, but the reports of violence to the officer (damaged eye socket), and admission by Brown's team that he was in an altercation with officer in the car, that has impacted public opinion that he was a choirboy."  The New York Times, the semi-official Democratic Party organ, stepped up and does the job today, with this article by John Eligon: [...]

The New York Times Was Present In The Mortuary When Brown Family Autopsy Was Conducted.  It's not really "news" when the reporters are embedded with the team constructing the news.  The lines of collusion are obvious.

New York Times Buries News of Officer Wilson's Injury.  The New York Times has big news on the biggest story in the country today, but as Noah Rothman at Hot Air discovered, the Times buried that news 26 paragraphs deep.  According to the Times' own police sources, "witnesses and forensic analysis have shown that Officer Wilson did sustain an injury during the struggle in the car."

NYT: Recovery Has Replaced Good Jobs With Bad Jobs.  Remember how Bush was attacked for creating 'hamburger flipping jobs'?  But for some reason Obama isn't responsible for this development.  But the solution is not to create better jobs.  The solution is to pay the hamburger flippers more. [...] So the average house-hold's income as declined almost $5,000 under Obama.  But that just tells the NYT that we need to raise the minimum wage.  (Oh, and grant amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens.)

Obama's Interview With NYT's Friedman: An Essay In Impotence.  President Barack Obama's weekend interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is a stunning portrait of incoherence and inadequacy.  Friedman — a shameless promoter of Obama since the 2008 campaign, whose books have allegedly influenced Obama's foreign policy views — tries his mightiest to wrest something of substance from the absentee president: "[I]t's clear that the president has a take on the world," he declares.  And what is Obama's "take"?  Two themes emerge from a morass of clichés and sophistry.

A Failing President Obama Talks To New York Times For An Hour Before Heading Off On Vacation.  President Obama gave Thomas Friedman an hour long interview [8/9/2014] before heading off on vacation to Martha's Vineyard.  Within the interview the failure of a cohesive Obama foreign policy shines through despite the attempted cover from liberal reporters.

Getting with the Times.  With the usual fanfare and self-regard we have come to expect from the New York Times editorial board, the prestigious paper has changed its mind about pot.  It now believes that the federal ban on the substance should be lifted and that the whole issue should be sent back to the states to handle.

Getting to the truth of Bowe Bergdahl.  More than two months after Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was freed from Afghan captivity — in exchange for five high-value Taliban militants at Gitmo — he was at last questioned by the Army about the details of his capture.  The so-called AR 15-6 hearing will determine if, prior to that capture, Bergdahl deserted his post and might therefore face a court martial.  Count on The New York Times to present Bergdahl's side in as flattering a way as possible, including assurances from Bergdahl's lawyer that his client answered all questions and didn't invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Ad Sales Drop Cause New York Times Profits to Collapse 54%The Financial Times reports that a drop in ad sales at the New York Times caused the left-wing newspaper's profits to collapse 54% in the second quarter of this year.  The Times netted only $9.2 million this quarter compared to $20.1 million last year.

Despite Circulation Gains, Profit Falls 21% at New York Times Co..  Increased investments in digital products and a decline in print advertising weighed on The New York Times Company's second-quarter earnings, as profit slipped 21 percent.  The company on Tuesday [7/29/2014] reported $55.7 million in adjusted operating profit for the quarter, which excludes some one-time costs.

New York Times: Legalize marijuana.  The New York Times' editorial board on Saturday [7/26/2014] called on the federal government to legalize marijuana.  Citing alcohol prohibition, social costs and states' movements, the board argued "after a great deal of discussion" that "the balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization."

Stoned Crazy at the 'New York Times'.  The [New York] Times "Editorial Board" has decided that the federal ban on marijuana is all too much like the Volstead Act, which enacted Prohibition on alcohol.  It is creating a new, immense class of law breakers, and filling up prisons with marijuana law breakers, who turn out, by the cunning of racism, and through no fault of their own, to be largely black.  The Times has figured out that while marijuana is definitely not like eating whole wheat toast, it's not worse for you than alcohol.

It's official: The New York Times can't count.  It must be really galling for the Times editors to have to acknowledge the success of a book they would rather burn than promote.  As for the math, it's really complicated, says the Times.  Or not.

Two Weeks of Shallow, Facile Moral Equivalency in The New York Times.  The Gaza war has provided the Times with a perfect opportunity, eagerly seized, to highlight Palestinian suffering.  But Hamas' cruelty to its own people is rarely noted.  Recruits for martyrdom in the holy war against Israel are urged to gather on rooftops, instructed by their leaders to serve as human shields against Israeli retribution for 2,000 rockets that have been fired into the Jewish state during the past weeks.  Beneath the rooftops are Hamas command centers and tunnels, where leaders take refuge and weapons are stored and fired.  The benefit to Hamas from Palestinian civilian deaths is evident:  Israel will be blamed.

This article in the New York Times sounds like a White House press release:
Obama's Bold Order on Bias.  "Our government of the people, by the people and for the people will become just a little bit fairer," said President Obama on Monday [7/21/2014] just before signing an executive order prohibiting federal contractors, which employ 20 percent of the nation's work force, from discriminating against gay men, lesbians and transgender people in their employment practices.  "We're on the right side of history," Mr. Obama correctly declared regarding this important measure, which also explicitly protects federal employees against discrimination based on gender identity, a category covering transgender employees (bias based on sexual orientation was already prohibited).

More Miserable Anti-Israel Bias from the New York Times.  The New York Times' coverage of the ongoing situation in Israel, which began with the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers, continued this past week to be marked by intense anti-Israel bias in tone and labeling, and overwhelming emotionalism over the deaths of Palestinian civilians in the crossfire (Israeli deaths from terrorism rarely if ever merited such heart-felt treatment).

Lerner Associate: "I Don't Understand How Anyone But Straight White Men Can Vote Republican".  President Bush requested the resignation of his GSA administrator in 2008 after the US Office of Special Counsel determined she had violated federal law by participating in a video conference with Karl Rove and sending out partisan letters.  (The New York Times was scandalized at the time, though I strangely can't find their editorial calling for Kathleen Sebelius' head when OSC flagged her for a Hatch Act violation.  Then again, the Times' alleged principles seem to depend entirely on which party is in power).

New York Times: Border Crisis 'a Myth'.  The New York Times editorial board believes the border crisis is merely "a myth."  In a weekend editorial, the Times said the "White House is getting it mostly right" on immigration and blasted Republicans, who are "throwing up roadblocks" with "dangerous overreaction."  The Times praised the Obama administration's request for $3.7 billion in aid to deal with a crisis they think is a "myth."  "The besieged border is a myth, and the arrival of a few thousand weary refugee children on buses does not make the myth true," the Times wrote.

Attack on Catholic Judges Breaches the Bedrock Of U.S. Constitution.  The New York Times ought to be ashamed of itself for running an advertisement attacking the religion of the five Catholic justices of the Supreme Court.  It did this last week in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision.  The ad actually contained the phrase "Roman Catholic majority." It named Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.  It went on to accuse the Catholic justices in the majority in the Hobby Lobby case of siding with "zealous fundamentalists who equate contraception with abortion," a statement that combines bigotry with factual inaccuracy.  Hobby Lobby actually already happily covers most contraceptives.  It objects only to drugs that, rather than preventing an egg from being fertilized, stop a fertilized egg from developing into a baby.

Krauthammer Slams NY Times Editorial Page: 'Childish,' 'They Have No Influence.  On Tuesday's [7/8/2014] "The O'Reilly Factor," Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer offered his assessment of the layout of the current media environment, particularly with regards to liberal bias.  Krauthammer was particularly critical of The New York Times.  In its news pages, he argued the Times offered the news through a leftward prism.  However, it declared its celebrated editorial page inconsequential for its slant.

Truth Buried — Again.  You'd think that a government audit showing how ObamaCare couldn't tell whether millions of enrollees were eligible for the subsidies they're getting would be front-page news.  Instead, the press hid it from view.  If you wanted to read in the New York Times about these findings — which detailed rampant problems verifying eligibility and income information from millions of ObamaCare applicants — you had to dig 17 pages into the news section.

Good news, everyone! The New York Times has identified the 'real' IRS scandal.  When disgraced former IRS official Lois Lerner first admitted in 2013 during a staged apology that her agency had targeted conservative groups, a few news organizations scrambled immediately to help the White House manage its damage control efforts.  And as the scandal continues to plod along, Congress holding one hearing after another, these same news groups haven't let up in their defense of the White House or the IRS.  Take, for example, the New York Times' latest (and familiar) defense of the IRS. [...]

New York Times: Ugly for Americans Against Illegal Immigration to Wave American Flags, Chant 'USA'.  On the day before the Fourth of July, the New York Times went out of its way to show its disgust for Americans against illegal immigration in Murrieta, California who turned away buses of illegal immigrants for, of all things, waving American flags and chanting "USA!"  "Nobody was even being released in Murrieta," the Times' editorial board wrote on Thursday [7/3/2014].  "But the mayor urged residents to complain, and in a pageant of ugliness, dozens took action:  They waved flags, screamed 'U.S.A.!' and turned three buses back."

Anti-Catholic full-page ad in the New York Times today.  The Hobby Lobby decision has ignited liberals and unleashed their prejudice.  And this ad is shameful.  The New York Times has a full-page ad in its print edition today [7/3/2014] that should elicit protests around the nation (but likely won't).

Religious Freedom of the Times.  "A welcome antidote to the official insensitivity to religion" is how the New York Times described the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it was passed by Congress in 1993.  That, by the way, was the 103rd Congress.  Both of its houses were controlled by the Democrats.  The bill was inked by President Clinton, who is a Democrat.  It turns out, however, that neither the Times nor the Democrats meant any of it.  They don't [care] about religious freedom.

Is The Times Ignoring a Scandal at the I.R.S.?  The Times was somewhat late in beginning to cover the latest development about the lost emails.  My office had begun to field several days' worth of reader protests on the lack of attention when the first story finally went online.  Despite that slow start and the quiet display of the subsequent stories (an analytical piece might have been a good choice for the front page), The Times has given its readers insightful coverage of a situation heavily clouded by partisan politics.

NYT Admits: 'Somewhat Late' on IRS Story.  The New York Times's public editor on Friday responded to criticism about the paper's coverage of the IRS scandal, admitting:  "The Times was somewhat late in beginning to cover the latest development about the lost emails."  An analysis by the Media Research Center's Jeffrey Meyer on Thursday found that "in the past 6 months (183 days), the New York Times has published only 13 news items on the IRS' targeting of Tea Party groups."

'The Angry Fringe'.  Liberal bias in the media is so pervasive that partisan propaganda themes created by Democrats, for the purpose of electing Democrats and advancing their partisan agenda, take on a quasi-reality.  Years ago, after seeing the umpteenth reiteration of a too-familiar theme, I remarked that the New York Times should create a standing headline — "Republicans Divided" — and run it as a regular column.

Scarborough Savages NYT For Burying IRS Email Scandal: 'This Is A Scam!'  Co-host Mika Brzezinski had just wrapped up explaining another possible scandal for New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie, involving diverted funds for the Pulaski Skyway, when Scarborough pounced on the newspaper.  "Let's see, so this is the top of The New York Times," he began.  "I'm trying to figure out where the IRS story — is it on the front page?  Because actually, there was an investigation launched yesterday of the IRS — an internal investigation."

Guess how the press reacted to IRS's commissioner's implausible testimony.  Above what is the web equivalent of "the fold," The New York Times printed nothing about the IRS commissioner's testimony.  The story barely registered on the site's U.S. news section.  It was the Times' politics section where it was determined the IRS story should lead.  That is striking because, in one post on the Times site billed as a Q&A style explainer for the IRS scandal, many questions are asked and admittedly not satisfactorily answered.

Walmart's Response To The New York Times Is Great.  The Arkansas-based company responded to an article from New York Times columnist Timothy Egan, titled "The Corporate Daddy" by doing the work that it felt Egan's Times editors should have done. [...] The retail giant apparently couldn't resist sarcasm after it found what it considered numerous problems with Egan's piece in which he criticized the company for paying its 2.2 million employees what he called "humiliating wages."  "Walmart is a net drain on taxpayers," wrote Egan in the missive, adding that the company forces "employees into public assistance with its poverty-wage structure.  "We are the largest tax payer in America," Tovar wrote in his edit.  "Can we see your math?"

Walmart hands NY Times' editors their own posteriors.  I have never met David Tovar, Walmart's vice president, corporate communications, but I'd like to shake his hand.  In this brilliant response to a column by Timothy Egan of the New York Times, Mr. Tovar puts to shame the editors who worked on the Egan piece, literally taking a red pencil to the piece they deigned to publish, and showing them how to do their jobs.

Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' banished from New York Times best seller list.  The New York Times bestseller list hasn't waited a millisecond to put Hillary Clinton's book atop its influential chart after just a week of sales, but has totally ignored another top-10 hardcover from noted conservative and critic of President Obama, Dinesh D'Souza.  His new book, on sale for three weeks, isn't just absent from the top 10 lists already set for the next two Sundays, but totally missing from the list of the nation's top 25 nonfiction hardcovers despite having sales higher than 13 on the latest Times chart.

NY Times Won't Investigate Hedges' Work Amid Plagiarism Charge.  The New York Times has no plans to investigate the work of its former reporter Chris Hedges amid allegations that he plagiarized multiple stories for other publications over the past decade. [...] The New Republic published several excerpts from Hedges' articles that appear to be identical or similar to work published previously by other authors.

Revised 5 Times, NYT's 'Rush to Demonize Bergdahl' Editorial Attacking GOP 'Operatives'.  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 [6/5/2014], they let loose with a poorly sourced and hastily drafted editorial originally entitled "The Politics of the Bergdahl Case."

New York Times Censors Ad Decrying Islamist Censorship.  An "Islamist" is not simply an individual who privately observes Islam as his faith.  An Islamist is an individual who blurs the ideological lines between personal religion and the nation state — a boundary upheld as one of America's founding principles and sustained in the First Amendment — to foster a governmental system that relies upon the supremacy of Islam.

Hillary to New York Times: Back Off.  Sources said the meeting included Clinton advisers Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, as well as Times Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan and national political reporter Amy Chozick, who has been on the Clinton beat for the paper.  During the closed-door gathering, Clinton aides reportedly griped about the paper's coverage of the potential 2016 candidate, arguing that Clinton has left public office and [should] not be subjected to harsh scrutiny, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

Chasing Pulitzers has ruined American journalists.  You can get a sense of what American journalists' priorities are from looking at a 96-page report that the New York Times has just produced about... the New York Times.  I'm not talking about the words, obviously, which are far too boring to read, but the pictures.  On page three of the report, there's a photograph of the paper's top brass gathered around a computer terminal, having just discovered that the Grey Lady has won yet another Pulitzer prize.  The staff are gathered around them on the stairs — hundreds of them — and one of the editors is looking up and humbly applauding them:  'Well done, folks.  You knocked it out of the park... again.'  That's what most American journalists care about — winning prizes that affirm just what noble tribunes of democracy they are.

Radio Host Sullivan: NYT Fired Abramson for Criticizing Obama.  The firing of Jill Abramson as executive editor of The New York Times happened because she "went over the line" in criticizing the heavy-handed tactics used by the Obama administration in dealing with the media, claims radio talk show host Tom Sullivan.  Sullivan pointed out that "earlier this year" (in fact, just last month, in an interview with The Takeaway) Abramson said, "The Obama years are a benchmark for a new level of secrecy and control."  He said she added that "sources who want to come forward with stories they feel are important are scared to death they're going to be prosecuted."

The New York Times: Making the world safe for terrorism.  On the front page of Sunday's New York Times was a hysterical article charging the New York Police Department with trampling Muslim civil rights by trying to recruit Muslims who had been arrested on other charges to be informants. [...] The article implied that Muslims were being singled out by law-enforcement officials because of their religion, and that they were asked invasive and improper questions about their religion.  Freedom of the press is limited to those who own it, H.L. Mencken once said, an axiom that The Times has demonstrated repeatedly by routinely deprecating the threat of "Islamic terrorism" in the United States.  For years, The Times has blindly pursued an agenda that coincides with the same agenda of radical Islamic groups masquerading as "civil rights" groups in trying to prove that Islamic terrorists were unfairly convicted and framed.

30-year New York Times Science Writer Out After Writing Book About Genetics, Race.  Nicholas Wade, a British-born science reporter and editor for more than 30 years with The New York Times, is no longer with the newspaper — just days after the release of his latest book, in which he depicts blacks with roots in sub-Saharan Africa as genetically less adapted to modern life than whites and Asians.  Was The New York Times uncomfortable with Wade's science or his conclusions?  It's unclear.  Neither Wade nor his former employer returned requests for comment.

The Editor says...
Liberals teach "survival of the fittest" in the public schools, but if someone writes a book about it, they call it racism.

p>

Why It's Okay to Hate Cliven Bundy.  It has become clear that Cliven Bundy was transgressed by the New York Times, his words taken out of context and retailed in such a way as to mean something they were not.  Bundy is no racist, and the attempt to make him look like one is another step downward in the collapse of American national media. [...] Bundy sat across from a reporter for the NYT, the most vicious, calculating, untrustworthy, and dishonest nest of vipers in the entire U.S. media network, and talked straight to him about matters of import and controversy, under the impression that he would understand and transmit his thoughts the way that he actually expressed them. [...] Nobody has a right to be that stupid, to be that ill-informed, or to be that self-centered.

More about Cliven Bundy.

Joker sob story is just sickeningAnother sob story in the left-wing media about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?  Yesterday it was the turn of The New York Times, under the headline, "Marathon Bombing Suspect Waits in Isolation."  Needless to say, the ACLU is up in arms. [...] This one was perfectly timed — on the first anniversary of the Joker placing one of his kettle bombs in front of little Martin Richard, who had moments to live after the Times' victim du jour decided he wanted to murder an 8-year-old infidel.

NY Times Op-Ed Links Returning Vets With KKK, White Supremacists.  Anger is brewing among service members and veterans groups after the publication of a New York Times op-ed that tries to link veterans and white supremacists.

Appalling: NY Times editorial distorts, misleads, and lies to readers on HHS Mandate.  With many political debates, I try to give opponents the benefit of the doubt on intentions.  Sure, raising taxes is a bad thing, but some politicians and pundits believe higher taxes will benefit society.  Some people think we need to spend more, and others really fear climate change.  When it comes to the HHS abortifacient/contraception/sterilization mandate, however, I've almost stopped being that generous with the left's media and thought leaders.  [A recent] New York Times Magazine editorial is a prime example as to why.  Almost from start to finish, the piece misleads and misdirects readers about the mandate, its opponents, and religious freedom.

How freedom dies.  "Religious Right Cheers a Bill Allowing Refusal to Serve Gays."  Thus did the New York Times' headline, leaving no doubt as to who the black hats are, describe the proposed Arizona law to permit businesses, on religious grounds, to deny service to same-sex couples.

The Tyranny and Lethargy of the Times Editorial Page.  The New York Observer has learned over the course of interviews with more than two-dozen current and former [New York] Times staffers that the situation has "reached the boiling point" in the words of one current Times reporter.  Only two people interviewed for this story agreed to be identified, given the fears of retaliation by someone they criticize as petty and vindictive.

New York Times Profit Falls 12%; Print, Digital Revenues Still Falling.  The New York Times announced Thursday [2/6/2014] that operating profits had fallen 12% in the fourth quarter of 2013 compared to the same period a year before.  Earnings per share dropped by roughly two-thirds, from $0.76 to $0.24.  Total revenues were down 5.2% and advertising revenues were down 6.3%, with print advertising revenues falling by 7.0% and digital by 4.3% over 2013.

Revolt: How Kurson Buried the New York Times Editorial Page.  The New York Observer has made a huge splash with an investigative story by editor Ken Kurson on internal tensions at the New York Times.  According to Kurson's story, the Times' reporters have growing contempt for the "tyranny and lethargy" of the paper's editorial page, which is not only badly run but rarely read under Andrew Rosenthal.

New York Times makes dramatic change to Christie report without noting correction.  The New York Times on Friday [1/31/2014] made a dramatic change to a report claiming New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie "knew" about lane closures on the George Washington Bridge without noting the correction.

Abramson: National security reporting 'effectively being criminalized' under Obama.  New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson said Thursday [1/30/2014] that national security reporting is "effectively being criminalized" under President Obama, citing his administration's aggressive pursuit of whistleblowers.  Speaking on a panel at Columbia University, Abramson said the crackdown "has had a profound effect on journalists who cover national security."

The NY Times Editorial Board: Bitter Opponents of Free Speech.  Remember the good old days when people called the Times the "Gray Lady"?  Now it's far-left hysteria, all the time.  What has the editors riled up is the spreading of "malicious falsehoods" about Obamacare.  Falsehoods such as, if you like your health care, you can keep it?  Don't be silly!  The Times is talking about "malicious falsehoods" like the fact that millions of people are losing their existing coverage because of the statute.

Word Not Found In NYT 5500 Word Hillary Profile: Benghazi.  Friday [1/24/2014], the venerable New York Times Magazine published a mammoth 5500-plus word profile of Hillary Clinton and the world around her.  It is titled "Planet Hillary," and two words you will not find on this mammoth planet are "Libya" and "Benghazi."

New York Times Covers for Radical, Violent Leftist Carter Camp.  A radical-leftist American Indian who was convicted of abducting, confining, and beating four postal workers during a militant crime spree has died.  The New York Times began its report of his death by first listing all of the wrongs American Indians suffered at the hands of the U.S. government 100 years prior to the thug's crimes, as though they somehow provided context or excused the man's illegal and violent behavior.

The Obama Doctrine Revealed.  In the process of exonerating Clinton, the 8,000-word account by David Kirkpatrick uncovers the two pivotal points of the Obama Doctrine:  (1)  Radical Islam in general is not inherently hostile to the US and once they are shown due respect they can become US allies.  This may mean weakening ties with our traditional allies.  (2)  The only Islamic group that is a bona fide terrorist organization is the faction of al-Qaida directly subordinate to Osama bin Laden's successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri.  Only this group cannot be appeased and must be destroyed through force. [...] The beauty of this is that once revealed, the central tenets of the Obama Doctrine are so reality-challenged that the self-anointed "smart diplomacy" mantle becomes ludicrous.

Watch: Trey Gowdy Dismantles The NY Times' Bogus Benghazi Report.  Rep. Trey Gowdy went after The New York Times' bogus Benghazi report on Monday [12/30/2013], in which the Times claimed Al Qaeda was not behind the attack — and that it was sparked by an obscure anti-Muslim video.  In an interview with Fox News' Dan Perino, Gowdy wasted no time lowering the boom:  "First of all, I want to congratulate The New York Times.  It only took 15 months for them to figure out how to spell Benghazi.  So, in another 15 months, maybe their reporting will actually catch up with the truth."

Public advocate caught in lie over Times homeless story.  She lied on her first day on the job — and got caught.  Just hours after being sworn in as the city's public advocate, Letitia James went on TV to claim that she played a key role in helping expose "the face of poverty in the City of New York" on the 'front page of The New York Times. [...] It wasn't James' first attempt to portray herself as a champion of the homeless — at the inauguration, she invited young Dasani to stand at her side for the swearing-in.  But the Times refuted James' account, saying she had nothing to do with its articles.

Wrong Again.  To hear it from the New York Times editorial page, the many issues surrounding the attacks in Benghazi are now settled. [...] It's hardly surprising that the New York Times would find the New York Times the final word on an issue.  But for the rest of us, rational and irrational alike, this revisionist account is neither authoritative nor definitive.  The central thesis of the piece is wrong, and the sweeping claim the author has made in defending it is demonstrably false.

O'Reilly: NY Times' Benghazi Report Is 'Pure Bull,' Meant to Help Clinton.  In his Talking Points Memo Thursday night [1/2/2014], Bill O'Reilly went after the "seriously flawed" New York Times report that concluded al Qaeda was not involved in the Benghazi attack.  He called it "pure bull" for the paper to claim that the attack was not "meticulously planned" and was actually a response to an anti-Islam video.

Down the Times' Bengahzi Rabbit Hole.  What was the commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces doing through the night of September 11, 2012, while he knew Americans were under jihadist siege in Libya?  You won't learn the answer to that question by reading the mini-book-length, six-"chapter" revisionist history of the Benghazi massacre cooked up by David D. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times.  The Times report is a labor of love in the service of President Obama and, in particular, the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign ramp-up.  Former secretary of state Clinton, of course, was a key architect of Obama's Libya policy.

Dangerous Times: The New York Times Goes the Full Pravda.  Every thoughtful person knows the NY Times peddles shameless whoppers every single day, just as Pravda did in Soviet Moscow — "pravda" meaning "the truth" in Russian.  In the good old USSR you didn't read Pravda for the truth.  You read it for the daily Communist Party Line, which bore no relationship to the truth — other than to cover it up. [...] Reading Pravda became an art form that allowed readers to guess who was up and who was down in the endless power struggles of the Kremlin.  Today the only use for the NYT — other than tomorrow's fish wrap — is to see who's up in the Only Party that matters today:  the Democrats and their media.

Obama on the Couch.  It takes cash to afford the cable connections, premium channels, and Netflix subscriptions required to watch all of the titles on the president's viewing list.  It is also necessary to have leisure time, which, disturbingly, the president seems to have a lot of.  No wonder he finds out about everything from the newspapers.  Shear clearly had a thesis in mind when he sat down to write.  His article is an argument in search of evidence.  He seems to think Obama's taste in television reveals a tragic sense of life, [...]

NYT Doubles Down: Claims of Al Qaeda Involvement in Benghazi 'Strictly Political'.  Smarting from the number of witnesses who came out to challenge The New York Times' weekend article downplaying terrorist involvement in the 2012 Benghazi attack, NYT editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal "argued that those trying to claim Al Qaeda was involved" do so "for strictly political reasons."

New York Times Had Reporter 'Talking to the Attackers' During Benghazi Massacre.  The New York Times had a reporter talking to attackers on the ground during the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans in September of 2012, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, and that reporter may know the identity of some of the murderers and perpetrators.  David Kirkpatrick is the Times reporter who wrote the story that forced the paper's Editorial page editor to defensively declare on Monday that it has not chosen to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.

When the press is a poodle.  [Scroll down]  Then on Dec. 28, the Gray Lady breathlessly claimed that extensive interviews on the ground in Benghazi "turned up no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role" in the murderous attack on U.S. facilities there on Sept. 11, 2012.  The Times insisted that, "The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against [longtime Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi]."  Times' reporter David Kirkpatrick concluded, moreover, that the murderous assault "was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."

Journalistic malpractice over Benghazi.  The Times' report misconstrues known facts and simply sweeps under the table mountains of evidence of al Qaeda's ties to Libyan jihadi groups.  In June 2012, for example, more than a dozen different jihadi groups put the black flag of al Qaeda on parade in Benghazi in what they hoped would be a three-day show of force.  Thousands of jihadi fighters, many of them in Pakistani and Afghan dress, paraded through the streets of Benghazi with hundreds of gun trucks.  For The New York Times, though, the black flags were merely "the black flags of militant Islam" and apparently bore no relation to al Qaeda.  "Benghazi was not infiltrated by al Qaeda," The Times flatly asserted.

Rep. Peter King: NYT Article on Benghazi Is 'Entirely Misleading'.  A recent New York Times article is drawing fire for claiming that there is no evidence of al Qaeda being behind the attacks on Benghazi in September 2012, but rather the terrorist group Ansar al-Shariah.  "I think it's entirely misleading," commented Representative Peter King (R-New York) on today's edition of America's Newsroom.  "The fact is that Ansar al-Shariah is affiliated with Al Qaeda," stated King, who finds the New York Times inaccurate for describing them as completely separate groups.  "To say that it was an affiliate rather than Al Qaeda itself means absolutely nothing."

New York Times Contradicts [its] Own Reporting on Benghazi.  The New York Times' assertion that Al Qaeda's involvement in the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi is particularly questionable considering the preponderance of evidence that shows otherwise.

Krauthammer: NY Times Benghazi Report Undeniably About Protecting Dems, HillaryThe New York Times is defending its Benghazi report from critics who said it was politically motivated, but Charles Krauthammer isn't buying it and said there is no question it was a "political move" by the Times to help Democrats.  Krauthammer said the sheer defensiveness the Times is taking in denying political bias in the report just proves that politics was a primary motivator.

NYT Revives Benghazi Video Lie To Save Hillary.  The attempt to rehabilitate Hillary Clinton begins as the New York Times revives the long-ago debunked "video clip" excuse for the well-planned Benghazi massacre while denying documented al-Qaida involvement.

The Times' Benghazi Report: Convenient for Clinton.  The division of the "Hillary for President" campaign known as the New York Times issued a lengthy white paper on Sunday [12/29/2013], entitled "A Deadly Mix In Benghazi."  This article, the paper explained, was based on "months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there..."  In other words, the article is centered on interviews with extremists and terrorists, whose words are taken as gospel.  That they may have changed their stories, or be putting forth stories for their own benefit rather than because the new stories are true, is a subtlety beyond the Times.

Defense Expert Concludes the NY Times' Benghazi Report 'Backfired' on the Paper.  Foundation for Defense of Democracies senior fellow Thomas Joscelyn joined WSJ Live host Mary Kissel on Monday to discuss an investigative report on the September 11, 2012, attack on an American consulate in Benghazi by New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick.  Both Kissel and Joscelyn agreed that, while Kirkpatrick's reporting was extensive, the conclusions he reached were erroneous.  Furthermore, if there was a political objective that the Times sought to achieve with this report, the effort has thoroughly "backfired."

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report.  Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.  But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night.  Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times' findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.

The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi.  David D. Kirkpatrick of the New York Times has published a lengthy account of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.  While much in Kirkpatrick's report is not new, the piece is receiving a considerable amount of attention because of this sweeping conclusion: [...] But how much effort did Kirkpatrick expend to uncover any possible al Qaeda ties?  Judging by the Times's glaring omissions, not much.

Benghazi: The New York Times vs. the Truth.  They never give up at the New York Times.  If at first they don't succeed in twisting the truth to fit the Newspeak fit to print, it's try, try again.  Their latest exercise in mendacity is "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi," an elaborate essay that substitutes a plethora of irrelevant details and animated graphics for historical truth.  The long essay takes up an event which, in a rational world, would have led the to resignation of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the impeachment of President Barack Obama.  I mean the terrorist attack on our consular facility at Benghazi, Libya.

Did the NY Times contradict itself on their Benghazi piece?  Ed already covered some of the serious problems with this weekend's New York Times "deep analysis" of Benghazi, showing how much  of their focus was on the crumbs rather than the meat of the situation.  Erika went one further, discussing how members of Congress in the know have already been informed that the entire sordid affair was no accident.  But just for a bit more comprehensive coverage, long time friend of Hot Air Kerry Picket has a piece at Breitbart noting how it now seems that the Paper of Record actually contradicted itself in attempting to provide cover for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

New York Times Wonders: Was Chris Stevens Out of His Depth in Benghazi?  The New York Times's extensive exposé on the September 11 Benghazi attacks turned up no ties to Al Qaeda.  By highlighting obscure militiamen and ignoring the roles of White House officials, the piece continues an alarming trend of dismissiveness toward the Obama administration's greatest foreign policy scandal.

Times Ignores Evidence of Al Qaeda Link to Benghazi.  [David] Kirkpatrick obviously spent considerable time on the ground in Benghazi and interviewed several anti-Western Islamists, including some involved in the attacks.  There's little doubt he took considerable risks as he reported his piece.  While much of Kirkpatrick's reporting is admirable and while these details add to our knowledge of certain aspects of the attack, they do not tell the whole story.  And that's where the piece ultimately fails.

NY Times begins Hillary rehabilitation.  Right on schedule, the New York Times has published a 7,500-word account of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that all but ignores Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's role and quotes a terrorist saying a supposedly anti-Islam video insulting the Prophet Muhammad "might well have justified" the killing of four Americans.

Fox News Blasts NYT 'Completely False' Benghazi Report.  The New York Times published a report on the Benghazi attack over the weekend claiming that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack and that the anti-Islam video did play a role in the initial wave.  Monday, Fox News answered, blasting the report by publishing pushback from angered witnesses who were on the ground the night of the attack, denouncing the NYT report is "completely false."

The Good, the Bad, and the Pathetic of the New York Times' Benghazi Report.  Somewhere, buried out of reach (for now) of any American news agency, is a minute-by-minute account of the fight in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.  This account no doubt cross-references the testimony of those on the ground with the available signals intelligence (including radio intercepts from the attackers themselves).  This account tells us when American command authorities were made aware of the attack, when the news was forwarded up the chain of command, and who made what decisions that fateful night.

NY Times admits Obamacare will cause middle class suffering more than a year after election.  The mainstream media follows the New York Times' lead in deciding what is and isn't news.  Hardly an editor or news director anywhere in the country lacks a subscription to the Gray Lady.  So, when the Times practiced omerta about the downsides of Obamacare for most people, the media followed its lead, quite willingly. [...] There are going to be a lot of people asking why the media didn't let them know what was in store for them with Obamacare.

Hilarious: NYC artists and independent professionals realize ObamaCare targets them.  The New York Times is wringing its hands over the damage being done to the city's artists and independent professionals by Obamacare.  The sort of people who worship at the altar of Obama and who regard the Times and its editorial pronouncements (including those on Obamacare) as holy scripture.

The New York Times' 'homeless' hooey.  If a five-part opus in The New York Times by Andrea Elliott is to believed, we live in a hard-hearted city.  But if you read closely, it suggests just the opposite.  Begin with the family at the center of this story.  The mother, father and eight kids aren't really homeless at all.  True, they live in housing meant for "homeless families."  But their 540-square-foot unit gives them a solid roof over their heads, in addition to city-provided meals and services.

Oh, Now They Tell Us.  As the redistributive mechanics of ObamaCare rear their ugly head, the president's propaganda puppets are suddenly sounding like conservative critics.  Take the New York Times.  In a fit of candor, it now agrees with what we've said all along — "redistribution of wealth lies at the heart of" the Affordable Care Act.  The paper reported that "economic justice" was Obama's real goal in taking over a sixth of the economy.

The Most Comical Hypocrites of All, the New York Times.  I noted earlier today that many politicians, pundits and newspapers have been hypocrites on the filibuster, favoring it when their party is in the minority and opposing it when their party controls the Senate.  But of all the hypocrites, the most shameless must be the editorial board of the New York Times.  Have they forgotten that Google exists?  Are they unaware that anyone can search their web site and see what they wrote about an issue when the shoe was on the other foot?  Or are they so resigned to being known as partisan hacks that they just don't care?

The wheels have fallen off the Obama bandwagon.  Poll after poll shows that millions of former Obama-bots now concede he is not worthy of their trust and are stampeding off the bus.  The magic ride is over and they just want to go home and sleep it off.  Even The New York Times editorial page stirred.  The big cheese of the Obama Protection Racket assailed his administration's "incompetence."  Stop the presses!  Finally, a great awakening is taking place.

Editor exodus continues at NYT.  The stampede for the exits continues at Jill Abramson's beleaguered New York Times.  On Tuesday [11/12/2013], three high-profile names said they were departing the Gray Lady — media columnist Brian Stelter, Chief Political Correspondent Matt Bai and Sunday Magazine Editor-in-Chief Hugo Lindgren.

New York Times' Obama cheerleading harms the nation.  The ObamaCare debacle is the exception that proves the rule.  Wall-to-wall complaints are forcing the media to report that the law's Web site is a lemon and that its rules are causing millions of people to lose insurance plans they liked.  The mainstream media is acting only because the story is too big to ignore.  Had it been mildly skeptical sooner, it could have exposed the law's destructive rules and prevented the disaster.  Yet the [New York] Times, especially its editorial page, remains his most devoted cheerleader.  The latest example is embarrassing enough to make a Gray Lady blush.

ObamaCare, Other Scandals, Virtually Ignored By Big Media.  The same people who freaked out over President Bush's saying in a State of the Union speech that Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Africa now excuse Obama for saying everywhere, endlessly, "If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.  No one will be able to take that away from you."  To them, that's not lying — blatantly, repeatedly, shamelessly.  He simply "misspoke," claimed the New York Times editorial page.

Where was the media when "open secret" of ObamaCare problems arose?  Where does one go to get some objective reporting on public policy?  One unmentioned aspect of the "sticker shock" and "exchange collapse" stories, which the media now reports well, is that these problems were readily apparent before October 1, too — as the NYT admits in the second half of its Friday [10/25/2013] article.

The Editor says...
The "mainstream" news media only began to "report" Obamacare's flaws after the whole world was aware of them.

Punishment for Gluttons.  Gluttony makes you fat, and the New York Times is ON IT.  The other day columnist Frank Bruni made an anthropological excursion to Costco, "where they sell cashews by the quarter-ton [and] thousand-piece packs of chicken thighs."  These sound to us like overestimates, leading us to suspect Bruni is a very small man. [...] Come to think of it, the Costco complaint is a non sequitur.  After all, those massive packages of nuts or chicken aren't portions but ingredients, sold in bulk for storage and subsequent gradual use.

Why is the New York Times Always Wrong on Israel?  The New York Times is at it again in its continuing presentation of inaccurate statements and misleading assertions concerning the State of Israel.

NYT Discovers Voter Fraud.  After years of claiming that it doesn't exist, the New York Times has found evidence of voter fraud:  a political machine organizing unqualified voters to swing an election in Alabama.

New York Times Finally Has Authentic Communist Columnist.  The New York Times must be on cloud nine.  They finally have a writer who took five minutes of attention away from Rush Limbaugh!

U.S. at risk of being laughed off world stage.  For generations, eminent New York Times wordsmiths have swooned over foreign strongmen, from Walter Duranty's Pulitzer-winning paeans to the Stalinist utopia to Thomas L. Friedman's more recent effusions to the "enlightened" Chinese Politburo.  So it was inevitable that the cash-strapped Times would eventually figure it might as well eliminate the middle man and hire the enlightened strongman direct.  Hence Vladimir Putin's impressive debut on the op-ed page this week.

The New York Times' Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 Years Of Flat Global Temperatures.  The New York Times feverishly reported on August 10 that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is about to issue another scary climate report.  Dismissing the recent 17 years or so of flat global temperatures, the IPCC will assert that:  "It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010."

New York Times environmental journalist Justin Gillis is wrong.  Justin Gillis tells NPR how much sea levels will rise:  "experts believe sea levels will rise at least 3 feet in the next century, and that number could be as much as 6 feet." [...] So, Gillis tells us the one end of the spectrum is 3 feet and the highest 6 feet, while the the UN says 1 foot to 2.7 feet.  His *lowest* estimate is higher than the *highest* of the UN Climate Panel's new, higher estimate.  Yet, he justifies his numbers with "experts."  Justin Gillis seems to listen to an extremely skewed set of experts.

Why are major media outlets ignoring bestselling writer Mark R. Levin?  To read the book reviews in The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post or The Boston Globe, you might be unaware of the existence of the work of Mark Levin.  Unless you skip to the page with the bestseller lists.

Executive Editor of NYT Picks Cuba as Vacation Spot.  In a long article bemoaning the fact that the new CEO of the New York Times likes to keep his eye on the newsroom, an interesting anecdote reveals executive editor Jill Abramson has a special vacation destination when she wants to unwind:  Cuba.

Hillary Clinton, the Press, and the Permanent Campaign.  When the media decides that something or someone is or isn't in the "public interest," it will inevitably abuse the elasticity of that category.  When the media sees itself as responsible for enabling or resisting trends in American politics, it tends to take sides.  It is not the fault of the New York Times that the 2016 presidential campaign seems already to be under way.

In classified cyberwar against Iran, trail of Stuxnet leak leads to White House.  The Obama administration provided a New York Times reporter exclusive access to a range of high-level national security officials for a book that divulged highly classified information on a U.S. cyberwar on Iran's nuclear program, internal State Department emails show.

NYT: No spying on Americans? Au contraire.  On Tuesday, Barack Obama insisted that the US government isn't spying on Americans by surveilling the contents of their communications.  Less than two days later, the New York Times makes hash of that claim.  The NSA, reports Charlie Savage, sifts through the content of "vast amounts" of electronic communications between Americans and people abroad in their search for links to terrorism, and not just the metadata.

Obama's lapdogs.  If you seek a delightfully written article on politics, look at yesterday's Washington Free Beacon, an 18-month-old online newspaper.  Editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti examined a recent New York Times interview of Barack Obama not for its news content — there was none — but for how "it reveals the mentalities of the participants."

The Court Reporters.  I have been studying the transcript of the recent New York Times interview of President Barack Obama.  It is a remarkable document — remarkable not for the facts it contains, but for the way it reveals the mentalities of the participants.  Remarkable, too, in so far as the transcript allows a curious reader to see, in detail, how journalism is manufactured.

Neglect At The New York Times.  After a long three-year gap since their last exclusive sit-down interview with President Obama, you might think The New York Times would be ready to ask tough questions on the most contentious issues of the day, beginning with the deepening Obama scandals.  Wrong.  Instead, the Times defined the "news" in this interview to be Obama's counter-attacks.

The Age of Hyperbole: How Normal Weather Became 'Extreme'.  The distortion and outright lying in the media's coverage of weather and climate change have increased dramatically in the past year.  This is because the global warming narrative has been exposed as false, making it harder to sell without resorting to hyperbole and cherry-picking data that supports the alarmist agenda.  So, publications such as the New York Times are not reporting news any more when it comes to weather and climate.  Instead, they are spinning a false narrative to create their version of the news, much like the state-controlled media of communist China.

After Ruling, States Rush to Enact Voting Laws.  State officials across the South are aggressively moving ahead with new laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls after the Supreme Court decision striking down a portion of the Voting Rights Act.

The Editor says...
The New York Times article above reeks with bias, even in the headline.  When a traffic signal turns green, drivers immediately rush away.  The rush means nothing, except that the light is green and the impediment is removed.  The rest of the article is worded in such a way as to show support for the Democratic party — which is what one would expect from the NYT — including a claim that voter fraud "is extremely rare" and a derogatory emphasis on the state of Texas.

The New York Times Admits Its Reporting on the Trayvon Martin Case Has Been Fundamentally Wrong.  A New York Times story about jury selection in George Zimmerman's trial says the case is "spotlighting Florida's Stand Your Ground law."  In the very next sentence, however, the Times concedes "that law has not been invoked in this case."

The Grey Lady's Grudging Abortion Admission.  In a piece in its upcoming Sunday [6/16/2013] magazine, the New York Times allows in an absurdly roundabout way that a recent study has found that the vast majority of women denied abortions end up glad that they gave birth.  If you blink, you might miss the decisive quote from the researcher, Diana Greene Foster.  It comes very late in the piece:  "About 5 percent of the women, after they have had the baby, still wish they hadn't.  And the rest of them adjust."

The Totalitarianism at the Heart of the Obama Scandals.  The Obama administration's legs are wobbling under the weight of so many scandals lately that whole chunks of the edifice — the IRS, the NSA, the DOJ — are threatening to implode, particularly without support from the normally adoring media.  Even the New York Times — the New York Times! — is no longer willing to bolster an administration whose totalitarian urges have been exposed to the light.

New York Times quietly changes published editorial to make it less [critical] of Obama.  The New York Times edited its damning editorial condemning the Obama administration for collecting phone call data from Americans to make it less stinging shortly after the editorial was published online Thursday afternoon.  The editorial originally declared that the Obama "administration has lost all credibility" as a result of the recently revealed news that the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been secretly collecting call data from American users of Verizon under the authority of the Patriot Act.

The Totalitarian Left is Back.  Nothing in the Patriot Act authorizes the government-wide abuse of power by the IRS, EPA, FBI, DOJ, and other agencies with the coercive powers against Americans and foreigners.  The fault is not in the Patriot Act, but in Obama's Chicago-style one-party machine style of governance.  And rather than defending our freedoms, the leftist media colluded with abuse of power until after the election of 2012.  The New York Times is the biggest gear in the Obama Machine and they know it.

We're All Fox News Now.  [A recent New York Times editorial] was remarkable as much for what it didn't say as for what it did.  There were no snide asides about Fox News, or qualifications along the lines that "even Fox" has First Amendment rights.  Nor did the Times editors take any shots at George W. Bush, congressional Republicans or any other familiar antagonist.  They simply defended Fox News's right to engage in news-gathering and denounced the Obama administration's assault on it.

Where the Scandal Points.  It looks like one of the things that will be inflicted on New Yorkers as a result of the scandal at the Internal Revenue Service is a whole new round of tirades from the New York Times calling for state-funded electioneering.  This is what we take from the editorial in the Times this morning arguing that the scandal was not that the IRS was looking into tax abuses by social welfare groups allied with the Tea Party but that it wasn't also looking at social welfare groups allied with the Left.

Those crazy, lone-wolf, low level IRS employees.  Let's not forget that for the last few years, every time there has been a mass shooting or a terrorist plot revealed, the media reflexively pointed their fingers at the Tea Party movement.  Just three short hours after the first reports came in about the mass shooting in Tucson, Paul Krugman of the New York Times posted in his "Conscience of a Liberal" blog a quote by Rep. Gifford's grieving, distressed father that "'the whole Tea Party' was her enemy."  His intention was to lead the reader to conclude that the Tea Party was somehow to blame.

NYT Public Editor Says Paper Playing Down Benghazi; Dismissive Hearing Coverage indicates Her Concern.  Benghazi hearings open in the House on Wednesday [5/8/2013], and the New York Times printed a preview on page 16 of Wednesday's edition that downplayed any possible revelations about the Obama administration's reaction to the terrorist attack, which killed ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.  Testimony is expected by three State Department officials, led by U.S. diplomat Gregory Hicks, deputy mission chief in Tripoli, who said his pleas for military assistance were overruled.

New York Times Ignores Benghazi.  In the past week, the investigation into the September 11, 2012 attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi has been the dominant news story on most media outlets, including such traditional media venues as CBS News and The Washington Post.  But you wouldn't know it, if the New York Times was your sole source of news and information.

The New York Times Erases Islam from Existence.  While the New York Times dispatched its best and brightest lackeys to Boston to write sensitive pieces on how hard it was for the two Tsarnaevs to fit in, it fell to a UK tabloids like The Sun to conduct an interview with the ex-girlfriend of the lead terrorist and learn that he wanted her to hate America and beat her because she wouldn't wear a Hijab.

NYT's Gabriel Claims Gosnell Trial 'Been Widely Covered' Ever Since Pro-Lifers Made It a 'Cause Célèbre'.  The New York Times's Trip Gabriel reported Tuesday that each side has rested its case in the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, on trial for four charges of infanticide at his Philadelphia clinic. [...] Gabriel didn't shy away from the gruesome details, but vastly overstated reality when he claimed the story has "been widely covered," as the Media Research Center has proven.

Bombers' Mosque In Boston A Factory For Terrorists.  The New York Times thinks the Boston bombers "self-radicalized" on the Web.  But it didn't look at their mosque, which has churned out other terrorists, too.

It's Colonel Mustard, in the Study, with ... the Trajectory.  Big news!!  The super sleuths at The New York Times have cracked the Boston bombing case wide open this morning.  Conducting "dozens of interviews with friends, acquaintances and relatives" in Cambridge and Dagestan, the team of team of three reporters examining the life of Tamerlan Tsarnaev concluded that a "trajectory" was responsible for the murder.

Boxing Extremists.  The media has found the real cause of the Boston Marathon Bombing.  It was not radical Islam.  Oh no.  That's silly and, if we're being honest with each other, a little offensive.  I'm disappointed in you for even thinking such a thing.  How dare you jump to conclusions like that?  No no, the real spark?  The real evil that sent Tamerlan Tsarnaev down his deadly path?  The New York Times has found the real killer.  It was boxing.

Bombers' Mosque In Boston A Factory For Terrorists.  The New York Times thinks the Boston bombers "self-radicalized" on the Web.  But it didn't look at their mosque, which has churned out other terrorists, too.  USA Today, on the other hand, did look at their mosque — the Islamic Society of Boston — and found "a curriculum that radicalizes people," according to a local source quoted in the paper's investigation.  "Other people have been radicalized there."

The NYT shamefully out of touch on Gosnell.  The New York Times continues to taunt those who are outraged by the atrocities coming to light in the Gosnell trial.  Not only have they managed to avoid properly covering the trial, but they seem to have chosen to stick a thumb in the eye of anyone who is alarmed by the inhumanity.

Two NY Times Columnists Embarrass Themselves on Guns in Sunday Review.  Two New York Times columnists embarrassed themselves over the weekend, betraying anti-gun ignorance in the paper's Sunday Review.  Frank Bruni went hunting for the first time (with the chef of a ritzy Manhattan restaurant), and remarked "what an unfair fight" hunting is, as if he was the first person to think that up.

The Dream of a World Without Oil.  [Mark Z.] Jacobsen's article provides a thorough assessment of the future of WWS [wind, water and solar].  Unfortunately, rather than buttress his argument, his figures undermine the conclusion that we don't need fossil fuels.

Color Them Blind.  It takes determination to out-demagogue New York City's anti-cop advocates, but the New York Times has done just that.

Three Years Too Late, Finally Some Honesty on Obamacare.  Now that the bill is safely passed and its namesake has been reelected, the [New York] Times small business section has come to a shocking realization:  Obamacare is going to very seriously, and very negatively, impact small businesses.  In two separate stories on their homepage the picture is clear:  business owners are facing tough decisions regarding their compliance and most of the possible scenarios will end up hurting the employees that the healthcare law was supposed to be protecting.

George Will Trashes New York Times Coverage of CPAC.  The liberal media have for days been trashing virtually every speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. On ABC's This Week Sunday, George Will exposed the hypocrisy particularly at the New York Times.

NYT Goes Birther: Attacks 'Canadian-Born' Cruz.  Liberals, the mainstream media, and establishment Republicans often reveal which conservatives they fear by their level of disdain and vitriol.  This week, they put their crosshairs on freshman Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a Tea Party conservative of Hispanic descent who undermines the mainstream media's ability to advance their false notion that being a minority and Tea Partier are mutually exclusive.

The Hagel-Cruz Bait and Switch.  The freshman from Texas has ruffled a lot of feathers in his first six weeks in office on both sides of the aisle.  His rough questioning of Hagel during the committee hearing and subsequent questions about the nominee's financial records also raised the hackles of some senators and Washington insiders but there's something slightly suspicious about the over the top reaction to Cruz on the news shows as well as from New York Times and Washington Post columnists.

'Times,' 'WaPo' Launch Racially-Coded Attack Against Ted Cruz.  Apparently, the Washington Post and New York Times don't like the idea of a non-white U.S. Senator acting all uppity.  It's fine for the lily-white Elizabeth Warren to immediately come out guns blazing, but over the past couple of days both news outlets ripped into in Texas Senator Ted Cruz for not knowing his place.

NY Times Notices Obama Tax Hikes Are Crushing Americans, Fails to Mention Obama.  This should be the first in a series.  Wait until these poor [people] start have to paying $20,000 a family to start for their free ObamaCare.  Still, curiously missing from this story is the name of the man responsible for this massive tax hike.

NYT Declares GOP Racist, Announces More Layoffs.  One of the first stories I came across this morning was the news that the New York Times is once again in financial turmoil.  By 5PM today, thirty senior staffers must agree to voluntarily resign.  If not, terminations will ensue.  This is the fourth time this has happened to the Times in just five years.  Yeah, that is a shame.  It's no coincidence, either, that this day of downsizing occurs just a few days after a NYT editor, Andrew Rosenthal, not only slobbered all over Obama like a teenage groupie, but publicly accused the GOP of racism for daring to try to stop Lightbringer's socialist agenda.

Study Indicts New York Times for Anti-Israel BiasNew York Times journalists are extremely protective of their newspaper's reputation as the "paper of record."  So when faced with criticism of their reporting or accusations of journalistic bias, they tend to reject it, discrediting their critics as insignificant right-wingers.

NYT Attacks North Dakota Oil Town as Sexist Nightmare.  As some of you may have already heard, the state of North Dakota is currently experiencing a politically incorrect and politically inconvenient economic boom in the midst of Obama's national economic program of stagnation.  Thanks to the discovery of oil and a government's willingness to get out of the way so industrious, risk-taking individuals can go after it, North Dakota is now a working, breathing, real-life repudiation of everything Obama and his media worshipers stand for.

New York Times Reporter Lays Out 'Far-Right Agenda' of Texas Tea Party.  The New York Times's Manny Fernandez greeted the opening of the biannual Texas legislative session in Austin in Wednesday's [1/9/2013] paper:  "Texas Budget Surplus Proves as Contentious As a Previous Shortfall."  After explaining how Texas has become flush with cash over the last two years, going from a budget deficit to surplus, Fernandez couldn't help working in a cut against the "far-right" Tea Party.

Doing the research the New York Times won't do.  In Sunday's New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, "More Guns = More Killing."  She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times:  (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.

Even Though.  The New York Times' Fox Butterfield is famous for repeatedly reporting with astonishment that crime rates went down as the prison population went up without giving much heed to the possibility that the two trends might be correlated rather than (as the paper's house ideology insists) contradictory. [...] Well, he now seems to have some competition in the "incredulous about cause and effect" department at the Times.  In today's paper, Times business reporter Reed Abelson notes with barely masked bewilderment that insurance premiums are rising sharply as Obamacare's insurance regulations begin to take effect.

An Appeal for Dictatorship Comes Out of the Closet at the New York Times.  True to form, the New York Times saw out 2012 by publishing another apology for dictatorship.  In his op-ed, Louis Michael Seidman — Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University — argues that the Constitution should be abandoned.  The suggestion is so preposterous that it is tempting to dismiss the article altogether, but to do so would be to miss some very revealing implications.  The article is not so much a suggestion of constitutional reform as an open call for dictatorship.

The Editor says...
Rather than abandoning the Constitution, let us all abandon the New York Times.

The Al Jazeera Liberals.  According to the New York Times editorial page, the creation of a new Al Jazeera America is a blow struck for diversity in journalism.  The Times feels Time Warner Cable is wrong to drop the new channel from its broadcast lineup.  The implication is that those who have expressed shock or outrage about the spectacle of a former vice president of the United States becoming not merely a business partner but an advocate for a network that is well known for its anti-American and anti-Israel bias are either narrow-minded or in some way prejudiced against Arabs and Muslims.

NY Times Editorial: 'Unfortunate' That Time Warner Cable Is Dropping Al Jazeera.  Time Warner Cable, in a rather blunt statement, said yesterday that the company would no longer carry Current TV, which was just sold to Al Jazeera.

This unmitigated propaganda in the New York Times is reason enough to boycott the paper:
Let's Give Up on the Constitution.  As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is.

The Editor says...
The writer of the article immediately above is identified by the New York Times as "a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University," which tells us a lot about the potential for anti-American indoctrination at Georgetown.  He never gets around to his alternatives to the Constitution, but apparently he would prefer that the America-hating Marxist, Barack H. Obama, be pronounced America's not-so-benevolent dictator, bypassing the ballot box.  The whole article sounds like sedition to me.

Subverting the Constitution.  Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, is no fringe figure.  He is a pillar of the left wing legal establishment, graduate of Harvard Law, former clerk for Thurgood Marshall, and notable figure in the Leftist "critical legal theory" movement. [...] Seidman has taken to the pages of the daily bible of the progressive establishment, the New York Times, to lend respectability to a movement to subvert the Constitution, and turn to an undefined system which inevitably means the loss of our safeguards against tyranny.  All expressed in superficially reassuring prose.

Hey! Let's have a 'Burn the Constitution Day!'  I don't believe the Constitution is holy writ nor do I think that the Founders had all the answers for today's America.  But all public officials and members of the military swear fealty to our founding document for a reason; it is the most visible, the most tangible representation of our sovereignty as a nation.  We don't have kings, or castles, or ancient ruins to which we can point and say our sovereignty lies within.  It is the Constitution that unites us as a people.  And positing the notion that we should just throw it away is outrageously stupid and disquietingly radical.

Georgetown Law professor: Scrap 'archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil' Constitution.  Georgetown Law professor Louis Michael Seidman writes that the time has come to scrap the Constitution.  In an op-ed published in the New York Times Monday, Seidman, a constitutional law professor, claimed that the nation's foundational document is the real impediment to progress and solutions to America's troubles.

Give Up On The Constitution? The Political Left Already Has.  For many, the Constitution is the barrier that blocks government from trampling a free people.  Yet many on the political left see it as a hurdle to their ambitions.  Consider the constitutional law professor who wants to kill it.

Media myths on 'assault weapons' and 'semiautomatic firearms'.  If gun-control advocates and our media want to have a conversation about government restrictions on gun ownership, I think that's fine.  Debating more issues, rather than fewer, is probably good for our politics.  But the conversation about guns needs to be a bit more factually precise.  Today's New York Times story on the AR-15 has a lot of good information and aims to be balanced, but the story still manages to perpetuate many of the most stubborn myths about rifles.

NYT Opinion Editor Andrew Rosenthal Contradicts Himself Within Hours on Politicizing Gun Deaths.  Andrew Rosenthal, the driving force behind the perpetually hyperventilating and self-contradicting editorials that fill up space in the New York Times's opinion pages has now proven that he can hyperventilate and contradict himself in real-time.

Misreporting on Russia:  If you pick up the hard copy of the Wednesday issue of the New York Times, you will often find within a supplement bought and paid for by the Russian Kremlin and designed to improve Russia's image in the West.  It is called "Russia Beyond the Headlines" and the content can also be found on a website of the same name. [...] It's simply outrageous that the New York Times, in exchange for the Kremlin's cash, helps RBTH to circulate its propaganda, and helps it to lull deluded readers into thinking RBTH is engaged in actual journalism.

New York Times Admits Reaganomics Worked.  After 30 years, The New York Times has admitted that Reaganomics worked.  The inadvertent revelation comes in a November 29th article by Binyamin Appelbaum chronicling the steadily falling tax burden Americans have experienced since the 1980s.

NY Times Attacks Texas for Attracting Business.  The New York Times published a piece Monday attacking Texas for giving financial incentives to companies to encourage them to move to the southern state.  This article follows only one day after the Times published a piece that attacked states in general for "crony capitalism" while ignoring the massive crony capitalism of the Obama Administration.

NY Times Cutting Staff Again.  Workers at The New York Times are facing more lost jobs, as the paper of record initiates a new round of staff cuts in a cost savings move.

Why Is the NY Times Islamist Terrorism's Apologist?  The NY Times is not just an apologist, but the leading apologist for Islamic terrorism.  It bears responsibility for the results.

New York Times' Sunday Review goes wall-to-wall for Obama's reelection.  The New York Times has endorsed President Obama's re-election and the paper is doing its best to help out any way it can. The latest move just reinforced the fact that the Times is so institutionally Democratic that it hasn't endorsed a GOP presidential candidate during Obama's lifetime.

Who Threw Israel Under the Bus?  On October 23, the profoundly anti-Israel New York Times ran an op-ed by Ephraim Halevy — former head of Israel's Mosad and national security advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon — titled "Who Threw Israel Under the Bus?"  His thesis is that it has always been Republicans who have been bad for Israel; and he provides examples of how this has been the case.

The October Surprise.  The New York Times reports (and the White House denies) that "The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran."  Two of the three assertions in that lead paragraph are demonstrably false.

Mitt Romney, as Viewed by the New York Times.  One can't help being in awe of the New York Times.  The ingenuity it displays in running down Mitt Romney, if applied to a more useful project, would be a national treasure.

It's scary, how much the New York Times is in the tank for Obama over Libya.  Radio talk show host and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham was right when she confronted New York Times political reporter Jeff Zeleny on the set of "Fox News Sunday" this weekend:  "I would hope that the New York Times, as they camped outside of Scooter Libby's house during the whole Valerie Plame thing — are you guys camped out of the Susan Rice residence?"  She said, "This is ridiculous and I think the press is partly culpable here."  And she wasn't alone in voicing that sentiment.

Obama Owns Shares in Chinese Company.  After Mitt Romney promised to aggressively crackdown against Chinese companies that cheat American businesses, the New York Times, along with other mainstream media organizations, have tried to paint Mitt Romney as a hypocrite by digging up companies in which Bain Capital has a stake.  They conveniently ignoring that President Barack Obama also has investments in some of the exact same Chinese companies.

New York Times: Nothing 'significantly new' in 'politicized' Libya hearings.  New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet said today he doesn't see "anything significantly new" in yesterday's congressional hearings on Libya, while both he and the paper's executive editor, Jill Abramson, suggested the hearings were politicized and therefore not worthy of front-page coverage.  Baquet and Abramson's remarks come in response to criticism from the paper's own public editor, Margaret Sullivan, who objected to the editors' decision not to run its story about the hearings on today's front page.  Both The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal gave yesterday's hearings prominent play on their front pages, above the fold.  The Times placed its story on page A3.

America's Paper of Torpor.  The real problem with The New York Times is not that it's liberal but that it's boring.

AEI scholar offers vacuous 'conservative case for Obamacare'.  This weekend brought us another reminder of how low the New York Times's standards are for authors who are willing to make liberal arguments while claiming conservative credentials. [...] The article doesn't make any effort to engage actual conservative policy arguments against the health care law, but instead seeks to caricature them.

The New York Times and New Black Panthers Protect Election Lawbreakers.  Once upon a time in America, if a group of citizen volunteers set out to help election officials detect problems with the voter rolls, they would have been praised.  If a group of citizen volunteers had detected scores of dead people on the voter rolls they would have received broad accolades from all corners of America.  Once upon a time in America, we esteemed law abiding citizens who helped law enforcement detect law breakers — especially when it comes to the sanctity of elections.  But this isn't the America we used to know.

New York Times announces that only Obama will be allowed to approve stories in advance.  It was revealed last week that the Times gave the White House the right to approve details in a lengthy story in advance.  Now that the Obama story has run, the Times has realized that that policy may just be a violation of journalistic integrity and quickly announced a new policy that prohibits quote approval.  In other words, what's good for Obama just ain't gonna fly for Romney.

Trashing the Constitution.  First, let's dispense with a persistent media trope, which is that President Obama was a constitutional law professor in Chicago.  Former University of Chicago Law School Dean Richard Epstein blew a hole through that recently with his recollection that New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor's claim that Mr. Obama was offered tenure is false.  Mr. Obama was never even a law professor, just a part-time lecturer.  "[U]nder no circumstances would an offer to Obama be tenured," Mr. Epstein told the Daily Caller.  "The thought that the law school could have made a tenure offer to a person with no academic writing was out of the question."

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Files False Tax Return, New York Times Not Interested.  Late last week, the campaign team for Wendy Long (R-NY) filed a press release accusing Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) of filing false tax returns in 2010.  Long is currently running against Gillibrand for her U.S. Senate seat.  Citing what they refer to as an "impossible transaction", Long's team asserted that Gillibrand's tax return had mischaracterized the sale of 80 shares of Sears Holding Corp. stocks.  Additionally, the campaign openly wondered why the New York Times had no interest in the story.

An example of the left-wing bias in the New York Times:
Giving Reins to the States Over Drilling.  With gasoline prices again approaching $4 a gallon, Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, is also trying to merge energy and economic policy in a way that will make voters see increased energy production as a pocketbook issue.

The Editor says...
Well of course four-dollar gas is a pocketbook issue.  The New York Times is trying to make increased energy production look like a development that would only benefit the oil companies, but the return of two-dollar gasoline would benefit everybody.

Eco-Luddites New Target: Air Conditioning.  The leftist critique of capitalism and all the improvements in the quality of life that it has brought remains what it has always been:  the desire of intellectuals to dictate to the rest of humanity how they may live.  Or even more to the point, how many of them may live at all.  Thus, the latest New York Times feature about the evils of air conditioning and how the increasing demand for it in the Third World is unsustainable tells us a lot more about the left and its mindset than it does about the future of society.

NBC and NYT Employees Caught Contributing to Obama Campaign.  Workers in news organizations ranging from the New York Times to NBC News are making donations to President Obama's re-election campaign even though many companies forbid employees to do so for fear that such contributions will raise questions about the staff's impartiality.

Are Americans Not Submissive Enough?  If I didn't know better, I'd have thought New York Times columnist David Brooks was having a laugh at our expense.  Alas, Brooks means every word of his column titled "The Follower Problem," as anyone who reads him regularly will realize.  "I don't know if America has a leadership problem; it certainly has a followership problem," Brooks laments.  "Vast majorities of Americans don't trust their institutions."  Worse than that, he thinks Americans dislike all authority.

Way Too Much Information From Media Lapdogs.  During the Bush administration, many U.S, media outlets came very close to treason in aiding and abetting our adversaries by alerting them to government activity after 9/11.  The New York Times published this piece in May, 2005, keeping our enemies abreast of our covert activities.

Obama's Lauded Appointees Have Failed to Measure Up.  Like almost everything written and said about President Obama and his new administration as they stood poised to take office in 2009, the intellectual, governmental and political skills of his Cabinet and executive team were overinflated and fawned over by a news media caught in the national swoon.  "The team he has announced so far is more impressive than any other in recent memory," wrote New York Times columnist David Brooks.

New York Times Preemptively Spins Wisconsin Recall Results In Obama's Favor.  The New York Times' Michael Shear irresponsibly, falsely, and erroneously accused outlets like Drudge Report and Breitbart News of racism for vetting President Barack Obama.  Shear is now taking the lead in "objectively" and preemptively spinning the results of the Wisconsin recall election in Obama's favor.

New York Times Misrepresents Global Warming Surveys.  The New York Times on April 30 published a news article that leads off with the assertion, "polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk."  No such poll exists, but don't expect the New York Times to make a correction any time soon.  The only poll that resembles the Times' assertion was an online survey in which only 79 respondents listed themselves as having climate science as their primary area of expertise.  This is an absurdly small number of respondents -- even overlooking the less-than-scientific nature of the poll itself -- from which to draw meaningful conclusions.

The New York Times At Twilight.  The personal anecdotes are interesting, of course. But the real story here is an economic one:  the drying up of advertising revenue that has brought the once-profitable New York Times Company to its knees.  The paper's most recent effort to restore profitability is its second attempt at erecting a pay wall.

Was Rev. Wright Offered Hush Money? Nobody In The Media Cares.  Liberals like the outraged activists at The New York Times want to make sure no one is allowed to bring up Reverend Wright again.  On MSNBC, they were demanding pledges that this would be banned from any honorable discussions of the campaign.  Few seem to understand why Rev. Wright still resonates among conservatives.  It's not about race — except that black racists like Wright are never called out by liberals — it's about a vicious hatred for America, so vicious that you almost cheer 9/11 because America had it coming.  Who can support that view in a pew and with your donations?  Obama did.

News You Won't Find At The New York Times.  In the Times cocoon, a grass roots mobilization of feisty, democracy-loving Wisconsinites is rising in rebellion against the hated Walker business and big donor lobby.  In the actual Wisconsin, there are two grass roots movements opposing each other.  The anti-union populists may end up with more energy, more unity and more votes than the pro-union organizers.  The labor mobilization against the Walker reforms has been lovingly and carefully covered by the Times and its brethren since Day One:  nothing like that level of analysis has been deployed on Walker's grass roots support.

Bill Keller, Political Hypocrite.  [Scroll down]  Of course, there was the inconvenient fact that the Times showed a notable lack of interest when it came to Barack Obama's 20-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright, a minister whose views are racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American.  And for those Times readers who might have forgotten — and given the paucity of coverage by the Times, who could blame them? — the Reverend Wright was referred to by Obama as his "spiritual mentor," Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama, baptized their children, inspired the title of Obama's first autobiography.  Yet in 2008, the Times found all of this singularly uninteresting.  It looked the other way.

Did someone mention Jeremiah Wright?

Spin of the Times: Bias cloaked as front-page news.  It's no surprise to anyone who pays attention that mainstream media tilt their coverage in favor of Democrats and leftish ideas.  But it's not confined to endless puff pieces about the president, or the ignoring of unpleasant facts.  Often, it's more subtle — as when the general thrust of a news story advances a particular narrative even when the facts within the story don't really support it.  For that sort of thing, you have to go to the acknowledged experts, the reporters and editors of The New York Times.  And as Obama fights for re-election, you can expect to see a lot more of it.

NY Times Still Finds Obama a 'Rock Star,' Rally Has 'Techno-Dazzle'.  New York Times correspondent Mark Landler hyped Obama the "aging rock star" trying to rekindle the 2008 magic at a rally Saturday [5/5/2012] in Columbus.  It also featured "digital gizmos" that "lent the rally the techno-dazzle of an Apple product introduction."  The euphoria may be hard to recreate — the media hype then was more effective because it didn't have three-and-a-half years of reality for rebuttal — but the Times is still deeply impressed.

Sealed records
Who Is Barack Obama? The Question that Won't Go Away.  Alternative sources of information are much more potent now than they were in 2008.  It matters not if The New York Times closes ranks and buries a story.  There are too many other instruments of disinterment.  The news will out.  And the more people know about Barack Obama, the more, I predict, they will wonder how this man became president of the United States.

NY Times Goes Hunting for Racist 'Ultraconservatives' in Ohio Who Won't Support Obama.  The New York Times sent reporter Sabrina Tavernise to the battleground state of Ohio, to the blue-collar town of Steubenville in pursuit of a pet theory:  Barack Obama may struggle to win because some whites are racist.  Tavernise starts by suggesting this could be a problem with Democrats, but "ultraconservatives" quickly surface.

Walker Gains in Wisconsin: NYT Shields Readers From Distressing News.  The New York Times has a long piece on the political situation in Wisconsin this morning, and in some ways it is reasonably balanced. [...] Even so, it is a journalistic disaster:  it tells you everything you need to know except the one thing you really need to know, and it reveals the soft pale underbelly of establishment journalism in America today.

Good News: Obama To Act More Like A Dictator.  Obama has fully embraced the use of executive powers, and the NY Times works hard to say "yes, this is A-OK".  One has to wonder how they would react if it was a Republican president.

New York Times Columnist Bumps into Reality, Learns Nothing.  A New York Times reporter produced a chart showing that the only successful budget deal in recent decades was the one in 1997 that included tax cuts — yet he then complained that we can't deal with red ink because Republicans won't agree to a tax increase.

At The NYT: Clueless Blue Deer Meet Onrushing Truck.  New York Times staffers, like suffering proles all over the world, belong to a labor union, and over the years the union has negotiated a very comfy defined benefit retirement plan.  The staffers love the plan.  But economic reality is intruding.

Obama's Recovery About to Disappear.  For the last several months, liberal journalists have been plugging the idea that the United States is enjoying an economic recovery after the slow down of the past few years and that President Obama deserved the credit for rescuing the nation from its troubles. [...] But one of the leading exponents of this thesis may be about to give up on their crusade to persuade us that everything is just fine and getting better every day.  The New York Times published a front-page story intended to let its readers down gently as they confront a worsening economic picture in 2012.

Playing the Race Card Again.  "White Hispanic."  That's how the New York Times, Reuters and other media outlets have opted to describe George Zimmerman, a man who would simply be Hispanic if he hadn't shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.  The term, rarely if ever used before this tragedy, is necessary in telling the Martin story in a more comfortable way.

Paul Krugman Drills Dry Hole On Oil, Gas Fracking.  The economist at the newspaper of record defends the president's energy policy of Solyndra, Chevy Volts and algae while dismissing the oil boom on private lands as a small-town hiccup with no impact on price.

NYT Buries Obama's Tanking Poll Numbers.  Did you know that this debate we've been having around abortion, contraception and other health care issues is hurting the GOP?  You may not know it, unless you read the New York Times. ... They buried Obama's falling poll numbers, while insisting the debate must be hurting the GOP, because that's what they wanted and thought it would do.

The New York Times' Hypocrisy in Favoring Islam While Criticizing Catholicism.  This really is a year of anti-Catholic bigotry and few issues are revealing it like Pamela [Geller]'s fight with the nation's newspaper of record.

New York Times nixes anti-Islam ad, runs anti-Catholic ad.  Executives at The New York Times have rejected a full-page anti-Islam advertisement that mimicked a controversial anti-Catholic advertisement they published on March 9.  According to a Mar. 13 letter sent by the Times to the ad's sponsor, anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller, the $39,000 anti-Islam ad was rejected because "the fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger."

The Editor says...
Apparently the editor of the New York Times believes that American troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region are currently in no danger, but if the NYT runs the wrong sort of advertisement, all that tranqulity goes out the window.

Energy: Dueling Headlines for Dunces.  Perhaps the greatest example of cluelessness in the pages of the New York Times was their bafflement a few years ago over the fact that the prison population was still rising even though the crime rate was falling, apparently unable to discern a possible link between the two. ... But yesterday [3/12/2012] the Times offered a wonderful contrast of stories that capture the full cluelessness of Obama-style liberalism today.

Reaching Critical Mass.  Is CRT oriented around some notion of white dominance or white supremacy?  I think we can count on the NY Times to present critical race theory in as gauzy and flattering a focus as possible, so let's see how they described it over the years.

The Heartland Institute Flap.  The NY Times weighed in the following day [Feb 16] with this misleading headline:  ["]Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science["]  It calls the event a "leak" rather than evident fraud, clearly indicating bias.  It also refers to a "campaign against climate science."  This too is wrong; there are honest scientific disputes, which the NYT ignores.

In Contempt: Progressives and the Constitution.  The First Amendment doesn't grant or guarantee the right to free speech or freedom of religion.  It says the government can't infringe upon it.  That's what the "Congress shall make no law" bit is all about.  This confuses the people at the [New York] Times.

'Terse, Old' Constitution Outdated for Failing to Guarantee 'Entitlements', Says NYTimes.  Sorry, Founders:  The "terse and old" U.S. Constitution has been ruled out of date by Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak for failing to provide such "rights" as free health care. ... Liptak failed to differentiate between rights retained by the people from the power of the government, like freedom of speech and religion, and entitlements, which are transfers of money and services established by government either via majority rule (i.e. voting) or judicial fiat.  Examples include foot [sic] stamps, welfare payments, and "free" health care.

The Incredible Shrinking New York Times.  Despite the launch of an online paywall that has, by any measure, been a big success, the company's revenue for its core news business shrank again in 2011.  And because news expenses rose, profits shrank even more.  The culprit, as ever, is the company's print-ad business, which has shrunk steadily for the past five years.

New York Times Faces Leadership Vacuum.  The departure of New York Times Co. (NYT) Chief Executive Officer Janet Robinson last month leaves the company with a leadership vacuum amid falling revenue, profit squeezed by pension costs and pressure from family members to restore a dividend once worth more than $20 million a year.

Homeless Families in Illinois Walking a Hard Road.  When her public aid arrives without snags — a rarity, she said — she receives $674 in Social Security, $623 in cash assistance and $723 in food stamps each month, plus support from the federal Women, Infants and Children program.  The public support covers food and clothes, but it is not enough for a security deposit on an apartment.  Dealing with the red tape of public aid eats up her days.

The Editor says...
The New York Times wants us to feel sorry for this freeloader who is only good at one thing:  reproduction.

The Self-Destruction of the Mainstream Media.  For the past forty years the mainstream media has become increasingly liberal and more overt in promoting the policies of the Democratic Party. ... The New York Times Company, often considered the bellwether of the national media, has reduced its labor force by 47% (6,600 jobs) since 2000.  The average daily circulation for the Times has dropped by over 21% (234,000 readers) during the same period.  The Company has been liquidating as many assets as possible in order to stay afloat; they now have few viable assets left to sell and will soon be facing bankruptcy.

Under Fire, Holder Brazens On.  In a jaw droppingly sycophantic NYT's piece, originally titled, "Under Partisan Fire, Holder Soldiers On", the Obama administration's #1 lapdog, Charlie Savage reported that a defiant Eric Holder has no intention of stepping down.  Lashing out at his and Obama's critics, Holder whipped out the all too familiar race card.

The Times Trashes Truth-Tellers.  The old Gray Lady long ago lost her credibility and any claim to fair and honest reporting, especially when the subjects involved any of Pinch Sulzberger's various political and social agendas.

The New York Times Paints Holder As A Victim Of Fast And Furious.  Charlie Savage's newest piece at The New York Times is, as my friend Sean Arthur on Twitter says, a shameless PR drivel and allows Mr. Holder to make ludicrous statements without challenge and pulls the race card.  The New York Times and Charlie Savage are really going to do this after all the articles they published during Attorney General Alberto Gonzales scandals?  Give me a break.  The hypocrisy at The New York Times is too much to take.

New York Times CEO Steps Down.  The New York Times Co.'s Chief Executive Janet Robinson resigned unexpectedly, creating a void atop the New York publisher at a time when it is trying to remake its business for a digital age.  Ms. Robinson's departure, disclosed by the publisher on Thursday, comes as persistent weak advertising results this year had raised questions among analysts about the future of a company that still relies on print for the lion's share of its revenue.

When Business Executives Are Rewarded For Failure:  How many times have New York Times editorialists and columnists railed against companies that reward failed executives with golden parachutes in the form of bonuses and fat retirement packages? ... Of course, it would be wrong to generalize about the treatment of outgoing executives.  What constitutes an outrage when it is done on Wall Street may be entirely appropriate when we are talking about a CEO in another industry.  Like publishing.  Like the New York Times.

The Real EMP Threat.  On the front page, Monday's [12/12/2011] New York Times provides a slanted and insidious "news" item on Newt Gingrich's warnings about the danger of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons.  The author of the piece, William Broad, clearly sought to convey the impression that the former House Speaker is scaremongering about a nonexistent, or at least much exaggerated, threat.  This piece is seriously ill-informed, misleading, and dangerous insofar as it serves to perpetuate what is already a serious vulnerability to EMP attacks.

NY Times' Editorial On Unemployment Unintentionally Condemns Liberalism.  [Scroll down]  But then I must ask the Times:  Does this then mean there is a flip-side by which Democrats intentionally keep bloated governments afloat (often by increasing taxes on the private sector) in order to pacify with government jobs those same minorities whose votes they consider essential to their maintaining power?  Assuming even the Times was correct in its take on GOP motives, then it must be assumed that the motive of the Democrats is to keep minorities employed in large swaths of a wasteful and bloated government labor force just to keep their own political machines running, correct?  Or are left-wing politicians just more noble creatures than the rest?

NY Times Adds Detail to NBC's Bowing, Fawning TV Deal with Chelsea Clinton.  Only in a liberal cocoon of a publication would come the headine, "Chelsea Clinton, Living Up to the Family Name."  But there it was in The New York Times.  That writer sounds like someone who never read The Starr Report, or anything else critical of the way the Clintons managed the White House or Little Rock.

New York Times Spins Fast And Furious Document Dump In Favor Of DOJ.  If Charlie Savage is going to write an original story he could at least use a headline that doesn't dupe the readers?  But the headline isn't the only bad part of the article.  The whole article is completely soft on the DOJ and the tone is off, almost as if Mr. Savage is unconcerned that this operation has taken the life of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and 200+ Mexican civilians.

More about the Gun Runner / Fast & Furious scandal.

Leaked Emails Raise Questions About NYT's ClimateGate Coverage.  The most striking take-away from the emails is how obsessed the climatologists seemed to be with media coverage — almost as if they were public relations associates as opposed to scientists.  The extent of cooperation between the climate researchers and some friendly news outlets is also fascinating.

New York Times on Solyndra: This Scandal Makes Republicans Look Bad, Right?  [On November 24, 2011, the New York Times] examined the Solyndra scandal and concluded Republicans are really off base for having the temerity to complain about throwing taxpayer dollars down a rathole in the name of enriching big Democratic donors.

Bill Keller's First Column.  Bill Keller stepped down recently as executive editor of the New York Times and made his debut today as an op-ed columnist.  Well, you certainly can't fault him for failing to come up with a refreshing new look at the country's problems.  According to Keller, Barack Obama's political woes are George Bush's fault.

'We Were Impressed'.  If you get a call from a pollster conducting a survey for the New York Times, you may want to hang up on him.  The Times has its own idea about the purpose of opinion polls — an idea that is insulting to the public and that, as far as we know, no other news organization shares.  Normally, the purpose of a poll is to measure public approval of politicians and their policies.  For the Times, the purpose of a poll is to see if the public measures up.

Liberal mainstream media should try actual reporting for a change.  I know it may sound crazy, but I have a suggestion for The New York Times.  Instead of taking the word of the Obama White House, its energy department, or even the word of Republicans for that matter, why don't you simply gather a team of your investigative journalists, remind them of their professional responsibility to be ethical, honest, and non-biased, and then unleash them to do some actual reporting for a change instead of insultingly regurgitating White House spin?

A Tax on Excess Wealth Creation.  "Obama Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires," reads the headline of the lead story in today's New York Times.  Nice touch that "ask" part, as if paying taxes were voluntary.

Don't Confuse Us With Facts.  They cannot help themselves, The New York Times that is.  With absolute regularity, they continue to report certain issues in the most biased and fact-avoiding way possible.

Media Bias and Abortion Language.  In a recent essay in the August 10 New York Times magazine titled, "Two-Minus-One Pregnancy," author Ruth Padawar discusses cases where a pregnant woman chooses to "reduce twins to a singleton."  The expectant mother, after choosing not to endure the extra burden of raising twins, aborts one of the fetuses.  Except, technically, she does not abort the fetus.  Instead, a doctor inserts a long needle into her abdomen.  Then, using a sonogram, he directs the needle into the chest of one of the fetuses and injects it with potassium chloride, quickly killing it.  The body of the dead fetus remains in the womb and shrivels during the remainder of the pregnancy.  It is removed during the live birth of its twin.  Although the above description uses the word "kill," the New York Times author does not.  Instead, she uses euphemisms such as "extinguish," "eliminate," and "reduce to a singleton."

NYT burying latest Fast and Furious stories shows paper's 'biased approach'.  House Oversight Committee officials aren't happy with The New York Times.  Committee staff are accusing the paper of burying its story on how acting ATF director Ken Melson lost his job amid the Operation Fast and Furious scandal.  Times readers would have to dig down to page A13 of Wednesday's Gray Lady to find out that Attorney General Eric Holder reassigned Melson to a different job inside the Justice Department.

Bill Keller, Red Pope of American Media.  The New York Times prints All the News You're Fit to Read — and if you're not fit to read about the reality of the "Arab Spring" (a pure New York Times fabrication, without a smidgen of fact) the NYT kindly protects you from ever knowing about the bloody realities of the Middle East today.  Ahmadinejad recently calling for a second Holocaust wasn't even reported in the day's New York Times.  This is called "editorial judgment," and it's exercised today by people like top editor Bill Keller, whose last week on that job begins today.  Mr. Keller was in the news last week for smearing traditional religions with a very broad brush indeed — except for head-chopping Islam, for which he has nothing but the warmest praise.

Who Are the Real Religious Bigots?  [Scroll down]  Did President Obama, for example, subscribe to the noxious political and religious beliefs of his pastor Jeremiah Wright?  If not, why did he attend church there for 20 years and have his children baptized in that church?  If so, shouldn't [Bill] Keller's leftist ilk have followed up on why Obama agrees with Wright?  Is it merely accidental that Keller's candidate-faith anxiety is centered on conservative Christian candidates Bachmann and Perry?

The Times Doubles Down on Its Issa Smear.  On August 14, the New York Times ran a front-page smear of Congressman Darrell Issa, who has been a nuisance to the Obama administration in his capacity as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.  The Times article, by Eric Lichtblau (who relied on the goofball far-left site ThinkProgress for research assistance) was titled A Businessman in Congress Helps His District and Himself.  Lichtblau's theme was that Issa has wrongfully used the powers of his office to advance his own business interests.

Darrell Issa Sticks it to the Times.  Darrell Issa is a brilliant businessman who made a lot of money the old-fashioned way:  he earned it, rather than marrying or inheriting it as so many Democratic politicians do.  Which is another way of saying that he is just the kind of man we need in Washington.  The Left, of course, doesn't see it that way.  The New York Times hates Issa because, as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he has launched several investigations of wrongdoing that have embarrassed the Obama administration.

Congressman Darrell Issa Hits Back at NYT's Front-page Attack.  Issa's office has called for a "front-page retraction of the story due to the inaccuracies that fully undermine the premise of the article," describing the piece as an "error-ridden front page story."  Issa's director of communications, Frederick Hill, explained that the three central examples the Times used to justify their claims are "wildly inaccurate," citing 13 inaccuracies in the article that reflect incorrect information or baseless assertions.  With only one exception, the Times has yet to correct or retract any of the errors in the article.

How Long Will It Take Keynes to Die?  While the rest of hyperconnected, interweb-powered planet Earth has now seen Keynesian economic intervention tested in real time and discredited beyond any intelligent doubt, the [New York] Times, I quickly learned, is a walled garden where the ideas of John Maynard Keynes remain not only viable but so evidently true as to require no factual support.

The Gray Lady's Sexual Agenda Revealed.  Giddy after the recent legalization of gay marriage in New York, the editors at the New York Times are laying out the left's post-gay marriage agenda in the paper's pages for all to see.  What they clearly want is a country that is sexually unrecognizable from the one we live in today, one where marital infidelity is accepted as a lifestyle choice and actually celebrated, and traditional marriage is legally marginalized and removed from the public square.

Demonizing Christianity.  The front-page headline in The New York Times last Sunday [7/24/2011] was stunning:  "As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist."  That would be Anders Behring Breivik, the 32-year-old who has confessed to taking at least 76 innocent lives apparently because he doesn't like Muslims living in Europe.  But why would the Times brand Breivik a Christian?  He is not attached to any church, has no history of Christian activity, has openly criticized the Protestant philosophy and has admitted to committing acts counter to all Christian teaching.

New York Times Downplays Muslim Fort Hood Terror Plotter.  The New York Times downplayed the arrest of an AWOL Muslim soldier charged in connection with a plot to attack Fort Hood soldiers.  The newspaper all but ignored the role Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo's religious faith may have played in the alleged plot.  Abdo was arrested in Killeen, Texas, near Fort Hood.  He was found with weapons, explosive, and jihadist materials.

NYT Making the Motives Clear.  It's hardly any news to AT readers and other thinking conservatives that the elitist left operates on the idea that only their coterie of "educated" intelligentsia can possibly know what is good for the "unwashed" masses -- and ought, by right have the power to make life's decisions and enforce them on everyone else.  It's also hardly news that the New York Times is the nation's major mouthpiece for promotion of this thinking and simultaneously propounds in its pages agendas intended to undermine traditional American culture and morals.

Inhibiting an Oil and Gas Boom.  The fossil fuel shale extraction industry, where technological advancements and discoveries of huge reserves of oil and natural gas hold great promise for the nation's future energy needs, is under attack.  In June the New York Times ran a dubiously sourced series of stories that sought to show the bullishness on natural gas is overblown.

Meet the NYT's Executive Editor: "Leftist, Elitist, Communist, Socialist" Bill Keller.  The latest edition of the New York Times's Sunday magazine gave conservatives a rare opportunity to repurpose Times Executive Editor Bill Keller as a piñata, though the paper's intent may have been to make its conservative critics look irrational.  Readers responded bluntly to Keller's trashing of Sarah Palin in his column for the June 19 issue, in which he claimed "most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea" of a Palin presidency.

Pinch Happened.  The [New York] Times is preparing itself for a huge push to re-elect President Obama and will leave no story unpublished that could possibly help Obama or hurt his opponent, regardless of who it is. ... Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. ... became the paper's publisher in 1992 and has steadily transformed what was a newspaper into an ideological tool of the left.

Here's an example of environmental alarmism in the NYT:
Atop TV Sets, a Power Drain That Runs Nonstop.  Those little boxes that usher cable signals and digital recording capacity into televisions have become the single largest electricity drain in many American homes, with some typical home entertainment configurations eating more power than a new refrigerator and even some central air-conditioning systems. ... One high-definition DVR and one high-definition cable box use an average of 446 kilowatt hours a year...

The Mask Slips, Yet Again.  No one who has lived through the last forty years can be surprised when a New York Times reporter reveals his contempt for those who don't share his cultural biases; especially, against those like me who live in the "middle places."

All the biased news they see fit to print.  Having grown up at the Times under the great Abe Rosenthal, I find it appalling that [Bill] Keller has so little regard for the standards that were the true mark of professionalism.

The Times Slimes Clarence Thomas.  Picking up the baton from the disgraced Anthony Wiener, the New York Times slanders Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, hoping to keep him from voting on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

How The New York Times Explains Male Sex Scandals.  Of course, it is impossible to imagine Nancy Pelosi doing anything like Anthony Weiner did.  But not because powerful men think they are invincible and powerful women do not, but because of male sexual nature.  Powerful men are involved in sex scandals because they think they can get away with doing so, and because the drive to do what they did is so powerful they risk everything they cherish in life for it.

Times' Bias Shows In Palin E-mail Affair.  No wonder last week's frenzy over Sarah Palin's old emails went as fast as it came.  Not only did it turn out to be the nonstory of the year.  It gave objective journalism one of its biggest black eyes yet.

Graying Deity Of Pre-Internet Journalism.  It was a statement so telling, and so over the top, that within hours the Times removed it from its Thursday [6/2/2011] web story announcing Bill Keller's replacement as executive editor.  "In my house growing up, the Times substituted for religion," said Abramson, the former Washington bureau chief.  "If the Times said it, it was the absolute truth."  That is how the left-leaning media establishment in America wants it.

Airbrushing history at The New York Times.  'As someone who spent time in the Soviet Union while it still existed, the notion of airbrushing kind of gives me the creeps," New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said in 2003.  Keller was speaking in favor of the idea that the Pulitzer board should not rescind the prize it awarded the Times' Walter Duranty for reporting pro-Stalinist lies in the 1930s.  This week the Times appeared to many to have airbrushed its own history.

Creeping anti-Semitism in the New York Times.  The Times, in more polite tones but substantively at one with such anti-Semitic conspiracy libels, wants readers to believe that American Jews constitute "one of the country's most powerful constituencies" and that it's their extraordinary power that accounts for all the applause and standing ovations Netanyahu received from a compliant and obedient Congress.

New York Times' Share of Newspaper Sites' Traffic Hits 12-Month Low.  The paywall introduced by The New York Times at the end of March is hurting traffic to its website, as expected, but perhaps within acceptable levels.  The New York Times' share of United States page views for all newspaper websites dropped from 13% in March to 10.6% in April, its lowest share in 12 months, according to new data from ComScore.

Why the New York Times Gets Everything Wrong: It's the Left-Wing Bias.  There's no secret anymore as to why the paper has become worse than it ever was.  The editors and writers are on the political left; and they are pompous enough to think that since everyone they know thinks the same way, what they are writing is objective.  This is not to say that its bias is a relatively new thing.  It's just that in the paper's heyday, you could find relatively straightforward top-notch reporting.  But even then, on certain issues, there was very little difference between the editorial side and that of the reporters.

Racially Inflammatory Al Sharpton Gets Yet Another Pass From the New York Times.  The New York Times's weekly "Sunday Routine" feature is billed as "Prominent New Yorkers recount their weekend rituals."  This Sunday it featured Al Sharpton being interviewed by David Halbfinger.  Halbfinger's introduction gave no hint of why Sharpton is considered by non-Times readers as a controversial figure.

Whitewashing a terrorist.  Once again, The New York Times is carrying water for a terrorist — in this case, Lori Berenson, who openly acknowledges she was a "collaborator" with one of the two groups that plunged Peru into what may have been the worst terrorist maelstrom the world has ever seen.

Why Is the New York Times Shilling for Far-Left Terrorists?  As a wave of left-wing violence threatens to engulf the nation, why is the progressive New York Times running an ugly campaign of character assassination against a real-life American hero who saved lives and helped to safeguard the nation's sacred democratic process?  Could it be because the newspaper is sympathetic to the goals of the thuggish community organizers and union goons intimidating state legislatures across America and wants to help advance the liberal-left narrative?

How much further can the New York Times fall?  There was a time not that long ago that when somebody mentioned "blue chips," it wasn't uncommon to hear the stock of The New York Times included among those of General Motors, General Electric, IBM, and so forth.  Not anymore.

NY Times letters to the editor can't say the paper is 'wrong'.  The New York Times editorial board is never wrong.  Or at least, they won't print anything that says they are.

The worst of Times.  The New York Times today [1/30/2011] offers what it calls the backstory on its publication of the stolen WikiLeaks documents.  It includes the intriguing fact that the White House didn't try very hard to deter publication, but the report by executive editor Bill Keller mostly reads like house propaganda and a Pulitzer application.  There is a laugh-out-loud moment.  It comes when Keller writes that "it is our aim to be impartial in our presentation of the news."  It's hard to imagine he believes that.  Certainly nobody else does.

The New York Times:  Three-Fifths Of A Newspaper.  It's sad enough the New York Times' editors believe it "a theatrical production of unusual pomposity" that the incoming Republican Congress require "that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution."  It may be only me, but I'd be willing to bet those same Times editors would be running down the hallways, arms a-flailin' and citing a pure constructionist position on the First Amendment, if the new Congress required government oversight as to the content of their sorry excuse for a newspaper.

The Times Loses It.  The [New York] Times ran, as its second lead, above the fold on the front page, a story about the Tucson shootings headlined "Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics."  The article, by Carl Hulse and Kate Zernike, contains almost nothing newsworthy.  Nor can it be called news analysis, beginning as it does with an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy:  "The shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords ... set off what is likely to be a wrenching debate over anger and violence in American politics."  If self-fulfilling prophecies were wanted from reporters — and they are not — a better one would have been "Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Mental Health Policies."

New York Times Attempts to Label the Constitution As Irrelevant.  As the unofficial, official Newspaper of the progressive movement, the NY Times has a core audience to placate, but who would think that they would go out of their way to alienate the rest of their readership.  But that's exactly what they did in an editorial called "Pomp, and Little Circumstance", which rebukes the GOP for the attempt to repeal Obamacare, allowing John Boehner to swear his staff in early and most startling, for wasting the people's time by starting off the 112th Congress with a reading of the United States Constitution.

The NY Times Explains the Constitution.  It is fascinating to see the liberal response to House Republicans reading the Constitution in the House chamber.  At the New York Times, reporter Kate Zernike offers an "annotated guide" to the Constitution that purports to explain the main battlegrounds between, as the Times frames the dispute, the Tea Party and progressives. ... The Times' analysis contains a number of howlers. ... We have "little in common with the framers"?  Not even, apparently, a system of government.  This is reminiscent of Ezra Klein's observation that the Constitution is old, so we may as well ignore it.

A Blizzard of Lies in The New York Times.  It's Orwellian when cold is declared warmth.  It's deceitful and insulting when it occurs in the midst of a huge blizzard shutting down much of the northeast.  I would not even trust the date on the front page of The New York Times because the newspaper long ago lost touch with reality, with sanity, and, one can only assume, readers fleeing to other sources for the news.

Adios, Gray Lady.  The New York Times used to be called the Gray Lady of American newspapers.  The sobriquet implied a certain stateliness, a sense of responsibility, the possession of high virtue.  But the Gray Lady is far from the grande dame she once was.

Considering The Source Of Today's News Is Crucial.  Once upon a time, The New York Times was a credible source of information and many educators demanded that their students use it for this purpose. ... Now that once-esteemed broadsheet is agenda- rather than journalistically-driven and one of the many sources to take with a large grain of salt.  Under the stewardship of Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, the Old Gray Lady is now known for printing all the news that fits his liberal agenda even in the most innocuous sections.

Just another act of deadly treason.  Yesterday [5/24/2010], The New York Times published another front-page article based on a leaked classified document.  This time, it was an order signed by Gen. David Petraeus authorizing black operations against adversaries and such dubious friends as Iran, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

Krugman:  Rangel's Ethics Scandal Has No National Signficance.  Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman says Congressman Charles Rangel's (D-N.Y.) ethics scandal has absolutely no national significance.  As the Roundtable segment of ABC's "This Week" turned to new revelations concerning the powerful Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Sunday, the New York Times columnist was all by himself in making the case that Rangel hasn't really done anything wrong.

The New York Times:  Carrying Water For Castro, Again.  An inexcusable piece hails a Cuban musician's Castro-approved visit to the States.  No mention that Cuban dissidents receive beatings instead of visas.

The NYT and 'American Justice'.  The Obama-besotted editors at The New York Times applauded Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, (KSM) the confessed mastermind and of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the United States will be tried in a civilian court in New York City.

New York Times' Disgrace Deepens.  It is not just the rapid growth of online news alternatives that is destroying newspapers.  The New York Times was once the most respected paper in America.  Now it has become a paper in service to an agenda and a political party.  Is it any wonder why people look elsewhere for news?

New York Times to cut 100 newsroom jobs.  The New York Times Co. plans to cut 100 newsroom jobs, about eight percent of the total, by the end of the year, the newspaper reported Monday [10/19/2009].

Van Jones — unfit for print.  The [New York] Times continues to treat communism as a cute campus peccadillo like pot smoking or nude streaking.  A Times think piece (Sept. 9) worried that [Van] Jones' fall was "swift and personal."  Being a communist is personal but being the pregnant teen daughter of a vice presidential candidate is public business?

NYT Editor Offers Tepid Excuses for Lack of Van Jones Coverage.  A top editor at the New York Times this week owned up to the paper's lack of coverage of the controversy surrounding former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones.  Rather than leaving it there, however, the editor noted the paper's minimal online coverage, insisted that the Washington bureau was short-staffed, and suggested that Jones and his contentious positions really were not important enough to cover at length.

How much damage did the Times do?  James Risen and Eric Lichtblau are the New York Times reporters who disclosed the highly classified NSA eavesdropping program in December 2005.  In my view their behavior was blatantly illegal.  In all likelikhood it did great damage to the national security of the United States.

The Truth About The New York Times:  The mighty New York Times has seen better days.  Journalism's "Great Grey Lady," the grand dowager of the printed page, has experienced a steady decline in its reputation since admitting that one of the paper's most celebrated up-and-comers had something of a problem keeping the facts in and the fiction out of his news copy.  The decline in the paper's reputation has been accompanied by a turn for the worse in its economic health.

The New York Times Profiles Sonia Sotomayor's 'Rich Experience'.  I made the mistake this morning of reading a front-page profile of Sonia Sotomayor in the New York Times.  If that information alone isn't enough to prove I should have known better, this was the headline...

Did the Times bury its story on interrogations' effectiveness?  [Peter] Baker's story attracted a lot of attention soon after the paper posted it on its Web site. ... In fact, it appears there is just one place you won't find Baker's story: the print edition of the New York Times.

This is Torture?  [Scropll down]  The administration's other mistake was to endorse the view, promulgated by the Left, that the techniques described in the memos deserve to be called "torture."  Even a cursory examination indicates otherwise.  Indeed, so far from being "brutal," as the New York Times has reported, most of the interrogation techniques are remarkable in their mildness.

Unfair and unbalanced, Times spins toward oblivion.  The nation's largest left-wing newspaper and the bible for network news producers and bookers may be going under.  This past week, The New York Times [NYT] announced more staggering losses:  nearly $75 million in the first quarter alone.  The New York Post is reporting that the Times Company owes more than $1 billion and has just $34 million in the bank.  A few months ago, the company borrowed $250 million from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim at a reported 14 percent interest rate.

The New York Times May Want To Poll This Question.  It seems every day there is another example of media deception in America.  With the Fourth of July approaching, it is well worth remembering why the Founding Fathers gave the press special privileges.  They wanted journalists to report honestly, to give the folks accurate, unbiased information so they could make informed decisions about who should hold power.

Liberal Media on Life Support.  On May 18, Maureen Dowd lifted 43 words verbatim from the blog Talking Points Memo to make the point (repeated in eight million previous columns) that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney live only to lie and to torture, giving no indication in earlier versions that the words and the thoughts were not hers.  Hit with the news that two of their stars either stole words from others or omitted key facts to give false impressions, the Times said in effect they had done nothing terrible; that mere bloggers had no standing to criticize; and even if they did something terrible, it didn't matter, as they were The Times.

Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times.  The New York Times reported last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators.  The "183 times" was widely circulated by news outlets throughout the world.  It was shocking.  And it was highly misleading.  The number is a vast inflation, according to information from a U.S. official and the testimony of the terrorists themselves.

New York Times suspends dividend.  The New York Times Co. said Thursday its board has decided to suspend the newspaper publisher's quarterly dividend in a move to preserve cash as advertising spending continues to decline amid the recession.  The suspension of the payout comes after New York Times slashed its dividend to 6 cents from 23 cents in November.

Murder Spree by People Who Refuse to Ask for Directions.  In a front-page article on Jan. 2 of this year, The New York Times took a brief respite from its ongoing canonization of Barack Obama and returned to its series on violent crimes committed by returning GIs, or as I call it:  "U.S. Military, Psycho Killers."  The Treason Times' banner series about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans accused of murder began in January last year but was quickly discontinued as readers noticed that the Times doggedly refused to provide any statistics comparing veteran murders with murders in any other group.  So they waited a year, hoping readers wouldn't notice they were still including no relevant comparisons.

Times Watch Quotes of Note 2008 — The NYT's Worst Quotes of the Year.  The New York Times's embrace of Barack Obama's candidacy, and its fervent defense of him against John McCain's "racist" and unfair attacks, made 2008 a particularly bias-packed year for the paper.

Good Thing We're Shutting That Gitmo Place Down.  The New York Times reported yesterday that the Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban have mended their fences in order to join forces against the surge in American troops in Afghanistan.  The Taliban may be in hide-and-seek mode against our military but they make themselves available to the Times.

Maureen Dowd Bares Fangs, Only Embarrasses Herself.  When historians look back in wonder at how a long-established publication like the New York Times could have declined from its virtual king-of-the-world status in mid-2002 to its Bush-deranged, 85%-devalued shadow of its former self, they will surely make a few stops at Maureen Dowd's twice-weekly, lost-in-another-world columns.

In the Tank for President Kerry.  The [New York] Times has for decades been the liberal journalistic blacksmith shop where the templates of a presidential campaign have been forged.  From its pages the template, like a well-crafted sword, is sent forth in duplicate form to the network news anchors and producers, to the other print outlets in the liberal media arsenal, to be used relentlessly in each and every story.

S&P slashes New York Times rating to junk.  Standard & Poor's on Thursday [10/23/2008] slashed its ratings on the New York Times Co into junk territory and cited concerns about the newspaper publisher's revenue outlook, after it posted a third-quarter loss.

It's Official: NYT is Junk.  Friday, the New York Times endorsed Barack Obama for President as "the right choice" to follow the "battered, drifting and failed leadership" of George W. Bush.  That wasn't a surprise.  The real news came from another part of town:  Yesterday [10/27/2008], Standard & Poors slashed the New York Times rating on its $1 billion debt to "junk" status.  Coincidence, or cause and effect?

The New York Times death spiral continues.  Bye, bye corporate jet!  At long last, the beleaguered company is sacrificing top management's plaything, the ultimate status symbol.  A long overdue cost saving mechanism in a time when the company's workers endure downsizing and cost reductions, even crowding themselves into smaller office space to save money.

NYT admits its writer intentionally lied.  The "Corrections" column of the New York Times today [10/21/2008] contains an extraordinary admission that one of its writers deliberately misrepresented a study and misquoted a source.

The Killer-Vet Lie:  Memo to New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt:  Your urgent attention is needed on the slanderous 7,000-word front-page article published last Sunday about homicides allegedly committed by US veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns.  We say "allegedly," because the article lumped those merely accused of a homicide with those who've already been convicted.  But that was the least of the piece's problems.  As our colleague Ralph Peters so adroitly demonstrated on these pages Tuesday, the article embraced the hoariest of overwrought clichés — the US combat vet as psychotic killer.

Smut-hunting NY Times Limbo Dancing in Alaska.  The New York Times is proving "how low it can go".  The NY Times is dispatching a group of its top "investigative journalists", fanning them across the State of Alaska looking for dirt on [Sarah] Palin and Republicans in a desperate bid to take the wheels off of John McCain's little red wagon.

Yellowcake journalism.  [Saddam] Hussein got the yellowcake from somewhere.  He almost certainly got it from Niger, Gabon, South Africa or Namibia, the four African countries with yellowcake mines.  And [Joe] Wilson, who served with the State Department in Baghdad and Gabon, didn't know (or didn't report in his [New York] Times op-ed) that Hussein possessed 550 tons of yellowcake at the time of Mr. Wilson's African junket.

The Return of the Wacko Vet Media Narrative.  Who is responsible for such agenda-driven reporting at the Times and other media outlets?  Mostly senior reporters and editors who are in their 50s and 60s, folks who came of age during the 1960s.

Camouflaging News:  Leave it to the New York Times to take a major story discrediting Barack Obama's Iraq policy and pitch it as a human interest feature on "mixed feelings."

The New York Times vs. Common Decency.  [Scroll down]  Beyond the security calculations made on behalf of the interrogator by those noted terrorism experts Bill Keller and Dean Basquet, there is the extraordinary lack of common decency in deliberately and knowingly placing someone's life and the lives of his family in danger.  This is especially true when you consider that the story would have gotten along just fine without us knowing the real name of the interrogator.

Guest Column:  The silence of 'The Times'.  The power of The New York Times is undeniable — even in an era of declining mainstream media influence.  What its editors choose to report still influences policymaking, as coverage of, or silence about, two recent Gaza-related events underscores.

N.Y. Times Seen as Anti-Israel.  Media watchdog HonestReporting.com has determined that The New York Times is biased against Israel.  The organization discovered that most headlines concerning attacks are written in the active style when concerning Israel, but in the passive when concerning Arab terrorists, who usually are called "militants."

The New York Times and the al-Dura Hoax:  That the al-Dura lies incited murders of many innocent people is indisputable.  The Jihadis who beheaded reporter Daniel Pearl inserted repeated footage of al-Dura in their gruesome video.  Osama bin Laden cited al-Dura as a justification for his carnages in a post-9/11 recruitment video which showed the boy's "death" 12 times.

The War Card:  The New York Times now tells us that a new study entitled "The War Card" has determined authoritatively that during the months leading up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, top officials in the Bush administration — including the president himself — made "hundreds of claims, mostly discredited since then, linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda or warning that he possessed forbidden weapons."  The Times did not report that the study had been conducted by an organization that received more than $1.62 million from George Soros in the last few years alone.

News That's Fit to Bury.  Sure sounds like a lead story to us.  But then, that would be good news about the war — and the Times has too much invested in its nonstop campaign to depict the situation in Iraq as an unmitigated disaster.  Any suggestion that the tide of war is turning and the terrorists actually are being defeated — something even Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of Capitol Hill's harshest critics of President Bush, now admits — simply won't do.

The Times Vs. Citizen McCain.  Is the New York Times really suggesting that the child of an illegal alien who sneaked past the Border Patrol is qualified to be president, but an American war hero born to American parents overseas is not?

What part of secrecy don't they understand?  This is not the first time The New York Times has reported on "top secret" government documents, programs, or war plans.

Getting it wrong, letting it slide.  Why is it that the mightier the news organization, the likelier it will stand by ethical blunders that would shame a first-year reporter?  Apparently, along with industrial mastery comes the right to deny, evade, whine and nitpick instead of owning up to what you did wrong and making sure you don't do it again.

Warning:  This article contains vulgar expletives.
Rosenthal Blasts Critics Over Dowd Column.  Some media observers are in a tizzy over a recent Maureen Dowd column published with a "Derry, N.H." dateline even though she filed it from Jerusalem.  Also that some of the quotes used in the column were collected by her assistant, without a reporting credit.  Greg Sargent originally called attention to it; the Columbia Journalism Review described it as "easy manipulation," and Spencer Ackerman said that using the Derry dateline was a lie.

Major shareholder bailing out of the New York Times.  The decline of the New York Times as a reputable newspaper has been matched by the decline of its business management.  The running (or running down of the newspaper) by "Pinch" Sulzberger, descendant of the family which had purchased and remade the paper generations ago, has progressively destroyed the value of the Times (the apple does fall far from the tree -- especially after several generations).  The paper has suffered disproportionably more than its peers on the stock market.

The Rapid Decline of the New York Times.  It's about as much fun being a newspaper publisher as an airline president these days, so Arthur Ochs "Pinch" Sulzberger, Jr. of the New York Times deserves our sympathy.  Last quarter's earnings were dreadful. … Just last week, Lehman Brothers forecast that in a year, its common stock would decline in value by almost half.

The Times to Cut 100 News Jobs.  After years of resisting the newsroom cuts that have hit most of the industry, The New York Times will bow to growing financial strain and eliminate about 100 newsroom jobs this year, the executive editor said Thursday [2/14/2008].  The cuts will be achieved "by not filling jobs that go vacant, by offering buyouts, and if necessary by layoffs," the executive editor, Bill Keller, said.

How The New York Times Fell Apart:  Over the last few years, we've seen a number of newspapers find themselves in deep financial distress as they've failed to deal effectively with the challenge posed by Cable News and the Internet, and particularly (on the editorial side) the blogosphere and (on the business side) Craigslist, Google, and eBay.

Unfit To Print?  Every major daily paper in New York took note of President Bush's decision to bestow the first Medal of Honor of Operation Enduring Freedom on Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy — a Long Islander who gave his life for his country and his fellow SEALs.  Every paper but one, that is.  And it shouldn't be particularly hard to guess which one.

Liberals Against Diversity.  The New York Times op-ed page is trying to go from bad to diverse.  The page has hired William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, as a weekly columnist, starting next Monday.

Secrets, leaks and political correctness:  Last week, I wrote about the New York Times' crusade to uncover and publish top-secret information and made the case that secrecy is in fact oftentimes a good thing, not something to be rooted out and destroyed.  That column generated quite a few comments from people who were worried that I was advocating torture.  I didn't actually, but I do advocate whatever is necessary, including a little secrecy, to keep us safe and to help us prevail in our war against Islamic terrorists.

Top Ten Lowlights of The New York Times in 2006.  From reporters throwing national security secrets onto the front page to publishers going on liberal rants at graduation ceremonies, we've whittled down the worst from another liberally slanted year in Timesland.

Financial Woes for the New York Times.  New York Times Company's reported financial results, outlook, and stock price keep getting hammered by poor business performance.  Having announced it will pay $125 million in dividends, the company must increase its profits if it is to avoid further drawing down of shareholder equity, amounting to gradual liquidation of the company.

How to Lie With Statistics:  With apologies to Darrel Huff and his famous book of the same title, today's papers provide a wonderful demonstration of how the mainstream press — in this case, The New York Times, can use real statistics to justify politically spun conclusions.

The New York Times and Iran:  The New York Times has been criticized for helping terrorists in the past by disclosing investigatory methods and rendition policies and practices, supporting them in its editorial pages and allowing terror suspects to spin their stories in the news section, disclosing methods our nation has used to prevent funds from reaching terrorists, condemned the existence of prisons holding terrorists, criticizing the laws brought to bear to prevent terrorism, and whitewashing or apologizing for terror when it occurs.

New York Times bond rating cut again.  How much longer will Pinch Sulzberger's family allow him to drive the family fortune into the ground?  Under his leadership, the company has not only turned to the hard left editorially, it has committed a series of business blunders imperiling their prosperity.

The New York Times Reports and Distorts a Presidential Address.  On July 24, around noon, President Bush delivered an important speech at Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina.  He discussed in considerable detail the links between Al Qaeda in Iraq and the central leadership of Al Qaeda, reflecting the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community.  About four hours later, the New York Times posted a news story by Times reporter Brian Knowlton about the speech.

NY Times calls Iraq a 'lost cause'.  The New York Times on Sunday [7/8/2007] called for US troops to leave Iraq now, writing that President George W. Bush's plan to stabilize the country through military means is a lost cause.

MSNBC Confirms Liberal Media Bias.  The New York Times forbids donations, but that didn't stop Randy Cohen, who writes a syndicated column for the Times called "The Ethicist," when he gave $585 to the far-left activist group MoveOn.org in 2004 to organize get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat President Bush.  Cohen said he understands the Times' policy and won't do it again, but that he had "thought of MoveOn.org as no more out of bounds than the Boy Scouts."

The Worst of 'Times'.  If you read The New York Times, you must think you only imagined the welcome announcement yesterday that JPMorgan Chase will build a grand new office tower next door to Ground Zero, just as Goldman Sachs is doing.  Didn't the Times repeatedly proclaim downtown's days as a financial center were over?  It sure did.  And those who call the shots at the Times should be hauled before a journalism tribunal for printing all the destructive propaganda that could fit in its pages.

'Talking' terror.  What if the months of planning and conversation that went into the 9/11 plot had been leaked in advance to The New York Times?  Would the Times have reported it?  Or dismissed it as "just talk"?  Fair to ask — given how the Times reports on foiled domestic terror cases.

Coincidence or pattern?  We are to believe, I suppose, that it is mere coincidence that when leaks are harmful to the Administration there is no inter agency cooperation and no DoJ motivation to pursue the matters and when it is harmful to the Administration to pursue non-leaks and to sit on information helpful to the Administration, everyone in the bureaucracy goes out full bore.  At what point does repeated coincidence become a pattern?

My New York Times Problem:  Despite all the ongoing critiques, the Times remains a major cultural gate-keeper.  If a film, opera, ballet, concert, or book is reviewed in its pages — the work exists.  Otherwise, the work and its creator are rendered almost invisible.

The New York Times' own Rathergate.  Byron Calame, public editor of the New York Times, has laid out a carefully worded exposé of the utter breakdown of editorial standards at the New York Times.  The fact that paper prominently published a falsehood is only the beginning of the problem.  When the falsehood was exposed, two senior editors of the paper issued a defense of the article without bothering to check the readily available court documents which critics had cited.

Navy disputes war story told by former sailor.  The March 19 Sunday New York Times Magazine cover story was a gripping account of the emotional problems some female veterans suffer as results of their war experiences, sexual assaults or both.  One of the women featured in the story was a former builder constructionman Amorita Randall, 27, who … told the Times that she served in Iraq in 2004, which the Times reported as fact but which it now appears was not the case.

How a New York Times reporter's passion for Castro led him astray:  Aha!  Finally we've discovered the missing ingredient in American journalism, the vitamin deficiency that's been shrinking newspaper circulation and TV newscast audiences all these years.  What Americans clamor for is not information but passion.  The heroes of the coverage of Katrina were not the reporters who got the most accurate stories but the ones who shouted the loudest or cried the hardest.

Speaking of poor circulation...
New York Times to raise newsstand price to $1.50.  The New York Times Co. will increase the Monday-Saturday newsstand cost of its flagship paper by 25 cents to $1.50, the publisher said today [7/23/2008]. … Newspaper publishers are battling sharp rises in newsprint costs and deep declines in advertising revenue.

Phantom subscribers at the New York Times.  Pity the poor New York Times Company!  In addition to all its other woes, one of the company's newspaper distributors has been accused of defrauding the company with thousands of phantom subscriptions, recycling the papers supposed to have been delivered to the nonexistent subscribers, and collecting about $227k in fraudulent delivery fees.

'NY Times' Only Major Paper to Show Dead Saddam on Front Page.  It's a rare day when the august New York Times tops the New York Post — and every other major paper in the U.S. — in grisly or sensationalistic front page coverage, but it did so on Sunday.  An E&P survey of front pages from around the country reveals that the Times was the only major paper to include a picture of executed Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, on its front page, after his hanging.  It was even above the fold.

New York Times Turns to Supreme Court.  The New York Times asked the Supreme Court on Friday [11/24/2006] to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two reporters in a leak investigation about a terrorism-funding probe.  The case involved stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon that revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

Update:
Court turns down New York Times in leak investigation.  The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday [11/27/2006], refusing to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation of a terrorism-funding probe.

Dirty Trick from the New York Times.  In a last-minute dirty trick before the election, The New York Times took a story and twisted it in such a way as to damage the Bush Administration.  This will go down as a case study of media bias intended to sway votes.

Blood Will be On His Hands.  A trend is developing whereby reporters for the New York Times let their hair down, drop any pretense of objectivity, and ream the Bush Administration.  First it was Linda Greenhouse, the Times Supreme Court reporter.  Now it's James Risen, the Times reporter who revealed the administration's highly classified NSA terrorist-surveillance program.

NY Times:  Saddam Close to Building Atomic Bomb.  In an effort to hurt Republicans on November 7, the New York Times published a story accusing the Bush Administration of posting Iraqi documents that suggest Saddam Hussein's Iraq was close to building an atomic bomb. … Former intelligence officer and NYPD detective Sydney Francis says that the New York Times is attempting to have it both ways.  "They say that Saddam wasn't developing nuclear weapons, but then they say Saddam possessed documents that could help someone create a nuclear bomb," says Francis.

Times Risks American Blood in Terror War.  The September 18 copy of New York magazine features the blaring headline, "Times Under Siege," and the reported claim by President Bush that the paper's editor would have "blood on his hands" if he published a story about electronic surveillance of terrorist telephone calls.  If this is true, the Bush Administration has an obligation to prosecute the Times for revealing classified communications intelligence information.

More FISA Fear-Mongering:  The New York Times strikes again.  In Times parlance, such monitoring of international enemy contacts, routinely carried out by every wartime president in history, somehow becomes "domestic spying" when George W. Bush employs it against an enemy that has managed to attack the United States — and, according to the intelligence community's latest assessment, is working feverishly to do it again.

The horses are out.  Let's close the gate.
Banking Data:  A Mea Culpa.  Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there's a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.  My July 2 column strongly supported The Times's decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program.  After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base.

Let's dare call it treason.  They are not Benedict Arnolds — they are in a class all by themselves — political and journalistic hacks willing to do anything to win an election and oust an administration they loathe even if by so doing they endanger the safety of their fellow Americans.  Time after time, for months on end, we have watched the spectacle of government officials in the intelligence agencies violate their oaths by leaking the most sensitive secrets to dedicated anti-American newspapers such as the treasonous New York Times.

The New York Times Still is not Sure Bush is "Legitimate":  Most media and congressional leftists who attacked President Bush during our national emergency have backpedaled like crazy after an outpouring of rage from the public, but the dunce king of all media arrogance, the New York Times, is still at it.

Whack 'em Down:  Facts are something the New York Times and Time magazine and all the rest of the corrupt elitist media find most inconvenient and simple to ignore or distort.  What to do with the elitist media?  Shun them.  Don't read the New York Times.  Don't buy Time magazine.

Minimum Rage:  When The New York Times calls your argument "straightforward" and a CNN host calls your opponents' arguments "a lot of bull," you can probably count the media on your side.  That's exactly what Democrats are seeing in the media's approach to minimum wage increases — an issue designed to turn out liberal voters in at least six states this fall.

N.Y. Times:  Better dead than read.  We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know who the enemy is.  As liberals are constantly reminding us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace."  One very promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit Their Throats" Muslims is by following the al-Qaida money trail.  But now we've lost that ability — thanks to The New York Times.

Downsizing the New York Times.  Normally, this would be a juicy target for series of articles on the front and business pages of the New York Times.  You know the drill: a parade of blue collar people victimized by the Bush administration, and now facing a bleak future.  Meanwhile the insiders make out fine.  There's even a fat cat CEO whose compensation package has done a whole lot better than its profits or stock. … But today, the company in question is the New York Times Company. So don't expect the same rules to apply.

The newspaper of wreckage.  On June 22, the paper trumpeted its expose of "a secret Bush administration program" to track terror finances. … But by July 2, smarting from the public backlash against its blabbermouth coverage, the Times crew was backpedaling faster than circus monkeys on barrels hurtling over Niagara Falls.  Suddenly, the "secret" was no secret at all.

Because the New York Times says so.  According to America's leading journalists, the United States government cannot run clandestine operations.  Indeed, it cannot keep secrets or do anything in secret — if the press thinks "the people" should know about it.  I put "the people" in quotation marks because for the press, it seems, "the people" are an abstraction.  It needn't matter that the public understands some things should be kept secret; the press will tell them for their own good.

Who is the real threat to America?  Sometimes you have to just wonder if these liberal geniuses at the New York Times and elsewhere have the slightest scintilla of common sense, let alone goodwill.

Gun laws breed corruption.  Ordinary citizens who have had death threats or those who operate small businesses in high crime neighborhoods have little hope of obtaining a [concealed weapon] permit.  And using an unlicensed gun to defend oneself in New York City is a guarantee of serious prison time, no matter how legitimate the defensive need.  According to information obtained through leaks and the Freedom of Information Act, many NYC permitees are celebrities and political cronies.  The last time information was released, celebrity permit holders included … Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the rabidly anti-gun New York Times.

Troops targeted by ACLU and anti-war media.  Having spent eight months in Iraq as a volunteer to assist the military in security, I can assure your readers that these one-sided, anti-U.S. press releases serve only as an instrument by which radical Arabic news agencies print large bold headlines depicting our service personnel as monsters.  I have seen those articles and they are sickening.

The Worst of (the) Times.  It has become more and more transparent that the New York Times leans not only left, but far enough away from mainstream America so as to reach out to our enemies in the War on Terror.

Déjà Vu, All Over Again.  The New York Times and its wars against John Bolton and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

New York Times Once Again Does Its Best To Thwart the War On Terror.  Sometimes you really have to wonder if The New York Times is on the Al Queda payroll.  Not content with exposing, and thus making worthless the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Old Gray Lady has a lengthy exclusive on a CIA/Treasury Department program to monitor financial transaction of suspected terrorists.

Secession.  I assume the Republican National Committee is busy recording and archiving the idiotic statements coming out of national Democratic Party leaders and commentators.  The opinion pages of the New York Times (that would be pages A-1 to D-37 inclusive) have been running articles by prime cut liberals, the general themes of which have been that conservative Christians are the equivalent of Islamic terrorists and that the benighted provincials who voted for President Bush are simply hate-filled bigots who have no place in America.

The First, Refuge of Scoundrels.  The New York Times' First Amendment and public interest smokescreens are absurd.  As everyone else, they have a right to speak and publish their ideas, opinions and thoughts.  But they have no right to shout fire in a theater — or betray legitimate national security secrets — no matter how big and powerful they are.  The press needs to stop confusing the two.

The terrorist-tipping Times:  The New York Times (proudly publishing all the secrets unfit to spill since 9/11) and their reckless anonymous sources (come out, come out, you cowards) tipped off terrorists to America's efforts to track their financial activities.  Guess what?  It isn't the first time blabbermouth journalists have jeopardized terror-financing investigations since Sept. 11, according to the government.

On the other hand...
It is No Crime When Journalists Report What's Public.  Lawyer Buddy Parker assumed years ago that the U.S. government had tracked every penny that went into and out of the accounts of his client, suspected of laundering money for terrorists.  What he can't comprehend is the stir created by reports that the feds are monitoring international banking records.  "It's a yawner," says Parker, a former assistant U.S. attorney and now a white-collar defense lawyer in Atlanta.

Protecting secrets calls for strong measures.  Yet another leak of highly classified intelligence has made fighting terrorists more difficult.  But the media claim they — not our elected leaders — know what's best for the country.

Bad Manners in the Media.  What will the Justice Department do about a little-known law that seems to make just this type of disclosure clearly illegal?

Some of my best friends are journalists.  You cannot balance what you have not weighed, and you cannot weigh what you cannot measure.  Neither of the Times Two possesses the capacity, background, experience or learning to judge the extent of the assistance they have rendered terrorists.  No "expert" they could consult would be in a position to contradict the government's strong assertions of the danger they were putting innocents in via their recklessness.

"Show me the money!".  The paper that boasts about delivering "all the news that's fit to print" defends its right to divulge state secrets by arrogantly claiming that "the public has the right to know."

The New York Times strikes again.  Do you think that style-setter of American journalism — The New York Times  — would have run its expose of still another terrorist-tracking program if it had found out about it when the program was first set in motion, in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks?

Not All the News Is Fit to Print.  During World War II the United States government's Office of War Information spearheaded a national campaign whose most well-known slogan was "Loose Lips Sink Ships." … The Bush administration should institute a similar campaign that instructs citizens of both the real dangers of proliferating classified information and that the meaning of the First Amendment is not a license to publish anything.

House Roll Call Vote on Intelligence Leaks.  The 227-183 roll call Thursday [6/29/2006] by which the House passed a resolution condemning news organizations for revealing a covert government program to track terrorist financing.

More New York Times Distortions of the Rich:  It is impossible that the Bush tax cuts of June 2003 contributed to relatively lower tax payments by the very richest Americans in 2002.  But New York Times writer David Cay Johnston conveniently avoids this fact….

Slurring Bush at the New York Times.  The utter disdain of New York Times reporters for President Bush makes a mockery of the supposed "separation of church and state" (putatively reporting neutrally, editorializing from the left) in their brand of journalism.  The Times' condescension or loathing of the President seeps into news stories subtly.

What is the New York Times Promoting?  "Personnel is policy" is an old axiom in politics. It also applies to the world of journalism, as evidenced by recent developments at The New York Times, which has been trending even further left with recent appointments.  First, the Times promoted crusading liberal editorial page editor Howell Raines, who once publicly mourned that "the Reagan years oppressed me," to editor-in-chief.  Now, Richard Berke, the paper's national political correspondent since 1993, is being promoted to Washington editor, the number-two job in a bureau of more than 50 people.

The Al-Qaeda Times:  You could call it "Treason Central," or "al Qaeda West," but no matter what you call it, the building housing the once-august New York Times at 229 West 43rd St. in New York City is a beehive of anti-American hostility, where selling out the nation's secrets has become the newspaper's stock in trade.

All the News That's Fit to Prosecute.  The congressional rebuke of the paper makes it clear that the American people, speaking through their representatives, are more distressed by the help given to al Qaeda by the Times than by some purely hypothetical danger to civil liberties.

This just in ...
Karl Rove Secretly Runs The New York Times.  In a stunning development that would appear to have broad implications for the independence of America's newspaper industry, New York Times Publisher, Edwin 'Pinch' Sulzberger today revealed that longtime President Bush advisor Karl Rove has been secretly running the Times' news and editorial operation for almost four years.

The right not to know:  Once more the spoiler.  Despite the earnest persuasion of the White House to preserve a useful weapon in the war against the terrorists, the New York Times has revealed the workings of a covert surveillance program, indisputably within the law, to use administrative subpoenas to examine, through a Belgian financial consortium known by the acronym SWIFT, the financing of international terrorism.

The New York Times is a national security threat.  So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.

The Truth About Torture:  "If an enemy devised a diabolical plot to darken America's image, it is hard to imagine anything operating more efficiently toward that end than the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."  The implication behind this false statement, which began a June 18 New York Times story by Scott Shane, is that the U.S. is torturing prisoners.

The CIA Is Still After Bush.  The Washington Post on July 9 published an article, "When in Doubt, Publish," which began by saying that, "It is the business — and the responsibility — of the press to reveal secrets."  It was signed by five major figures involved in the field of journalism education. … In the process of trying to sound like guardians of the public's right to know, they disclosed their preference for keeping the American people in the dark about what the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says is a major faction of the CIA that is deliberately subverting the foreign policy of the Bush Administration.

Prosecute the New York Times.  Gabriel Schoenfeld … explains, "By means of that disclosure, the New York Times has tipped off al Qaeda, our declared mortal enemy, that we have been listening to every one of its communications that we have been able to locate, and have succeeded in doing so even as its operatives switch from line to line or location to location."

Is Al-Jazeera Less Biased Than The New York Times?  Sadly, this once again demonstrated how America's media are fighting a different battle than its soldiers.  After all, for publications that have been voicing loud and almost constant opposition to this war for several years, any positive development that leads to their expressly desired troop withdrawal should be heralded from the rooftops.  On their part, any behavior to the contrary indicates media that want the troops to leave, but only if they do so in loss and shame.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater:  The program, headed by the CIA and overseen by the Treasury Department, is known as the "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" (TFTP) and was begun shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. … The CIA, under the TFTP, examines mainly wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. … The government uses the data for terrorism investigations only, not such things as tax fraud or drug trafficking investigations.

Aid and comfort:  'The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," says President Bush.  That's one word.  Here's another:  Dangerous.  The New York Times has again put its institutional arrogance and contempt for the duly elected current administration ahead of the security of the nation.

Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act?  What the New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism.  If information about the NSA program had been quietly conveyed to an al-Qaeda operative on a microdot, or on paper with invisible ink, there can be no doubt that the episode would have been treated by the government as a cut-and-dried case of espionage.  Publishing it for the world to read, the Times has accomplished the same end while at the same time congratulating itself for bravely defending the First Amendment and thereby protecting us — from, presumably, ourselves.

Gray Lady Down.  The so-called mainstream media in general and The New York Times in particular are waging a relentless campaign undermining the war on terror.  The Fourth Estate is beginning to look like a Fifth Column.

The Soviets Had the KGB — Al Qaeda Has the NYT.  America spends $40 billion per year on intelligence operations aimed at discovering our enemies' secret activities.  All our enemies have to do is subscribe to the New York Times and, for as little as $4.65 per week, they can discover most of our secret operations — at least as long as a Republican is President.

Laughable claims about the NSA "Scandal".  It's clear that the New York Times is in big trouble with the announcement that the Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the leaks behind its NSA surveillance story.  The investigation is long overdue.  The paper had been warned by the President that national security would be seriously jeopardized if this program were made public, but it nevertheless chose to print it anyway.

The Gray Lady Toys with Treason.  The New York Times … has published classified information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat.

The New York Times vs. America.  2005 was a banner year for the nation's Idiotarian newspaper of record, The New York Times.

New York Times Company Spirals Further Downward.  It is sad to watch a once-great company decline.  Jobs are sacrificed, historic facilities closed, and an atmosphere of failure and fear usually permeates the surviving operations.  When a company needs to sell-off profitable crown jewels to sustain the lagging less profitable pieces, it does not portend future happiness.

The Press And the Rush To Judgment.  Remember those January newspaper headlines heralding the survival of all 12 trapped miners in West Virginia?  Even the august New York Times reported "12 Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion," but only one miner had actually survived.  In the frenzy to scoop competitors, reporters failed their journalistic responsibility, and this penchant to rush to judgment before all the facts are verified is again occurring on two recent hot button issues — homeland security funding cuts to New York City and the Haditha civilian deaths.

About that Quagmire…  It's amazing — The New York Times editorial page yesterday had something positive to say about the present occupant of the White House.  Not President Bush by name, of course.  That would be going too far.  But the paper of record acknowledged "truly astonishing" things are happening in the Middle East — noting dryly that "the Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances."

Media reporting from Iraq is one-sided and flawed.  If you rely on newspapers and TV networks for your news, chances are you have no idea that the controversial performance of Western reporters in Iraq is emerging as a big issue.  The mainstream media have virtually ignored the stunning charges made by John Burns, the New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.

Great Gray Lady in spat with saloon hussy:  The New York Times was in high dudgeon this week upon discovering that Fox News chairman Roger Ailes sent a letter to the Bush White House nine days after Sept. 11.  As the corpses of thousands of his fellow Americans lay in smoldering heaps, Ailes evidently recommended getting rough with the terrorists.

Lockstep on the Left:  In the past few weeks, the erudite leftist writers and editors of the New York Times have tried to enlighten the unsophisticated American public about the possible war against Iraq.

The Media Middle:  The immediate ad hominem attacks on President Bush after the terrorist acts by Jennings of ABC, Dowd of the New York Times, Shields of PBS, Andy Rooney of CBS, etc., are typical of the America-hating establishment mainstream press.  This was a time when thousands of innocent American lives were lost in a dastardly act of war, yet these intellectually challenged media morons couldn't resist attacking their greatest conceived nemesis - a Republican president.

The New York Times Still is not Sure Bush is 'Legitimate':  Most media and congressional leftists who attacked President Bush during our national emergency have backpedaled like crazy after an outpouring of rage from the public, but the dunce king of all media arrogance, the New York Times, is still at it.

New York Times Attacking President BushHow depraved can the liberal media be?  How despicable?  How utterly anti-American?  The New York Times, the flagship of the liberal elites, the group that helped lead us to this mess, the same cabal that had only nice things to say about Bill Clinton, opened up a ferocious broadside against President Bush in the middle of one of the worst crises ever to hit our country.

Blurring distinctions between murderers and their victims:  It's a journalistic atrocity to blur the distinction between murderers and their victims, but that's what both the New York Times and Newsweek decided to do in their lurid coverage of the Middle East.

The New York Times Still is not Sure Bush is 'Legitimate':  Most media and congressional leftists who attacked President Bush during our national emergency have backpedaled like crazy after an outpouring of rage from the public, but the dunce king of all media arrogance, the New York Times, is still at it.

New York Times Attacking President BushHow depraved can the liberal media be?  How despicable?  How utterly anti-American?  The New York Times, the flagship of the liberal elites, the group that helped lead us to this mess, the same cabal that had only nice things to say about Bill Clinton, opened up a ferocious broadside against President Bush in the middle of one of the worst crises ever to hit our country.

New York Times lowballs homeless numbers.  Estimates of the number of homeless have a long history of politics trumping accuracy.  When President Reagan was in office, the American media often quoted made-up figures from "advocates" along with the mantra that many of us were "one paycheck away" from living on the streets ourselves.  But yesterday [1/2/2007], the New York Times published a surprisingly low estimate of the number of homeless.  But this time, the estimate was for the number of homeless in France.

Journalistic Malpractice in "Marriage is Dead" Report.  On Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, the American people awoke to startling and disturbing news:  for the first time ever, the majority of women in the country were living without a husband. ... [But] it's not true.  The entire story (based on the work of one ax-grinding, irresponsible, agenda-driven journalist for the New York Times) has been cooked up from willful, blatant and shameful distortions. Amazingly enough, none of the most respected and purportedly responsible media authorities have taken the trouble to call him on it.

All the "News"?  The latest in a long line of New York Times editorials disguised as "news" stories was a recent article suggesting that most American women today do not have husbands.  Partly this was based on census data — but much more so on creative definitions.  The Times defined "women" to include females as young as 16 and counted widows, who of course could not be widows unless they had once had a husband.  Wives whose husbands were away in the military, or in prison, were also counted among women not living with a husband.

The MoveOn discount:

NY Times criticized for ad attacking top general.  An ad criticizing the top U.S. general in Iraq raised charges on Thursday [9/13/2007] that The New York Times slashed its advertising rates for political reasons -- an accusation denied by the paper. ... Moveon.org confirmed it paid $65,000 for the full page ad headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us."  The New York Post ran a story on Thursday asking why the basic rate of $181,692 for such an ad was discounted.

Subsidizing Sedition:  The New York Times gives moveon.org a discount on a full-page ad smearing Gen. David Petraeus.  Does anyone think for a minute that the Times would grant a similar discount for a group backing Petraeus?

Did The New York Times Break the Law?  Republican Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia is asking Democrat Henry Waxman, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to convene a hearing over the MoveOn.org ad in The New York Times calling General David Petraeus, "General Betray Us."  Davis says The Times may have unlawfully subsidized the political message of MoveOn by giving it a discounted rate.

'General Betray Us' Ad Violated Election Law, Group Says.  The formal complaint charges that the organizations responsible for the full-page ad that ran in the Sept. 10 New York Times violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as amended, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

N.Y. Times admits Petraeus ad sold to Moveon.org at 1/2 off.  The old gray lady has some explaining to do.  Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist group was permitted to pay half the rate it should have for a provocative ad condemning U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.

MoveOn.org's demeaning attack:  The overzealous liberal group MoveOn.org proved once again that one organization can make a difference — a bad one.  MoveOn.org's ill-considered, outrageous New York Times newspaper ad calling Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, "General Betray Us" not only slimed a well-respected general, it distorted a very real and very serious debate about the course of the war.

The New York Times and Sarbox:  Having dug itself into a hole with inept handling of the MoveOn.org ad and its aftermath, the New York Times Company may soon find itself unable to put down its shovel.  Few ironies approach the richness of the mess the firm may face with the regulatory requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Sauce for the Times:  The Times, a media corporation that is a fountain of detailed editorial instructions about how the rest of the world should conduct its business, seems confused about how it conducts its own.  The Times now says the appropriate rate for MoveOn.org's full-page ad should have been $142,000, a far cry from $65,000, which is what the group paid.  So the discount of $77,000 constitutes a large soft-money contribution to a federally regulated political committee.  The Times' horror of such contributions was expressed in its enthusiasm for McCain-Feingold.

"The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a contribution."

– FEC regulations  

The McCain-Feingold Newspaper Price Control Act.  Most newspaper editorial pages … support McCain-Feingold and other restrictions on campaign speech, which do not apply at least to editorial content of newspapers.  One wonders if any newspapers will change their editorial line now that their publishers are facing the threat of government intervention in their own business.

Did someone mention McCain-Feingold?

The New York Times' Left-Wing Discount:  Imagine if the New York Times gave half-price ad space to the National Right to Life Committee or the National Rifle Association.  It would never happen, of course, but if it did, you can envision the left-wing clamor.

Maybe the Times Can't Ad.  The New York Times finally came clean this week, admitting that it gave MoveOn.org a steep discount for the group's disgusting ad denouncing Gen. David Petraeus — and the Federal Elections Commission is taking notice.  As it turns out, a 1974 campaign-finance law makes it illegal for corporations to give money to political action committees like MoveOn.  And the Times' $77,000 rate cut almost certainly amounts to a hefty in-kind donation — also illegal by the FEC's lights.



Suppressed news:

'New York Times' Spiked Obama Donor Story.  A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a "a game changer."

NYTimes Killed Story on Crooked Obama Donor.  According to election fraud lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, The New York Times decided suddenly to drop all efforts last October to publish stories about the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) because it came to light that ACORN was a big donor to then presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign.

Update:
New York Times Finally Admits It Spiked Obama/ACORN Corruption Story.  Acknowledging what the blogosphere has known for weeks, the New York Times finally went on record to admit that just before last Election Day it killed a politically sensitive news story involving corruption allegations that might have made the Obama campaign look bad.

Killing A Story:  How It's Done.  In today's New York Times, Public Editor Clark Hoyt reveals the result of his investigation into the charge that the paper killed a story during the 2008 Presidential campaign in order to help Barack Obama.  Hoyt concludes that the claim is "nonsense." ... But the facts as related by Hoyt don't rebut the charge; they support it.

All the News That's Fit to Suppress:  I've often said that it's the journalistic sins of omission that are more damning than the industry's sins of commission.  Right on cue, the Times acknowledged this weekend that it had spiked a story on possible illegal coordination between left-wing activist groups ACORN and Project Vote and the Obama campaign just before Election Day. The charges involved Team Obama sharing top campaign donor lists with ACORN's supposedly nonpartisan canvassing arm, Project Vote (the same group Obama worked for as a Chicago community organizer).



Back to The War With No Name
Back to the Media Bias Page
Back to the Home page


Custom counter developed in-house

Document location http://akdart.com/nyt.html
Updated February 21, 2017.

©2017 by Andrew K. Dart