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.

Fauci Was Just a Symptom.  The mainstream press corps prefers to deal with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by pretending that he doesn't exist.  This is true both for his presidential campaign — which is thought to pose too much of a threat to President Biden to risk acknowledging it — and for his popular book, The Real Anthony Fauci.  Relegated to Skyhorse Publishing, which Wall Street Journal film critic Kyle Smith describes as "something of a refuge for the cancelled," Kennedy's book nevertheless cracked the top 15 on the New York Times hardcover nonfiction best-seller list for 15 consecutive weeks — topping out at #7.  Yet apparently it did not merit space in the Times for a review.

MSNBC Analyst Suggests Black Voters [are] Shifting To Trump Because Of 'Disinformation'.  The New York Times' Mara Gay on Tuesday suggested a main factor for the increase in black voters backing former President Donald Trump is that they are vulnerable to "disinformation campaigns."  CNN senior data reporter Harry Enten on Monday said Trump is "careening towards a historic performance" with black voters in the 2024 election as President Joe Biden loses younger African Americans "in droves."  Gay on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" said her "instinct" is that all voters, including black Americans, are falling for "disinformation" and that there may also be a gender and economic element to Trump's gains.  [Tweet with video clip]

The New York Times Is The Democrat Party's Mouthpiece and Guardian.  Our President ostensibly sets the government's tone, and so does America's MSM, with The New York Times as its lead dog.  The NYT, which calls itself America's Newspaper of Record, sets the tone for something even more significant than the government:  public opinion.  Public opinion drives the government more than the other way around.  Advocacy journalism defines the NYT today.  A constant reality within the paper is the creation of fake news, the unimportance of objectivity, the lack of coverage for consequential stories, and progressive advocacy.  A good example of the relentless advocacy press in the New York Times appears when its advocates (once called "journalists") work to advance[.]  This is especially true when it comes to the all-important and fiendish belief in DEI.

Now We Are Supposed to Cheer Government Surveillance?  They are wearing us down with shocking headlines and opinions.  They come daily these days, with increasingly implausible claims that leave your jaw on the floor.  The rest of the text is perfunctory.  The headline is the takeaway, and the part designed to demoralize, deconstruct, and disorient.  A few weeks ago, the New York Times told us that "As It Turns Out, the Deep State Is Pretty Awesome."  These are the same people who claim that Trump is trying to get rid of democracy.  The Deep State is the opposite of democracy, unelected and unaccountable in every way, impervious to elections and the will of the people.  Now we have the NYT celebrating this.  And the latest bears notice too:  "Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe."  The authors are classic Deep Staters associated with Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush.  They assure us that having an Orwellian state is good for us.  You can trust them, promise.  The rest of the content of the article doesn't matter much.  The message is in the headline.

J6 Inquisitors Nail Their First Big Name.  The New York Times editors could barely contain their glee.  "Conservative Family Scion Sentenced to Nearly 4 Years for Jan. 6 Attack."  The subhead spelled out the details:  "Leo Brent Bozell, the son and grandson of influential right-wing figures, shattered a windowpane in the Capitol, pursued a police officer and made his way into the speaker's office during the pro-Trump riot." [...] Although Leo "Zeeker" Bozell, 44, gave up his claim to the Bozell throne long ago for the quiet life of construction work in small-town Pennsylvania, he had name enough to bring out the inner Stasi in the DOJ's weaponized prosecutorial corps.  Bozell's mistake was to pay more attention to the 2020 election campaign than was good for him.  "He came to believe," the Times reports with astonishment, "that the results of the race had been 'rigged' against President Donald J. Trump."  The Times editors chose to ignore the unconstitutional changes in state election laws and the obvious vote-harvesting in key cities.  But to overlook 51 intel officials falsely swearing that Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian op is malpractice bordering on treason.

Has Anyone Noticed That Criticism of Hamas Has Vanished In the NY Times?  The answer to that is yes ... in Israel, anyway.  In a war started by Hamas with a grotesque massacre and pillaging of southern Israel, the New York Times has spent more time criticizing the victim rather than the perp.  We know that thanks to an analysis conducted by Lilac Sigan for the Jerusalem Post, who researched the stories featured by the 'Paper of Record' in its newsletters since the start of the war.  Sigan found the coverage fairly balanced ... for the first week of the war.  After Israel launched its ground operations in Gaza, however, criticism of Hamas shrunk dramatically in comparison to that of Israel — and disappeared altogether about two months ago.

The NYT suddenly pivots against 'campus chaos,' pretending like it was the champion of free speech and law and order all along.  All politicians are the epitome of saying one thing and doing another — it's part of their DNA. [...] This time around, we watch as Republicans flip the switch and crusade against free speech in the name of "safety and democracy" (sound familiar?).  Meanwhile, the New York Times flips the script, backing away from the pro-Palestinian protesters while simultaneously posing as the big defenders of "free speech" and law and order.  Of course, they're conveniently glossing over their own history of cheering on tyrannical censorship.  All of this unfolds as the right starts using the left's censorship tactics to shut down so-called "hate speech" on campuses — a term that doesn't even have a legal leg to stand on — and now the Times has snatched up the "free speech" banner, strutting around and calling out the "tyrannical censors" on the right.

Top NYT Editor Suggests White House Wants Paper To Act Like Communist Propaganda Arm For President.  A top editor at the New York Times suggested to Semafor that the White House wants the outlet to act like a communist propaganda arm for President Joe Biden ahead of the 2024 election.  Those close to President Joe Biden have previously thought that the NYT has been "failing" in its coverage by not being more favorable to the White House, according to Politico.  New York Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn responded in an interview with Semafor to complaints from Biden allies that the outlet does not see its role in the media "as saving democracy or stopping an authoritarian from taking power."  "It's our job to cover the full range of issues that people have.  At the moment, democracy is one of them.  But it's not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second.  Should we stop covering those things because they're favorable to Trump and minimize them?  I don't even know how it's supposed to work in the view of Dan Pfeiffer or the White House," Khan said.

Of Journalists, Students and Power.  I was reading along over breakfast last Thursday in search of the overnight news on the Israeli-U.S. genocide in Gaza when I came upon the headline in The New York Times, "Laundry Detergent Sheets Are Poor Cleaners."  Wow.  This is a story The Times had been following since its April 5 opener, "The 5 Best Laundry Detergents of 2024," but my friends on Eighth Avenue left me hanging.  At last I could go forth into the day confident I was a well-informed American, altogether engagé.  Last Thursday, last Thursday:  Wasn't that the day the U.N. Relief and Works Agency reported that Israel's military operations "continue from air, land and sea" and that "in northern Gaza only five hospitals remain operational, and in the south only six"?  Yes, I read this on a U.N. website, but The Times didn't have room for it.

Police Report Contradicts DC Councilman's Mugging Story.  An embattled Washington, D.C. councilman recently told the press he was the victim of an assault that took place a few years ago; however, the incident's corresponding police report contradicts key details of the councilman's story.  Democratic Councilman Charles Allen, who supported defunding the police in 2020, spoke to The New York Times in March about a recall effort he is facing due to his positions on crime, at one point relaying an anecdote about how he was struck with a pistol during a recent assault and that his attackers discharged a firearm next to his head.  A police report obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, however, indicates that he gave officers a slightly different account than the one he relayed to NYT.  "Mr. Allen was assaulted and pistol-whipped a few years ago, he said, by two people who shot a gun right next to his head, neither of whom was ever caught," the NYT's story reads.  However, Allen reported the incident to D.C. police in 2006, nearly two decades ago and not "a few years ago" as he told the NYT.  Also absent from Allen's 2006 account to police is any mention of his assailants firing a gun right next to his head.

Now We Are Supposed to Cheer Government Surveillance?  They are wearing us down with shocking headlines and opinions.  They come daily these days, with increasingly implausible claims that leave your jaw on the floor.  The rest of the text is perfunctory.  The headline is the takeaway, and the part designed to demoralize, deconstruct, and disorient.  A few weeks ago, the New York Times told us that "As It Turns Out, the Deep State Is Pretty Awesome."  These are the same people who claim that Trump is trying to get rid of democracy.  The Deep State is the opposite of democracy, unelected and unaccountable in every way, impervious to elections and the will of the people.  Now we have the NYT celebrating this.  And the latest bears notice too:  "Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe."  The authors are classic Deep Staters associated with Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush.  They assure us that having an Orwellian state is good for us.  You can trust them, promise.  The rest of the content of the article doesn't matter much.  The message is in the headline.

NYT ignores the adage about stones and glass house.  The New York Times recently published a hit piece on President Trump and The National Enquirer about how the two parties allegedly conspired to "catch and kill" a story about Trump allegedly paying off Stormy Daniels, a money-grubbing nuisance, for something that she claimed happened ten years before. [...] It is rich when the big media outlets like NYT, WaPo, NBC, ABC, CBS, or NPR rip The National Enquirer for catching and killing stories; these newspapers and media outlets catch and kill stories every day that would stand to hurt the image of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or any other candidate for whom they are campaigning.  They caught and killed the story of the truthful Hunter Biden laptop with the help of federal bureaucrats.  They caught and killed that story right before the 2020 election.  Why hasn't Joe Biden been sued by district attorneys and state AGs for spreading the lie that the laptop was Russian disinformation?  The lie was clearly meant to interfere with an election.

How the New York Times Foments Antisemitism.  The New York Times has a well documented obsession with Gazan hunger that fuels hostility toward Israel and Jews, by falsely suggesting that the world's only Jewish state is maliciously responsible for the greatest humanitarian crisis on the planet, even though there are exponentially worse famines underway, and the blame for Gaza's hunger is far more complex than the NYT's coverage would suggest.  The newspaper reinforces this incorrect impression through its many failures to cover stories that exculpate Israel and/or blame others for Gaza's food shortage.  Here are thirteen notable stories reported by Israeli news organizations that give crucial moral context — where Hamas and/or aid group incompetence caused Gazan hunger — but are completely missing from "the paper of record":  [Long list omitted for brevity.]

The New York Times' disgraceful, deceitful 'report' on Detective Diller's funeral.  "How many more police officers and how many families need to make the ultimate sacrifice before we start protecting them?" Stephanie Diller's plaintive question at Saturday's funeral for her husband, Detective Jonathan Diller, somehow turned out to be news not fit to print for the New York Times.  Nor the lines that preceded it:  "It's been two years and two months since Detective Rivera and Detective Mora made the ultimate sacrifice — just like my husband, Jonathan Diller.

The New York Times Admits Obama is Running the Deal.  The fake news New York Times said the quiet part out loud today.  Steve Bannon has made bold claims regarding Barack Obama's involvement in efforts to undermine former President Donald Trump.  According to Bannon, a recent New York Times article by Katie Rogers provides groundbreaking insight into Obama's behind-the-scenes activities, suggesting a direct link between Biden and current actions against Trump.

The Most Destructive Americans of the Last 70 years.  [Scroll down]  Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. - Head of the New York Times.  Once the gold standard of American journalism, the paper always had a liberal tilt and occasionally made bad mistakes.  As the years have gone along, the paper has slid further and further left and today is virtually the primary propaganda arm of the increasingly radical Democrat Party.  Still retains influence in Washington and New York.

Going electric requires electricity.  Who knew?  Lo and behold, when you push people to electrify everything in their lives — cars, cookers, heating systems — while bribing them to go all-electric with lavish government subsidies, it turns out they use more electricity.  Who would have thought?  I guess this is why we need all those brainiac experts to analyse the ultra-complicated technical details of environmental policy.  One such expert worries in the [New York] Times:  'The numbers we're seeing are pretty crazy.'  America's paper of record warns that in the past year the nation's utilities have nearly doubled their estimates of how much more power they'll need to provide in the next five years, during which an extra California's worth of demand will be dumped on the US grid.

Paul Krugman is angry at farmers.  Former Enron advisor and current New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is angry at farmers.  What's earned his wrath is that they vote for Donald Trump.  He says they vote for Trump because they're afflicted with "white rural rage."  Let's examine the components of Krugman's catchy phrase "white rural rage."  As for rural, it is certainly true that Trump does better in rural areas than in, say, downtown Chicago or Baltimore.  Then again, everybody does better — wherever they are — than they would in the toilets of downtown Chicago or Baltimore. [...] Millions of the people who voted for him are Black or Hispanic or Asian.  His supporters are — dare I say it? — diverse.  Is this entire multicolored constituency full of rage?  Maybe.  Which brings us to the last of Krugman's angry accusations about Trump voters — that they're full of rage.  That, he says, is because they're losers in a changing economy and changing world.  They're deplorable.  They're bitterly clinging.

Why is the FDA Contaminating America's Blood Supply?  Recently, The New York Times called one of their little exposés of normal people with government jobs no one had ever heard of the "deep state" and then went on to say that those people and their jobs are "kind of awesome."  It is always enlightening when the incompetent media tries to use propaganda and fails spectacularly.  It's obvious that they never even consulted the official definition of the "deep state" — a body of people, typically influential members of government agencies or the military, believed to be involved in the secret manipulation or control of government policy — before writing a completely bogus piece.  The NYT does not know it, but the NYT is dead.  Go woke, go broke.  You see, they can no longer report uncomfortable truths.  With COVID, it became abundantly clear that the bureaucrats at the Federal Drug Administration were the "deep state."

RFK Jr. zings NY Times as an 'instrument of the Democratic Party'.  Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s interview with the New York Times podcast The Run-Up went off the rails a bit when host Astead Herndon presented the independent presidential candidate as a potential spoiler who was "too insulated from the consequences of elections."  In setting up the podcast, the Times noted that Kennedy is "well known for his family lineage," and he countered by rejecting the "spoiler" label being pushed on him while accusing the newspaper of being an "instrument of the Democratic Party," according to Fox News.  "My wife would have never let me run if I couldn't win," Kennedy said, referring to actress Cheryl Hines.

NYT: There Is a Deep State and it Is Awesome.  You have to hand it to The New York Times.  They are as slick as they are deceptive.  A paper once known for afflicting the comfortable in government, they have been on a tear lately, shilling for the overlords who want to run our lives and rig our democracy.  [Tweet]  Of course, this being The New York Times, they are lying about everything, not the least of which is what we mean by the "Deep State."  They want us to believe that when Trump talks about the Deep State he really means mid-level bureaucrats at the Marshal Spaceflight Center, and not the upper echelons of the FBI, NSA, CIA, and Justice Department.  [Tweet]  However much you hate the media, it isn't nearly enough.  They are Pravda with much better production values.

On Today's Absurd New York Times Hit Piece.  In advance of oral arguments tomorrow in the Supreme Court for Murthy v. Missouri, formerly Missouri v. Biden, the New York Times and authors Jim Rutenberg and Steven Lee Myers wrote a craven and dishonest piece called, "How Trump's Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation."  The Times implies both the Twitter Files reports and my congressional testimony with Michael Shellenberger were strongly influenced by former Trump administration official Mike Benz, whose profile occupies much of the text.  Benz is described as a purveyor of "conspiracy theories, like the one about the Pentagon's use of Taylor Swift," that are "talking points for many Republicans."  They quote Shellenberger as saying meeting Benz was the "Aha moment," in our coverage, and the entire premise of the piece is that Benz and other "Trump allies" pushed Michael, me, and the rest of the Twitter Files reporters into aiding a "counteroffensive" in the war against disinformation, helping keep social media a home for "antidemocratic tactics."  This all has a strong whiff of setup.

2024 Is Shaping Up To Be The 'We Were Right About Everything' Election.  Last week, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul ordered the National Guard to start patrolling the subways of New York City to deal with the city's crime problem, which has been metastasizing for years now.  There was a lot of guffawing from the online peanut gallery, and understandably so.  In the summer of 2020, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., had written a New York Times op-ed suggesting the deployment of the military to quell the rioting that destroyed dozens of cities and did billions of dollars in damage.  Though polls showed Cotton's suggestion had popular support, the Times' own staff revolted against their employer, with several employees publicly reciting some version of the mantra that publishing Cotton's op-ed put "black people in danger." [...] In four years, we went from Democrats essentially saying we had to tolerate the lawless devastation of dozens of American city centers to fully endorsing armed 20-year-olds rifling through your bag before you use public transportation to deal with the ordinary criminality they allowed to fester.  And no, they do not care that this is profoundly hypocritical or that Cotton's reason for deploying the National Guard was far more reasonable than Hochul's.

NY Times:  A History of Vile Propaganda for Mass Murderers & Tyranny.  From hiding Stalin's monstrous genocide of Ukrainians and boosting Chairman Mao as an "agrarian reformer" to praising Adolf Hitler and concealing the depths of his depravity, the Times has a long legacy of shilling for savages and mass murderers.  The New York Times is passionate about the plight of Ukrainians facing the wrath of the Kremlin today, but once upon a time the self-styled "newspaper of record" hid the truth to help Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin exterminate millions of Ukrainian men, women, and children by starvation.  Between 7 million and 10 million perished in the engineered famine as the Times' chief Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty denied it and told Americans what a great man Stalin supposedly was.  That was hardly the only time the Times lied for tyrants.  The "Gray Lady" shilled for plenty of other mass murderers including Cuba's Fidel Castro, China's Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, and Germany's National Socialist leader Adolf Hitler.  Today, it continues to provide cover for would-be foreign and domestic tyrants while painting those who resist tyranny as "extreme," "radical," or even dangerous.

Trump's Promise — Retribution or Revenge?  [Scroll down]  The New York Times, with a long history of publishing falsehoods about Donald Trump, has already labeled Trump's potential second term, "The Retribution Presidency."  There is a smell of panic rising from midtown Manhattan and from the Beltway.  Is this revenge or retribution?  Is there a distinction? [...] Here is a summary of the two terms.  Words do matter.
  •   Retribution is a form of punishment imposed by law and legally authorized.
  •   Revenge, in contrast, is a form of personal punishment, one not sanctioned by law.
  •   The ultimate goal of Retribution is to punish the wrongdoer or offender and ensure that justice is served to the victim and public as a whole.
  •   Revenge, however, is a form of payback, to ensure that personal justice is served.  Thus, the goal of Revenge is vengeance or getting even.
  •   Retribution is only carried out for crimes and wrongs recognized in the law.  It is not personal and not fueled by a desire to persistently seek the suffering of the wrongdoer.  Instead, it imposes a punishment that is proportionate to the gravity of the crime or wrong.  Furthermore, it is governed by procedural rules and codes of conduct.
  •   In contrast, Revenge can be carried out for various wrongs, injuries, suffering and any other action considered harmful or hurtful.  There is no limit to the type of punishment imposed and the severity of such punishment.  As mentioned before, Revenge is personal and driven by a strong emotional desire to see the suffering of the person who committed the wrong or injury.
Which of these two words describe what the deep state ruling class has done to Trump versus what he will hopefully do if reelected president?

NYT Editor Blames Swing Voters Who 'Don't Know Or Remember' Trump.  New York Times headline, Feb. 20: "A Big Opportunity to Define Trump as Unacceptable."  The short item by Times Deputy Opinion Editor Patrick Healy follows up on an unintentionally hilarious focus group session the paper conducted last week, wherein 11 out of 13 voters who supported Joe Biden in 2020 say they now support Trump.  Among the switching voters was a man who said he would support Trump even though he believed him to have committed "sexual abuse" and two others who said criminal convictions in any of the charges against him would not change their minds.

Progressive New York Times Staffers Turn on Coworkers over Trans-Skeptical Coverage: 'Hostile Work Environment'.  Progressive New York Times staffers are once again up in arms over the paper's coverage of the trans issue, this time taking issue with the decision to publish an op-ed that advances a skeptical view of medicalizing children who believe they are transgender.  The backlash began on the Times internal chat last week in response to an op-ed by opinion columnist Pamela Paul entitled, "As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do."

Brilliant analysis!
NY Times:  Migrants Keep Coming Because They Know They Can Stay.  I find myself a bit surprised to see some of what follows in print, not because any of it is new but instead because things that have been obvious for a long time are now being published as true by the NY Times.  The piece, which is labeled analysis, opens by noting that people are streaming across the border and turning themselves in to authorities to claim asylum for one clear reason. [...] What is happening here is a gaming of the system.  Migrants either don't know or don't care that they aren't eligible for asylum.  What they know is that by claiming it, they can stay. [...] Under current law, anyone whose asylum case isn't wrapped up in 5 months gets a work permit.  These days that means almost everyone gets a work permit.  And because of the massive backlog of cases, the current time to clear one is many years.  By the time the applicant's claim is rejected, ICE more or less doesn't care.  Unless someone has been convicted of a felony they can just stay in the US which was their goal all along anyway.

New York Times Editorial Board Begs Republicans to Abandon Trump.  On the eve of the Iowa Republican caucus, the New York Times editorial board begged Republicans to abandon 2024 frontrunner former President Donald Trump in a piece Monday morning.  In the piece titled "The Responsibility of Republican Voters," the left-wing newspaper tried to guilt Republicans into supporting someone else. [...] Noting he had a "clear path" to the nomination, the board said, "It is imperative to remind voters that they still have the opportunity to nominate a different standard-bearer for the Republican Party, and all Americans should hope that they do so."  The board suggested it had the American public's interest in mind.  "This is not a partisan concern.  It is good for the country when both major parties have qualified presidential candidates to put forward their competing views on the role of government in American society.  Voters deserve such a choice in 2024," it said.  The left-wing paper said Trump had "badly damaged the Republican Party and the health of American democracy."

All Republicans have to know about the leftist media.  All Republicans need to know is that the last time NYT endorsed a Republican for president, it was Eisenhower in the 1950s.  The WaPo has never endorsed a Republican for President.  And it really doesn't matter who the Democrat is.  He can be as corrupt as Hillary and Biden, and they will endorse them.  They also don't care how much any Democrat abuses his power.  The Constitution and separation of powers are not important to them.  They also don't care if Democrats support violent riots when their chosen one doesn't win elections.  They don't care if Biden doesn't enforce immigration laws that he is required to enforce.  And they don't care how many wars start under Democrat presidents.  Results don't matter.  The truth doesn't matter about the climate, COVID, or anything else.  All that matters to most of the media and other Democrats as they campaign for them is power over the American people.

More Snow?  Less Snow?  No Snow?  Climate Change Does It All According to NYT.  Did it snow a lot in your neck of the woods?  Climate change!  Are you seeing less snow this year?  Climate change did that, too. [...] In the space of two weeks, the New York Times has stories that say climate change will end snow forever, reduce the amount of snow somewhat, or cause more snow than ever before.

Ironic Twist:  New York Times Columnist Suggests Trump is Now Seen as the 'Return to Normalcy' Candidate.  New York Times columnist and pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson is saying that Donald Trump is now seen as the 'return to normalcy' candidate.  This is a shocking turn of events for anyone who has been following political news for the last several years.  When Trump won in 2016, liberals all over the country started saying "this is not normal."  It became a common talking point.  Then in 2020, Democrats claimed that Biden would be the 'return to normalcy' candidate.  Everyone can see how that worked out.

New York Times Runs Article by Hamas Official.  The New York Times wants you to weep for the people of Gaza, and for what Hamas' massacre of 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, which Gazans cheered in large numbers, has brought upon them.  In service of that goal, on Christmas Eve the Paper of Record ran a weepy piece by a prominent Gazan, someone who has witnessed the Israeli incursion firsthand.  Did the Times give this plumb editorial space to a "moderate" Gazan, a known foe of the Hamas regime, one of those "innocent Palestinians" who have nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with Hamas?  Uh, not quite.

Whatever It Takes Won't Be Enough.  And just like that — snap ! — the news about the Colorado Supreme Court's droll action against candidate DJ Trump vanished from the front page (or top screens) of The New York Times.  Do you know why?  I'll tell you:  Because the political Left has finally managed to embarrass itself with a "lawfare" gambit so nakedly fatuous that it exposes the faction's drive to destroy the election process, and with it our country.  This is what you get from a regime that faked its way to power and now must strain to cover up its long train of crimes, abuses, and effronteries to common sense, while running out of tricks to keep fooling even its own deranged followers.  Somehow, the act of kicking a leading candidate off the ballot has finally registered as inconsistent with "defending our democracy."

James Bennet:  The NY Times Has Gone from Liberal Bias to Illiberal Bias.  You may remember James Bennet as the NY Times editor who managed the opinion section of the paper.  Bennet was pushed to resign back in 2020 after agreeing to publish a piece by Sen. Tom Cotton.  Cotton had argued the country should call out the National Guard to put an end to Black Lives Matter riots which had broken out around the country.  Bennet and his superiors had agreed in advance of publication that Cotton had a legitimate, albeit right-wing, view.  But it wasn't his alone.  Other members of congress and possibly the president held it too, not to mention lots of regular people.  But the backlash inside the newsroom, led by black staffers and "1619 Project" author Nikole Hannah-Jones, eventually frightened the publisher into submission.  Shawn McCreesh, a former Times' staffer who was present at the time, has described the mood behind the scenes as being "like a Maoist struggle session."

NY Times:  Don't Worry About the $112.1B in Shoplifting, It's a Right-Wing Narrative.  The New York Times has developed a well-deserved reputation for gaslighting its readers by scorning narratives that don't fit its increasingly left bent.  Once considered the foremost news organization in the country and possibly the world, it has descended into a woke blog whose stories more often seem to emanate from a fledgling college student rather than from actual expert reporters.  To wit, I received the following newsletter in my email recently: "We're covering claims of a shoplifting boom... Viral exaggerations."  Really, NY Slimes?  It's the right-wing media who are concocting this crisis out of thin air, we've "pounced on it," as they love to say — it's not actually a serious consideration? [...] Live in New York, Los Angeles, or San Francisco — bummer for you.  But for the rest of y'all, look away, it's all part of the progressive deal, live with it, and PLEASE, stop calling attention to it.  You're annoying us.  [Tweet]

Discrepancies in the NYT's Israel Coverage.  [Scroll down]  Why does the NYT consistently avoid details that would effectively exonerate the IDF of war crimes by exposing Hamas' breach of moral and humanitarian norms as the true cause of preventable civilian suffering in Gaza?  Selective coverage by the NYT also apparently places more value on medical facilities damaged in Gaza than in Israel.  When Ashkelon's hospital was hit by a Hamas rocket on October 8th, as reported in the Times of Israel, there was zero coverage from the NYT on that day.  The NYT downplayed the level of support for Israel at the November 14 DC rally, reporting that there were just "tens of thousands" present and that many were there to oppose antisemitism rather than to support Israel.  By contrast, the Times of Israel reported that there were about 300,000 who attended what Ynet dubbed the "Largest Jewish gathering in Jewish history".  Estimating the crowd at 200,000, Haaretz called it "America's Biggest pro-Israel Rally Ever."  The NYT's anti-Israel bias stands out even more when reviewing the paper's coverage of October 7.

NY Times Editorial Board Admits Coronavirus School Closures Were a Mistake.  The New York Times editorial board has finally admitted that coronavirus-related school closures "may prove to be the most damaging disruption in the history of American education" in a Sunday [11/19/2023] opinion piece.  The editorial, titled "The Startling Evidence on Learning Loss Is In," reflected on the "significant" learning loss suffered by millions of American children who were kept out of the classroom by lockdown policies, and warned of the lasting impact.

Shameless: NY Times Further Debases Legacy With Hypocritical, Gaslighting Editorial on COVID Lockdowns.  The New York Times is now a pale shadow of its former self, and over time, it has become little more than a shrill megaphone for progressive leftist ideals — it is no longer a trusted, sober source of critical news. [...] In their latest attempt to gaslight the American public and brazenly deceive their readers, their editorial board printed an op-ed Saturday that professed stunned surprise that the COVID lockdowns which kept schoolchildren out of class for months — and in some cases, years — have left lasting issues.  They present these findings as if somehow nobody foresaw this, that everybody was on board with the draconian, often unconstitutional responses from authoritarians like President Biden, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and California Governor Gavin Newsom.  But millions of us were not on board and saw early on that much of the official response during those times was nothing more than a naked power grab.  RedState, but especially our Scott Hounsell and Jennifer Van Laar, was on top of many of these stories long before the mainstream press would deign to explore them.

New York Times Claims 'Economic Turmoil' if Trump Enforces Border Laws.  The nation will be pushed toward "social and economic turmoil," if a reelected President Donald Trump tries to enforce Congress's border laws, the New York Times claimed on November 11.  "Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps and Mass Deportations:  Inside Trump's 2025 Immigration Plans," declared the headline for an article about President Donald Trump's campaign promises to enforce border policies if he is elected.

The New York Times Asks Why 'Fiery' Iran Hasn't Killed All the Jews Yet.  Congratulations, New York Times!  Bravo!  It has taken 90 years, but you may have finally outdone your support for Joseph Stalin and his Ukrainian genocide.  Maybe this coverage will get you another Pulitzer Prize you'll never give back.  The Columbia Journalism Review may have to create a new award for "Best Support of 21st Century Genocide."  The Politi"fact" frauds in Florida will be forced to find a whole new way to offer "context" for this one.  And anti-Semites, from those still hiding in caves to Qatar's terrorist financiers to the nation's Ivy League faculty lounge nests of Jew haters, will applaud your efforts.  On Wednesday, the New York Times editors asked a question posed by so many Islamo-supremicists over the millennia:  Why haven't they killed all those Jews?  What an excellent question.  Indeed, the newspaper posed it as a long-time "dilemma" for the biggest state sponsor of terrorism.  The story was written by Times reporter and UN bureau chief Farnaz Fassihi, an Iranian-American writer who has reported not just for the Times but also for the Wall Street Journal.

NYT: 'It Was Unclear if Hamas Forced the Women to Make the Video".  How credulous does the New York Times think we are?  That is the wrong question.  The right one is "How credulous is the average NYT reader?"  The Times, which still suggests that Israel may have bombed that hospital everybody knows was damaged by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket, re-hired a Nazi sympathizer to report on the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, has now given us yet more evidence that they are bending over backward to give Hamas the benefit of the doubt in every respect.  [Tweet]

I don't pity the poor illegal immigrant.  The Star Tribune has just posted Maya Rao's weepy and euphemistic take on Hennepin County's close encounter of the Biden kind with the flood of illegal immigrants that is washing up in Minneapolis from New York (thanks, Mayor Adams!) and south of the border. [...] It isn't rude to [observe] that someone paid for that "free plane ticket," but inquiry into who that someone might be runs beyond the scope of Rao's 1500-word story.  Rao doesn't go there.  Maybe this inhibited the scope of Rao's inquiry, but I don't think so:  "The Star Tribune could not determine what happened to the family waiting outside the Bloomington hotel — after a few minutes of conversation, two security officers walked outside and asked journalists to leave."  What agency did the security officers work for?  Rao doesn't go there.  Rao only glancingly addresses the illegality of the flood.  She notes that most of the "migrants" are Ecuadorians "seeking asylum, waiting for court dates that are months or years away." [...] How would these 18-year-olds or other Ecuadorians in the Biden flood washing up in Hennepin County conceivably qualify for asylum?  Rao doesn't go there.

What Do You Call a Reporter Who Praises Hitler?  A NYT 'Journalist'.  No, I'm not kidding.  The New York Times re-hired an open admirer of Hitler to cover the Gaza Strip conflict.  [Tweet]  As I have pointed out before, you can't believe a single thing reported out of the Palestinian territories because the "journalists" allowed to "report" are only allowed to be there because of their allegiance to the "cause."  There may be an occasional Western reporter who is allowed in to be shown carefully curated "facts," but the people who bring you the "news" are almost exclusively agents of the terrorists.

Guess What 'Dangerous' Info Big Tech and Big Media Fought to Suppress This Week?  Every mainstream media outlet in America fell for a Hamas propaganda hoax eight days ago, reporting that Israel had bombed a hospital in Gaza and demolished it, killing over 500 people.  Our MSM "misinformation" censors amplified that hoax and sent it around the world before the sun rose in Gaza, touching off riots at US embassies and violent demonstrations here in the US.  Most of these media outlets began retracting the story when the sun rose and the hospital clearly remained standing.  The New York Times — the "paper of record"! — still hasn't yet admitted to being a Hamas repeater station.  As of yesterday, the most that the NYT would admit was that Hamas had not yet "made its case" on an Israeli attack, despite ample evidence that the parking lot damage came from a stray rocket fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.  Meanwhile, the rest of the media seems more interested in circling wagons than in admitting complicity in a hoax that touched off violence around the world.

Is New York Times Senior Writer David Leonhardt Lying, Lazy, or Just Stupid?  Every morning the New York Times sends subscribers a newsletter called "The Morning."  September 12's lead item, by David Leonhardt, discussed why he thinks the Electoral College may be getting less friendly to Republicans.  Whether that's so is an interesting question, but it's not what most caught my eye.  What most caught my eye was his statement that "the Republican Party denies climate change."  Nope, sorry.  The Republican Party's platform, last revised in 2016 and re-embraced in 2020, mentions climate change 7 times.

The Gaza Hospital Fiasco Offers A Vivid Example Of Journalism's Rot.  [Scroll down]  When it comes to outlets like The New York Times, we clearly have propagandists at work.  The Times was one of the first to embrace the Hamas lie.  It has spent decades spreading similar disinformation.  The paper's editorial board and its op-ed pages are teeming with Hamas apologists — as are its news pages.  Even as Hamas's propaganda was being exposed, the Times moved forward with the story without any genuine substantiation.  Since the newspaper had done absolutely no work in verifying these serious claims, it was left without facts or art.  So editors simply put a picture of a bombed-out building (not the hospital) on its front page, strongly insinuating that Israel was responsible for the tragedy (that wasn't.)

The NYT, Justin Trudeau, and the Gaza hospital attack.  The New York Times' bedrock guide for reporting, disseminating the news is "All The News That's Fit To Print," which has been firmly affixed to their front page dead trees edition for over 120 years.  And updated over 20 years ago to include the web version and other forms of social/electronic media.  And so the NY Times obviously totally trusts Muslim Hamas terrorists (not militants) when they tearfully announced that the totally evil Israelis had bombed a hospital in terrorist Hamas-controlled Gaza, killing 500 people.  And continued to believe Hamas and the "Palestinians" (sic) despite the Times' ever-changing headlines during the day.  Yes, yes, the horror of war with its accompanying chaos, destruction, death makes truth hard to discover.  But not for the NY Times, which continued to vomit a variation of its initial headline based on Hamas' version of truth while ignoring the reliable truth from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) because well... it's Israel.  You know, Israel.  Jews.  Whoops, back to the ever-reliable Hamas they go.

NYT Prints Dishonest Photo with Fake Gaza Hospital Story: 'Astonishing Disinformation'.  The New York Times misrepresented a photo of a semi-demolished building to be the location of the Gaza Hospital, which the paper initially reported on Tuesday as hit by an "Israeli strike."  According to its own wire service, the Times identified the location of the photo to be in Khan Younis, a locality in the south of the Gaza Strip, which is not in the northern area of Gaza City.

The New York Times Destroys More Than Just Its Credibility.  There was a mainstream media race to the bottom recently, and The New York Times was the ringleader.  The consequences were immediate, terrible, and may be felt for years to come.  Announcing the horrifying news of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza, the Times made a series of deliberate and unconscionable choices that contorted the story, and in a way that may have contributed to lost lives.

Report: NYT Twice Changes Reckless Headline.  The New York Times reportedly edited a headline twice on Tuesday about a blast that blew up a Gaza hospital, changing the title each time to reflect less blame against Israel for the tragic explosion.  After the blast, multiple pieces of evidence emerged from the Israel Defense Forces and the media that suggested the blast was an errant rocket fired by Hamas, not an Israeli airstrike.  As the evidence came to light, the Times altered its headline.

New York Times touts Greece as an EU 'success story.' That's news to Greeks.  Everywhere in Greece there is poverty, and bad conditions in society.  I am one of the Greeks living in New York, and I have received many messages and phone calls from Greek people who want to immigrate to America because they cannot make ends meet.  Friends and family members ask me the same:  They are forced to do two-three jobs to survive.  The minimum wage is 780 euros (650 net).  So, how is it that the article describes "a miracle"?  One could argue that even the examples of the people mentioned in the article are not typical.  And the tourists who have returned en masse, as the article states, has not helped to improve incomes.  On the popular islands — that the average Greek cannot afford to visit — usually, there are galley-slave conditions for the workers.  Unfortunately, in Greek society, a small percentage of 5%-10% live well — "the oligarchs eat with golden spoons" — and the rest suffer.  Children of the poor go to school hungry.  The country has some of the most expensive fuel in Europe, expensive food, high VAT, and very expensive electricity.  Many do not have money for dental care, to change tires on the car, or, to start a new family.

Cast Down from Media Olympus.  The New York Times and the Washington Post have long been considered America's journalistic icons, ably representing the professionalism and integrity of their calling, and deserving their places on the Olympic media peak. [...] But The Post and The Times have changed, and one can only argue about when the process of their degradation began.  Historically, both papers have represented the Democrats and the left, causing much Republican criticism.  As examples, Republicans during Reagan's day called them "Pravda on the Hudson" and "Pravda on the Potomac," respectively, but this name-calling was mostly a humorous jab.  Things changed dramatically after Donald Trump announced his first White House bid in the 2016 election.  Journalistic integrity and responsible reporting were thrown into the toilet and replaced by overwhelmingly fake news and stories.  Trump must be defeated, and all means were justified in achieving that goal, including Hillary Clinton's grotesque "Russiagate" campaign to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's stooge.

NY Times readers let Ibram Kendi have itNY Times columnist Michelle Goldberg has written a defense of Ibram Kendi which is probably the least convincing thing you'll read today.  To be clear, I don't think the problem is with Goldberg, who is a decent writer when she has a meaty story to work on.  The problem in this case is that attempting to blame Kendi's problems on "the system" just isn't credible. [...] None of this is really Kendi's fault, it's the system, man.  If the left wasn't so driven by fads and celebrity, this wouldn't have happened.  Why wouldn't it have happened?  Because Kendi never would have been given all of that money in the first place.  This is the best defense she can come up with.  It's not Kendi's fault he was unprepared and undisciplined, it's everyone else's fault for believing in him.  Come to think of it, this is pretty much the same hokum that is central to Kendi's own work.  His great insight is that all differences in outcome between groups are proof of a systemic problem (racism) which needs to be opposed and rectified.

FBI Lies About 'Highly Credible' Source Claims Were Leaked To NYT And Spoonfed To Weiss.  Emails obtained by the Heritage Foundation following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, and shared exclusively with The Federalist, reveal that lies leaked to The New York Times about the origins of damning evidence implicating Hunter and Joe Biden in a bribery scandal were fed to Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss.  As I previously detailed, The New York Times reported those lies in its Dec. 11, 2020, article, "Material from Giuliani Spurred a Separate Justice Depart.  Pursuit of Hunter Biden" — just a week after Americans first learned of the investigation of the now-president's son.  The Times' reporting was "replete with falsehoods and deceptive narratives," but "Americans just didn't know it at the time."

New York Times opinion piece states 'Elections Are Bad For Democracy'.  A recent New York Times opinion piece, originally titled "Elections Are Bad for Democracy," stated: "If we want public office to have integrity, we might be better off eliminating elections altogether."  The piece was written by Adam Grant, a contributing opinion writer and an organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.  Grant suggested that "democracy" would be better served if candidates were selected by way of randomized lottery, rather than the existing process.  According to Grant, a lottery might help short, meek, and conventionally unsuitable candidates obtain power, while also helping prevent persons with bad personality traits from taking office.  (You know, like Donald Trump.)  A lottery, Grant says, would provide a fair shot to people who aren't tall enough or male enough to win.

The Power Of Power Density.  In an August 7 article, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman claimed that "technological progress in renewable energy has made it possible to envisage major reductions in emissions at little or no cost in terms of economic growth and living standards." [...] None of the claims in Krugman's August 7 column are new.  For years, academics from elite universities, climate activists, leaders of the anti-industry industry, and legacy media outlets (and the New York Times in particular) have been peddling shopworn claims about "all-gain-no-pain" renewables.  You've no doubt heard them:  renewables are cheap and getting cheaper, wind and solar energy are the future, and the main reason that conservatives and knuckle-dragging rural landowners are opposing massive renewable projects all across America is that they don't understand "science."  That's the spin.  Here's the reality:  the conspiracy against wind and solar is one of basic math and simple physics.  It's not conservatives who are wrong on "science," it's liberals like Krugman and his myriad allies in the climate claque who refuse to recognize (or even discuss) the physical limits on our energy and power networks.

New York Times claims 'climate change' means 'the end of the summer vacation as we know it' — 'Our relationship to travel has reached a tipping point'.  NYT warns of "scorching heat... fires, floods, tornadoes and hail storms" - August 5, 2023:  "This year, everything from scorching heat to fires, floods, tornadoes and hail storms driven by climate change have disrupted the plans of travelers around the world.  A summer getaway remains a powerful desire, but it's at a tipping point... For decades, science has confirmed that unabated climate change will cause more misery, more hardship and cost millions of lives in the years to come.  We're getting a taste of the results this summer.  Our relationship to travel has reached a tipping point.  What happens when we can't just vacation through it?"  Climate Depot comment:  Despite the NYT's carefully crafted narrative, tourists do not seem to care about climate change!

The New York Times Insists It's Only a Song When It Urges Killing White South Africans.  The New York Times, also known as those wonderful people who brought you Walter Duranty and his minor omission while slobbering over Joseph Stalin in the 1930s of mentioning how Stalin was systematically mass murdering four million Ukrainians via forced starvation, has come up with another pearl of wisdom for we the peasantry.  Did you know that when a radical South African political group demanding the country's white farmers give up their land by any means necessary, including murder, sings a song at their rallies featuring "Kill the Boer," Boer meaning any white person living in South Africa, they don't literally mean it?  It's only a line in a song, you see.  No big.  Nothing literal.  How can it be when some other songs aren't literal?

NYT Columnist Asks 'What if We're the Bad Guys Here?' The Answer:  Yes, You Are.  In an op-ed piece for the New York Times on Wednesday, David Brooks had the headline, "What if We're the Bad Guys Here?"  In it, Brooks struggles with the question of why Trump has a commanding lead over the other GOP hopefuls and why he seems essentially tied with Joe Biden on a national basis.  All of this despite the fact that Trump continues to rack up indictments like a grandma on a winning bingo streak at The Villages.  To his credit, Brooks does conduct a fairly exhaustive self-examination.  In the piece, he enumerates the ways and provides examples of how America's elites have lost touch with, well, everyone else.

Biden White House Wanted Facebook to 'Change the Algorithm,' Boost New York Times Content over Right-Wing Media.  New materials obtained by the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), have shed further light on the Biden White House's efforts to influence Facebook — even asking about algorithm changes to make its preferred media sources more visible to users.  In the latest round of disclosures, which Rep. Jordan is calling "The Facebook Files," Biden White House digital strategy director Rob Flaherty can be seen suggesting Facebook change its algorithm to promote corporate establishment media including The New York Times over competitors, including Tomi Lahren and the Daily Wire.

At Long Last, The New York Times Finally Admits Joe Biden Lied.  It's been a long road, but Devon Archer's stunning testimony to Congress has finally pushed The New York Times over the edge.  When even the gray lady can't cover for Joe Biden any longer, you know things are bad.  If you missed the details of Archer's testimony, the biggest revelation (that we know of so far) revolves around the fact that Joe Biden would routinely get on the phone with his son's business partners as a kind of proof that Hunter Biden could offer the influence and access he was promising to various foreign entities.  That stands in stark contrast to repeated past denials from the president that he had zero knowledge of anything his son was doing.  Given that, the Times found itself trapped in a corner on Monday evening as it prepared to publish its story on what Archer revealed.  The paper's mission is to protect Joe Biden, yet there stood undeniable proof the president lied to everyone.

Washington is gaslighting on "climate change".  Baby, it's hot outside.  Right on cue, a New York Times headline links this surge in temperatures to "climate change." [...] We had multiple ice ages and heat waves long before we had coal mines, gas-guzzling automobiles and air conditioning.  Or human-made CO2 emissions.  Or human-made anything.  The biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions has been Mother Nature.  Forest fires and volcano eruptions have been some of the leading causes of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.  The forest fires in California last year and Canada this summer have undone almost all the "progress" in reducing carbon emissions from the green energy fad.  Instead of outlawing cars, how about better forest management?  You've probably heard some of the preposterous scaremongering from politicians and the media.  CNN declared in big, bold letters that "global temperatures are likely highest in at least 100,000 years."  According to whom?  "One scientist told CNN."

New York Times Cites False CDC Covid Data, Inflating Pediatric Mortality Count.  An article in Saturday's New York Times includes the following passage:  ["]As of this summer, more than 345,000 Americans under 70 have died of the virus, and more than 3.5 million have been hospitalized with Covid.  The disease has killed nearly 2,300 children and adolescents, and nearly 200,000 have been hospitalized.["]  This is false.  Nearly 2,300 American children and adolescents have not died from Covid.  There are two problems here.  First, the CDC knows this number is wrong, but it shares this number publicly anyway.  Second, many journalists, including the three New York Times reporters on this piece, continue to report these incorrect numbers.  This is the umpteenth example of our public health agencies providing misleading or outright incorrect information and journalists reporting it without making an attempt to verify its accuracy.

The New York Times has lost its mind.  And by mind, I mean principles and understanding of the First Amendment.  You may have heard that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified yesterday at a Congressional hearing about censorship. [...] Yet the New York Times is now on the verge of endorsing government censorship, or at least saying that it shouldn't be dismissed, that its value is a "thorny question."  Does the Times even remember what business it is in?  Its guiding principle is that governments and companies DO NOT DETERMINE WHAT IT WRITES, and that, aside from imminent national security risks (and I mean imminent, like the location of a terrorist bomb in Manhattan), it has an absolute right to publish without prior restraint.  That used to be its guiding principle, anyway.  Today the Times prefers to be a quasi-official arm of the biomedical security state.

56 Years of Climate Codswallop That Never Happened.  [Scroll down]  With the ice age and acid rain tomfoolery snugly tucked away in the history books, the doom crew needed another looming climate-related tragedy to give us the collywobbles.  "Global warming" was born.  In 1988, The New York Times assured us the planet had spent the decade getting warmer.  The weather trauma had been ongoing for eight years, and we hadn't noticed.  The Times warned us ice caps would melt.  Polar bears would drown and also die of sunburn, and the earth would flood Noah-style.  The New York Times told us Manhattan's West Side Highway would belong to Davy Jones' locker by 2019.  Water would slosh over New York City and fish would traverse Manhattan's busy freeway. [...] Did the New York Times tuck their tale and admit they were wrong?  Nope.  They recently repeated their claptrap and simply moved their water-world timeline to 2050.

The left argues that gun owners are insecure, paranoid, and trigger happy.  The New York Times reports that social scientists are examining why people want guns.  The conclusions are bad for gun owners.  Writes the Times, American gun owners are (check notes) insecure, paranoid, suicidal, and trigger-happy.  Look closely at what the article says, though, and it's just arrant nonsense.

Climate Fact Check: June 2023 Edition.  [#5] Summers getting hotter?  The New York Times reported in "Tracking Dangerous Heat in the U.S." that: "Summer temperatures have become hotter and more extreme in recent decades."  Fact Check.  The New York Times uses the 1951-1980 global cooling period as the baseline temperature and ignores hot summers before 1940.

NY Times puts out another left-wing hit piece on Justice Clarence Thomas.  So, judges are not allowed to have friends now, according to The New York Times.  The liberal organ's character assassination of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas continued over the weekend with a hefty hit piece titled "Where Clarence Thomas Entered an Elite Circle and Opened a Door to the Court."  The other 4,000 words are laced with the usual smear and innuendo we've come to expect from the left in their attempts to destroy the court's most consequential justice.  Let's cut to the chase.  This is the Democrats and their media allies undermining an institution they can't control.

The appalling media campaign to bow to government censors.  The censorship efforts of the government are, unfortunately, not new.  However, what is new is the support of the media and the Democratic Party in such censorship.  That was on display on various channels after the recent opinion finding that the Biden administration had violated the First Amendment in "the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.  However, the New York Times immediately warned that the outbreak of free speech could "curtail efforts to combat disinformation."  Yet, no one expressed it more simply and chillingly than CNN Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly who stated that it "makes sense" for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands.

Democrats [are] mad [that a] court won't let them censor conservative ideas.  A federal judge has enjoined the Biden administration from colluding with Big Tech to censor conservative ideas, and Democrats are mad.  According to the New York Times, "disinformation researchers" are worried that the ruling will make it harder for "civil society organizations" to police online speech.  "That's the really important distinction here," University of California at Santa Barbara communications professor Miriam Metzger told the paper.  "The government should be able to inform social media companies about things that they feel are harmful to the public."  Apparently, when left-wing organizations try to police speech on their own, Big Tech companies don't listen.

NY Times Continues to Report on a Joe Biden Who Doesn't Exist.  I've written many times in the last few years that the [New York] Times and the other Democrat cheerleaders in the mainstream media have been engaged in the largest exercise in creative writing ever, since they began selling Joe Biden as dignified and calm during the 2020 presidential campaign.  I've also written that they seem to believe that none of us have access to the internet.  As someone who writes about liberal bias in the media more than any other topic, I also read a lot of what is written by the propagandists.  The alternative reality accounts of who Joe Biden is that I've read since 2020 have been like nothing I've ever seen, even during the eight years that these people were swooning over His High Holiness, the Lightbringer Barack Obama.  They were, of course, covering for Biden throughout his career.  The way it used to be was that they would acknowledge that Biden was a spaz — in more polite terms — and then shrug it off. [...] Now they're just creating Joe Biden out of whole cloth.

Preferably drones made in China by slaves.
The New York Times thinks we should replace 4th of July fireworks shows with drone shows cuz climate change.  The climate wackos at the New York Times think it's time to let firework shows on the 4th of July fade into the past.  They probably want us to swear fealty to the Crown again too. [...] But the NYT wants you to know that safe is better than fun; safe is better than freedom!  There's the climate:  ["]Fireworks cause a spike in a form of air pollution called particulate matter, the same type of pollution that is elevated from wildfire smoke.["]

The Editor says...
[#1] "Particulate matter" is also known as "dust and smoke," which can come from any number of sources.  [#2] Almost all of the smoke from a fireworks display is at least a hundred feet above ground, and quickly drifts away and is forgotten in a matter of minutes.

New York Times presses the delete button on the word 'Democrat'.  Does anyone doubt that The New York Times not only is virulently anti-Trump (in the manner of a William Barr or a Paul Ryan), but is committed to effacing embarrassing references to Democrats convicted of deplorable criminal conduct?  The following should remove all doubts that the Times is in the tank for the Democrat.  Here are the lede paragraphs from a June 29 AP story by Mike Catalini on the sentence given a New Jersey politico for arranging the murder of "a colleague." [...] Note the words "former Democratic campaign consultant" describing the defendant, Sean Caddle. [...] [Another] report, by Tracey Tully and Ed Shanahan, refers to Caddle, in the text, as "a New Jersey political consultant."  The term "Democrat" is nowhere to be found — other than in the third paragraph from the end, in reference to a Jersey pol way off on a tangent to Caddle: "Nick Scutari, a Democrat and president of the State Senate" whose chief of staff Antonio Teixiera was said to have conspired with Caddle and pleaded guilty to fraud and tax evasion charges.

It is humorous to watch so-called 'experts' explain to us why each weather event has happened.  Whenever there are fires, floods, droughts, and storms, the media trots out "experts" to almost always blame humans and our use of natural resources for the problem as they seek to destroy our great countries with radical leftist policies.  The following article in the New York Times seeks to get an explanation for why it is supposedly significantly cloudier and colder than normal in California this year.  ["]Why Has California Been So Cloudy Lately?["]  I expect another deep thinking article soon from NYT asking experts how winds dissipated Canadian smoke.  Hint to journalists:  The climate (weather) has always been cyclical and always will be, no matter how much journalists, politicians, bureaucrats, educators, and others pretend they can change and control it.  The "May Gray" and "June Gloom" seen this year are to many no different than any other year in California, and no, the Marine layer phenomenon never brings rain.

Media talking points to cover for Joe Biden are getting dumber every day.  Let's hear from the chief Biden apologist at the New York Times, Nicholas Kristoff:  The real meaning of the Hunter Biden saga, as I see it, isn't about presidential corruption, but is about how widespread addiction is — and about how a determined parent with unconditional love can sometimes reel a child back.  Here is the situation as Nick Kristoff understands it:  a 53-year-old man using his father's political position to enrich himself, skipping on tax payments, and breaking multiple laws is just "a child" in need of "unconditional love" from his dad.  And Joe Biden is happy to oblige — because, according to Sunny Hostin of The View, being a president of the United States is not about governing effectively, or upholding the law, or even about being an honest public official.  "The Hunter Biden story, the scandal, the this or that, is also the story of a father's love."

Misleading the Public on Law.  New York University (NYU) Law professor Rick Pildes, among a partisan academic group including NYU Law's Bob Bauer, who worked for the Obama administration, wrote a guest essay in the New York Times recently where he opines on the SCOTUS decision over state voting procedures.  In doing so, he adds to the long list of law school professors who are deliberately misleading the public.  There are some formal issues to consider in this case, including the Court's dissent by Justices Clarence Thomas and others, and the concept of "mootness," but I'd like to leave those technical and law factors to others, and focus on what Pildes does in his NYT essay:  deliberately twist the law in order to serve the DNC, and by so doing, abandon law's professional standards.

'115 Degrees Fahrenheit' screams the New York Times headline.  But in point of fact, instead of seeking to scare people with high temperatures, most of the reporting lately talks about the heat index.  The purpose is to make people think it is warmer than it is. [...] If you Google the question: What is the highest heat index ever recorded, you actually get the highest actual temperature ever recorded which was 134 F. which occurred in Death Valley California in 1913.  A lot of other heat records occurred during the 1930's, so why do they keep telling the public that these are the hottest years on record and then claim that humans, cars, CO2, Coal, methane etc. have caused the high temperatures?

New York Times 'Buries' The Lede, Confirms Hunter Biden Probe Whistleblower Claims.  A new report from The New York Times tells of a source confirming whistleblower allegations that constraints were placed on the federal investigation into Hunter Biden, but it takes some digging to find it.  As noted Tuesday by Washington Free Beacon reporter Chuck Ross, the publication waited 20 paragraphs to state the newsworthy tidbit about the source who added credibility to claims of additional charges against President Joe Biden's son getting blocked.  The New York Times reported in the 20th paragraph that IRS supervisory special agent Gary Shapley's whistleblower testimony claimed that a mid-2022 bid by Delaware's U.S. Attorney David Weiss to pursue charges in Washington, D.C., got rejected by the top federal prosecutor in the nation's capital.  "A similar request to prosecutors in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, was also rejected, Mr. Shapley testified," the report added in the 21st paragraph.

The Ghost of the Unabomber Lives On.  The late Tony Snow of Fox News was the first to notice a number of striking — and embarrassing — similarities between the language of [Ted] Kaczynski's manifesto and Al Gore's pretentious and cliché-ridden Earth in the Balance.  In other words, many arguments of the manifesto were entirely familiar and even conventional, which is why he could easily be confused for the rote-cliché writers of monotonous [New York] Times editorials. [...] The eminent political scientist James Q. Wilson, whom Kaczynski cited in his manifesto, observed in 1998 that "his paper resembles something that a very good graduate student might have written based on his own reading rather than the course assignments.  If it is the work of a madman, then the writings of many political philosophers — Jean Jacques Rousseau, Tom Paine, Karl Marx — are scarcely more sane."  But combined with the evidence that Kaczynski had corresponded with — and perhaps attended events of — environmental radicals such as Earth First, the image of the notorious Unabomber as a murderous eco-terrorist stuck, and stuck hard.

Facts Of Biden Bribery Investigation Expose Old NYT Reporting As FBI-Fueled Fake News.  The month before Joe Biden's inauguration, FBI sources collaborated with The New York Times' Russia-collusion hoaxer Adam Goldman to falsely portray the investigation into Hunter Biden as a big ole nothingburger.  Americans just didn't know it at the time.  However, revisiting Goldman's article now, in light of recent whistleblower revelations and statements by former Attorney General William Barr, reveals this reality — and more.  On Dec. 11, 2020, The New York Times published Goldman's piece, "Material from Giuliani Spurred a Separate Justice Dept.  Pursuit of Hunter Biden." [...] The article was replete with falsehoods and deceptive narratives, all designed to create the appearance that the investigation into the son of the soon-to-be president was politically motivated and lacking in merit.  The piece was transparently timed to hit within days of Hunter Biden announcing Delaware prosecutors were investigating him for tax crimes.

J6 Pipe Bomber Story Goes Boom.  [Scroll down]  The media immediately suggested the explosives had been planted by someone loyal to the president; the New York Times noted in its breaking report that the bombs were found "just a few blocks away from the U.S. Capitol, which Mr. Trump's supporters stormed on Wednesday afternoon."  Federal authorities promised a full-throated investigation.  During a press conference on January 12, 2021, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin and Washington FBI Field Office chief Steven D'Antuono emphasized the seriousness of the pipe bomb threat.  "They were real devices.  They had explosive ignitors," Sherwin told reporters.  D'Antuono announced a $50,000 reward for information leading to the identity and arrest of the perpetrator.  The FBI, D'Antuono warned, was "looking at all angles, every tool, every rock is being unturned" in pursuit of the bomber.

Springtime for Hitler and Ukraine-ee.  The New York Times is worried about Ukraine soldiers.  It is not that they are Nazis.  Anti-Semitism is baked into liberalism.  No, what bothers NYT is that the soldiers wear Nazi garb, which reveals their Nazism. [...] NYT is trying to hide the fact that Ukrainians were part of a slaughter of unarmed Jews by Nazi allies during World War II. Ukrainian soldiers used their bullets on Jews, not just Russians, during Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.  The Illinois Holocaust Museum reported, "Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union, which began on June 22, 1941, brought a wave of destruction to 4 million Jews residing in the Soviet territories.  Approximately, 1.5 million were able to evacuate or escape deeper into the Soviet Union, leaving around 2.5 million Jews under German-occupation.  The Nazis and their collaborators murdered the majority of those left behind.  Mobile killing units (Einsatzgruppen) followed the German Army, murdering Soviet civilians and Jews one bullet at a time.  It is largely unknown that one out of three Jews killed in the Holocaust were murdered by bullets, not in gas chambers."  2.5 million.  About one third of that total was in Ukraine.

NYT Faces Heat After Claiming Biden Has 'Striking Stamina' Despite Repeated Senior Moments.  The New York Times faces criticism after publishing an article attempting to paint President Joe Biden as a young, vibrant man who never embarrasses himself or the country.  Titled "Inside the Complicated Reality of Being America's Oldest President," reporters Peter Baker, Michael Shear, Katie Rogers, and Zolan Kanno-Youngs fawned over Biden's achievements, describing him as a "fit, sharp" 80-year-old who has "striking stamina."  "The two Joe Bidens coexist in the same octogenarian president:  Sharp and wise at critical moments, the product of decades of seasoning, able to rise to the occasion even in the dead of night to confront a dangerous world," the article read.  Despite acknowledging Biden's diminishing cognitive and physical health, the reporters downplayed his repeated public gaffes and instead said the president was just a "quirky" man.

The New York Times Discovers Congressional Ethics.  Despite its dishonest reporting, the Times provides a useful preview of the spin that will be adopted by the corporate media on major news stories.  To be fair, the Gray Lady does contain one section that offers some respite from an otherwise painful read.  Its opinion page is a rich source of comic relief.  A recent example is a thigh-slapper in which the editorial board asks, "Why Is George Santos Still in Office?"  The editorial was prompted by an indictment that was unsealed last Wednesday charging Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) with a variety of offenses relating to the way he financed his 2022 congressional campaign.  The freshman congressman has denounced the indictment as a witch hunt and flatly refuses to resign.  Consequently, the Times editorial board insists that the only honorable path for Republicans is to join their Democratic colleagues and expel Santos from the House.

OK, Dems.  Let's apply the George Santos standard to everyone.  The New York Times, in its May 21 editorial, calls on House Republicans to remove Rep. George Santos because, as the title of the print version of the editorial, he deceived voters. [...] The online title asks, "Why is George Santos Still in Office?"  But why are so many House Democrats who regularly deceive voters still in office?  On the matter of voter deception, first The New York Times must return its Pulitzer for its reporting of the false Trump Russia collusion story.  Until that Pulitzer returned, this award represents serious honor to baseless reportage.  And if George Santos is to be removed from Congress, he must be joined by the removal of all House Democrats who pushed theTrump/Russia collusion fabrication, discredited by The Durham Report, intended to undermine the presidential election of November 8, 2016.  Equal justice under law includes this principle:  No one is immune to account for deceiving the public for political gain.

Censorship-Obsessed Google Set to Funnel $100M to Leftist New York Times.  Google will reportedly shove The New York Times's leftist propaganda down Americans' throats and is willing to pay tens of millions of dollars to make it happen.  Google's anti-American parent company, Alphabet, will funnel approximately $100 million to The Times over the course of three years.  The move is part of a scheme to plaster leftist Times content on Google platforms, according to The Wall Street Journal.  The deal is expected to boost the leftist Times with profits amid uncertainty in the news industry.  Earlier this year, however, The Times saw $2.3 billion in revenue in 2022 (an increase of 11.3 percent when compared to 2021).  In exchange for the $100 million payout, The Times will allow Google editors to propagandize its content on its Google News Showcase platform.  The exact details of the agreement still remain obscure.

How Liars Wreck a Country.  Last year, Forbes concluded that "only 16% of adults in the U.S. say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in newspapers, and just 11% said the same for television news."  Anyone confronting these stats must conclude that our media are deeply incompetent or crooked or both.  The New York Times announced a few years ago that defeating Trump was the important thing.  They gave themselves a free pass to lie all they want.  How can they now reclaim their honor or their usefulness? [...] Unfortunately, our liberal journalists do not care about true or false.  When they hear an assertion, they try to determine whether it will help their agenda... their narrative.  If it won't help, they know they must attack the assertion, typically by declaring it debunked, fake news, or misinformation.

New York Times Secures $100 Million Content Deal with Google.  The New York Times will receive a $100 million payout from Google over three years as part of a content-distribution deal, providing the newspaper with a hefty revenue cushion during what will likely be a down year for the journalism industry.  While the agreement was announced earlier in the year, the monetary sum was unknown until this week, when sources revealed it to the Wall Street Journal.  The deal will involve content distribution and subscriptions, as well as using Google tools for marketing and ad-product experimentation.  The Times' revenue boost comes at a time when many media brands have been suffering ad-revenue decline.

The Times Says Senility Is A-OK.  Democrats have mostly given up on denying that Joe Biden is suffering from an advanced stage of dementia.  Their strategy, as exemplified by their mouthpiece the New York Times, has shifted to a defense of senility.  Do we need a mentally competent president?  Nah.  This morning's Times email, which is curated by David Leonhardt, the Times's "senior writer" who writes for "The Times's flagship daily newsletter," said this morning:  ["]Strange as it may sound, the American government can function without a healthy president.["]  Hey, Edith Wilson did a great job! [...] Watch for the next great cover-up, as the press pretends not to notice that Biden is in hiding, and will remain in hiding until November 2024.

Government Fiat Will Not Make Electric Cars Viable.  The unelected bureaucrats in the Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have announced a plan to wave their magic regulatory wand.  These obviously "woke" EPA global-warming ideologues aim to mandate new tailgate emission standards that require two-thirds of all new passenger vehicles sold in the United States by 2032 to be electric.  On April 8, 2023, the New York Times, in a story that appeared to be an obvious trial balloon, published the news that the EPA was planning to implement "the most stringent auto pollution limits in the world, designed to ensure that all-electric cars make up as much as 67 percent of the passenger vehicles sold in the country by 2032."  The source for the story was the typical unnamed "according to two people familiar with the matter."  Clearly, the Biden administration and the newspaper expected push-back, given that the New York Times article announcing the news also cited industry statistics indicating electric vehicle (EV) sales still languish under 6 percent of total passenger vehicles sold in the United States.

Don't you dare blame lame Joe Biden as America faces changing tides on global stage.  The geopolitical plates are shifting violently as China and Russia form a new axis of evil and once-reliable allies are moving away from the United States and toward our adversaries.  Even a major NATO member is openly rejecting American leadership on Taiwan.  But don't even think about blaming any of this on Joe Biden.  The world is churning but the buck never, ever stops on his desk.  The latest example of his media free pass appears via a front-page New York Times article that bemoans what it calls a "dearth of diplomacy." [...] "Bargaining tables sit empty these days.  Shuttle diplomacy planes have been grounded.  Treaties are more likely to be broken than brokered," writer Peter Baker declares. [...] So what's the problem?  The answer is something else Baker can't or won't say:  Biden is the weakest president America has had since Jimmy Carter and the world knows it.  That single fact explains why China, Russia and Iran are making common cause like never before.

New York Times goes full Trump Derangement Syndrome.  The propagandists participating in this anti-Trump exercise were [New York] Times Opinion (as propaganda) columnists Lydia Polgreen, Ross Douthat (the Never Trump voice), Carlos Lozada and Michelle Cottle of the Times editorial (as propaganda) board.  Polgreen started the anti-Trump propaganda by expressing surprise (dismay) that the former president had no prior arrests and suggested that was because he "always manag[ed] to wriggle out of trouble."  Ms. Polgreen thereby suggests that she studied at the Pelosi "guilty unless you prove your innocence" school of law.  Ms. Cottle (sharing Ms. Polgreen's conclusion) did not think Mr. Trump would end up in prison.  Thereupon, Douthat interjected:  "If we don't think he's going to end up in jail for any of these potential prosecutions [sic], then the purpose of a prosecution is a symbolic conviction?"

NY Times: U.S. Imports Poverty as Young Migrants Make Up 44% of Poor Children.  The United States, through mass illegal and legal immigration, is importing generations of poverty as the children of immigrants now account for 4-in-9 of all poor children living in the nation, the New York Times reveals.  In a report detailing vast poverty rates among the children of illegal and legal immigrants, the Times notes that "more than 40 percent of the country's poor children are children of immigrants."  Roughly 50 percent of those impoverished migrant youth are "anchor babies," the term given to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens as they are awarded birthright American citizenship despite their parents residing illegally in the nation.

The Editor says...
How is this surprising enough to be "news?"  By and large, the people sneaking across the Mexican border are coming to the U.S. because they have nothing, and would be better off living on welfare in the U.S.

Musk says the NY Times' 'propaganda isn't even interesting' and their Twitter feed is the 'equivalent of diarrhea'.  Elon Musk has launched yet another attack on The New York Times just as Twitter removed the publication's verified check mark.  In multiple tweets he said the publication was guilty of publishing boring 'propaganda' and said its feed was like 'diarrhea' because it put out too many tweets.  'The real tragedy of [The New York Times] is that their propaganda isn't even interesting,' wrote Musk early on Sunday morning.  'Also, their feed is the Twitter equivalent of diarrhea.  It's unreadable,' he added.

NYT editorial board gleefully reports on Trump indictment.  The triumphal editorial in the New York Times on the Trump indictment provides this description of the editorial board above the high-fiving of the editorial's gleeful writer(s) — in the print edition, March 31, 2023:  ["]The Editorial Board — A group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values.  It is separate from the newsroom.["Au contraire.  The editorial board of The New York Times consists of a group of propagandists informed by the narrowest of partisan bias, hostile to dissenting views based on solid research, intolerant of debate, while falling back on longstanding views hostile to democracy.  While this group of propagandists claims to be "separate from the newsroom," the newsroom is, most certainly, not separate from the editorial board.

How the Media Doubles Down on Falsehood.  I learned not to blindly accept the media in high school from a history teacher who wanted to make a point about the news media (all we had then were newspapers, radio, and network TV — no cable).  One Monday morning he brought in two articles from the NY Times ("All the news that's fit to print" was their motto).  The first article was a report on the successful landing of Dag Hammarskjold's (Secretary General of the UN) airplane at a small airport in Africa.  The next article, a day later, reported that Hammarskjold's airplane had, in fact, crashed and he did not survive.  From then on I learned to take anything reported in the media with a heavy grain of salt.

New York Times beclowns itself with its latest prediction of climate doom.  Having learned nothing from Greta Thunberg's quiet deletion of her 5 year old tweet predicting doom this year, The New York Times heedlessly is adding yet another doom prognosis in just a few years.

Who's Running America?  Last week the Senate Democrat majority was hospitalized with Senator John Fetterman dispatched to a psych ward and Senator Dianne Feinstein, who doesn't seem to know where she is, hospitalized for shingles. [...] The New York Times claims that Senator Fetterman "runs his Senate operation" from a psych ward.  Photos have been released of him vaguely looking at pieces of paper.  No satirist could have come up with a bleaker metaphor for the country than that one of the Senate's deciding votes has been hospitalized in a psych ward for his own safety, but is still running everything.  The paper tells us that, "since Mr. Fetterman checked in to the hospital, he has co-sponsored a bipartisan bill designed to help prevent future train derailment disasters, opened new district offices across Pennsylvania and hired four new staff members.  On Wednesday, Mr. Fetterman sent a letter to the agriculture secretary."  With productivity like that, maybe we should stick all of Congress in a mental institution.  Fetterman was so badly off that couldn't feed himself in a city filled with eateries, but is now in a position to write legislation that will change the country.

The Fetterman Guarantee.  In an absolutely shocking piece of "journalism," the New York Times profiles how the office of John Fetterman is operating while the senator recovers from severe depression and a stroke at Walter Reed Hospital.  There is so much in this report that is wrong, troubling, or outright horrifying that it cannot be covered in a single blog post or column.  Here's one:  "It is not unusual for lawmakers to be told by members of their staff, sometimes after the fact, what bills they are co-sponsoring."  This is simply not true.  But the line that really jumped out at me was this:  ["]When Mr. Fetterman checked himself into the hospital on Feb. 15, the lead doctor told him that his case was treatable and guaranteed he would get back to his old self.  Post-stroke depression, doctors said, affects one in three people and can be very serious, but is also highly treatable.["]  What?  Tell us the name of the doctor.  What kind of doctor would issue a guarantee that his patient, after admission into the mental hospital, will "get back to his old self"?

The Democrats' strategy to dismiss the uncensored J6 videos evolves.  The New York Times, which has become a semi-official house organ of the Democrats, also serves as a pilot fish for the rest of the establishment media.  So, when it failed to mention Tucker Carlson's first screening of censored J6 video Monday in its Tuesday morning edition, one can reasonably infer that the initial strategy was to ignore the videos. [...] But that strategy did not last the morning.  As Andrea Widburg chronicled here yesterday, "Democrats came out swinging," filling the airwaves (and Congress) with shrill denunciations of Tucker, Republicans, and J6 detainees.  Chuck Schumer even had the gall to go on the Senate floor and demand Rupert Murdoch censor Carlson.  It sure looked like panic.  I don't know if there was any collective reassessment of the damage done to their control of the narrative, or if various individual Democrats and media figures (but I repeat myself) decided on their own that they just could not let stand the access to suppressed evidence.  But inoring the videos was deemed an ineffective strategy... at least for now.  Subsequently, nominal conservatives like Mitch McConnell and National Review enormously aided the Democrats' suppression efforts by joining in condemning Carlson.

US intelligence suggests pro-Ukrainian group sabotaged Nord Stream pipelines -NYT.  New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukraine group — likely comprised of Ukrainians or Russians — attacked the Nord Stream gas pipelines in September, but there are no firm conclusions, the New York Times reported on Tuesday [3/7/2023].  There was no evidence that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy or other Ukrainian government officials were behind the attacks which spewed natural gas into the Baltic Sea, the newspaper reported, citing U.S. officials.  Reuters could not independently verify the report.

New York Times Discovers a New Source of Racism, and This One Could Be the Most Ridiculous Yet.  The New York Times, that intrepid warrior for anything and everything that the Left is hysterical about, on Friday published a lengthy piece about a source of systemic racism that no one has ever noticed before:  It seems that equestrian helmets are racist because they don't accommodate the dreadlocks that some black horse riders wear.  One black rider's mother lamented: "Mostly everything in this sport isn't designed for us."

A reminder from a past Susan Rice column of Democrats' vicious COVID lies.  It is more than serendipity, I believe, that I happened upon a Susan E. Rice column, nearly three years old, that I spied in a closet that I hadn't opened for years till this time of truth about the source of the COVID-19 pandemic.  This particular Rice column appeared in The New York Times (print edition, April 8, 2020, p.  A25) and highlighted this accusation, where it had this title "Trump's Hobbesian Jungle":  "People will die because of the perfidy of our 'wartime president.'"  This Rice column was filled with mendacious accusations.  But the truth has finally emerged that the source of the COVID-19 pandemic was the leak at the Wuhan lab, the truth of which was denied by propagandists like Susan E. Rice for invidious political ends, as her April 2020 Times column makes abundantly clear.

NY Times Editorial Board Member Questions Free Speech on Internet: 'I don't think we can allow it to go on'.  Mara Gay of the NY Times editorial board appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe this week and questioned the idea of free speech on the internet.  She whined about so-called 'hate speech' and disinformation, which is classic leftist talk for, speech I don't like.  Remember, this woman works for a newspaper that pushed the Russia collusion hoax for four solid years.  She is appearing on a network that did the same, but now she is worried about disinformation?

NY Times Already Busy Repackaging Biden as Working Class and Thoughtful for 2024.  If Joe Biden is truly running for re-election, then his flying monkeys in the mainstream media are going to have to work even harder than they did in 2020 to create a fictional version of him that appeals to voters.  Working in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee, legacy media propagandists worked to fashion out of whole cloth a Joe Biden who didn't exist.  They weren't evoking a Biden from a bygone era either — the guy they presented to the American public in 2019-20 never existed.  Fake 2020 Joe Biden was a thoughtful man who used his moderate political stances to bring people together.  Real Joe Biden is — and always has been — a hateful, divisive piece of work who shoots from the lip and whose politics are malleable so he can adjust to whatever the moment requires of him.

Radical left turns on woke New York Times.  Under attack by transgender radicals from inside and outside the paper, top editors of The New York Times face a problem so difficult, I feel sorry for them.  Well, almost.  The hesitation is warranted because the editors have only themselves to blame.  After abandoning standards of fairness to push a crazy woke agenda, they are suddenly discovering that appeasing the far left is impossible.  The crash course in common sense comes with the lesson that the more you give the radicals, the more they want.  And they don't ask, they demand and make threats.

Revealing the New York Times' Deceitful Russiagate Coverage.  [New York] Times readers can see how far their paper has fallen by comparing two recent articles.  The first is a survey of the Trump Russia collusion scandal the Times published on Jan. 26.  While ostensibly focusing on the relationship between former Attorney General William P. Barr and the man he appointed to investigate Russiagate wrongdoing, John Durham, its real aim is to rewrite the history of Russiagate to justify the actions taken while minimizing the problems that occurred.  This long article is written with such seeming authority that readers who consider the Times the "paper of record" will easily dismiss Russiagate critics as part of the right-wing echo chamber.  The second is a devastating critique of the paper's years-long Trump-Russia coverage, published on Jan. 30 in the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review.  Written by Jeff Gerth, a former Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter for the Times, this four-part series, "The press versus the president," describes in rich detail how the Times (and the many mainstream news outlets that follow its lead) deliberately misled its readers for years.

New York Times Waited More than 500 Days Before Reporting It Authenticated Hunter Biden Laptop Emails.  The New York Times, self-proclaimed "paper of record," waited more than 500 days before finally reporting it had authenticated critical emails from now-President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden's infamous laptop.  The Times allowed the false narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop was somehow "Russian disinformation" to permeate the public debate for over a year when it had obtained evidence to the contrary, according to emails obtained exclusively by Breitbart News.

Any 'Journalist' Relying On A Russia Hoaxer To Attack Barr And Durham Should Be Tuned Out.  "When did these guys drink the Kool-Aid, and who served it to them?"  That The New York Times deemed that reference to former Attorney General William Barr and Special Counsel John Durham from Stefan Halper's criminal defense attorney relevant, much less persuasive, to the question of the propriety of the special counsel's investigation renders Thursday's hit piece unworthy of any credibility.  The Times' opening salvo on Thursday, "How Barr's Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled," launched a narrative-building exercise to convince the public that Durham's investigation into malfeasance by the FBI and intelligence agencies was politically motivated and a failure.

The NYT Reveals How the WH Thought They Could Cover Up Biden Docs Debacle.  President Joe Biden and top White House officials tried to keep the U.S. from learning about Biden's mishandling of classified documents, thinking they could get away with it.  According to a report from the New York Times, Biden's lawyers found the first batch of documents on November 2 at the Penn Biden Center, Biden's Washington, D.C., think tank.  The NYT said that rather than coming clean, an idea that did "not seem to have been seriously considered," the group quietly contacted the National Archives, which is responsible for keeping presidential and vice presidential records.  The NARA then referred it to the Department of Justice two days later.  "The decision ... to keep the discovery of classified documents secret from the public and even most of the White House staff for 68 days was driven by what turned out to be a futile hope that the incident could be quietly disposed of without broader implications for Mr. Biden or his presidency," the NYT reported.

New York Times Throws Joe Biden Under the Bus.  The New York Times has long ago abandoned any pretense of being an actual news source and has settled into its role as the foremost propaganda arm of the hard Left, capitalizing upon the fact that there is still a considerable number of people in the U.S. and around the world who still think that the Times can be trusted to report events impartially and accurately.  In reality, the only thing the Times is good for is revealing what the political and media elites are thinking, and a Friday opinion piece dropped a bombshell, in the Times' muted, bloodless Voice-of-the-Ages manner:  the Leftist establishment is through with Old Joe Biden.  Watch for him to be replaced as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024, and he could be gone even sooner.

New York Times [is] Worried the New House Subcommittee on Fed Weaponization May Review Special Counsel Activity.  The Washington Post speaks for the CIA, IC and DNI.  The New York Times and Politico speak for the FBI, DOJ-NSD and DHS concerns, while CNN is the representative voice of the U.S. State Dept.  These are the constants in the ever-changing world of narrative engineering.  Never forget them.  As a direct result of the concerns expressed within a New York Times article, it's abundantly clear the FBI and DOJ-NSD are worried about the new House Subcommittee on Federal Weaponization of Government.  Specifically, the concern of the DOJ/FBI is the potential for the committee to start looking behind the curtain at the activity and intents of the special counsel operation.

NY Times called out for 'disgusting' crossword puzzle that resembled Nazi swastika imagery — on Hannukah.  Once again, The New York Times is showing its classic — and historic — anti-Semitism after publishing a crossword puzzle that bore a striking resemblance to the symbol of Nazi Germany.  Readers and social media users reacted with anger and disgust after seeing the design of the Times' puzzle, even to a casual observer, strongly resembled a swastika.  Interestingly, the paper's "Games" account responded to a similar design complaint in 2017, meaning that this has happened before.

New York Times mocked for naming Fetterman among the year's 'most stylish' people.  The New York Times on Monday declared incoming Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman to be one of its 93 "most stylish" people of 2022, prompting backlash against the paper on social media, including by the Democrat's wife. [...] The news outlet feted Fetterman, whose usual attire on the campaign trail involved a hoodie, basketball shorts, and sneakers, as a lawmaker that "is going to bring Carhartt to the Capitol," a reference to the US workwear apparel company.

NYTimes Uses Pictures of Shotgun Shells when Discussing AR-15s.  The New York Times editorial board ran a hit job bashing gun rights that put the leftist media organ's ignorance on full display, using a cover photo for the op-ed that depicted shotgun shells instead of the piece's target, AR-15s.  The article was entitled "America's Toxic Gun Culture," and it was the fifth in a series entitled "The Danger Within," which NYT reports is an attempt to convince its dwindling readership "to understand the danger of extremist violence and possible solutions."

The Times Does the Twitter Files.  New York Times media reporter Michael Grynbaum gives us the Times's first take on the Twitter Files.  RealClearPolitics links to an accessible version of Grynbaum's story published at DNYUZ. Turning to the story posted here on the Times site, I see that Grynbaum's story is published on page B5 of today's Times.  Between the national news and the sports section falls the shadow. [...] Grynbaum's story appears calculated to serve the purpose of letting the Times hold that it has covered the Twitter Files.

NYT Accuses Gun Rights Advocates of Brandishing to Shut Down Free Speech.  In a Saturday article headlined "At Protests, Guns Are Doing the Talking," New York Times investigative reporter Mike McIntire accuses gun rights advocates with "a right-wing agenda" of "increasingly using open-carry laws to intimidate opponents and shut down debate" at protests, gatherings, and public meetings.  There's a legal term for what he's describing and it's called "brandishing"; a term that describes an illegal activity and does not appear once in his nearly 2,600-word piece.  The word doesn't appear because he knows that's not what's happening.  He even admits that "shootings were rare" and that "armed protests accounted for less than 2 percent" of total protests.  But that admission didn't come until paragraph 42 of 56.  He would also admit that when the rare violence would break out it "often involved fisticuffs" with other groups "such as antifa [sic]." [...] Giving little credit to the fact that Democrats are openly anti-gun rights in many states, some even calling for abolishing the Second Amendment altogether, McIntire seems appalled that law-abiding gun owners find a home in the Republican Party.  He treated the political partnership as some sort of cabal, seemingly finding it suspicious that "Republican officials or candidates appeared at 32 protests where they were on the same side as those with guns."

Fawning NY Times' 'Review' of Michelle Obama's New Book Is an Embarrassment.  Ben Shapiro was blunt on Twitter.  He had discovered "the most sycophantic book review ever written."  The book was the second tome from multimillionaire author and advice guru Michelle Obama.  The review appeared in The New York Times, from the paper's "Help Desk" columnist, Judith Newman.  She's "the help," all right.  Ed Morrissey tweeted back to Shapiro: "The secret to success in life:  Find someone who loves you as unconditionally and fiercely as the mainstream media loves the Obamas."  Except they're not "mainstream" at all.  These "objective newspapers" are blatantly leftist partisan rags, as they demonstrate on a daily basis.

Yesterday's conspiracy theories are today's legacy media news reports.  [Thread reader] NYT reports the #2 man in the Oath Keepers, Greg McWhirter, was actually an FBI informant, talking to them for months ahead of the Capitol attack.  Oh the day he was supposed to testify in the Rhodes trial, McWhirter, 40, had a heart attack & couldn't.  NYT also reports the FBI "had as many as eight informants inside" inside the Proud Boys, in the months before AND after the January 6 riot.  Despite this, NYT asserts "no evidence has surfaced suggesting that the FBI played any role in the attack."  Yet!

The Times Has Second Thoughts.  The day is coming — rather soon, I think — when the current mania for drugging adolescents and carving up their bodies will be viewed with horror as one of the great crimes of our century.  The costs of the "trans" fad have already become evident, to the point where the New York Times wants to position itself somewhere in the middle.  The Times story is headlined: "They Paused Puberty, but Is There a Cost?"  Good question!

Amnesia overcomes at least 5 staffers at the New York Times.  In covering the awful attack on Paul Pelosi is his own San Francisco mansion (the one with the $30,000 refrigerator/freezer full of ultra-expensive ice cream), the four writers of Pelosi's Husband Is Gravely Injured in Hammer Attack by an Intruder and at least one editor who worked on experienced severe amnesia. [...] Not a word about Lee Zeldin, whose home not too far from the NYT HQ, experienced a drive-by shooting weeks ago, and who was attacked by a knife-wielding opponent while campaigning in New York State earlier this year.  Not a word about the attack on Rand Paul that broke ribs and injured his lung.  Not a word about the attack on the House GOP softball team, an attempted mass assassination that gravely injured minority whip Steve Scalise.  This is called "lying by omission."

Insurrection: New York Times Promotes Sabotage, 'Guerrilla Warfare' to End Fossil Fuels.  In January of 2021, The New York Times promoted a book titled How To Blow Up a Pipeline by transparently radical author Andreas Malm.  On Thursday, the Times directly promoted Malm by publishing his guest essay under the headline "History May Absolve the Soup Throwers." [...] While the Times routinely rails against the "insurrection" on January 6 and sees all "domestic terrorism" as a right-wing problem, it promotes a climate insurrection and left-wing domestic terrorism.  Malm explicitly champions sabotage and violence — even guerrilla warfare! — as an efficient path to ending fossil fuels: [...] Malm tyrannically insists "all oil and gas production in rich countries — including the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and Qatar — must be terminated within 12 years.  Not only can there be no new fossil fuel installations; 40 percent of reserves already developed must be left in the ground."

Former New York Times Editor Claims Colleagues Treated Him Like an 'Incompetent Fascist' for Running Cotton Op-Ed.  In an interview with former New York Times columnist Ben Smith, ex-editorial page editor James Bennet finally spoke out about the controversy that led to his leaving the Times, saying he was treated like an "incompetent fascist" by his colleagues for having published an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.).  Bennet left the Times on June 7, 2020, just a few days after the publication of the Cotton op-ed, which recommended that the National Guard be deployed to quell the riots that were plaguing American cities at the time.  Social-justice minded Times employees led a public revolt over the publication of the op-ed, publicly accusing the paper's leadership of endangering the lives of black staffers by giving a sitting U.S. senator a platform to air his views.  Nikole Hannah-Jones, who headed the Times' 1619 Project, led the public backlash against Bennet.

Trump Team Savages New York Times For Hyping The Movement Of Boxes.  Donald Trump's spokesperson claimed The New York Times engaged in "some of the most irresponsible reporting imaginable" after the outlet published a story claiming an aide for the former president moved around boxes at Mar-a-Lago before and after a subpoena to return classified materials — despite not knowing what was actually inside the boxes.  The NYT published a story Thursday claiming a Trump aide was caught on camera moving boxes "out of a storage room" at Mar-a-Lago "both before and after" the Department of Justice issued a subpoena asking for the former president to return all classified materials.  The storage room in question was one of the rooms subject to investigation by the DOJ in its August raid, the outlet said, citing anonymous sources "familiar with the matter."  The NYT states twice in its reporting that "it is unclear if the boxes that were moved were among the material later retrieved by the F.B.I.," apparently indicating that the outlet is not certain that the boxes being moved had any classified materials that the FBI was looking for.

NY Times Suddenly Discovers That Biden Is a Liar.  Good heavens, the CDC better check the water supply at the New York Times.  First, as noted here over the weekend, the Times discovered the farce of California's high speed rail.  Now they've discovered (also decades later than sensate people, but still) that Joe Biden makes things up. [...] Of course the Times labors mightily to reassure its tender readers that Trump was worse, and place it in the "context" that all presidents lie, and maybe Biden isn't really any worse than others, like Bill Clinton.

New York Times Races to Defend Biden's Lies.  In the latest installment of "things the mainstream media would never do for conservatives," The New York Times is again rushing to President Joe Biden's aid to defend his frequent use of outright lies in his... creative... storytelling.  Headlined "Biden, Storyteller in Chief, Spins Yarns That Often Unravel," the Times points to Biden's usual lies used to pander to audiences but characterizes the blatant falsehoods as merely a "habit of embellishing narratives to weave a political identity."  How nice to be Joe Biden and have the Times around to make your literally unbelievable anecdotes an endearing quality, or whatever.

Media Falsely Links Hurricanes to Climate Change.  Here Are the Facts.  As Florida deals with the cleanup from Hurricane Ian — which ravaged the state, killed hundreds, and displaced thousands more — media outlets have peddled the idea that this tragedy is the result of climate change.  Some even suggested that Florida shouldn't get aid because some of its elected officials oppose federal legislation that would pump billions of dollars into various green initiatives.  The New York Times ran a piece headlined "Florida Leaders Rejected Major Climate Laws.  Now They're Seeking Storm Aid."  The subheadline read, "Senior Republican politicians in the state have opposed federal action against global warming, which is making storms like Hurricane Ian more destructive."  The Times report said that while Republicans in the state are requesting aid, they "don't want to discuss the underlying problem that is making hurricanes more powerful and destructive."  What was the cause, according to the Times?  "The burning of fossil fuels."  Of course.

Biggest self own: New York Times edition.  On Monday The New York Times published a prominent piece on how a tiny election software firm was being unfairly targeted by evil "election deniers" who were making unsubstantiated accusations.  These dastardly election denies made unsubstantiated accusations that the company was allied with the Chinese Communist Party and had slipped the commies personal data on poll workers in the United State.  Those evil Republicans would do almost anything to smear honest, hardworking folks who were just doing their job. [...] It really is scary what happens when you join the cult of Donald Trump, proto-Nazi and chief election denier.  You become totally unhinged! You start seeing conspiracies everywhere you look. [...] So what do you call a conspiracy theorist these days?  Somebody who had it figured out a few months before the rest of us.  In this case, it was faster than that.  It took only one day for the New York Times to be revealed [as] useful idiots[.]

NYT Pretends To Debunk Poll Worker 'Conspiracy.' One Day Later, The 'Election Deniers' Were Vindicated.  Once referred to as America's "newspaper of record," the regime-approved New York Times is back with its latest "pie in the face" moment, and boy is it a doozy.  On Monday, the left-wing outlet published a lengthy piece admonishing a group of "election deniers" and "conspiracy theorists" for expressing concerns last month that Konnech, a relatively small U.S. software company that handles poll worker data, "had secret ties to the Chinese Communist Party and had given the Chinese government backdoor access to personal data about two million poll workers in the United States."  "In the ensuing weeks, the conspiracy theory grew as it shot around the internet," wrote Times reporter Stuart Thompson. "To believers, the claims showed how China had gained near complete control of America's elections."  The notion of Konnech's potential election security risks was first raised by an organization called True the Vote, whose members claimed at an August conference in Phoenix that "they investigated Konnech in early 2021" and "gained access to Konnech's database by guessing the password," resulting in their team purportedly downloading "personal information on about 1.8 million poll workers."  Rather than attempt to verify the claims by doing actual investigative journalism, Thompson let his clear-as-day political biases drive his work and simply parroted Konnech, which asserted that "none of the accusations were true" and that "all the data for its American customers were stored on servers in the United States and that it had no ties to the Chinese government."

When a 'conspiracy theory' turns out to be... not a theory.  [Scroll down]  But here's the thing:  It is possible to believe that the 2020 election result, Joe Biden's victory, was legitimate and also believe that there were problems in a variety of areas of the election.  After all, it was an unprecedented election.  Amid the coronavirus pandemic, lawmakers and local officials around the country rushed huge, never-before-attempted changes in election procedures into effect for the voting.  How could there not be problems?  Indeed, we are still dealing with the after-effects of those changes, undoing some and reforming others.  But in the Konnech story, the New York Times just jumped to the defense of the good guys against the bad guys.  Why?  The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney tweeted, "It's the same reason everything about Hunter Biden's laptop was considered disinformation right away, deserving of a media blackout."  In other words, The New York Times assumed — a simple, unexamined, emotion-based assumption — who the good guys were and who the bad guys were in the story.  And in this case, it appears, the paper got it wrong.

'Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory' Apparently Turns Out To Be Real In Under 24 Hours.  The New York Times initially framed a story on an election software company's connection to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a "right-wing conspiracy theory," but within 24 hours the story turned out to be true.  A Times article published Tuesday reported that "right-wing" election deniers in Arizona had crafted a conspiracy theory that election software company Konnech had secret ties to the CCP and gave the party access to personal information about two million U.S. poll workers.  The following morning, the company's top executive, Eugene Yu, was arrested for the alleged theft of poll workers' personal information.  "At an invitation-only conference in August at a secret location southeast of Phoenix, a group of election deniers unspooled a new conspiracy theory about the 2020 presidential outcome," the Times' original lede read.

Ghoulish NYT Suggests Florida Deserves Hurricanes for Not Supporting Climate Agenda.  Proving that the paper isn't worthy to line a birdcage, The New York Times ran a disgusting and hateful piece Tuesday night suggesting that because Florida Republicans Governor Ron DeSantis, and Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott won't go along with the Democrat Party's radical agenda to fight "climate change", the state somehow deserved to be ravaged by Hurricane Ian and that the leaders were somehow personally responsible for the destruction and loss of life.  Typing up this propaganda article on behalf of their Democrat Party, "reporters" Christopher Flavelle and Jonathan Weisman ran with the title "Florida Leaders Rejected Major Climate Laws.  Now They're Seeking Storm Aid."  The two ghoulish leftists added a subtitle that was just as vile:  "Senior Republican politicians in the state have opposed federal action against global warming, which is making storms like Hurricane Ian more destructive."  Flavelle and Weisman wasted no time in leveling as many cheap partisan attacks as they could in the first paragraph.

Management ALWAYS balks at salary demands.  It's called negotiation.
NY Times staffers mull strike as management balks at salary demands.  Staffers at the New York Times are openly discussing the possibility of a work stoppage as talks with management have reportedly hit an impasse over the union's demands for a salary hike.  The guild representing journalists at the newspaper also wants management to commit to an 8% annual salary increase year-over-year for a period of four years.  But management has countered with a significantly smaller hike — a 4% increase for the first year followed by a 2% boost for the following two years, according to Insider.  Management has also offered an additional 1% merit-based pay hike.  The labor strife is exacerbating tensions between rank-and-file Times staffers and management, who have been at loggerheads over the newspaper's return-to-office demands.  The [New York] Post reported earlier this month that more than 1,300 newsroom staffers signed a pledge vowing to defy management's edict to return to their Midtown Manhattan cubicles for a minimum of three days a week.

The 'DeSantis Is Worse Than Trump' Campaign has Begun.  When New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote a love letter of sorts to Donald Trump and his "soft edges and eccentricity," it didn't take long for people to see this for what it is: an opening salvo by the press to start demonizing the next Republican.  In his column, Bouie coos about how Trump is "funny, he has stage presence, and he has a kind of natural charisma.  He can be a bully in part because he can temper his cruelty and egoism with the performance of a clown or a showman.  He can persuade an audience that he's just kidding — that he doesn't actually mean it."  Anyone not blinded by Trump hatred would probably agree with this description.  But it is Bouie who doesn't actually mean what he's saying.

New York Times Attempts Portraying Linda Sarsour as a Victim of Russian Disinformation.  Trump Derangement Syndrome may have reached a new high — more accurately, low — on September 18th, 2022, when the New York Times printed an article blasting Russian trolls and disinformation for pushing the idea that Linda Sarsour was antisemitic.  No, seriously. [...] One might think it was Sarsour herself who was responsible for the belief she was antisemitic based on her own words and associations with individuals such as Louis Farrakhan.  Obviously, this is not so.  It's all because Sarsour wears a hijab.  And Trump, of course.

NYT's article on 'threats to democracy' is itself a threat to our democracy.  The New York Times appears to be setting the stage for the Democrats to kill the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, alter the Senate by admitting DC and Puerto Rico as new states, and effectively alter the operation of the Electoral College if they end up with 52 senators and control of the House following the midterms.  A Senate majority not dependent on the votes of Senators Manchin and Sinema would enable them to pass legislation to accomplish this.  David Leonhardt, whom the Times proudly identifies as a Pulitzer Prize winner, writes a news not opinion, article.  Somehow, he seems to have missed the lesson that founders had no interest in power associated only with numbers — hence the Senate, 2 for each state regardless of population, and the Electoral College and separation of powers.  Since the left believes it is meant to control, these annoying idiosyncrasies of the constitution need to be updated.

1,300 New York Times Staffers Refuse Order to Return to Office.  More than a thousand New York Times employees are refusing a company order to return to the office at least three days a week, citing inflationary pressures.  Tom Coffey, who sits on the Times's union's contract committee told the New York Post that "people are livid," and said the 1,300 staffers who are refusing to return to the office are especially concerned with commuter costs.

Trends in COVID Anxiety.  Today the New York Times published the results (and interpretation) of its latest COVID poll.  While the interpretation is full of the typical unsubstantiated false claims supporting the approved narrative, which we have come to expect from corporate media, the poll itself is well worth examining.  Examples illustrating my point regarding the approved narrative include the following gems, beginning with the now obligatory blaming of President Trump and unnamed "Republicans" for the mass formation hypnosis which a large fraction of the country has been suffering.  In short, this argument seems to be "the other side made us go crazy".

New York Times Continues Its Long History of Covering for Commies with Gorbachev Obit.  You can always count on the New York Times to put its liberal spin on events.  For instance, this breaking news headline:  "Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader who transformed the map of Europe and presided over the end of the Cold War, has died at 91."  We can see the spin here:  the Times gives Gorbachev credit for being the doer, using the two active-voice verbs "transformed" and "presided."  In other words, the Times is awarding the deceased communist kudos for ending the Cold War and liberating Eastern Europe.  Not someone such as, say, the anti-communist Ronald Reagan or other heroes of anti-Soviet resistance.

Those Who Want to Destroy the Constitution.  On Friday, The New York Times published its latest op-ed calling for the end of the Constitution of the United States.  The authors, Ryan Doerfler and Samuel Moyn, teach law at Harvard and Yale respectively.  They argue that the Left's progress has been stymied by constitutionalism itself.  "The idea of constitutionalism," they correctly write, "is that there needs to be some higher law that is more difficult to change than the rest of the legal order.  Having a constitution is about setting more sacrosanct rules than the ones the legislature can pass day to day."  This, of course, orients the process of law toward the past:  there are certain lines that simply cannot be crossed.  And, as Doerfler and Moyn point out, "constitutionalism of any sort demands extraordinary consensus for meaningful progress."  And herein lies the problem for Doerfler and Moyn: constitutions "misdirect the present into a dispute over what people agreed on once upon a time, not on what the present and future demand for and from those who live now."  The solution, they say, lies in dispensing with the Constitution entirely; the proper solution to the Constitution is in "direct arguments about what fairness or justice demands."

NYT Union Accuses Paper of Systemic Racism in Performance Reviews.  The New York Times treats its white employees more favorably than its minority employees, according to a lengthy report from a labor union representing Times reporters and employees that argues the paper must grapple with systemic racism in its own ranks.  For years, according to the Times Guild's report released Tuesday, the Times has discriminated against employees of color.  Zero black employees received the highest performance review rating in 2020, whereas white employees made up 90 percent of those with the top marks.  Black employees are 10 percent of the union's membership, but contribute to nearly 18 percent of the "partially meets expectations" ratings given out by management.

The Editor says...
There is another possible explanation (other than overt racism) that is apparently out of the question, and that is, maybe all the unionized black workers are just terrible employees.

New York Times hires the reporter who brought Steele dossier to BuzzFeed to cover 'right-wing media'.  The New York Times announced on August 18 that Ken Bensinger is joining its politics desk and will report on right-wing media for the section's so-called "democracy team."  Bensinger previously worked for BuzzFeed, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal.  David Halbfinger, the Times' politics editor, suggested in the announcement that Bensinger is well prepared to report on right-wing media.  His recent work on the Oath Keepers (an anti-statist militia group, some of whose members were present at the January 6, 2021, Capitol protests) and on the Gov.  Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case in Michigan were cited as evidence of the reporter's understanding of "the rising threat of armed militant groups," which Halbfinger intimated is relevant to the reporter's new beat.  In the announcement, Halbfinger omitted any mention of Bensinger's most impactful work.  Bensinger was the individual responsible for bringing the Steele dossier to BuzzFeed, which the organization released on January 10, 2017.

New York Times picks Buzzfeed reporter who published fake Steele dossier pee tape 'revelations' to cover 'right wing media'.  [Scroll down] Patience, empathy, and understanding?  Sensitivity and nuance?  Not this guy.  To him, conservatives and their media can be summed up as the Oath Keepers, and any scurrilous document thrown at him about pee or whatever, is printable, no confirmation necessary.  At best, he might be like Dave Weigel of the Washington Post, a leftist there assigned to cover conservatives, pretending to be friends with them in order to get a few gullibles to confide in him, and then getting caught speaking ill of them behind their backs.  More likely, he'll be on the job non-stop "exposing" Fox News, the New York Post, the Washington Times, and any outlet that does impressive real scoops the Times desperately tries to ignore.  He'll be their rear-guard defense, trying to discredit these news organizations as a means of keeping them from reporting serious stories such as the border surge, the appeal of Donald Trump, the two-tier justice system, and the corruption revelations within the Hunter Biden laptop.

Ex-NYT Reporter Blows Whistle: 'Check with Senator Schumer before We Run It'.  Former New York Times reporter Bari Weiss has blown the whistle about the newspaper's behind-the-scenes ties to the Democratic Party.  According to Weiss, the left-wing outlet would "check" with high-level Democrats before running potentially damaging stories.  She has spoken out to reveal an internal battle at the paper over an opinion piece submitted by GOP Senator Tim Scott (R-SC).

Howard Kurtz shows NYT story about Trump and Fox is FAKE news.  Sorry, Newsmax.  "It's been more than 100 days since Donald J. Trump was interviewed on Fox News," begins a New York Times article that came out on Friday.  In it, the leading evil newspaper in America claims that "skepticism" about President Trump "extends to the highest levels of the company."  They say the network is "snubbing" Trump, and not "coincidentally" but as part of a deliberate effort to minimize him.  Howard Kurtz addressed it on Sunday [7/31/2022].  "I can report there is no edict whatsoever against having Trump on this network.  I reached out myself with an invitation some weeks ago, and people close to the president confirm he hasn't yes to any Fox show or been turned after asking to be on a Fox show.  Just for the record."

Pulitzer Prize Board Stands by Awards Given to NYT, WaPo for Russia Hoax Reports.  The Pulitzer Prize Board on Monday [7/18/2022] announced it is standing by awards given to the New York Times and Washington Post for their reports on the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.  "In the last three years, the Pulitzer Board has received inquiries, including from former President Donald Trump, about submissions from The New York Times and The Washington Post on Russian interference in the U.S. election and its connections to the Trump campaign — submissions that jointly won the 2018 National Reporting prize," the organization's statement reads.

The Hidden Agenda Behind the New York Times' Desperate Puff Piece on Ray Epps.  The New York Times just released a puff piece on Ray Epps that is hugely important.  Ray Epps, the only person caught on camera repeatedly directing people into the Capitol, is the only January 6 rioter for whom the New York Times has written a highly sympathetic puff piece:  [Screen shot]  To get acquainted with Epps, watch the following video compilation:  [Video clip]  Again, this is the one Jan. 6 rioter the New York Times has managed to write a puff piece for. [...] Getting back to the Times piece, it's also important to note that the piece contains no explicit denial by Epps of association with military intelligence, DHS, JTTF, or any cutouts or intermediaries.  We have references to "lies" and Epps' wish that "the truth come out," in addition to denial of association with law enforcement.  I wonder if the author of the New York Times piece, Alan Feuer, could clarify for the record: did he ask Epps if he had any association with any intelligence agencies or cutouts of such agencies?  If so, what did he say?  If not, why not?

Regime Propaganda, Ray Epps, and the New York Times.  Is the New York Times playing four-dimensional chess?  Or is it only tic-tac-toe with a three-year-old?  I ask because I cannot quite fathom the Times' latest intervention into the January 6 miniseries, its aromatic aria bewailing the fate of Ray Epps.  Who is Ray Epps?  We don't really know — not yet.  In the immediate aftermath of the January 6 jamboree, he was on the Stasi's — er, the FBI's — list of most wanted "domestic extremists," "insurrectionists," etc.  He was also a star of several videos, a right-out-of-central-casting, MAGA-hat-wearing Trump nut telling anyone who would listen on the evening of January 5 that the next day they had to go "into the Capitol, into the Capitol."  Into the Capitol, not "to" the Capitol.  You see the difference. [...] Moreover, with every passing week, evidence that the entire January 6 protest was planned and abetted not by Donald Trump and his nefarious agents but rather by elements of the anti-Trump regime has been piling up.

The New York Times puff piece on Ray Epps is hugely important.  [Thread reader]  Ray Epps, the only person caught on repeatedly directing people into the Capitol is the only January 6 rioter the New York Times has written a puff piece for[.]  They know Epps is the smoking gun.  And this likely is the beginning of a monumental damage control campaign[.]  To get acquainted with Epps, watch the video compilation: again, this is the ONE Jan 6 rioter the New York Times has managed to write a puff piece for[.]  [Video clip] [...] Feuer's NYT piece describes Epps as a Trump supporter.  He says "Trump traveled to Washington to back Mr. Trump" ... and that he "took a last minute trip to Washington for Trump's speech about election fraud."  The only problem is Epps didnt go to Trump's speech[.]  That's right, this alleged Trump supporter travelled all the way from Arizona to DC, and didn't even attend Trump's speech.  Instead, he spent the evening of January 5th and the morning of the 6th telling people to go into the Capitol[.]  [Video clip]

As Democrats And The Press Turn On Biden, Remember:  They Are The Regime That Empowered Him.  "Biden, At 79, Shows Signs Of Age And Aides Fret About His Image," reads a headline on the front page of Sunday's New York Times.  It's a goofy article; one that reluctantly tries to tackle the president's publicly deteriorating mental faculties while claiming he's still more fit than either Presidents Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump (Republicans).  At one point, the reporter even cites "experts" who "put Mr. Biden in a category of 'super-agers' who remain unusually fit as they advance in years."  But foolishness aside, there it sits: an article questioning Biden's fitness for office on the front page of the Sunday Times.  And they weren't done:  "Democrats Sour on Biden, Citing Age and Economy," the top headline read in Monday's New York Times.  "Poll Shows Most Want New '24 Candidate as Pessimism Becomes Pervasive."

I think The New York Times is scared ... and more than a little racist.  The New York Times is apparently very afraid because Republicans are more than successful in their attempts to appeal to Latino voters.  Yes, The New York Times is super upset that the poor, helpless, Latina demographic has been sucked into voting for Republicans, even though it has been calling conservatives racist for decades. [...] It can't be that the Left has lurched radically toward woke Marxism.  Nope.  These Latinas must be appealing to "extreme" politics.

NY Times 'forgot' to print Declaration of Independence for the first time in 100 years.  On what would have been the 100th anniversary of this July 4th tradition, the New York Times reportedly forgot to print the Declaration of Independence in its newspaper this year.  After disgruntled readers voiced concern, the paper printed it on July 5.  In its Wednesday "Playbook," Politico reported that the outlet forgot its "longstanding tradition" of putting the Declaration of Independence in its print edition every July 4th.  A Times spokesperson blamed it on "human error."  Politico's report opened with a blurb on the history of this July 4th tradition, recounting how it came about in the late 19th century.  "On July 4, 1897, Adolph Ochs, the new owner of The New York Times, ushered in an Independence Day tradition:  The paper published the full text of the Declaration of Independence.  The Times called the document the 'original charter of the Nation.'"

NY Times publishes vengeful Dems playbook on how to 'discipline a rogue Supreme Court'.  Democrats are foaming at the mouth after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to overturn the landmark abortion ruling Roe v Wade last week in a stinging rebuke to the progressive agenda and now look to wage total war against yet another of the nation's institutions with some guidance from The New York Times which lays out the playbook for brutal revenge.  In a weekend op-ed penned by columnist Jamelle Bouie entitled "How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court," he urges Democrats to strike back hard against what he describes as "a reckless, reactionary and power-hungry court," meaning the conservative justices who refused to be intimidated by the mob.  The would-be constitutional scholar claims, "The Supreme Court does not exist above the constitutional system" in making the case for the other two co-equal branches of the U.S. government to take a wrecking ball to the current court.

Bill Maher Slams New York Times for Burying Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt.  Bill Maher is getting more red-pilled by the day, and now the attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh or rather the Leftist media's nothing-to-see-here non-coverage of the attempt took him to new heights of clear-sightedness.  On Friday [6/10/2022], Maher actually agreed with his guest, Kellyanne Conway, that the New York Times' coverage of the attempt on Kavanaugh's life was a clear indication that the Times and its establishment media allies are not news outlets but simply propaganda arms for the hard Left.

The New York Times turns on Biden.  It is an axiomatic fact that the mainstream media functions as the propaganda wing for the Washington Democrat establishment.  In fact, the news media should not be seen as a separate entity but instead as a department within the Democrat party.  Reading an op-ed in the New York Times or the WaPo or watching a show on MSNBC doesn't provide insight into what the editors or presenter are thinking, but instead what the Democrat Establishment is thinking or wants their voters to think.  The NYT was among those who actively promoted Joe Biden during the Presidential contest in 2020 and cheered his 'victory' claiming that the adults were back in charge.  Almost a year and a half late, following the myriad disasters that Biden has created, the paper still remains his cheerleader, but prominent cracks are beginning to show.

Voter Fraud Today, Voter Fraud Tomorrow, Voter Fraud Forever!  Last week, the New York Times published a hit piece on our friend Cleta Mitchell.  Cleta, a top-notch lawyer, was a partner in an international law firm until she had to resign because leftists besieged her law firm's clients, demanding that she be fired.  She is now working on election integrity issues for the Conservative Partnership Institute.  The Times story lies from the top, beginning with its headline:  "Lawyer Who Plotted to Overturn Trump Loss Recruits Election Deniers to Watch Over the Vote."  Mitchell did not "plot to overturn Trump loss," she worked in a single state, Georgia, to examine and expose election integrity issues there.  And the Times calls those who are concerned about the honesty of our elections "election deniers," a childish smear.

NYT: Say, where have all the public-school students gone?  Over one million students have evaporated from public school rolls over the last two years, the New York Times reported late yesterday.  "No overriding explanation has emerged yet for the widespread drop-off," writes reporter Shawn Hubler.  Really? [...] Did anything unusual happen in the last two years?  To be fair to Hubler, she offers at least two obvious explanations, but seems more concerned about the impact on public schools from them rather than the students.

The Replacements.  I'm so old I can remember Bill Clinton blaming the 1995 Oklahoma bombing on Rush Limbaugh.  [Indeed], I'm so old I can recall MSNBC and the rest of the leftist hive mind blaming the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords on Sarah Palin, when 30 seconds of observation showed clearly the shooter was severely mentally ill.  Oh, wait — you don't need to be old for that:  the New York Times repeated that outrageous slur in an editorial just four years ago — now the subject of a much-deserved libel suit from Palin.

Here is a fine example why New York Times 'reporting' is not to be taken seriously.  In its May 12 print edition, New York Times reporters Chelsia Tose Marcius and Tea Kvenenadze wrote that a Bronx man was shot and killed by police after he wounded a police officer.  Their account is a good example of anti-cop propaganda.  Here is the lead sentence:  ["]Neighbors said a man fatally shot by the police during an exchange of gunfire Tuesday night [May 9] that also wounded an officer was troubled but seemed unthreatening, living under the supervision of a mental health court after a weapons charge.["] [...] [This is] an obvious effort by reporters and editors at The New York Times to exculpate an individual who possessed and fired a handgun at members of the NYPD.  It would seem that by quoting a neighbor of the deceased, readers are to conclude that he did not present "problems" to the community, notwthstanding his discharge, with wounding effect, of a weapon.

'The New York Times' can't shake the cloud over a 90-year-old Pulitzer PrizeThe New York Times is looking to add to its list of 132 Pulitzer Prizes — by far the most of any news organization — when the 2022 recipients for journalism are announced on Monday.  Yet the war in Ukraine has renewed questions of whether the Times should return a Pulitzer awarded 90 years ago for work by Walter Duranty, its charismatic chief correspondent in the Soviet Union.  "He is the personification of evil in journalism," says Oksana Piaseckyj, a Ukrainian-American activist who came to the U.S. as a child refugee in 1950.  She is among the advocates for the return of the award.  "We think he was like the originator of fake news."

As Roe Is Threatened, the NY Times Dumps 'Pregnant People' and Rediscovers 'Women'.  Linda Greenhouse reported on the Supreme Court for the New York Times for 30 years.  Since then, she's appeared in the paper on a regular basis giving her fiercely pro-choice opinions.  So it's no surprise she had a say about the shocking leak of a draft opinion that appears to overturn the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide.  Sunday's edition featured Greenhouse's "The Draft Opinion's Missing Women."  Yes, the Times headline is suggesting the abortion ruling is leaving out "women."  This from the paper that has spent the last year or so often leaving out the word "women" in pregnancy-related stories, in order to appease radical transgenders.  But with the leak of Justice Samuel Alito's opinion, bizarre, anti-biological terminology like "birthing persons" has abruptly vanished from the paper's news coverage of Roe v. Wade.  Once again, only women can get pregnant.

Why Would Rural Americans Vote for Those Who Hate Them?  It never ceases to amaze me when the same politicians and pundits who spew vile rhetoric aimed at rural Americans all year long turn around and ask for those Americans' votes.  The New York Times (the titular "paper of record" that pushed Trump-Russia "collusion" lies while ignoring the Biden Crime Family's quid pro quo money-making in Ukraine) recently featured an opinion piece claiming that "Biden has already done more for rural America than Trump ever did."  Democrat lemmings quickly regurgitated the overrated rag's propaganda.  After feeling the tug on his leash from Old Witch Pelosi, the honey-trapped Congressman Eric Swalwell (whose dimwittedness made him a natural target for the Chinese Communist Party to compromise) laughably insisted that under China Joe's lethargic leadership, "we are all doing much better ... especially ... rural America."  As is only fitting for a regime requiring its own Ministry of Truth, Swalwell then instructed his (brain-dead) Twitter followers to share the Times story "to make sure we all understand."

The Unintentionally Hilarious Anti-Tucker Term Paper.  The New York Times has been alarmed by the existence of the Fox News Channel since it debuted in 1996.  It developed a special fear and loathing of Bill O'Reilly when he hosted the top show in cable news.  And now the paper is at it again, attacking Tucker Carlson.  On Sunday [5/1/2022] and Monday, the Times published almost 20,000 words of "investigative reporting" on Carlson's show "Tucker Carlson Tonight," announcing it'd watched 1,150 episodes and chronicled all the guests and the messages and the monologues.  This should be defined as "opposition research."  The overwrought thesis of Times reporter Nicholas Confessore, who is an MSNBC political analyst (no conflict there!), is Carlson dominates in the ratings because he is "weaponizing fears and grievances" on "what may be the most racist show in the history of cable news."  There are obvious reasons why this massive term paper sounds laughable to half of America.

NY Times Goes to War on Tucker Carlson.  The New York Times is running a three-part expose of Fox News show host Tucker Carlson[,] sub-titled "American Nationalist," delivered by a staggering ten-person research/reporting crew led by reporter and MSNBC contributor Nicholas Confessore, including an exhaustive analysis of 1150 episodes of Tucker Carlson Tonight that ran from November 2016 through 2021.  Confessore relied on anonymous sourcing and hostile characterizations of the host's populist- conservative opinions to bluntly declare both his show and Carlson himself as racist.  The headline to Part 1, blared on Sunday's front page, set the tone for this extraordinarily long and completely hostile series, one of the longest things your scribe can remember reading from the Times:  "How Tucker Carlson Stoked White Fear to Conquer Cable News."

The New York Times Series Attacking Tucker Carlson Buried a Pretty Important Disclaimer.  On Saturday morning, The New York Times engaged in quite the hackery against Fox News' Tucker Carlson with "American Nationalist."  It's not just a hit piece, but an entire series, written by Nicholas Confessore, who is also a commentator for MSNBC.  That Confessore is so involved with a direct competitor of Fox News is not mentioned until more than halfway through the first part of the series, which by itself is over 8,000 words.  A source close to the matter confirmed for Townhall that Confessore had been working on the piece for a year.

Top 10 misleading and outrageous statements from NYT's Nikole Hannah-Jones.  [#6] Destroying property 'is not violence' : In June 2020, during the height of Black Lives Matter protests and riots, Hannah-Jones made the controversial claim that the destruction of property should not be described as violence.  "And violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man's neck until all of the life is leached out of his body.  Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.  And to put those things- to use the same language to describe those two things I think really- it's not moral to do that," she explained on CBS News.  The claim was ridiculed on Twitter as it was later reported that damage from the Black Lives Matter protests cost cities at least $1 billion.

Superhero Obama Fights 'Online Lies'?  The New York Times sounded a little giddy on the front page of its "Business" section April 21 with the headline "Obama Joins Fight to Curb Online Lies."  This spin strongly suggests former President Barack Obama never lies.  He's a valiant warrior against lies.  That came after a badly disguised press release at on Obama "urgently throwing himself into the fight against disinformation."  As usual, they make it sound like a superhero has landed whenever Obama arrives on the scene.  Never mind PolitiFact giving Obama the "Lie of the Year" in 2013 for when he said, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."  Never mind Obama's baldfaced lies in 2012 that the Benghazi consulate attack wasn't a terrorist thing; it was a protest of an Islamophobic YouTube video that got out of hand.  As if the Islamic radicals brought grenade launchers to a "protest."  This underlines why the liberal media should not be trusted in a "disinformation" fight.  They have a frustrating tendency to put themselves on the side of "information" and conservatives on the side of "disinformation."

The Times Gaslights America About Biden's 'Rescue Plan' Boondoggle.  [Scroll down]  The story focuses on the $350 billion the bill dumped on state and local governments and begins by telling the story of how Richmond, Va., plans to spend tens of millions in "rescue" funds to upgrade a community center and how excited the mayor is about this project.  "The city," reporter Alexander Burns writes, "intends to build it in the next few years using $20 million from the American Rescue Plan."  Wait.  In the next few years?  Wasn't the "American Rescue Plan" an emergency plan that Biden said was needed to save the economy from impending doom?  That seems lost on Burns, who writes, without any sense of how ludicrous the statement is, that "thirteen months after Mr. Biden signed the emergency package, that money is starting to fuel a wave of investment on city infrastructure, public services and pilot programs unlike any in decades."

Hold On To Your Wallets — 'Wrong Way' Krugman Says Inflation Will Soon Ease.  [Scroll down]  It's hard to keep up with all the times [New York Times columnist Paul] Krugman reassured us over the past year that inflation wasn't and wouldn't ever be a problem under Biden.  What Krugman actually wrote this Tuesday [4/12/2022] was that "inflation will probably fall significantly over the next few months."  Why?  Because, he now says, oil prices have moderated and retailers are "sitting on unusually large inventory.  Car lots are filling up; demand for trucking is falling quickly.  International shipping rates seem to be coming down."  We certainly hope Krugman is right ... for once.

RE: Malone v.  The New York Times Company et al.  [Text of a demand letter from Dr. Malone's attorney.]

Hunter Biden, the New York Times, and the Coming Impeachment.  The Sherlock Holmes question of the week is:  Why did the New York Times finally admit that the Hunter Biden laptop was genuine?  Here are five possible answers:  [#1] Roger Kimball suggests it's a prelude to Joe Biden's own people removing him from the Oval Office.  The laptop clearly indicates that Biden is corrupt, as many said during the 2020 presidential campaign.  That "fact" has to be established, and now it has been, albeit in paragraph 17 or 22 or 35 of a long article that many people will never read.  It's now a matter of record in what used to be called "the newspaper of record" — but is now, truthfully, just another sleazy hack political rag.  Kimball's thesis requires multiple steps, which makes it unlikely.

4 Big Takeaways From The New York Times's Attempt To Control The Hunter Biden Narrative.  [#1] If the Laptop Is Legit, So Are the Scandals the Laptop Exposed:  The first key takeaway from The New York Times article concerns what it means for the scandals spawned by the October 2020 release of the emails and text messages contained on Hunter Biden's MacBook.  The supposed standard-bearers of journalism ignored those scandals for the last year-and-a-half by framing the material "Russian disinformation."  Now that the Times has acknowledged that the Biden-related emails and other documents recovered from the abandoned laptop are authentic, that means the scandals they exposed are also legitimate.  As summarized at The Federalist [elsew]here, there are eight Joe Biden scandals that deserve investigation.

The New York Times Doesn't Care If You Know That Big Tech Helped Rig Joe Biden's Election.  On March 17, 2022, The New York Times stated it had verified the authenticity of a laptop and its data as belonging to the president's son, Hunter Biden.  This was the same laptop holding information that Twitter, Facebook, and other corporate media immediately suppressed when The New York Post, a right-leaning competitor of The New York Times, reported on it three weeks before the 2020 presidential election.  If they had known about one of the Biden family scandals, such as the Hunter Biden laptop information, 17 percent of Joe Biden's voters wouldn't have voted for him, found a 2020 post-election poll.  This means big tech's suppression of this story likely made enough difference to tip Joe Biden into his low-margin win in the Electoral College.

You might be a moron if ... Part II.  [Scroll down]  I stopped buying the New York Times in 1992 when Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger took over as publisher of the Grey Lady.  This is the man who in the 1960s, according to author Harry Stein, when asked by his father whom he'd rather see shot when an American soldier runs into a North Vietnamese soldier, replied:  "I would want to see the American get shot.  It's the other guy's country." He appears to be proud of this remark as he has repeated it several times publicly.  Under his leadership, the New York Times morphed into the biggest producer of journalistic mendacity and other hallowed press giants, like the Washington Post followed.

Did this change the election?  Eighteen months later, NY Times admits Hunter Biden laptop is "authentic".  Much of what we are currently dealing with — from escalating gas prices to runaway inflation to Vladimir Putin's genocide against Ukraine — can be traced back to the failure of the mainstream media to do their [...] job and report on what should have been a scandal the equivalent of Watergate.  That of course is the bombshell revelation only weeks before the November 2020 presidential election of the contents of Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop.  One of the leading outlets which buried the story is the so-called "paper of record," the New York Times.  Now all of a sudden, the Times has decided to report the story as fact.

The New York Times, Hunter Biden and the Suicide of Media Credibility.  [Scroll down]  The shorthand here is that The New York Times went out of its way not to report or investigate the facts in the [New York] Post's story.  No, The Times response and that of all manner of "mainstream" media figures was to pooh-pooh the Post scoop, to pretend that it was all discredited garbage and Russian information.  There could have been only one reason:  to protect then-candidate Joe Biden.  As noted, Big Tech went even further, simply blocking the story altogether. [...] What The New York Times and all the rest have done is kill their own credibility as serious journalists or journalistic outlets.  They sacrificed their credibility by deliberately suppressing or dismissing a decidedly accurate major news story that, yes indeed, could have affected the 2020 presidential election to the negative — for Joe Biden.  Their favorite candidate.

After rigging the elections, the media attempts to rig your mind.  After more than two years of the mainstream media dismissing and suppressing news about Hunter Biden's laptop, The New York Times finally conceded that the story was authentic.  Back in October 2020, The New York Post had carried myriad reports on the shady business dealings of Joe Biden and Hunter.  The emails, text messages, and financial documents on the laptop proved that Biden, as vice president, used his influence to generate considerable profits for his family.  The laptop also had photos of drug-addled Hunter in flagrante delicto with a prostitute and even messages of Hunter using the n-word.  Following the NY Post reports, prominent personalities on MSNBC, NBC, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, CNN, and The New York Times worked in unison to discredit the story.  Politico claimed that anonymous intelligence officials had branded the news Russian disinformation.  The Huff Post reported that more than 50 former intelligence officials had signed a letter to that effect.  NPR, which is funded by U.S. tax dollars, claimed there were "red flags" in the Post's story.  Meanwhile, Big Tech swung into action with Twitter and Facebook heavily restricting Hunter Biden's laptop news, once again calling it (you guess right) Russian propaganda.

The New York Times Signals the End of Biden's Road.  In October 2020, prior to the election, Hunter Biden's laptop was left unclaimed at a repair shop and turned over to the FBI. Yaacov Apelbaum has covered at length the Biden family corruption, their crooked international dealings, pornographic images of Hunter and others, evidence of Hunter's drug use, and the coverup of his and the Biden family's corruption which he found on the laptop and elsewhere on the internet. (Warning, images in these reports are not for the faint-hearted.)  The New York Post, without all these sordid details and photographs, reported the story in that same month before the election.  But in the face of widespread denial, the story got little coverage.  It is only now almost two years later, that the New York Times confirms that the Post's reporting on the laptop was accurate. [...] It is hard to imagine how the Times justifies hiding from its readers news this important which clearly would have affected the election.  Its refusal to cover this allowed Joe Biden to get away with brushing off the story without dealing with its serious evidence of incredible family corruption of every sort imaginable.

17 Months Late, Millions Short at NY Times on Hunter Biden's Laptop.  Michael Isikoff, once the top investigative reporter for Newsweek, tweeted something unintentionally humorous about a New York Times story.  "In the category of — didn't see this coming," he wrote, "The @nytimes confirms the authenticity of Hunter Biden emails derived from his laptop that had been previously dismissed as Russian disinformation."  The obvious joke about "didn't see this coming" is that Hunter Biden's laptop is one of those scandals that they would prefer to squash until about 2028.  In October 2020, Twitter and Facebook heavily censored New York Post stories on Biden's laptop with the excuse that "security officials" (guess which party) cried, "Russian plot."  As columnist Tim Carney notes, it's late for griping about Big Tech censorship back then, but it still underlines the question, "Just what are the tech platforms and the major media colluding to lie about right now?  What are our gatekeepers covering up today?"

New York Times Admits Hunter Biden Laptop Evidence Was Accurate, The Intelligence Community Was Lying.  For almost two years, the United States government, using resources from the Dept of Justice and FBI, have been trying desperately to bury the truth of Joe and Hunter Biden's corrupt and illegal activities that relate to the country of Ukraine and the business company Burisma.  However, the reality of the information is so overwhelming even the DOJ cannot completely hide the problems.  The legal issues are massive, yet one of the key takeaways from the admission and revelations is even bigger than the scandal within the story.  All of those intelligence agencies, that said the Hunter Biden laptop was "Russian disinformation", were purposefully and intentionally lying.  All of the current and former administration officials were also lying, and the entire institutional media complex was part of the lying construct.  All of their denials, false statements, malicious attacks against the people telling the truth, and all of the Big Tech censorship that was purposefully and intentionally deployed to keep the lies retained, was done in an effort to manufacture a protective shield for Joe Biden.  They didn't get it wrong, they were not mistaken, they didn't misreport or misstate the facts — they willfully and purposefully lied.

Fit to print, once Biden is elected
The Post computes this.  The New York Post has been on a roll with its covers, but today's is something special.  The Post righteously rubs in the New York Times's vindication its use of Hunter Biden's laptop for its reporting in the runup to the 2020 presidential election.  Then it wasn't fit to print.  Now it is.  Something happened.

Now that Joe Biden's president, the Times finally admits:  Hunter's laptop is real.  First, the New York Times decides more than a year later that Hunter Biden's business woes are worthy of a story.  Then, deep in the piece, in passing, it notes that Hunter's laptop is legitimate.  "People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity," the Times writes.  "Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop.  The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."  Authenticated!!! You don't say.  You mean, when a newspaper actually does reporting on a topic and doesn't just try to whitewash coverage for Joe Biden, it discovers it's actually true?  But wait, it doesn't end there.  In October 2020, the Times cast doubt that there was a meeting between Joe Biden and an official from Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company for which Hunter was a board member.  "A Biden campaign spokesman said Mr. Biden's official schedules did not show a meeting between the two men," the Times wrote, acting as a perfect stenographer.

The New York Times hates to say The Post told you so.  Sometimes a newspaper story is just a story about someone.  And sometimes the story inadvertently reveals far more about the newspaper itself.  That's the case of the New York Times' Thursday piece on Hunter Biden. [...] It's not until the 24th paragraph that the story mentions emails involving Hunter Biden and his associates in those deals, followed by these two sentences:  "Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop.  The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."  Heart be still.  It took the Gray Lady nearly 17 months to grudgingly concede even a fraction of what New York Post readers learned in October 2020.  Of course, Times readers would have learned all that too if their paper were still in the news business instead of being a running dog for Democrats.

The New York Times Suddenly Discovers Hunter Biden Laptop and Corruption Investigations Are Real.  If you are really industrious, you can dig 20 pages into the A section of today's New York Times and find a 1,700-word news story by three of its top reporters, relating that the Justice Department's investigation of President Biden's son, Hunter, is not merely a tax matter.  Turns out that prosecutors are probing his penchant for cashing in on his father's political influence, through payments by overseas entities for which he did not register as a foreign agent. [...] Even better, if you wade 23 paragraphs into the story, you will learn that prosecutors are examining emails between Biden and his business associates that come from "a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. [Hunter] Biden in a Delaware repair shop."  You don't say.  You may recall that the laptop was reported on extensively by the New York Post because the emails showed that Hunter provided access to his father, then the vice president of the United States, for a corrupt Ukrainian energy firm that was paying Hunter goo-gobs of money to sit on its board — even though Hunter had no relevant experience.

'The cover-up may be an even bigger crime than the contents of Hunter's laptop'.  Former President Trump's office and Republicans expressed vindication and slammed Big Tech for censoring reports on Hunter Biden's laptop after the New York Times confirmed authenticity of emails from the device.  'The Fake News covered it all up during a presidential election, which may be an even bigger crime than the contents of the laptop.  It's well past time time for the truth!' Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich told  'The New York Times admits what we've known for years: the Hunter Biden laptop story was true.  Big tech's censorship of this story was a disgrace,' Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wrote on Twitter. 'For decades, the Biden family has cashed in on Joe's government service.  Even today, Hunter Biden is getting paid millions for his 'artwork' in a corrupt arrangement blessed by the White House.'

Networks Punt on Massive Hunter Biden Story as NYT Confirms Laptop Emails.  In a story posted Wednesday night [3/167/2022], The New York Times finally came around to implicitly admitting to what many knew in 2020 but, like the intrepid New York Post, were censored for saying:  The emails on Hunter Biden's laptop are indeed real.  And, worse yet, the specific e-mails that The Times confirmed involved Burisma.  Worse yet for Hunter, it was revealed he took out a loan to pay millions in back taxes while a "broad federal investigation" of his life has expanded, including testimony from the woman who's alleged he fathered a child with.  Of course, this was of no interest to Thursday's broadcast network morning newscasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC.  The exposure came on the heels of stories from earlier in the week that revealed the State Department would begin handing over any communications involving or referencing Hunter to The Times following a lawsuit over a Freedom of Information Act request.

NYT Confirms Hunter Biden Laptop, Catches Up to Literally Everyone Else.  The New York Times is finally ready to talk about Hunter Biden's laptop.  A little late to the party, but it's nice they decided to show up.  According to the New York Post, who has been covering the story for almost 3 years, a report about the ongoing Biden federal probe published by the New York Times on Wednesday night "confirmed the existence of the first son's infamous laptop."  "People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity, NYT reported.  "Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop.  The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."

New York Times Admits Hunter Biden Laptop Evidence Was Accurate, The Intelligence Community Was Lying.  Apparently, the motive everyone inferred about Joe Biden to making those bizarre statements about compromising sexual material and blackmail was accurate.  Less than 12 hours after his weird comments, yesterday the New York Times released a devastating article finally admitting that every previously denied allegation surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop was accurate.  For almost two years, the United States government, using resources from the Dept of Justice and FBI, have been trying desperately to bury the truth of Joe and Hunter Biden's corrupt and illegal activities that relate to the country of Ukraine and the business company Burisma.  However, the reality of the information is so overwhelming even the DOJ cannot completely hide the problems.

Report:  Project Veritas Videos Stokes Turmoil At NYT, Executive Editor Calls Out Ensnared Reporter.  Upset New York Times staff pressed an executive editor about the sting operation where one of the newspaper's correspondents said media coverage of the Jan. 6 capitol riot was "overblown" and "no big deal," according to a Politico report.  NYT reporters expressed their concerns with executive editor Dean Baquet over the comments of national security reporter Mathew Rosenberg at a Thursday lunch for the paper's Washington bureau, Politico Playbook reported Friday.  Rosenberg was the target of a Project Veritas undercover operation, where he reportedly made numerous claims about the events of Jan. 6, even describing the day as "fun."  A video released by Project Veritas, a conservative group that has targeted journalists and Democrats in undercover sting operations, shows Rosenberg on camera criticizing colleagues and the NYT.  His comments have reportedly caused tension among staffers, according to more than a half-dozen reporters who spoke to Politico anonymously.

New York Times Beclowns Itself with COVID Doublespeak.  Does anyone take the New York Times seriously anymore?  Because if anyone does, I got a real doozy for you.  Wednesday's "The Morning" newsletter ran a piece asking "Do Covid Precautions Work?" and then answered the question in the subtitle "Yes, but they haven't made a big difference."  [Tweet]  So, they work ... but they don't.  Let's be honest here.  The answer is no.  The New York Times knows the answer was no.  But the New York Times being the New York Times didn't want to say that COVID precautions didn't work.  Why not?  Probably because they're worried about getting banned by Facebook or something, so they had to go through the awkward contortion of acknowledging that the data says masking and social distancing and whatnot didn't significantly change the trajectory of the pandemic, while also saying that they did.

NYT Reporter Ridicules, Exposes Colleagues Overreaction to January 6, Claims 'Ton of FBI Informants'.  Project Veritas' best videos are the ones where they catch reporters saying what we all assume they say, but on video.  It's remarkable how many liberal journalists are quick to spill their guts on a few Tinder dates.  Today's video gives us Matthew Rosenberg.  He's a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter.  Over the course of the past year, you may have found yourself mocking the media's coverage of the January 6 trespassing incident.  How it was a literal "insurrection," literally, and reporters were "traumatized" by it.  You may even think the media has been exaggerating what happened for political reasons.  Do you know who agrees with you?  Matthew Rosenberg.  A Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter who covered January 6.  [Video clip]

Pulitzer Prize Winning New York Times Reporter:  January 6 Media Coverage 'Overreaction,' FBI Involved, Event Was Not Organized Despite Ongoing Narrative.  Project Veritas published a bombshell video on Tuesday showing Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, speaking about the events of January 6, 2021, in a way that contradicts his own reporting.  Rosenberg, who covers national security matters for the Times says on the undercover video that "there were a ton of FBI informants among the people who attacked the Capitol."  This revelation is a break from Rosenberg's reporting on the matter where he characterized such a notion of FBI informants in the crowd as a "reimagining of Jan. 6."  This was not the only time Rosenberg's commentary to Project Veritas' undercover reporter directly contradicted his own published words.  Despite telling a Veritas journalist that January 6 was "no big deal," his article says that downplaying the events of that day was "the next big lie."

NY Times' Theatre Critic Ditches Reviews for Mask Obsession, Fear of 'Barefaced' Audience.  New York Times' theatre critic Laura Collins-Hughes' reviews from London's West End have sadly devolved into anxious screeds about COVID and masks, those cloth talismans of liberal moral superiority that she flaunts like a Trump fan would wear a MAGA hat.  Admittedly she had bad luck in London in September 2021 upon her return to reviewing West End theatre, testing positive for the virus and having to quarantine.  Before she got her fateful results, she boasted she "was already double-masked... I was a maniac about masks."  Despite her precautions, Collins-Hughes' mandatory COVID test came back positive and she had to quarantine for 10 days.

The New York Times' Disgraceful and Deceitful Attack on RFK Jr.  The New York Times, floundering in the deep waters of truth and desperately trying to stay afloat in the shallows by continuing its history of lying for its CIA masters, has just published a front page of propaganda worthy of the finest house organs of totalitarian regimes.  Right below its February 26, 2022 headline denouncing Russia and Putin as evil dogs pursuant to the American empire's dictates concerning Ukraine, it posts an unflattering photo of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. sandwiched between American flags with the title of its hit piece, "A Kennedy's Crusade Against Covid Vaccines Anguishes Family and Friends."  It's an exquisite juxtaposition:  Putin as Hitler and Kennedy as a junior demon, suggestive of the relationship between CS Lewis's Screwtape and his nephew Wormwood in The Screwtape Letters.  Evil personified.

As Democrats Sag in Polls, New York Times Whines GOP 'Weaponizing' the 'Culture Wars'.  It's a pattern of bias:  Whenever Democrats find themselves on the defensive politically over a divisive issue (transgender rights, mask mandates, school shutdowns, even inflation), the New York Times can be relied upon to ride to the party's defense by flipping the issue, making the Republican Party seem like the unfair aggressor for pointing out and criticizing the controversial Democratic stance.

NY Times uses the same misleading edit of Zimmerman's 911 call that got two NBC journalists fired.  Over the weekend the NY Times published an opinion video about the 10th anniversary of Travon Martin's death.  The video features interviews with Henry Louis Gates, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama.  It starts off on a controversial note with Gates arguing that the modern Civil Rights movement really started after the "murder" of Martin.  There was of course a trial of George Zimmerman for murder back in 2013 and he was acquitted on grounds of self defense.  In any case, the video quickly shifts into telling the story of the shooting starting with the 911 call which Zimmerman placed that night.

NY Times Publishes Slanderous Video About the Death of Trayvon Martin.  On the 10th anniversary of the death of Trayvon Martin, the New York Times has published a video about this tragedy that slanders individuals, sows racial resentments, and impugns the people of the United States en masse.  In addition to employing a series of highly deceptive half-truths, the video edits a police recording to make it seem like Martin was murdered and that his killer got away with it because Martin was black.  The events underlying the video unfolded on a rainy night in Sanford, Florida in February 2012 when Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old black teen, was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer named George Zimmerman.  Often labeled by the media as "white Hispanic," Zimmerman is half-white, half-Hispanic, and partially black.

The Right 'Loves Putin' And Other Lies The Media Tell About Trump And Russia.  What is it about Russia and Vladimir Putin that forces the American national media to lie, make things up, and blurt out statements that have no basis in reality?  The latest fiction is that Republicans and conservatives have a newfound affinity for Putin.  If you only watched MSNBC or read The New York Times, you'd be forgiven for holding the impression that all of Fox News and the Republican party have draped themselves in Russian flags and set up GoFundMes for the invasion of Ukraine.  The Times on Sunday [2/27/2022] ran the headline, "How the American Right Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Russia," by Emily Tamkin. [...] Her argument might have been a little stronger if she included more searing examples of praise for Putin, like the time Trump called him a "master tactician."  Wait, sorry.  That was actually how The New York Times itself described the Russian president in mid-February.  And also in October 2020.

Use of 'sexist' and 'racist' in the New York Times increased over 400% since 2012. Why?  In recent years, words and ideas used to describe discrimination against members of historically marginalized and disadvantaged groups have seemingly exploded into the lexicon: systemic inequality, privilege, white supremacy, the patriarchy, etc.  In some senses, the apparent novelty is deceiving:  most of these concepts have been around for decades in academic and activist circles.  None of these ideas are genuinely new.  Nonetheless, our new study published in Social Science Computer Review demonstrates that a substantial shift in discourse has occurred — at least in the US media.  And it may have important social and political implications.  Analyzing 27 [million] news articles published in 47 popular news media outlets between 1970 and 2019, we find that there was a rapid uptick in the use of words related to prejudice and discrimination beginning in the early 2010s.  These shifts occurred in left- and right-leaning media alike.

The Editor says...
Attention British press:  "27m" is not a number.  I presume you mean "27 million."

New York Times Reports U.S. Intel Agencies Spent Three Months Seeding Information Into Russia Through China.  There's a New York Times article getting attention today [2/25/2022], as the article frames a narrative of the U.S. intelligence community and diplomatic offices trying to get China to influence Russia away from invading Ukraine.  However, as with all NYT reporting of the U.S. intelligence apparatus, the information within the article must be viewed through a different prism to understand the real motives being discussed.  Never ascribe to incompetence, that which can be explained by intent.

The absurd 'Russiagate' Pulitzer of the NY Times and Washington Post.  "For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest," the citation from the Pulitzer Prize board begins, "that dramatically furthered the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the president-elect's transition team and his eventual administration."  Except the journalism that the Pulitzers honored — a 2018 National Reporting prize shared by the Washington Post and the New York Times for reporting on Russiagate — did no such thing.  It led to a dramatic misunderstanding, suggesting that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to help sway the 2016 election — a grand conspiracy that we now know never existed.  Oh, it was "deeply sourced," in that deep-state Democratic bureaucrats, furious that Trump had won the White House, were falling over themselves to talk anonymously to reporters.

COVID prompts shape-shifting at the New York Times.  Last Friday, the New York Times posted "Why 'follow the science' fails to answer many questions" in its daily online summary of news and opinion.  This was a remarkable article.  The New York Times is the propaganda outlet of the Democrat party and its corporate and Hollywood institutional base.  This article argued against many of the views promoted by the New York Times and top Democrats about the COVID pandemic during the past two years.  Why?  The influence of the New York Times goes far beyond its roughly 900,000 print and 5 million digital subscribers.  The events it selects as the most important "news" of the day are routinely reported as such by most TV and radio networks, daily newspapers, and online news sites in America.  This "news" is also used in the classrooms of most colleges and high schools in America.  Roughly 49% of Americans say that the New York Times is a "trustworthy" news source.  The New York Times is also the de facto voice of the Democrat party.

Jury in Sarah Palin Defamation Suit Against NYT Learned of Judge's Decision to Dismiss Case Before Verdict.  Jurors in the recent defamation lawsuit by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) against the New York Times learned of the judge's decision to dismiss the case even though they were deliberating at the time and were not supposed to find out.  As Breitbart News reported earlier this week, U.S. Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York announced that he believed Palin had not met the evidentiary burden of showing "actual malice," necessary in the case of a public figure.

Judge rules in favor of NY Times while jury is still deliberating.  [Scroll down]  [Erik] Wemple says this kind of decision is pretty common in cases like this, though he's not sure about issuing the decision while the jury is deliberating.  [Tweets]  The judge expects an appeal which is why he's allowing the jury to continue to deliberate[.]

Washington Post, New York Times should give back their Pulitzers for Russia-Trump 'reporting'.  With the entire Russiagate affair exposed as a Clinton campaign fabrication, it's the clear duty of The Washington Post and New York Times to give back the Pulitzers they won for "reporting" the fake news.  Clinton campaign cash ordered up the "Steele dossier," with Democratic operatives providing some of the rumors and a cynical Russian exile asking buddies to supply rank speculation for the rest.  Other Clintonites actually hacked Trump computers, including White House ones after he took office, to create another smear, as Special Counsel John Durham's latest filing revealed.  That's all there ever was:  A Team Clinton scheme to make her e-mail scandal look tame by comparison, and so win the 2016 election, followed by a longer drive to cripple the new president.  It was a true "war on democracy," abetted by the two papers in endless, breathless "reporting."

Judge rules in favor of NY Times while jury is still deliberating.  The judge overseeing Sarah Palin's libel trial against the NY Times has announced that he is dismissing her case even as the jury is now deliberating. [...] Since Palin's attorneys didn't prove Bennet knew the statements were false there's no proof he "recklessly disregarded" those facts.  But the only reason Bennet didn't know the facts is because when people repeatedly sent him links about the case he refused to look at them.  He could have done a 2 minute Google search on his own but by choosing to remain blissfully ignorant for six years between the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson and the publication of the 2017 editorial, he's not showing reckless disregard for the truth.

Judge to toss Sarah Palin's defamation suit against the New York Times.  A Manhattan judge on Monday said he will toss out Sarah Palin's libel lawsuit against the New York Times over an editorial that falsely linked her to a mass shooting — but he didn't exactly side with the Gray Lady.  Manhattan federal court Judge Jed Rakoff said that even though the Times' 2017 piece, headlined "America's Lethal Politics," was the product of "unfortunate editorializing," Palin's lawyers failed to provide evidence that the paper and former editorial page editor James Bennet acted with actual malice.  "I'm not altogether happy to have to make this decision on behalf of the defendant," Rakoff said as jurors continued deliberating the case.

Judge throws out Palin libel case against New York Times because her attorneys failed to prove 'actual malice'.  A New York judge has tossed Sarah Palin's libel lawsuit against The New York Times because her lawyers failed to produce evidence the newspaper had actual malice against her.  US District Court Judge Jed Rakoff made the ruling on Monday afternoon as the jury deliberated whether the Times defamed her by linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona.  Rakoff said he will order the dismissal of Palin's lawsuit, but enter his order after her jury finishes its own deliberations.  He added that he expected Palin to appeal, and that the appeals court 'would greatly benefit from knowing how the jury would decide it.'

New York Times Editor Takes A Beating In Palin's Defamation Trial.  It was an uneasy day for The New York Times on Tuesday [2/8/2022] as lawyers for Sarah Palin grilled the main witness during the fourth day of her defamation trial against the newspaper.  Jurors learned just how irresponsible and reckless the editorial page of the Times is.  There's no dispute that the 2017 editorial blaming Palin for the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords in 2011 was wrong and a colossal screw-up.  The newspaper readily admits that.  But the Times claims it was just an "honest mistake."  The evidence suggests otherwise.

All the Lies That Are Fit to Print.  Ashley Rindberg's [new book] exposes the New York Times and its longstanding ideological roots.  Rindberg offers an illuminating historical study of how the Times repeatedly has engaged in spreading lies about National Socialism, Communism, and other authoritarian regimes and various political situations around the world.  This has been a clear pattern for decades, claims Rindsberg, and it's not difficult to see what he means.  During World War II, for example, the Times refused to acknowledge the gravity of Hitler's regime, and the correspondents would often, quite literally and openly, use Nazi propaganda points in their articles.  Was it denial of the reality that Hitler's regime brought about or actual antisemitic support for the regime?  In 1935, Frederick Birchall, one of the Times' journalists, wrote an article about the Olympics that were then taking place in Berlin.  The anti-Jewish riots were happening during the athletic event yet Birchall decided to minimize them and focus on the glory of the Olympics.

Why is the New York Times suing for access to State Department correspondence on Hunter Biden and Romania?  In its lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, the NYT states that they had on two separate occasions placed requests, under the Freedom of Information Act.  The State Department had responded that the requested records would be provided only after April 15, 2023.  The law requires all federal agencies to respond to a FOIA request within 20 business days unless there are "unusual circumstances."  The NYT's suit is obviously an effort to expedite the State Department's timeline for the FOIA disclosures.  To be precise, The NYT had requested access to emails, memos, and other records from 2015 to 2019 from US embassy officials in Bucharest, including former US Ambassador to Romania Hans Klemm, mentioning a number of individuals such as Hunter Biden and his former business associate Tony Bobulinski.  Politico reports that the goal behind the exercise was to investigate if embassy officials did any special favors on behalf of private businesses such as that of Hunter Biden.

New York Times Sues To Get Hunter Biden Information.  We have repeatedly discussed the virtual news blackout on the influence peddling by the Biden family, particularly Hunter Biden.  Despite overwhelming evidence of millions given by foreign companies and officials, the media has preferred to cover literal scoops over a story of breathtaking levels of self-dealing and corruption by the Bidens.  Now, however, the New York Times has sued to force the Biden Administration to turn over information on Hunter Biden's Romanian dealings.  The lawsuit comes after another report that, in 2019, the FBI subpoenaed JP Morgan for records on Hunter Biden's Chinese dealings.

The New York Times Sues State Department.  The New York Times sued the State Department on Monday, seeking access to US embassy emails that mention President Joe Biden's son Hunter, court filings show.  In the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, lawyers for The Times requested access to emails sent by officials at the US embassy in Romania between 2015 and 2019 that contain keywords including "Hunter Biden," the filings show.  Politico first reported the existence of the lawsuit.  In the filings, lawyers for The Times said the State Department was stalling in answering a series of requests made under the Freedom of Information Act by the Times reporter Kenneth P. Vogel from June.

Palin Shames The New York Times In Court.  In 1964, the Supreme Court issued a "landmark" decision in New York Times vs.  Sullivan, which established the very high bar of requiring the smeared plaintiff to prove there was "actual malice" on the part of the media outlet.  Now The Times is exploiting that standard again in the feisty First Amendment test brought by Sarah Palin.  There is no doubt that the liberal media are nervous about this "prestigious" newspaper being forced into court to defend their reckless character assassinations of conservatives.  Palin first sued The Times in 2017 for an editorial after the shooting of congressional Republicans on a Virginia softball field.  The Times claimed that when Jared Loughner shot and killed six people in 2011 — and wounded, among others, Rep. Gabby Giffords — "the link to political incitement was clear...Sarah Palin's [PAC] circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs."

The New York Times is hiring!  Wanna apply?  [Scroll down]  The job posting opens with a somewhat chilling mission statement, noting that the media empire seeks to "help people understand the world."  The wording indicates that the newspaper does not simply report factual news, but also interprets that news, almost always through a leftist lens.  The advertisement goes on to list the specifics of the position, seeking a reporter to "cover the news outlets, online communities and influential personalities making up the right-wing media ecosystem that now serves many conservative Americans who no longer rely on the mainstream media to inform themselves" — a tacit acknowledgement that conservatives no longer read the New York Times.  The job description notes that applicants should be "prepared to inhabit corners of the internet that popularize far-right or extremist ideas, providing our readers with a critical listening post on those ideas before they achieve wider circulation."  In other words, the sole job of the reporter is to spy on conservative outlets and attempt to discredit and censor any new ideas coming from the political right before they can gain traction.

How the New York Times Abuses the 'Public's Right to Know'.  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the independence of the press from any restrictions imposed by Congress, which "shall make no law" abridging press freedom.  The principle of unfettered free expression has since been incorporated into state constitutions and has been widely accepted on both the left and the right as a cornerstone of our republican democracy for centuries, dating all the way back to the time of Thomas Jefferson.  The 1971 Supreme Court decision that allowed The New York Times and The Washington Post to publish the so-called Pentagon Papers — classified documents about the Vietnam War purloined by Daniel Ellsberg, an anti-war analyst working at MIT's Center for International Studies, and thus stolen property — codified proscriptions against prior restraint.  The court ruled that the government couldn't prevent the publication of anything, no matter how illegally obtained.  This was defended as "the public's right to know."  At the time, the newspapers hailed the decision (of course) — "no law" means no law — while downplaying the corollary: that the act of publishing the illicitly obtained material didn't retrospectively make the theft legal, and there still could be consequences.

Will the NYT start asking some questions about how safe COVID vaccines are, now that they've lost an editor?  It had to be a hard blow when the New York Times' deputy Asia editor, Carlos Tejada, unexpectedly dropped dead of a heart attack.  He had just turned 49. [...] Next thing they knew, Tejada died suddenly, leaving behind a wife and two small kids, on Dec. 17.  After that, other outlets, notably Alex Berenson, a former Timesman himself on his Substack page, published what might have been a pertinent issue:  that Tejada had gotten a Moderna booster shot a day earlier, following two Johnson & Johnson vaccine shots.  Based on his picture in the Times, a recent one, taken only a few weeks earlier at a November gathering, he looked fit, healthy, and happy.  Something sounds funny here.  Now, it's possible that the Moderna booster had nothing to do with this.  It's possible he had an underlying condition, such as untreated high blood pressure, which triggered an "event."  All the same, most people don't drop dead at age 49.  But we hear a lot about this around cases of healthy young men, such as athletes, dropping dead of heart issues after their COVID shots.  The press hasn't asked many questions about it.  The media, including the Times, have busied themselves with promoting the "get vaccinated" line on political grounds as if no other questions need be asked in what may well be an unfolding story.

The Daunte Wright NYT Readers Don't Know!  The New York Times is aggressively hiding relevant facts on a matter of public interest simply in order to promote the narrative of black victimhood. [...] Daunte Wright is the half-black man fatally shot by a police officer in Minnesota earlier this year.  According to Nexis, he has appeared in well over 100 articles in the Times.  But one thing Times readers will never be told is that Wright was facing criminal charges for trying to choke a woman to death while robbing her at gunpoint.  They will also never hear about the lawsuit accusing Wright and an accomplice of shooting a guy during a carjacking.  In a bold departure from customary practice, the Times did make two passing references to another lawsuit claiming Wright shot a guy in the head, permanently disabling him, but in both cases, quickly added:  "The lawsuit offers no direct evidence tying Mr. Wright to the shooting."

NY Supreme Court Sides With Project Veritas, Orders New York Times to Destroy Records That Were "Irregularly and Improperly" Obtained.  On Friday [12/24/2021], the New York Supreme Court issued a devastating opinion ruling against the New York Times that confirms the outlet illegally obtained private attorney-client records from Project Veritas.  The Times must now provide Project Veritas with copies of everything that was "Irregularly and Improperly" gathered, and then destroy all records in question.

Victory for Project Veritas:  Judge orders New York Times to get rid of memos.  A New York judge ordered the New York Times to destroy all copies of attorney-client privileged memos from Project Veritas.  The order, signed by Judge Charles Wood of the State Supreme Court in Westchester County and dated Thursday, found the newspaper improperly obtained and published materials from the memos written by a lawyer for the conservative group that discussed Project Veritas's methods of reporting.  Project Veritas sued the New York Times in November 2020 for defamation.

NYT: Let's face it — Harris has flopped as VP.  The New York Times may not come right out and declare Kamala Harris a flop, but their headline almost does.  "Heir Apparent or Afterthought"? it asks, then adds, "The Frustrations of Kamala Harris."  And while the NYT's profile gives Joe Biden's VP plenty of space to complain about gender- and race-based double standards on expectations, those tend to get swallowed up by the reality of Harris' incompetence at her job.

The O'Keefe Project:  The Times Strikes Again.  We have followed the story of the FBI raid on James O'Keefe and associates of Project Veritas in a series of posts under the heading "The O'Keefe Project."  The most recent of these posts is dated November 24.  The FBI conducted these raids in the style to which we became accustomed in the case of Roger Stone and appears to have followed them up with leaks to its friends at the New York Times.  The New York Times has now published its fifth story on the investigation of O'Keefe et al. in connection with their possession of the diary of Ashley Biden.  The otherwise questionable authenticity of the diary can be inferred from the involvement of the FBI.  It has somehow become a federal case in the Age of Biden.

New York Times Demands All Sports Leagues Shut Down for 'Public Health'.  In a recent op-ed, the New York Times demanded that all sports leagues shut down for "public health" over the fear of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus.  "It's time to press pause on games, matches, and meets," the Times piously exclaimed in its editorial.  "If we're genuinely interested in public health, genuinely invested in slowing the virus and saving lives, we need to look at the storm that has gathered and take shelter from it.  "Come back in February, or later," the so-called "paper of record" advised.

The New York Times still hasn't apologized for its Russia Hoax coverage.  There was a time when the Pulitzer Prize was the most sought-after award a journalist could ever receive.  It was news's Nobel.  Receiving it meant that your fellow craftsmen recognized that, in the year just ended, yours was the best work in the country.  It was more than a prize.  It was truly a lifelong honor.  However, in recent years, as what once was journalism slides further and further into nothing more than reprinting the latest Democrat talking points, the Pulitzer Prize has become about as important as the Oscar for Best Sound Editing in a Foreign Language Film based on an Original Manuscript.  The latest Trump coverage fiasco pushes the Pulitzer, the concept of it, and journalism itself further down an unrecoverable slippery slope.

One of Italy's top journalists has harsh words for NY Times 'ideological' coverage of a stabbing spree.  Last Thursday a 25-year-old criminal with a long history of arrests named Vincent Pinkney went on a stabbing spree in Manhattan.  His first victim was an Italian Ph.D. student at Columbia University: [...] After stabbing Davide Giri, Pinkney stabbed another man who happened to be an Italian tourist.  The Times only devoted this one article to this story and the only description of Pinkney consists of his name and age.  The New York Post ran a much more dramatic story about Pinkney's stabbing spree including another possible victim stabbed the night before and a couple who narrowly avoided being stabbed last Thursday: [...] Rod Dreher notes that the Times devoted more attention to a black bird-watcher who was confronted by a woman in the park than it did to the stabbing spree.  That's no an accident.  Some crimes fit a narrative the Times likes and some do not.  There's really no mystery here at all.

New "Report" on COVID-19 Origins Is a Laughable Disaster of Chinese Influence.  A new report on COVID-19 origins suggests that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the COVID-19 infection, likely originated at a Wuhan Wet Market, despite the questionable source of the information used to compile the report.  When I say you've got to read until the end, you've got to read until the end.  This one should let you know just how bad things are when it comes to the COVID-19 origins investigations. [...] All the data in this entire study is over a year old and from the very sources that have the most to lose if a lab leak is confirmed.  This is just a regurgitation of Chinese propaganda.  "First Known COVID Case Was Vendor at Wuhan Market, Scientist Says," reads the New York Times.  No.  That's not what the report says.  The vendor herself pointed to COVID cases at numerous clinics around Wuhan suggesting there are more patients before her.  How can patient zero be aware of previously hospitalized patients?  Would that not justify further investigation?  Yet, Worobey simply calls this patient zero and moves on.

See Page A22

Turns out There Was More Behind That 'Never Trumpers Quit Fox Over Tucker' Story.  As we reported, Never Trump commentators Stephen Hayes and Jonah Goldberg announced this week that they were leaving Fox as contributors because of Tucker Carlson's Jan. 6 special.  Many laughed at the pomposity of their announcement, with some noting they didn't even know they still were working there.  Who would really notice or care if they were gone?  The two ran to the NY Times to make their announcement, which shows exactly where their minds are at and to whom they are trying to cater.  Hint:  it's not Republicans or conservatives.  The same people who fall for their nonsense were all agog over their announcement and 'character.'

Inflation Rises. Russiagate Falls Apart.  And J.K. Rowling Is Erased.  [Scroll down]  Until quite recently, the mainstream liberal argument was that burning down businesses for racial justice was both good and healthy.  Burnings allowed for the expression of righteous rage, and the businesses all had insurance to rebuild.  When I was at the New York Times, I went to Kenosha to see about this, and it turned out to be not true.  The part of Kenosha that people burned in the riots was the poor, multi-racial commercial district, full of small, underinsured cell phone shops and car lots.  It was very sad to see and to hear from people who had suffered.  Beyond the financial loss, small storefronts are quite meaningful to their owners and communities, which continuously baffles the Zoom-class.  Something odd happened with that story after I filed it.  It didn't run.  It sat and sat.

Reporter claims NY Times sat on her Kenosha riots story until after election.  A few weeks ago, John covered a story about former New York Times reporter Nellie Bowles quitting her job at the Gray Lady and writing a newsletter for Bari Weiss' Substack.  That was, as John put it, sort of an inside baseball report for those who closely follow the political media industry, or at least it seemed so at first glance. [...] While pointing readers to her previous work at the Times, she specifically listed and linked a few articles covering the impact of last summer's riots on small businesses.  She didn't say any more about that topic at the time, but since she was bringing it up only weeks after she quit her job at the newspaper, perhaps we should have guessed there was more to the story.  Now we know there was.  Bowles is back and she's describing how she wrote an article covering the riots in Kenosha last August and the impact they had on local businesses.  But to her surprise and apparent suspicion, her editors informed her that the story wouldn't run until after the election.

Judge Orders NYT to Defend and Explain Access to O'Keefe Legal Communication.  The New York judge, Charles D. Wood, in the case of Project Veritas vs New York Times, has ordered the newspaper to explain how they obtained access to the legal correspondence between James O'Keefe and his attorneys.  The FBI raided James O'Keefe's apartment, seized his cell phone and other devices, and then days later the New York Times was publishing privileged legal information which appears to have been obtained from FBI leaks.  The judge in the case is ordering the New York Times to defend its position before he grants the requests of O'Keefe's legal team.

Ex-New York Times reporter claims paper held report on Kenosha arson, looting until after 2020 election.  Former New York Times reporter Nellie Bowles claimed the Gray Lady held her story until after the 2020 election about the aftermath of riot-driven arson and looting in Kenosha, Wis., following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.  Bowles wrote she went to Kenosha to see for herself if the "mainstream liberal argument" that burning down businesses for racial justice was a good thing, since the chaos allowed for "expression of righteous rage" and the businesses have insurance anyway.  "When I was at the New York Times, I went to Kenosha to see about this, and it turned out to be not true.  The part of Kenosha that people burned in the riots was the poor, multi-racial commercial district, full of small, underinsured cell phone shops and car lots.  It was very sad to see and to hear from people who had suffered.  Beyond the financial loss, small storefronts are quite meaningful to their owners and communities, which continuously baffles the Zoom-class," Bowles wrote in a Substack entry.

Looks Like Joe Biden Just Lost The New York Times.  His crumbling public approval rating must be troubling to President Joe Biden.  But can it possibly compare to learning that the liberal mainstream media is turning on him as well?  On Tuesday [11/16/2021], the New York Times sent an email to its morning update subscribers with the headline:  "Who's to blame for inflation?"  "It is dragging down President Biden's approval ratings and fueling discontent among Americans," writes senior economics correspondent Neil Irwin.  "How did we get here?  Who is to blame?"  We fully expected the Times to make excuses for Biden.  And at first, it looks as though that is what Irwin is going to do, writing that "presidents have less control over the economy than headlines might suggest."  But then he adds that "the current situation is an exception to the rule."  And even more remarkable is what comes next.

Trump Calls on Pulitzer Prize Board to Rescind Awards to Washington Post, New York Times.  Former President Donald Trump is calling on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind awards given in 2018 to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post for their reporting that fueled the hoax that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. [...] Trump added, "For two years, these institutions feverishly pushed one Russia story after another and — despite lacking any credible evidence — attempted to persuade the public that my campaign had colluded with the Russian government."  He called on the news outlets to voluntarily surrender their awards, but if not, he expected the board to act.

This NY Times' story on Loudoun County is pretty slanted.  Sunday the NY Times published a story about how Loudoun County became the center of a battle between parents and the school board.  I wouldn't say the piece was completely one-sided but it's certainly slanted.  Author Stephanie Saul treads fairly lightly on some of the anti-racism training parents were objecting to and heavily on the idea that the county was merely trying to "promote diversity."

When all the media narratives collapse.  [Scroll down]  And these mass deceptions have consequences.  We are seeing this now in the Rittenhouse case — a gruesome story of a reckless teen with a rifle in the wake of the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha.  The impression many got from much of the media was that a far-right vigilante, in the middle of race riots, had gone looking for trouble far from home and injured one man, and killed two, in a shooting spree.  Here's the NYT on August 26, the morning after the killings:  "The authorities were investigating whether the white teenager who was arrested ... was part of a vigilante group.  His social media accounts appeared to show an intense affinity for guns, law enforcement and President Trump."  Rittenhouse's race is specified; the race of the men he killed and injured were not (they were also white).  Almost immediately, the complicated facts became unimportant.

NYT: Say, this Rittenhouse case does look a bit like self-defense.  Give one cheer to the Gray Lady for actually recognizing the story from yesterday's testimony at the Kyle Rittenhouse trial — and an endless supply of raspberries to the rest of the media.  Defense attorneys caught star witness and purported "victim" Gaige Grosskreutz in multiple lies and got him to admit pointing a gun at Rittenhouse before being shot. [...] The Times does its best to rehab the prosecutors' case, using one witness to claim that prosecutors have demonstrated the elements of reckless endangerment.  If Rittenhouse had only been charged with that, perhaps that might be news.  However, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with two counts of murder and another count of attempted murder — and the "reckless endangerment" came from Rittenhouse's panicked fire in self-defense, a point that the Times neglects.

Democrats' bank-spying proposal is not about wealthy tax cheats — it's about you.  This weekend, Binyamin Appelbaum argued in the New York Times that Republicans, in opposing the Democrats' proposal to monitor bank accounts with certain minimum transactions, are abetting tax evasion.  The IRS, he notes, has recently estimated that nearly half of all income not reported independently on W-2 or 1099 forms goes unreported.  Therefore, give the government access to your banking habits, or else you're a criminal.  In logic, this is known as the "false choice" fallacy, and it is one of several that he commits in this piece.

Americans best not rely on The New York Times' perverted coverage (and non-coverage) of Afghanistan.  Now that the Biden administration's shambolic Afghanistan bugout is (at least nominally) complete, the big question is:  What comes next?  The answer depends on what the American people, and the politicians who represent them, believe to be the reality on the ground.  And if they get their information from the nation's self-appointed "paper of record," The New York Times, they'll believe a reality quite at odds with what we really know about the Taliban.  In the weeks since the withdrawal and even during it, that coverage has often been light to nonexistent.  And what reporting it has done has bathed the Taliban in a softer, gentler glow than anyone might have ever imagined.  Take the Times' recent article on Afghanistan, a report on the Taliban's decision to allow polio vaccinations to continue in the war-torn country.  According to the Gray Lady, the Taliban is now "committed to providing protection to health care workers" — quite uplifting news for a murderous terror regime.

Suspect arrested for assassinating Brit MP is finally named by police, but the New York Times won't print his name.  We can guess that British Member of Parliament Sir David Amess, cruelly and painfully stabbed to death while meeting with constituents, was likely targeted for his pro-Israel and philo-Semitic views, now that the name of the suspect arrested at the scene has been released.

A COVID Correction for the Ages Points to a Bigger Agenda.  The original article is ostensibly a news write-up on the promotion of vaccines for children under 12 around the world.  As you can see, the piece was full of false information, from far overstating COVID hospitalizations for children in the United States to misstating vaccination policies in Sweden.  Obviously, the sheer amount of "mistakes" here is comical for a major newspaper.  Do they not have editors over there?  Or do the editors just not care as long as a certain perception goes forth?  At what point do you just de-publish the piece and take the loss?  I think a bigger agenda is revealed here, though.  Major news outlets are so desperate to promote a singular, positive point of view when it comes to vaccinations that they are throwing standards out the window.  Massively inflating hospitalization numbers for kids is a way to push the narrative that the risks from COVID outweigh the risks from the vaccines for that age group.  But we don't actually have proof of that in regards to children, and certainly, more study is needed before we start injecting eight-year-olds who are not statistically at risk from COVID anyway.

NYT Issues Major Correction After Claiming 900,000 Kids Have Been Hospitalized With COVID.  The New York Times (NYT) issued a correction Thursday after overstating the number of kids who have been hospitalized in the U.S. with the coronavirus.  The article, originally published Wednesday [10/6/2021], discussed COVID-19 cases among children.  "Nearly 900,000 children have been hospitalized with Covid-19 since the pandemic began, and about 520 have died," NYT reporter Apoorva Mandavilli initially wrote.  An updated correction said the original publication "misstated the number of Covid hospitalizations in U.S. children.  It is more than 63,000 from August 2020 to October 2021, not 900,000 since the beginning of the pandemic."

7 States Push Noncitizen Voting, 4 States Say No.  Litigation in Vermont has highlighted the expanding trend of noncitizen voting, which two cities in that state recently allowed.  Municipalities in California and Maryland similarly allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.  Other jurisdictions are considering doing so.  In July, The New York Times published an essay by Atossa Araxia Abrahamian, a senior editor at The Nation, under the headline "There Is No Good Reason You Should Have to Be a Citizen to Vote."  Congress passed legislation in 1996 to prohibit non-citizens from voting in federal elections.  State constitutions vary, although so far the idea has been entirely a local matter.  It has been more popular in local jurisdictions of some states than in others.

The COVID Survey That Should Have Rocked the World.  In March 2021, a year into the Covid-19 pandemic, the New York Times shared the results of a comprehensive survey of 35,000 Americans done by Gallup and Franklin Templeton.  True to form, the Times refused to face the survey's epic implications.  The Times started pulling punches in the headline, "Covid's Partisan Errors:  Republicans tend to underestimate Covid risks — and Democrats tend to exaggerate them."  This equivocation papered over the real news hook of the story, namely that health officials and their media enablers scared policy makers, especially in blue states, into making catastrophic, fear-based misjudgments.  "To many liberals, Covid has become another example of the modern Republican Party's hostility to facts and evidence," wrote reporter David Leonhardt, unaware that he just delivered a laugh line.  In assessing the GOP worldview, Leonhardt, like most of his media colleagues, saw hostility in just about every Republican gesture.

New York Times publishes redesigns of the American flag, Twitter mockery ensues.  The New York Times published an opinion essay on Tuesday that imagined new designs for the American flag, some of which emphasized divisions and decline in the country.  "The American flag is a potent piece of national iconography, but its design shifted frequently until the early 1900s.  What if it were redesigned today?  We asked artists and graphic designers to try," the Times wrote.  "Some are functional designs, others artistic renderings; some represent America as it could be, others how the artist sees the country now."  One design from Andrew Kuo shows a flag split into four rectangles with one square consisting of red and white stripes while the other three are solid blue, yellow, and green rectangles.  According to the artist the red stripes represent the past, the white stripes represent the future, while the solid colors represent "untapped potential," "repairing systemic racism," and "taking care of our planet."

The Editor says...
[#1] Obviously, the people who publish the NYT hate American traditions and want to destroy them all.  [#2]  I doubt if one American citizen out of ten thousand cares enough about "taking care of our planet" to alter the design of the U.S. flag to express such concern.

NY Times Quietly Corrects Story on CBP Agents 'Striking' Haitian Migrants as Narrative Falls Apart.  The media-driven narrative over the fake "border patrol agents on horseback seen whipping Haitian migrants" story continues to crumble, with the latest example coming from the New York Times who over the weekend quietly issued a correction of sorts to one of their stories on the issue. [...] Clearly, the Times is still hoping against hope that their early reports about migrants being "struck" by CBP agents might turn out to be true, but all available evidence is not in their favor.

Donald Trump sues his niece Mary and the New York Times for $100 million over tax records.  Donald Trump on Tuesday [9/21/2021] sued his niece Mary and The New York Times over their reporting on his tax affairs, accusing them of 'an insidious plot' to obtain confidential records, and is seeking an excess of $100 million in damages.  The former president filed his case against Mary, the paper and three of its reporters.  In the suit, reported by The Daily Beast, Trump claims that the Times convinced Mary Trump to 'smuggle records out of her attorney's office and turn them over to The Times' despite her having signed a confidentiality agreement.

New York Times Fawns over Jen Psaki After Disastrous Week for Biden Administration.  After a dismal week for the Biden administration on several fronts, the New York Times published a "puff piece" profile on White House press secretary Jen Psaki, which repeatedly praised her as "straightforward" and "professional," Fox News reported Sunday [9/19/2021].  The Times piece, which was published on Friday, is titled "Bully Pulpit No More:  Jen Psaki's Turn at the Lectern" and details her rise to "political fame" and her journey to becoming an "unlikely cultural force."  The piece was also published in the Boston Globe over the weekend.

NY Times Freak Out Over 'Ultraconservative' Texas 'Shifting Right'.  Do New York Times reporters not keep tabs on their own paper?  Sunday's [9/19/2021] Times featured Houston bureau chief J. David Goodman, "Texas Lawmakers, After Shift To Right, Plan More of Same."  It's the latest entry in what has amounted to a series of random stories the Times has been constantly running for a decade, all with the same dopey liberal media idea that Texas is running ever-scarily to the right.  (Is there any room left to run by now?)  The paper's trend has accelerated under Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

New York Times Uses 4 Narrative Engineers To Spin Defensive Tale Protecting One of Their Perkins Coie Sources Michael Sussmann.  The New York Times needed to put four of their top Trump-Russia narrative engineers on a defensive story about John Durham possibly indicting Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann over his involvement in pushing the Trump-Russia fraud to the FBI on behalf of Hillary Clinton.  Michael Sussmann was one of the primary story-tellers used by The New York Times as a source to write articles about the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory.  Durham might indict Sussmann for lying to the FBI because Sussmann said he wasn't working for Hillary Clinton, yet Sussmann billed Hillary Clinton for the hours he spent pushing the Trump-Russia story.  Yeah, that might be a problem.  The wording of The Times story is rather humorous in their collective effort to retain credibility and yet draw some distance from their ally now under scrutiny.

New York Times quietly deletes claim Hunter Biden laptop story was 'unsubstantiated'.  The New York Times quietly deleted its assertion that an October article from the New York Post about the business dealings of Joe Biden's son Hunter was "unsubstantiated."  In the reworked report, the outlet reported on a Federal Election Commission decision that dismissed a Republican complaint arguing Twitter violated election laws by blocking users from sharing the story during the heat of the 2020 election.  When the New York Times posted the report early Monday afternoon [9/13/2021], it read:  "The Federal Election Commission has dismissed Republican accusations that Twitter violated election laws in October by blocking people from posting links to an unsubstantiated New York Post article about Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s son Hunter Biden."  A tweet from the outlet's main account, which started trending on Twitter , similarly called the New York Post article an "unsubstantiated article."  New York Times national political reporter Shane Goldmacher, who wrote the initial draft, similarly called it "unsubstantiated."  Neither tweet was deleted as of Monday evening, but the New York Times article was changed without any editor's note, which happens in the media business.

The [false] story about Russian bounties on US troops planted by the CIA was laundered by the NYT, and it worked.  [Thread reader]  When pro-war Dems joined with Liz Cheney to try to defund withdrawal, they repeatedly cited that NYT story.  [Tweet]  The false NYT story that came from their CIA friends — Russia has placed bounties on the heads of US soldiers in Afghanistan! — was repeatedly used by Liz Cheney and her pro-war Dem colleagues to block withdrawal.  Listen to her say it:  [Video clip]  Then, when the NYT story was proven to be a fraud, when their stenography service to the CIA got exposed, @BretBaier confronted Liz Cheney about the role she played in spreading it, and she lied and pretended she hadn't:  [Video clip]  I absolutely still support both Trump and Biden's adamant insistence that it was time to leave Afghanistan.  But the lies told by US political and military officials along the way can't be brushed aside.  Biden's July 8 Press Conference from the White House contained multiple lies.  Reports today indicate that the intelligence community repeatedly warned Biden what everyone knew:  that the Afghan Security Forces were a joke and would collapse quickly.

Project Veritas Prepares to Depose New York Times After NY Supreme Court Ruling.  Journalism nonprofit Project Veritas can depose New York Times employees in what could become a landmark case for defamation, a New York Supreme Court judge ruled this week.  New York Supreme Court Justice Charles Wood on March 20 ruled against the paper's request to dismiss a lawsuit from Project Veritas over stories that the watchdog says defamed it.  The New York Times later moved to halt all discovery in the action, claiming that moving forward would needlessly burden the paper and the court system and that their appeal raises "novel and important" legal questions that will benefit from review.

New York Supreme Court Sides with Project Veritas in Suit Against New York Times.  The New York Supreme Court on Thursday sided with Project Veritas in its lawsuit against the New York Times.  Project Veritas will be permitted to depose the New York Times.  A motion for a stay was denied.  Project Veritas sued the New York Times for claiming their Minnesota ballot harvesting video was "deceptive."

New York Times reporter faces backlash over 'sophisticated, vaccinated crowd' comments about Obama party.  A New York Times reporter received backlash on social media after making a comment on another network that critics believe dismissed concerns about former President Obama's star-studded maskless birthday party over the weekend.  New York Times White House correspondent Annie Karni discussed the controversy surrounding Obama's much-criticized Martha's Vineyard celebration where he was seen not wearing a mask and used the term "sophisticated" crowd, saying that the guests were "following all the safety precautions."  The clip sparked outrage on social media including from journalist Glenn Greenwald who wondered aloud why more people weren't concerned about the spread of the delta variant of the coronavirus at Obama's party.

The New York Times Is An Anti-Journalism Clown Car.  The story about the demise of physical newspapers revolves around the internet and the rise of craigslist, which pretty much destroyed classified ads.  Both did play a role, but I would also blame the fact that newspapers abandoned doing real journalism a long time ago, which drove people away.  Conservative people like me, anyway.  The New York Times was once considered the finest newspaper in the land.  There was a time when real journalists wrote for the Times.  One could read real news there.  Now, the Times is just one big hyperventilating leftist Opinion section.  The entire organization is a joke.

The New York Times launches sleazy, dishonest attack against Trump.  The New York Times seemed to have a blockbuster story:  After the election, Donald Trump told pressed the Department of Justice to announce that the election was "corrupt," after which he would take care of the rest.  Other news outlets quickly picked up the story.  It took Margot Cleveland's skilled detective work to discover that the Times, by blurring the chronology in its report, had presented a completely fake story.  Trump, as always, had done nothing wrong.

1619 Project Creator Professed Her Love For Free & 'Equal' Communist Cuba.  The creator of the "1619 Project," that infernal New York Times piece that reframes America's founding as being all about promoting slavery, is a fan of Communism and what Castro did to Cuba.  Are we surprised?  Well no, not really.  In a recently resurfaced podcast interview from two years ago, 1619 Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones sang the praises of Cuba as the "most equal" country in the Western Hemisphere, and that was all thanks to "socialism."  Now in 2021, as we see Cubans crying out in the streets against the tyranny of the island nation's regime, it's quite clear that people like Hannah-Jones are dangerous ideologues who have no problem implementing that same kind of socialism here.  During a 2019 interview with Vox's Ezra Klein, Hannah-Jones talked about the nations she thought had made the greatest strides in terms of fairness and diversity.  No doubt the lady whose crowning achievement is propaganda on how evil our country is, wouldn't recognize America as a place of notable equality and diversity.  She actually claimed that communist Cuba is the most "equal" place in the west.

NY Times Front Still in Texas-Sized Freakout Mode: 'Can Texas Turn Further Right?'  A front-page New York Times story Saturday [7/17/2021] by Reid Epstein managed to pack in 18 hostile ideological labels into an 1,800-word story on a sadly familiar theme at the paper — how far Texas is hurdling to "the right" politically under GOP control — in "Can Texas Turn Further Right?  Top 2 Republicans Say It Can."  The paper is running versions of this same story every week now, often on the front page, leading NewsBusters to make the same observation:  Is there any room left "on the right" for Texas to move by now, since the state has supposedly been heading that way since at least 2009?  The Times in recent years has somewhat reined in its obsessive "conservative" labeling, but Epstein's piece serves as an homage to those days:  Besides the twelve "conservative" labels in the text, two "rights" in the headline, and two "far right" one "hard-right," and one "right-wing" in the story.  Those figures don't even include quoted material.

The Biden Regime Has Made Us All Enemies of the State.  How can you tell we're slipping under the yoke of totalitarianism?  The New York Times has declared that the word "freedom" is merely an "anti-government slogan," and the Biden regime refuses to condemn Cuba's communist police state, even as it "disappears" Cuban dissidents during live video feeds.  I don't know how much clearer the State and its "news" propagandists can be.  If "freedom" is a dirty little word as meaningless as "hope and change," then everything upon which the United States of America has been built is dead, and if the Obama-Biden cabal running the White House find common cause with the same Castro-Guevara mass murderers who have tortured and summarily executed innocent Cubans in the name of "revolution" for sixty years, then the federal government cannot be trusted.

Will Cuba Finally Be Free?  Earlier today [7/11/2021], demonstrations against Cuba's Communist dictatorship broke out across the island.  The New York Times, long an apologist for Castro's tyranny, acknowledges the current reality:  ["]Shouting "Freedom" and other anti-government slogans, hundreds of Cubans took to the streets in cities around the country on Sunday to protest food and medicine shortages, in a remarkable eruption of discontent not seen in nearly 30 years.["]  Heh.  Yes, "Freedom" is an anti-government slogan.  The Times, though, is pretty much always on the side of government, especially when the government is socialist.

NY Times ripped for equating 'freedom' as 'anti-government slogan'.  The New York Times faced backlash on Sunday for its framing of recent spontaneous protests occurring in Cuba against the communist government.  "Shouting 'Freedom' and other anti-government slogans, hundreds of Cubans took to the streets in cities around the country on Sunday to protest food and medicine shortages, in a remarkable eruption of discontent not seen in nearly 30 years," the New York Times tweeted.  Thousands of protestors gathered in Havana and towns across the country to protest various government shortcomings including food shortages, medicine shortages, rising prices, and pandemic restrictions.  Although many protestors attempted to film the march, Cuban authorities eventually shut down internet service within the area.

Ex-New York Times editor defends inserting her personal views into stories.  A former New York Times editor fired over a tweet claiming Joe Biden's inauguration was giving her 'chills' has defended her behavior in an op-ed entitled:  'I'm a Biased Journalist and I'm Okay With That.'  Lauren Wolfe defended the comments that lost her her job at the New York Times in a piece published in the Washington Monthly on Friday, and insisted it is fine for reporters' to insert their personal views into some news stories.  'Being fair and having point of view aren't incompatible,' she wrote in an op-ed originally published on her Substack.  'Reporters at the New York Times and elsewhere shouldn't have to disguise or suppress their views'

Stabbing of Chabad Rabbi in Boston Is Not 'Fit To Print' in New York Times.  Rabbi Shlomo Noginski was stabbed repeatedly on July 1 outside a Jewish school building in Boston.  A rally the next day organized by Boston Jewish community groups drew Boston's acting mayor, the district attorney, and a member of Congress.  An individual, Khaled Awad, was arrested in connection with the attack and pleaded not guilty to assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery on a police officer.  People who knew Awad in Florida described him as violent and "antisemitic."  A national, even international news story?  Plenty of news organization thought so.  The Daily Mail, a British newspaper, has published three articles about the attack.  Fox News covered it.  The Washington Post website carries an Associated Press article about the attack and an article from the Religion News Service.  CNN covered it.  But for the New York Times, the news wasn't fit to print.  A search of the Times website for "Noginski" turns up no results.

NY Times Page One:  How Could Anyone Still Vote GOP After Biden's Amazing Successes?  The New York Times off-lead story Monday [7/5/2021] by national political correspondent Alexander Burns was headlined, "U.S. Surges, But Politics Hold Firm — Partisanship Immune to Signs of Recovery."  But it may as well have been titled, "What Is Wrong With You Trump Voters?"  Flummoxed by Biden's stubbornly so-so approval rating and continuing GOP strength, as shown in the 2020 elections, despite Biden's apparently incredible achievements (like the pork-laden infrastructure bill?) Burns lashed out at Trump and his supporters with DNC-approved insults.

11 'heavily armed' members of an extremist militia group arrested; media buries mention that they are Black.  Imagine if these people were White!  It would be the top story all weekend, and you know it.  But they are Black, so only in the 22nd paragraph of this New York Times article does the word "Black" appear.

Publisher accuses NYT of keeping Michael Knowles' book on censorship off best seller list.  A major conservative book publisher accused the New York Times of purposefully excluding author Michael Knowles' book on censorship from its best seller list Friday [7/2/2021].  "There are two kinds of best seller lists," Regnery publisher Tom Spence told the Daily Caller News Foundation.  "There are those that are based on the number of books that have been sold that week.  And then there is the New York Times best seller list."  Knowles' book "Speechless:  Controlling Words, Controlling Minds," published June 22, was the top of the Publisher's Weekly bestseller list for the week ending June 26, but did not appear in the New York Times ranking of the top 15 best-selling nonfiction books released online Friday.  "It is our observation that the books that tend not to make it onto the Times list when you would expect that they would, tend to be books that are not congenial to the New York Times world view," Spence added.

NYT Writer on People Getting Back to Normal After COVID: This Is Like a 'Horror Movie'.  Did you know about the COVID Delta variant?  Do you even really care?  I sure [...] don't.  COVID variants were always going to be something to deal with — and we are. [...] So, why are we panicking?  No, scratch that — why is liberal America panicking?  It's because these are the same clowns who still refuse to admit that we were lied to about COVID.  It was a political show from the start.  Store-bought masks don't work.  Mask-wearing post-vaccination is not necessary.  And airplanes are not sources of super spread, but you still need to wear a mask because of... respect?  Whatever happened to following the science?  You follow it until it no longer supports your politically-motivated narratives.  You follow it until the facts start to shred your lockdown agenda.  And after all else has failed, scream into the wind, against those who have returned to their normal lives because COVID is over.  You might not like it, but it's over.  Enter Wajahat Ali, a New York Times contributor, who took to Twitter to remind us that there's still a pandemic going on and that he feels like he's in a horror movie.  Yeah, the pandemic is over, man.

Panic at the New York Times.  The New York Times reports that crime is starting to worry "progressives" — not the phenomenon, but the politics of it.  I don't know whether progressives in general are worried, but the ones at the Times sure are.  [A recent] Times article focuses on the success of Eric Adams in the Democratic mayoral primary.  The Times frets that the winner of the race (at least in terms of the popular vote) "focused much of his message on exposing progressive slogans and policies that he said threatened the lives of 'Black and brown babies' and were pushed by 'many young, white and rich' people."  That's hitting awfully close home for the New York Times.  The Times acknowledges that Adams' message resonated with Black and Latino voters, constituencies upon which Democrats depend.

Just as the border trip beckons, two more staffers flee Kamala Harris.  Kamala Harris has been in politics for eighteen years yet still can't quite figure out how to keep staff.  The departure of two top travel advance women, just as she's heading for the border in a hastily announced trip to get there before President Trump does, suggests that things are getting very bad indeed. [...] The [New York] Times tries to convey that the whole thing was pre-planned and just a changing of the guard.  It's similar in style to former State Department biggie Roberta Jacobson's hasty exit from her border coordinator job, shortly after Harris was named Biden's border czar on March 24. Just a temporary job, they claimed, nothing special.  Amazing how they recycle their spin and excuses from one quick staff exit to the next.  Nothing to see here, move along.  The details of the Times report, though, suggest a very different story.

Peter Singer:  If a House Were On Fire I'd Save 200 Pigs Before Saving One Human Child.  Peter Singer is something of a house ethicist for the New York Times and especially beloved of the weak liberal thinker, Nicolas Kristof.  While I think he should be treated the same as if he were a racist for his anti-human equality views, the media here mostly ooh and aah.  That is why I was pleased to see Singer pushed in an interview by a Swiss newspaper to claim that the lives of 200 (or some other number of) pigs should be saved from a fire over that of a single human baby.

In an effort to harm Tucker Carlson, NY Times columnist breaks journalistic ethics rule, outs confidential source.  Tucker Carlson is the left's "current Bogeyman No. 2, after Donald Trump," observes J. Peder Zane in a commentary at Real Clear Politics, and I think he is right.  Night after night, Carlson goes in depth uncovering hypocrisies, lies, and outrages being perpetrated by the powerful and connected elites that run the country and its media.  So, as with Trump, powerful members of the media are willing to break the old rules of journalism to take him down.

China Arrests Hong Kong Journalists for Violating Law That Was Praised in New York Times Op-Ed.  Authorities in Hong Kong this week used a Chinese national security law defended in the New York Times to arrest five editors at a newspaper critical of Beijing.  Police raided the offices of Apple Daily and arrested the editors for violating a national security law imposed last year that makes it illegal to call for sanctions against China.  In October 2020, Regina Ip, a Hong Kong official known to have close ties to Beijing, defended the law in a New York Times op-ed.  Ip credited the measure for ending protests in Hong Kong, which she claimed had devolved into violence.

Michelle Goldberg, Andrew Yang and the mentally ill homeless.  Yesterday [6/18/2021], Ed wrote a post about Andrew Yang's comments on homelessness during the final mayoral debate.  The gist is that Yang was the only candidate in the debate who pointed out that the mentally ill homeless make the streets more dangerous and create a major quality of life issue for people trying to live there.  He said mental health treatment needed to be increased to get these people off the streets.  And of course this was considered heartless and wrong by left-wing critics on social media.  One of the people who thought Yang had gone too far was NY Times columnist Michelle Goldberg.

How The New York Times Tried To Intimidate U.S. Catholic Bishops With A False Headline.  "Vatican Warns U.S. Bishops," the headline boldly declares:  "Don't Deny Biden Communion Over Abortion."  It's a striking title, and even with its sagging readership and brutalized reputation, these sort of things carry weight when they come from The New York Times.  But it doesn't take a marginally informed Catholic to see something's wrong here — it merely takes a decent search for details to notice that whatever weight the headline is carrying, it certainly isn't in facts.  It lacks any facts because it's a pressure piece, pure and simple, designed to intimidate America's bishops into doing what The New York Times thinks they should do; that is, perpetuate the corporate media myth that President Joe Biden and other pro-abortion politicians are close adherents to their Catholic faiths.  The article comes as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops gather Wednesday through Friday to discuss a host of issues, including whether politicians who publicly, materially, and unrepentantly support grave sins should be denied Holy Communion.

New York Times Canceled 15-Year-Old Girl Over Racial Slur, Defends Gov. Northam's KKK Costume.  Lefty defenders of cancel culture, including at the New York Times, claim that it helps the "powerless" hold "powerful people" accountable.  That's a lie.  And you can see the lie in the contrast between the Times giving a KKK governor a redemption arc while destroying a 19-year-old girl.

The Babylon Bee Scores a Major Victory Over The New York Times.  On Monday [6/14/2021], Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon announced that The New York Times had agreed to drop its arguably defamatory attack on the Babylon Bee after the Bee sent multiple demand letters threatening a defamation lawsuit.  Under the guise of reporting, the Times claimed that the Bee "frequently trafficked in misinformation under the guise of satire."  While the Times originally agreed to weaken the attack somewhat, its updated story still suggested that the Bee is one of the "far-right misinformation sites that used 'satire' claims to protect their presence on [Facebook]."

Why Flag Day 'Disturbs' Obama and the Dems.  Last week, the New York Times Editorial Board Member Mara Gay made the season's most notable Kinsley gaffe in her account on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" of a harrowing trip to New York City's eastern suburbs on Long Island.  "I was on Long Island this weekend visiting a really dear friend, and I was really disturbed," said Gay live on MSNBC, where she is a contributor.  "I saw, you know, dozens and dozens of pickup trucks with explicatives [sic] against Joe Biden on the back of them, Trump flags, and in some cases just dozens of American flags, which is also just disturbing because essentially the message was clear:  This is my country.  This is not your country.  I own this."  After Gay had finished recounting how she found "just disturbing" the sight of "dozens of American flags," co-host Mika Brzezinski chimed in, "Totally agree."

NYT's Mara Gay:  Seeing Trucks with U.S. Flags 'Disturbing' — Calls for Separating 'Americanness, America from Whiteness'.  New York Times columnist Mara Gay said Tuesday [6/8/2021] on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that she noticed trucks with American flags and was "disturbed" by what she saw.  During a conversation about the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Gay said that she also saw trucks with anti-President Joe Biden messages and Trump flags and advised that the message she got from the American flags was:  "This is my country.  This is not your country."

New York Times Public Relations Attempts Clean Up, Fails Miserably.  Someone might want to tell the New York Times there's actual video of Ms. Gay's statement.

New York Times Scrambles After Babylon Bee Sics Its Lawyers on Them.  Seth Dillon, CEO of the wildly popular Babylon Bee satire site, announced on Twitter Thursday [6/3/2021] that the company's lawyers have sent a letter to the New York Times accusing the paper of defamation and demanding the retraction of an article calling the Bee a "far-right misinformation site" that "sometimes trafficked in misinformation under the guise of satire."

The NYT vs. Israel.  [Scroll down]  The insinuations here are factually wrong:  Let's start at the end of this diatribe: given that the word "their" in "their homes" is subject to litigation (the Jewish owners of the site argue that those Palestinian families refuse to pay rent and are squatters, thus subject to eviction), what does "an official policy to 'Judaize' occupied East Jerusalem," even if it existed, have to do with the dispute about the title to a property between private parties?  Is East Jerusalem really "occupied"?  Where is the "war crime"?  Get your facts straight, Bashi/Kristof, and cool off your outrage.

Why Isn't Big Tech Treating the New York Times as Disinformation?  Within a short space of time, the New York Times published a fake map of Israel and a photo of a little girl whom it alleged Israel had killed, only to find out that the girl was actually alive.  The New York Times issued a tepid defensive correction of the photo, blaming the anti-Israel group it had been working with to assemble the hit piece, and refused to correct the map, describing it as "art".  After James Bennett, the New York Times had outsourced its op-ed page to anyone who hates Israel.  And the paper's writers about Israel include Sheera Frenkel, the former BuzzFeed disinformation troll who got famous by spreading the false claim that Hamas had not kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teens.  These days Frenkel is accusing Israel of disinformation for the New York Times.  Obviously.  The upshot is that anti-Israel content at the New York Times is indistinguishable from social media hate.  And involves the same sources and even less fact-checking.  The paper has hired discredited social media trolls like Frenkel and Vox's Max Fisher.  And its op-eds are just social media hate revamped into column form.

Pandemic?! Don't you mean the riots?  I'm seeing this headline on the front page of the NYT website:  "Pandemic Fuels Surge in U.S. Gun Sales 'Unlike Anything We've Ever Seen.'"  Clicking through, I see the headline "An Arms Race in America:  Gun Buying Spiked During the Pandemic.  It's Still Up.  Preliminary research data show that about a fifth of all Americans who bought guns last year were first-time gun owners."  It's absurd to state — as if it's a fact — that the pandemic "fueled" the surge when there were riots and the police stood down and did not protect the citizens!  I personally got trained to use a gun last summer, and I fired a gun for the first time in my life.  That had nothing to do with the pandemic.  It was about civil disorder threatening my neighborhood and the manifest unwillingness of the city to keep order.  You're on your own, we were told, quite plainly.

The New York Times' Bone-Headed Guidelines on COVID 'Mitigation'.  [Scroll down]  "In the wild" is a crucial term.  It means that, for practical purposes, the virus is everywhere.  There will be more of it near a sick person, but not having anyone spreading it in your house doesn't mean that it isn't being spread at your workplace, grocery store, or gas station.  And you will have no way to avoid it, because you have no idea who is infectious.  By March of 2020, I noted that the Wuhan Flu was already in the wild.  The five million people allowed to travel worldwide from Wuhan during their outbreak made that a certainty.  And pop-up hot spots closed the case.  People with no apparent connection to known carriers were getting sick.  This meant that any sort of mass "quarantine" was doomed to fail.  It was like trying to stop mosquitoes with a chain link fence.  Yet our "betters" insisted.

NY Times Covid beat reporter discredits her own coverage and then deletes smoking gun tweet.  Twitter may have devolved into a left-wing propaganda organ, but it still has value as a medium for leftists to discredit themselves with hasty expression of their real thoughts and feelings.  Particularly for journalists accustomed to relying on editors to save themselves from revealing too much, the speed with which their unfiltered thoughts can be broadcast to the world is dangerous.  The latest example comes from the New York Times reporter assigned to cover what may be the hottest story of our era:  the Covid virus that turned the world upside down and killed millions.  Apoorva Mandavilli at first seems to have thought that just as the agitprop media were being forced to admit that it isn't a crazy conspiracy theory to suspect that Covid emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, it was time to discredit such ideas as racist... at least in origin.

NYT's Maggie Haberman Blames Trump For Media Not Covering Theory That Pandemic Origin Was Wuhan Lab.  New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman suggested to CNN on Monday [5/24/2021] that the reason the media did not treat claims seriously that the coronavirus pandemic originated from a lab accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was because the information was coming from the Trump administration.  "I do think it's important to remember that part of this issue when this was first being reported on and discussed back a few months after the pandemic had begun was that then President Trump and Mike Pompeo the Secretary of State both suggested they had seen evidence that this was formed in a lab and they also suggested it was not released on purpose, but they refused to release the evidence showing what it was," Haberman told CNN's "New Day" on Monday.

NY Times Can't Figure out Reason for 'Rapid Decline' in Support for BLM Last Year.  The New York Times has an opinion piece out — "Support for Black Lives Matter Surged Last Year.  Did It Last?"  They note how immediately after the death of George Floyd, support for BLM surged.  But then, after June 3, it took a precipitous drop, and as the summer went on, it declined to even less support for BLM than there had been before Floyd's death among some voters.  The article said that among some voters, including Republicans, that it turned to outright opposition.  [Tweet]

NY Times 'Limited Hangout' on Steele Dossier Spares Obama.  [Scroll down]  In April 2016, the Clinton campaign and DNC hired Fusion GPS to share its Russian dirt on Trump with the media.  Leading from behind as was his wont, Obama was never so far behind that he could not see what was to come.  From time to time he showed his hand, starting with an April 2016 appearance on a Fox News Sunday morning show with Chris Wallace.  When asked about Hillary Clinton's nonsecure email system, Obama opined, "She has acknowledged — that there's a carelessness, in terms of managing emails, that she... recognizes."  That conceded, he added, "I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America's national security."  Hillary was Obama's chosen successor.  He was confident his secrets of state would be safe with her.  If she were indicted for her apparent crime, the White House could easily fall into enemy hands.  If James Comey and his colleagues were uncertain of Obama's will before that appearance, they no longer were.

War Of Words Over Inflation Stirs Questions for the Fed.  The war of words unleashed on Wall Street and in Washington by Wednesday's announcement of an unexpectedly high rate of consumer price inflation is escalating by the day.  Legendary hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller had warned on Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal that the Fed was enabling fiscal and market excesses by not standing up to the political whims of Congress; he stated on CNBC that the Fed's overly accommodative monetary policies posed a risk to the status of the United States dollar as a global reserve currency.  Refuting such concerns, Paul Krugman asks today in his column for the New York Times whether President Biden should scrap his entire economic agenda merely because the spike in consumer prices as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics was bigger than expected.  "OK, I'm being a bit snarky here, but only a bit," Mr. Krugman concedes.  Snarky is hardly the word for the crass deprecations he offers in his concurrent newsletter, wherein he notes "a lot of buzz around how the Fed's wanton abuse of its power to create money will soon lead to runaway inflation." The Nobel laureate dismisses fears of monetary debasement as being anchored in neither fact nor logic but rather attributable to an "infestation of monetary cockroaches."

New York Times Says No Gas Shortage, "No Long Lines or Major Price Hikes" — Nothing to See Here, Ignore The Reality.  In a PRAVDA-esque display of regime defense on behalf of JoeBama the New York Times (state run media) attempted to deny the reality of what many Americans are experiencing.  However, after immediate backlash... the proverbial stealth edit, as people started pointing out the absurdity of their claims:  [Tweet]  Obviously this narrative runs in the exact opposite of reality.

NY Times' Laughable Story Has 100 'Prominent' GOP Threatening to Leave Party Over Trump.  You have to love liberal media.  President Donald Trump is no longer in office, but he's still living rent free in their heads.  They're still completely obsessed with him and basically can't live without him.  They always need him as a focal point.  The New York Times ran this "gotcha" story today, as though it were something truly significant, "Over 100 Republicans, including former officials, threaten to split from G.O.P."  What is the issue, the New York Times says?  The fact that the GOP still is supportive of Trump.

The New York Times just won't quit its dishonest COVID fearmongering.  We first called attention to the Times' blatant fear-mongering three months ago, but it's only gotten more obnoxiously alarmist since then, even as the vaccines clearly have the virus on the run.  The Times' hysterical, out-of-date claims of "very high risk" in the Big Apple are prominently featured every day near the top of the paper's online home page.  (It's usually under the header "Covid-19 risk in your area.")  It persists in Orwellian-scale falsehoods despite the swelling tide of progress that's evident to any New Yorker able to read.  The facts are these:  Our daily positivity rate has fallen from nearly 9 percent in February to lows unseen since October — 2.01 percent as of May 8 and falling, as per city Department of Health data.  The state found a scant 1.29 percent for the five boroughs (the city and state use different methodologies to come up with their numbers).

How the New York Times has published lies to serve a biased narrative.  On April 15, the Biden administration acknowledged there was no evidence that Russia ever offered bounties on American troops in Afghanistan, walking back a report that wounded former President Donald Trump in the run-up to the 2020 election.  Four days later, the Washington, DC, medical examiner revealed that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick had not been murdered by rampaging Trump supporters during the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot, as reports had claimed, but had died of natural causes.  Both stories were based on anonymous, unidentifiable sources, but had become deeply enmeshed in the public consciousness.  Both confirmed the assumptions of the nation's left-leaning media and academic elite, while damaging their political enemies.  And both were driven by The New York Times, where malicious misreporting has been the practice for a century, argues journalist and media commentator Ashley Rindsberg.

NYT: Will electric cars become an environmental catastrophe?  Answer:  Of course they will, with mining being among the many other issues in pushing to eliminate internal-combustion engines in favor of an all-electric fleet.  No one who has studied the composition of the energy-storage systems in electric cars could possibly miss the environmental dangers of such a transformation.  The most interesting point of this brief review of one potential environmental catastrophe is the media outlet raising the issue.  Even if it got buried over the weekend, the fact that the New York Times raises the mining issues is significant.

New York Times, WaPo, NBC forced to retract false claims about Giuliani.  The New York Times, Washington Post and NBC News all issued retractions Saturday [5/1/2021] for their coverage of Rudy Giuliani following a raid of his Manhattan apartment by the FBI.  The Times appended their correction to a story about the role Giuliani may have played in the 2019 recall of ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch and whether he received a warning from the FBI about Russian disinformation.  "An earlier version of this article misstated whether Rudolph W. Giuliani received a formal warning from the F.B.I. about Russian disinformation.  Mr. Giuliani did not receive such a so-called defensive briefing," The Times wrote Saturday in a note attached to the piece.  The Washington Post's correction, on a story about prominent Americans being targeted by Russian disinformation, was similar.

Project Veritas Pulled Some Stunning Admissions Out of the New York Times.  In September 2020, Project Veritas ran a story featuring unedited video clips of Mr. Liban Mohamed, a Minneapolis political operative working for Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, conducting an illegal ballot-harvesting racket and bragging about it in his native language of Somali.  The videos, taken and uploaded to social media by Mr. Mohamed himself, feature stacks of ballots in his vehicle as he boasts "numbers dont lie!" and "All these here are absentee ballots.  Can't you see?  Look at these — my car is full."  "Money is the king in this world ... and a campaign is driven by money." [...] In response, Maggie Astor of the NYT wrote an article claiming that the "deceptive video" made claims "through unidentified sources and with no verifiable evidence" and "was probably part of a coordinated disinformation effort."  The article also contained false claims about the legality of ballot-harvesting, despite Minneapolis law stating that no person may be a designated agent for more than three voters to handle their ballots.  The article was placed in the "A" news section and subsequently transmitted these defamatory claims to tens of millions of direct readers.

New York Times Forced to Answer Project Veritas's Defamation Lawsuit — Pleads Ignorance — O'Keefe Responds.  The New York Times on Wednesday [4/28/2021] was forced to answer to Project Veritas's defamation lawsuit.  Project Veritas sued The New York Times for defamation in November 2020.  As previously reported, the points of contention involve several defamatory and untrue statements made by New York Times writers Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu in their stories about the Project Veritas videos out of Minnesota involving a ballot harvesting scandal.  Astor and Hsu falsely claimed that Project Veritas was part of a "coordinated disinformation effort" and referred to the videos as "misleading" and "deceptive" while also claiming that Project Veritas used "unidentifiable sources" and "without evidence" despite the fact that several sources are named in the video and hard evidence of the scheme was shown on video.  Ironically, the New York Times themselves used unidentified sources to concoct their conspiracy theories about the videos.

Keywords: flim-flam, shell game, chicanery, duplicity.
New York Times cancels op-eds:  Paper says it's renaming them to 'guest essays' to be 'more inclusive'.  The New York Times has said that it will retire the term 'op-ed' and replace it with 'guest essay', a rebrand that follows a string of furious controversies in the newspaper's Opinion section.  Opinion Editor Kathleen Kingsbury announced the change in a column on Monday [4/26/2021], calling the term op-ed 'clubby newspaper jargon' and adding 'we are striving to be far more inclusive in explaining how and why we do our work.'  Kingsbury explained that first op-ed page of guest contributions appeared in the Times in 1970, and was so named because 'it appeared opposite the editorial page and not (as many still believe) because it would offer views contrary to the paper's.' [...] Kingsbury said that the Times would continue to seek out opposing views for its guest essays, but noted 'we have our thumb on our scale in the name of progress, fairness and shared humanity.'

The Editor says...
If you call an opinion or editorial something other than an "op-ed," that doesn't change what it is.  If you call the front page a flyleaf, it's still the front page.  If you call left-wing political bias something else, for example, "our thumb on our scale," you're not fooling anybody.

Project Veritas Wins Victory Against New York Times In Defamation Action.  While it has received little coverage in the mainstream media, the conservative group Project Veritas won a major victory against the New York Times this week in a defamation case with potentially wide reach.  In a 16-page decision, New York Supreme Court Justice Charles Wood ruled against the newspaper's motion to dismiss and found that Project Veritas had shown sufficient evidence that the New York Times might have been motivated by "actual malice" and acted with "reckless disregard" in several articles written by Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu.  The decision will allow the Project access to discovery which can be extremely difficult for a news organization.  Notably, this follows another significant loss by the New York Times to Sarah Palin last year.  Having two such losses for the New York Times in the defamation area is ironic given its role in establishing the precedent under New York Times v. Sullivan.

To Save The Republic, Destroy The Media.  Journalism has always had bias, but they at least used to try to hide it.  They'd report some truth, leaving out other, inconvenient parts on the cutting room floor.  Now they make it up.  They make it up for the express purpose of manipulating people, herding people into groups, then turning those groups against one another.  All in service to the Democrat Party.  Just this week alone, there have been more examples than I can count of propaganda and lies that would make Leni Riefenstahl and Joseph Goebbels embarrassed.  Paul Krugman at the New York Times told his 4.6 million followers, "In reality, given that GOP supporters believe that rampaging mobs burned and looted major cities — somehow without the people actually living in those cities noticing — getting them to see facts about something as abstract as the deficit is a hopeless cause."  This isn't mistake, he didn't get it wrong or word it poorly, and he's not uninformed; it is a deliberate lie.

The Disunited Identities of America.  For example, my hometown newspaper, the New York Times, has been on quite a roll.  For more than a year, maybe longer, every single day, 3/4 of the stories, at least 1/2 of the op-eds and letters, and perhaps 70% of all photos concern race issues in America.  Black and brown faces and issues massively dominate the news, the obituaries, and the arts:  Suddenly, playwrights, painters, opera singers, jazz singers, actors, dancers, choreographers, models, fashion designers, cooks, homemakers, business owners are all people of color.  Almost overnight, they have replaced the formerly mainly white faces.

NYT Columnist Argues Mass Rioting, Looting Last Summer Was Just Something Republicans 'Believe' Happened.  Throughout last summer, Americans witnessed widespread rioting and looting many BLM demonstrations caused across the country.  Now, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is arguing that all that destruction was just something Republicans "believe."  Krugman made the comment in a series of tweets criticizing Republicans for being most concerned about illegal immigration and the deficit, according to a Pew study.  "You might think that it would be hard to obsess over the deficit when it was actually Trump who blew the deficit up, to zero complaints from his party," Krugman tweeted.  "But that would be assuming that R voters know about that, or would even be willing to hear it."  "In reality, given that GOP supporters believe that rampaging mobs burned and looted major cities — somehow without the people actually living in those cities noticing — getting them to see facts about something as abstract as the deficit is a hopeless cause," Krugman continued.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman suggests 'rampaging mobs' that looted cities were GOP make-believe.  New York Times columnist Paul Krugman suggested on Thursday that the violence that has plagued cities over the past year was a figment of Republicans' imagination.  Krugman knocked Republicans on Twitter for "only" being concerned about illegal immigration and the deficit in comparison to Democrats, who according to a Pew study are overwhelmingly concerned about gun violence, racism, the coronavirus, climate change, affordable healthcare, and economic inequality.  "You might think that it would be hard to obsess over the deficit when it was actually Trump who blew the deficit up, to zero complaints from his party," Krugman tweeted.  "But that would be assuming that R voters know about that, or would even be willing to hear it."

Will the Times apologize for lying about Officer Sicknick's death?  An unruly crowd entered the US Capitol on Jan. 6, while then-President Donald Trump addressed a rally several blocks away.  One member of that crowd, Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman and a veteran, was shot by the Capitol Police.  The next day, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died in the hospital.  On Jan. 8, The New York Times reported that Officer Sicknick had died after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher by violent Trump supporters.  This story was quickly repeated by numerous other media outlets.  Millions believed it.  The story was false.  Sicknick died of two strokes, which occurred many hours after the invasion of the Capitol.  The blue-check-media fallback was that bear spray used by the Capitol invaders had caused the officer's strokes.  That also turned out to be false.  After a curiously long delay, the DC medical examiner's office released its report this week, and it concludes that Sicknick suffered no injuries, internal or external.  He didn't have a reaction to bear spray, the chief medical examiner reported.

The New York Times Must Come Clean on the Sicknick Lie.  If the New York Times reports it, then it must be true because it's America's "newspaper of record" that publishes "all the news that's fit to print," right?  To be a New York Times reporter or editor is the pinnacle of career achievement for journalists around the world.  Not anymore.  It was the Times that first reported that Capitol Hill Police (CHP) Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. [...] The Old Grey Lady.  Gotta be accurate, right?  Wrong.  After months of delay, the medical examiner for the District of Columbia finally made public the true cause of Sicknick's death — the man had two strokes and died of natural causes.

The New York Times Has Just Been Caught In Two Monstrous Lies.  On Tuesday, the public learned that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes.  Just a few days before that, the public learned that the "Russian Bounty" story was fake.  In other words, in the span of a week, the "newspaper of record" has been exposed for grossly misleading the public about two major stories — both designed to discredit President Donald Trump. [...] Start with Sicknick.  The New York Times was the paper that reported he'd been killed by a pro-Trump protester who threw a fire extinguisher at Sicknick during the Jan. 6 incursion into the Capitol Building.  The Times claimed that, after being struck and suffering a "bloody gash on his head," Sicknick "was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support" where he later died. [...] What did the Times base its story on?  Unnamed sources, of course.  There were no pictures.  No videos.  No on-the-record accounts.  No medical examiner's report.  The story fell apart, as news emerged — no thanks to the mainstream press — that Sicknick had texted his family about being in good spirits that night.  Then we learned that he'd returned to his office after the events at the Capitol, and only later went to the hospital.

Ace New York Times reporters pin vaccine hesitancy among conservatives to their belief in 'hoaxes'.  Remember Pauline Kael?  She's the famous Manhattan film critic who apocryphally said that she couldn't understand how anyone could vote to re-elect President Nixon in 1972, because she didn't know anyone who did.  She "lived in a rather special world," as she put it.  Well, the New York Times still lives there, and appears to like being mired in the same Mr. Magooism.  Latest nonsense from those heights comes from a big data journalism-driven piece with three bylines and four contributors on vaccine hesitancy around the U.S., concluding that it's all those troglodytes who voted for President Trump who are fueling it.

Friendly Fire at NYT: NYC's Rich COVID Deserters Aren't Welcome Back.  Stay away from New York City, men in suits and "plutocrats of Park Avenue!"  The New York Times doesn't want you back in town.  That was the message on the front of the Thursday [4/15/2021] Styles section in "Hisses for the Rich Who Fled — As the pandemic eases and wealthy New Yorkers return, they may face resentment."  The 2,000-word rant was penned by Jacob Bernstein, son of Washington Post journalist Carl Bernstein and his second wife, journalist and screenwriter, Nora Ephron.  In other [words], the culturally plugged-in Bernstein found an impressive bunch of likeminded individuals to trash their fellow elitists.

Fake news on Afghanistan and Russia:  The media's bounty of lies.  Remember when the press and leftist politicians badgered President Trump?  A story came out from the New York Times in 2020 claiming that Russia was paying bounties to Talibanites to kill U.S. troops stationed there.  (As if these Islamofacist maniacs might not be motivated otherwise to do it themselves.)  Oh, the brouhaha it drew!  President Trump was constantly blamed for not taking the problem 'seriously' and America-hating Democrats had a field day of playing patriot.  It came out during election season, and Joe Biden played it to the hilt, being Mr. Patriot and all, despite never serving.  The aim of all this tiresome crap, played over and over and over on the nighttime news, was to Get Trump, by bringing back that old dead cat about Trump being Putin's puppet.  Turns out that this bounty claim was, like a lot of these stories, a naked, total lie.

The New York Times' 'Russian Bounties' Story Just Unraveled.  On June 27, 2020, the New York Times ran a bombshell story:  "Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Soldiers"  In the subsequent uproar, Donald Trump's denial was seen as just another example of him being a Russian intelligence asset.  Trump called it "fake news."  Meanwhile, the intelligence community was split.  The NSA was never convinced of the truthfulness of the story and "strongly dissented" from the view of the CIA.  By September, there still was no credible evidence that the Russians had paid anyone to kill U.S. soldiers.  Today [4/15/2021], Joe Biden announced sanctions on Russia, in part, for offering bounties on dead U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.  But there's a problem with that. [...]

NYT Continues to Exaggerate Developments in Connection With Investigation of Rep. Matt Gaetz.  On Tuesday, the New York Times published a story claiming that Joel Greenberg, currently under indictment in the Middle District of Florida on a variety of federal criminal offenses, had been cooperating with federal investigators since last year, including providing the government with information about the activities of GOP Congressman Matt Gaetz.  Greenberg served as Tax Collector for Seminole County, Florida, an elective office that seems to have a significant amount of law enforcement responsibility and resources.  Greenberg was first indicted by the US Attorney in the Middle District of Florida in June 2020.  The government sought and obtained First and Second Superseding Indictments adding numerous additional charges in the summer of 2020, with the Second Superseding Indictment having been returned by the grand jury on August 18, 2020.

The New York Times Did a Big 180 in Favor of Absentee Voting.  By making accusations of vote fraud he was not able to prove, both before and after the election, Donald Trump made it easy for his critics to dismiss as dishonest any and all concerns about election integrity.  Typical was a New York Times "fact check" from late September denouncing as "false" GOP claims that expanding access to absentee ballots and voting by mail facilitated election fraud.  "There have been numerous independent studies and government reviews finding voter fraud extremely rare in all forms," wrote Linda Qiu.  That includes "'absentee ballots' and 'vote-by-mail ballots'" between which there is "no meaningful difference."  Not only are both "secure forms of voting," according to Qiu; they are considered the "gold standard of election security."

Media cheers a return to the failed Iran deal.  A Monday New York Times front page headline on the explosion at a key Iranian nuclear facility claimed the "Attack May Hurt Efforts to Reboot 2015 Deal."  On Tuesday, also on the front page, the paper declared that "Israel's Role in Iran Blast Casts A Shadow on U.S. Nuclear Talks"  Get it?  Making a new deal with Iran is a very good thing, anything that hurts the chance is a very bad thing, including Israel.  Here's an alternative view: the Times is still drinking the Kool-Aid that the original Iranian nuclear pact was a success and is worth saving.  To committed dead enders, Iran's violations of the terms and spread of regional terrorism are irrelevant.  The cult surrounding the deal at the Gray Lady includes the paper's editorial board.  Its Saturday screed, written before the weekend attack, began by saying "There exists now a brief window of time" for President Biden to reach a new accord.  The reason:  Iranian moderates could be gone by summer.  Ah, yes, Iranian moderates, the unicorns that only blinkered leftists can see.  So let's hurry and make a deal, any deal.

Breaking: Trump Fires Back at NY Times' Claim He Cheated His Campaign Contributors.  Donald Trump fired back at the New York Times over a hit piece the Old Grey Lady ran this weekend about his 2020 campaign fundraising operation.  The Times article claims that the campaign hatched an "intentional scheme to boost revenues by the Trump campaign and the for-profit company that processed its online donations, WinRed."  "The tactic ensnared scores of unsuspecting Trump loyalists — retirees, military veterans, nurses and even experienced political operatives," the report claimed.  "Soon, banks and credit card companies were inundated withfraud complaints from the president's own supporters about donations they had not intended to make, sometimes for thousands of dollars."

The New York Times Goes Full-Blown "East German Stasi" to Destroy Matt Gaetz.  Boring politicians are brought down in boring ways.  But for spectacular politicians, only spectacular attacks will do.  And Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz is nothing if not spectacular.  On Tuesday [3/30/2021], The New York Times reported that Gaetz is under investigation for a possible sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl.  To make the claims even spicier, the Times threw in words like "human trafficking." [...] Not only did Gaetz deny all criminal wrongdoing, but he countered that the leak was an effort to sidetrack a separate investigation into a $25 million extortion attempt against his family.  And to prove it, Gaetz produced photos and text messages to support his story.

New York Times Outsources Research to Media Matters.  The libertine left and its publicists in the "objective media" have a funny way of writing their lobbying campaigns against troubling traditions such as the "gender binary."  It goes like this:  [#1] Push the revolution from the fringes by testing the supposedly outdated cultural boundaries — say, the idea of putting trans girls in girls sports.  [#2] Define the conservative reaction as a "culture war" — as if the left didn't start the fight.  A case in point was a March 30 front-page New York Times article by Jeremy W. Peters headlined "Transgender Girls in Sports Are New G.O.P. Culture War."  Peters writes like a gay rights activist, because he is one.  In 2008, Out magazine featured Peters, then based in Albany for the Times, in its "Our Boys on the Bus" piece and touted him as a "rising star" in the national media elite.  In the liberal media, gay reporters write on LGBT activists; black reporters write on blacks; Asians write on Asians; and so on.  Orthodox Christian reporters report on ... wait, don't be silly!  There are no Orthodox Christian reporters at The New York Times!  Peters used the word "conservative" 11 times and variants of "the right" three times.

Literal Enemy of the People — New York Times Tries to Look Into the Anonymous Members of the Chauvin Jury.  Doxxing is the new journalism.  In Minnesota, the highly charged trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, the officer held responsible for the death of George Floyd, is underway.  The trial is drawing national interest as Floyd's death was the spark that led to a summer of discontent in this country last year.  The racial tensions and possibility of a community reigniting into violence have led to numerous precautions being taken, including shielding the identity of the jury members to prevent harassment or harm.  Unless the New York Times can change all of that.

The New York Times Can't Get Basic Facts Right on Election Reform.  Not surprisingly, The New York Times is pushing liberal talking points when it falsely asserts in an article from Tuesday that reforms by state legislatures to remedy the vulnerabilities in their election laws are "voting restrictions."  Trying to guarantee the fairness and integrity of the election process, when polling shows a large number of Americans have lost confidence in the security of our system, isn't "rolling back access to voting," as the Times put it.  It is ensuring that every eligible voter is able to vote, and that their vote isn't stolen or diluted due to errors or fraud.  What does The New York Times categorize as a "voting restriction" that is "rolling back access to voting"?  One example, according to the Times, is a new Arizona law just signed into law by Gov. Doug Ducey that "requires the secretary of state to compare death records with voter registrations."

These 6 Stupendous Hoaxes Are Reasons to Give Media Narrative About 'Asian Hate' the Hairy Eyeball.  [#5] The 1619 Project was the brainchild of a New York Times Magazine reporter who recast the founding of the United States as wholly defined by and dependent upon slavery.  Nikole Hannah-Jones trotted out her revisionist history that put slavery — not freedom — at the center of the founding in the summer of 2019. That whole Puritan thing, religious freedom, and King George thing had nothing to do with it.  It's no small thing to pull a switcheroo with America's founding, but Hannah-Jones's historical fakery was carried out with the noblest of intentions, you understand.  And The New York Times was there for it, ballyhooing her "project," hiding her phonied history with newer and newer "editions" of her essays.  Changes and edits in her thesis just appeared out of nowhere as the criticism poured in to the editors' in box proving what a bunch of hooey it was.  Hannah-Jones then revised her entire raison d'être for the project by later saying, naw, I wasn't really saying 1619 was America's founding.

The New York Times makes up the news as it goes along.  When it comes to Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who died on January 7, we know a few hard facts.  One of those facts is that the New York Times lied about his cause of death to try to turn what would have been a normal day for leftists into a deadly "insurrection" narrative showcasing Trump supporters.  The Times has walked back that lie, but an email blast shills a new narrative intended to criminalize conservatives. [...] The fact that the Times sent this spiteful missive tells us that the left is worried that its insurrection narrative about January 6 is collapsing.  The email blast can only be intended to stoke the dying fires behind a narrative intended to destroy conservatives and conservativism in America.

President Trump Congratulates Project Veritas on their Win in Defamation Lawsuit vs.  New York Times.  In November 2020 James O'Keefe and Project Veritas filed a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times.  Project Veritas is 7-0 in court battles during its 10 year history.  The points of contention involve several defamatory and untrue statements made by New York Times writers Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu in their stories about the Project Veritas videos out of Minnesota involving a ballot harvesting scandal.  Astor and Hsu falsely claimed that Project Veritas was part of a "coordinated disinformation effort" and referred to the videos as "misleading" and "deceptive."  They also claimed claimed that Project Veritas used "unidentifiable sources" and "without evidence" despite the fact that several sources are named in the video and hard evidence of the scheme was shown on video.  Ironically, the New York Times themselves used unidentified sources to concoct their conspiracy theories about the videos.

The New York Times Attacks the Babylon Bee Once Again, Probably Now Wishes They Hadn't.  The Babylon Bee is a hilarious and popular conservative satire website that oftentimes runs afoul of media hall monitors and supposed "fact-checkers" for hitting a little too close to home in characterizing the biased "reporting" of national news outlets like the NY Times, the Washington Post, and other well-recognized media organizations.  The Times, in particular, has been a frequent critic of the Bee, an objectively true statement that makes more sense once one understands just what dishonest purveyors of disinformation the so-called "newspaper of record" have become over the last several decades, especially during the Trump administration.  In other words, the Bee roasts papers like the Times without breaking a sweat, and for that, they must be punished in the eyes of our intellectual betters in the MSM.

Defamation? Babylon Bee Is Considering Legal Options to Counter NYT Cheap Shot.  Seth Dillon, CEO of The Babylon Bee, told PJ Media that the Christian satire site is considering legal options after The New York Times published an article accusing the Bee of having "trafficked in misinformation under the guise of satire."  In an email to subscribers, Dillon had said the Times' claim "is false and defamatory."  "The New York Times is using deceptive disinformation to smear us as being a source of deceptive disinformation," Dillon wrote to subscribers.  "This is not the first time this has happened. ... The ongoing mischaracterization of our site in the liberal media is a blatant attempt to discredit and deplatform us.  If they can convince the social networks we're abusing the 'satire' label, then they can shut us down."

Federal Judge Accuses New York Times, Washington Post of 'Shocking' Bias Against Republicans.  Judge Laurence Silberman accused the New York Times and Washington Post of being "Democratic Party broadsheets" in a dissenting opinion on Friday [3/19/2021].  Washington, DC, federal appellate judge Laurence Silberman accused the New York Times and Washington Post, and to some extent the Wall Street Journal, of being mouthpieces for "rather shocking" bias against the Republican Party in a written opinion on Friday.

Project Veritas vs. New York Times.  Last September, Project Veritas released a video that suggested there has been substantial voter fraud in Minnesota elections, particularly in the Somali community, and linked that fraud to Ilhan Omar's machine.  The New York Times then published a series of articles that smeared Veritas and its video as a "coordinated disinformation campaign," alleging that the video was "deceptive" and "false."  Project Veritas sued the Times in state court in New York, and the Times moved to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.  On Thursday [3/18/2021], the presiding judge denied the Times's motion to dismiss in an opinion you can read [elsew]here.  Denial of the motion to dismiss does not mean that Veritas will ultimately win the case, obviously, but it means that Veritas will be able to proceed with discovery and try to prove that the newspaper's reporters and editors acted with "actual malice."  That means they knew their stories were false, or realized they were likely false, and printed them anyway.  The court's opinion is notable in part for what it tells us about the Times's defenses.

The New York Times is starting to play games with its readers.  [Scroll down]  Let's just say that, after watching Bush Derangement Syndrome, Obama Worship, Trump Derangement Syndrome, and Biden Worship, I no longer believe that any members of the old mainstream, or drive-by, media are operating in good faith.  That's true whether they're pretending to purvey the news or whether they're expanding their customer base by inveigling people into addictive games.  They're bad news and best avoided no matter what they're selling.

Shadowy Firm Uses New York Times to Spread Disinformation About Epoch Times.  The New York Times on March 9, 2021, published an article containing incorrect information about The Epoch Times prepared by a shadowy firm.  The article, authored by Davey Alba, centers around the inaccurate claim that The Epoch Times is connected to "more than a dozen sites."  The New York Times makes this false claim without providing any evidence nor stating which websites it's referring to.  This is likely because the claim is not a result of The New York Times' own reporting, but rather based on information that the newspaper was handed by a third party.  While the initial version of Alba's article did not reveal the source of the false information, The New York Times disclosed the identity of the entity in a correction statement.

NYT: We might owe a COVID-19 lockdown apology to Florida after all.  If so, the New York Times offers it grudgingly.  They acknowledge that Florida's death rate is no worse than the national average despite the state's more liberalized approach to pandemic restrictions, which had critics predicting a catastrophe for months.  In fact, Florida appears to have fared better than several states that imposed much more draconian lockdowns, although the NYT still casts Florida's decisions as "an unspoken grand bargain".

NYT Offering a Dangerous Version of 'Truth' in Ethiopia.  Has the New York Times irresponsibly fed the beast with its attention-grabbing headline and story claiming "a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing" in Ethiopia?  It appears the "internal United States government report" that is the linchpin of the NYT's claims may have been far less official and substantial than the paper suggests.  Instead, it was an unclassified, routine situation report based on impressions and part of a leaked embassy cable, a Senate aide familiar with the Tigray crisis has said.

NY Times Spread Fake News that East Coast Beaches Would Be 'Gone' by 2020.  "[M]ost of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years," the fake New York Times told the world 25 years ago, all the way back in 1995.  Fact check:  It's 2021 and America's East Coast beaches are doing just fine! [...] The date of the article is September 18, 1995.  The headline reads, "Scientists Say Earth's Warming Could Set Off Wide Disruptions."  So here we are 25 full years later, a whole quarter of a century later, and the first prediction from these unnamed "experts" has not even come close to occurring, so why should we believe the dire predictions about the year 2100?  We shouldn't.

New York Times Crashes and Burns With Pathetic Response to Tucker Carlson Segment on Taylor Lorenz.  Earlier today [3/10/2021] I wrote about how so-called journalists had achieved peak stupid in response to a segment Tucker Carlson did on his program Tuesday night about New York Times tech reporter Taylor Lorenz.  To recap, Carlson talked about how Lorenz used International Women's Day to portray herself as a victim of a year-long, online "harassment and smear campaign", which she says "destroyed her life."  In a segment on how powerful people like Meghan Markle were declaring themselves powerless, Carlson took issue with Lorenz trotting out the victim card, especially considering her position at the supposed newspaper of record at a time when so many are out of work.  What happened next on social media was the very definition of idiotic.

Tucker Carlson Opens up a Can on the NY Times Over Reporter 'Controversy', Leaves No Stone Unturned.  Earlier tonight [3/10/2021] we reported on how the New York Times crashed and burned in their official response to the "controversy" drummed up by the media after Tucker Carlson had the nerve to criticize one of the paper's reporters on his program Tuesday night. [...] Carlson addressed the nontroversy tonight by opening up a can of you-know-what on the paper, pointing out that unlike the New York Times, he would never seek out nor assign a staff member to find the home addresses of New York Times reporters in order to harass them (which the Times actually tried to do to Carlson and his family last year before he called them out on TV).  He also noted that it was rather fascinating that the Times seemed to believe that they should be allowed to target people with impunity but that when their criticisms were turned around on them, they hid behind the "journalist" shield so as to avoid responsibility for their actions.

New York Times goes full crybully demanding no criticism of its reporter Taylor Lorenz.  Powerful people feigning victimization to silence those who challenge them has become a widespread phenomenon among the power elite.  This masquerade has earned them the neologism "crybully." [...] The current champion of crybullying works at the New York Times, a reporter named Taylor Lorenz, whose beat is aptly described by Sister Toldjah:  ["]Lorenz's entire career at the New York Times largely revolves around, get this, social media naming and shaming.  Yes, that's an actual beat. [...] ["]

The New York Times Is Having An Embarrassing Meltdown Over Josh Hawley's Existence.  [Scroll down]  The media may wish that the coordinated effort to control the outcome of the 2020 election through censorship, deplatforming, and removing scrutiny for mail-in ballots be downplayed or ignored, but some people aren't allowing that to happen.  Hawley is one of the Republican elected officials who takes highly funded and highly coordinated Democrat efforts against vote integrity seriously, and that's the main reason left-wing activists in and outside the media are opposed to him.

Why the NY Times ignored the attack on Ras Tanura.  When I read over the weekend that Iran-backed Houthis attempted to mount a 12-drone attack on Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia (the world's) biggest oil port), I wanted to check with the New York Times — but there was nothing to check on.  Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal reported the attack, but for the Times it was not "news that's fit to print." [...] Indeed, the attempted attack by an Iranian proxy does not look good for Biden's attempts to re-establish ties to Iran and to get back into Obama's Iran deal.  Houthis are armed by Iran, world's worst state supporter of terrorism, and take orders from it.  Publicizing Iran's proxy attack on the major oil supply hub does not exactly help the task of making Iran look not as bad as it is, especially because the attack came shortly after Biden administration removed Houthi designation as a terrorist entity, in a clear signal to Iran of Biden's desire to lower the temperature and get back into the deal, a goal which the New York Times fully supports.

New York Times throws The Lincoln Project overboard.  Now that they are no longer useful to enhancing the power of Democrats, The Lincoln Project is utterly dispensable, and is being exposed for grifting by the premier house organ of the Democrats, The New York Times.  The 3 authors of today's article, "Inside the Lincoln Project's Secrets, Side Deals and Scandals," are free to allow inhabitants of the blue bubble know that getting rich was the major motivation behind project.

The New York Times doesn't understand what a conspiracy theory is.  Even as Biden blatantly violates American law and sovereignty by erasing our southern border, remember that the Hispanic culture meshes with conservative values.  Hispanics are pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-gun; believe there are two sexes; and, until leftist activists get hold of them, have a solid worth ethic.  Unsurprisingly, then, Hispanic men are drawn to conservativism.  To the New York Times, this is as baffling as believing in the "conspiracy theory" of violent Black Lives Matter protests. [...] In September, Fox News reported that "[t]he damage from riots and looting across the U.S. following the death of George Floyd is estimated to be the costliest in insurance history — between $1 billion and $2 billion."  Considering that Black Lives Matter was the leading edge of the protests, riots, and looting last year, that sounds like real violence happened, not just a "conspiracy theory."

Will Pepe Le Pew be canceled after Dr. Seuss?  NYT columnist claims Looney Tunes' amorous skunk 'normalized rape culture'.  A columnist for The New York Times has published an op-ed that claims the Looney Tunes French skunk Pepe Le Pew 'normalized rape culture.'  Charles M. Blow made his critical comments in an article titled 'Six Seuss Books Bore a Bias' published in the Grey Lady in the wake of news that certain beloved Dr. Suess children's books were getting 'cancelled' for racist depictions.

The Editor says...
[#1] Charles M. Blow is fifty years old.  Why is he just now objecting to Pepe Le Pew's behavior?  [#2] Pepe Le Pew was never depicted as a role model.  Neither was Daffy Duck, who was also a lout, and much more abrasive.  This kind of fiction is called satire.  [#3] The people who are suddenly aghast at the behavior of a cartoon skunk are the same people who mocked Dan Quayle's reaction to Murphy Brown flaunting her unmarried state of maternity, as if Mr. Quayle didn't know Murphy Brown was a fictional character.  And Murphy Brown was intended to be a fictional role model.

New York Times Columnist Raises A Stink About Looney Tunes' Pepe Le Pew.  Pepe Le Pew, the cartoon French skunk whose amorous attentions have chased generations of females, has been targeted by the New York Times. [...] Looney Tunes has previously stopped featuring rifles in its updated portrayals of Elmer Fudd.

The Editor says...
Fake news alert:  [#1] Elmer Fudd never carried a rifle.  He carried various kinds of shotguns.  [#2] Pepe Le Pew may have been an indiscriminate lout and an impetuous boor, but he was no rapist; at least, not by the 20th century definition.

Attack of the Woke Teen Career Killers.  I was a mere 70 pages into Donald McNeil's brief about his firing from The New York Times when I emailed a dozen of my friends to demand they read it immediately.  But they don't have my perseverance, so here are the highlights. [...] These holy terrors are tormenting newsrooms across New York City — at New York magazine, The New Yorker and The New York Times.  They are true believers, not original thinkers — race-obsessed, gender-obsessed, anti-white, anti-American, and much, much stupider than reporters used to be.  Just tell me what I'm supposed to think and I'll think it.  These are the sort of people who ought to be office managers ordering staples and mousepads, not people who report news.

In Defense Of Substack.  [Scroll down]  Are newspapers like the New York Times checks on power, or agents of it?  Why didn't Snowden go to one of the big names at the Times?  Could it be because one of the senior Times editors back then, Dean Baquet — now the chief — reportedly once killed a whistleblower's story about a surveillance arrangement between AT&T and the NSA?  Or because the Times had a history of sitting on damaging intelligence stories, including one about an analyst who doubted the existence of Iraqi WMDs that the paper held until after the 2003 invasion?

Former NY Times Reporter Donald McNeil Slams the Paper in Four-Part Post About His Departure.  Former New York Times science and health reporter Donald McNeil has released his version of the events that led up to his departure from the newspaper in a four-part post on Medium, pushing back against the allegations against him, cataloging a variety of grievances against the Times, and implying that he had been unfairly disciplined by Times management, perhaps because of his actions during union contract negotiations.  The Daily Beast reported in January that McNeil, as a Times representative on a 2019 trip with students to Peru, was accused of using racist language, making sexist remarks, not respecting local customs, and stereotyping Black teenagers while on the trip.

The 'World's Largest Bookstore' Gets Into the Censorship Business.  Just a week ago, I received an email from Ryan Anderson, who was recently tapped to lead the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and who wrote When Harry Became Sally:  Responding to the Transgender Moment for me at Encounter Books back in 2018. A reader who had tried to order his book from Amazon reported he was unable to find the book listed on the site.  I looked myself and, yes, that reader was correct.  Other books by Anderson are listed, as are various books on the "transgender" phenomenon, including a now out-of-print title that purports to rebut When Harry Became Sally.  But the book itself is nowhere to be found.  How odd.  The book was controversial when it was first published — the New York Times devoted not one but two columns to abusing it.  But it sold well and, outside the precincts of wokedom, it was regarded as what it is:  a thoughtful, compassionate, and well-researched discussion of the devastating psychological costs of embracing the latest fad of sexual exoticism.

The NYT Takes Andrew Cuomo Out on Lake Tahoe to do Some Fishing.  The NYT put a metaphorical muzzle to the back of the head of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Saturday in pulling off a political assassination through its reporting on the allegations of a 25-year-old former aide to the Governor.  A massive 2500 word story appeared on the newspaper's website on Saturday afternoon with on-the-record statements from a second former aide to Gov. Andrew Cuomo stating that the Governor had made clear his interest in having a sexual relationship with her, leading her to resign in November 2020.

Tom Cotton responds to NYT controversy:  I will never apologize for defending America.  Sen. Tom Cotton denounced the controversy surrounding his New York Times op-ed last summer, which addressed how violence should be dealt with in the wake of riots emerging from racial justice protests.  Speaking about the riots that erupted in cities nationwide at CPAC Friday, Cotton stood by his June 2020 piece, which caused fury among Times staffers.  "I wrote an op-ed, it had a very simple message, very simple, very common sense message.  Grounded in American history and law, supported by a majority of Americans, arguing very simply that if the police cannot, especially if they are not allowed to restore order, then it is time to send in the troops," Cotton said to applause from attendees at the conservative gathering.

Words as Weapons: How Activist Journalists are Changing the New York Times.  [Scroll down]  I've had similar conversations with former and current Times employees, none of whom wanted their names mentioned.  They spoke of patterns emerging inside the building, a more activist contingent that steers which stories will be run and which will get sunshine.  "In each department, there are investigators looking to root out stories they don't deem on-message enough," I was told.  "It becomes impossible to publish nearly anything that isn't essentialist without being accused of racism or misogyny or transphobia.  You may be Latino; your relatives may not use 'Latinx' or have even heard of it, but you're a racist if you don't support its use inside the building and editorially."  Knowing less-liberal stories will be shot down, and those who suggest them possibly maligned, people become reluctant to pitch ideas; it's just too risky.  Those stories that do get through are sometimes steered toward a catch basin that assures they don't get much seen.  "It's a constant problem for any center-right or creative projects that are not deemed as carrying the right message," an editor said.

The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot.  There is no circumstance or motive that justifies the dissemination of false claims by journalists.  The more consequential the event, the less justified, and more harmful, serial journalistic falsehoods are. [...] One of the most significant of these falsehoods was the tale — endorsed over and over without any caveats by the media for more than a month — that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by the pro-Trump mob when they beat him to death with a fire extinguisher.  That claim was first published by The New York Times on January 8 in an article headlined "Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage."

New York Times wildly exaggerates NYC's COVID rates to prolong lockdowns.  Picking on The New York Times these days is almost too easy, as the Gray Lady routinely renounces or corrects false articles and podcasts and fires staffers who aren't woke enough for its Twitter masthead.  The Times should next cancel its daily "Coronavirus Tracker," which posts infection rates and related data from across the nation.  It claims, and has for weeks, that there's an "extremely high risk level" and an "extraordinarily severe outbreak" of the bug in Gotham.  The Times says that it relies for its Big Apple numbers "primarily on reports from the state," as well as from "health districts or county governments."  This week, the paper cited an 8 percent test-positivity rate in the five boroughs, based on a 14-day average.  The problem:  The state data on which the Times says it mainly relies this week cited a seven-day average in the city of 4.39 percent and falling — the lowest rate since Nov. 28.  In Manhattan, the most densely populated borough, the seven-day average was a mere 2.59 percent.

Media's censorious gatekeepers are mad, because they're losing power.  [Scroll down]  Meanwhile, The New York Times ran a hit piece on the "Slate Star Codex" blog, on the basis, apparently, that lots of Silicon Valley people read it and it says un-PC things sometimes.  As Matt Yglesias wrote, the coverage boiled down to this:  "Scott Alexander's blog is popular with some influential Silicon Valley people.  Scott Alexander has done posts that espouse views on race or gender that progressives disapprove of.  Therefore, Silicon Valley is a hotbed of racism and sexism."  As Reason's Robby Soave commented, "one starts to get the feeling that the Times simply wants to tarnish every view that exists outside its own narrow purview, perhaps because the Times has appointed itself the gatekeeper of the unsayable and resents having to relinquish this role to newer media ventures."  One starts to get that feeling because it's true.  The Times has also gone after the Clubhouse app, an audio forum that lets people talk about things in real time, also apparently because the paper doesn't like the idea of free speech.  In a tweet, the Times warned that "unfettered conversations" are taking place on Clubhouse.

NYT Discreetly 'Updates' Their Own Fake News on Capitol Police Officer's Death.  The New York Times has quietly placed "updates" in their articles about the Capitol Police officer whom they reported had been killed with a fire extinguisher by a violent pro-Trump mob, during January 6th's riot.  At the top of their January 8 article, Times writers Marc Santora, Megan Specia and Mike Baker affixed this vague "update," (note: not "correction"): "UPDATE: New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police."  A few paragraphs down they clarify:  ["]The circumstances surrounding Mr. Sicknick's death were not immediately clear, and the Capitol Police said only that he had 'passed away due to injuries sustained while on duty.'  Law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, but weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit.  Medical experts have said he did not die of blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official.["]

"Underlying this insurrection were the actions of folks who were challenging the voices of people of color.".  "If you look at whose votes were being challenged, these came from largely urban areas.  The votes of people of color were being challenged."  Said said Janette McCarthy Louard, deputy general counsel of the N.A.A.C.P., quoted in "N.A.A.C.P. Sues Trump and Giuliani Over Election Fight and Jan. 6 Riot/The civil rights group brought the suit on behalf of Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, with other Democrats in Congress expected to join as plaintiffs"  (NYT).

Half of New York Times employees feel they can't speak freely: survey.  About half of New York Times employees said in a recent internal survey that they don't believe they can speak freely at the paper.  In response to the statement, "There is a free exchange of views in this company; people are not afraid to say what they really think," only 51% of Times employees responded in the affirmative.  In company comments that accompanied the December poll's findings, which were viewed by The [New York] Post, the 51 percent was noted as being 10% lower than the "benchmark."  One insider said the benchmark likely refers to the average among similar companies surveyed on that statement.  "Although the majority of us feel well-informed, many indicated that differing viewpoints aren't sought or valued in our work," read the Times' internal assessment of the data.  "Relatedly, we saw some negative responses on whether there's a free exchange of views in the company, and scored below the benchmark on this question."

New York Times Descends Into Lunacy.  America's paper of record has become patently and painfully ridiculous.  No longer a rich if distinctly Manhattan chronicle of news, the Times today looks more like a Soviet satellite state written as farce, with woke purges and thoughtcrime convictions set to calliope music. [...] Slurs have apparently become a real challenge for the Gray Lady as of late.  Over now to Taylor Lorenz, the Times's culture reporter and glittering comet of Manhattan preciousness, who recently accused entrepreneur Marc Andreessen of using what she prudishly referred to as "the r-slur."  There was just one problem:  Not only did Andreessen never use that word, the person who did say it, during a conversation on the social media app Clubhouse, was quoting the Reddit users behind the recent GameStop chaos, who referred to themselves as "the R-word revolution."

Post-impeachment, NYT retracts story about Officer Sicknick killed by Trumpster with fire extinguisher.  Somewhere out there, there's an amazingly sinister story to be told about what happened in the series of events on Jan. 6 leading up to impeachment.  Because fresh after the slapdash, failed second impeachment of President Trump, the New York Times has withdrawn the rawest element of its story, the anonymously sourced claim that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by one of President Trump's supporters who hurled a fire extinguisher at him. [...] Revolver has an account that Sicknick was alive and well as the riot went on, and creepily enough, reported dead before his death happened.  His family was taking calls from the press about it and at the time, they had every indication to think he was alive.  If that's true, something really sinister may be going on.  Recall also, that Sicknick's death, which wasn't from a fire extinguisher, but now "due to injuries sustained while on duty" drew a huge, massive funeral, with the man lying in state in the Capitol.  The unprecedented show was held that way as a means to advance the narrative that Trump was a killer.

MAGA Blood Libel:  Why Are They Hiding The Medical Report?  [Scroll down]  Narrative 1.0 absolutely saturated the airwaves, editorials, and social media.  Every MSM outlet from USAToday to the NY Post to the Daily Dot repeated that Sicknick was "bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher."  Not "sources say."  Not "many believe" — just a totally unqualified, unequivocal statement of fact.  In an unforgivable shocker, the House Trial Memorandum itself, which sets forth the very impeachment charges for which the 45th President stands accused, names Trump liable for "insurrectionists" that "killed a Capitol police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher."  Their source?  The New York Times.  But the toilet paper Times left a real stinker inside this one.  Because every claim they made, every detail conveyed, was a lie.  Law enforcement officials now tell CNN that there was no fire extinguisher blow, no bloody gash, and no blunt force trauma to Sicknick's body when he died.  Not only that, but it is increasingly unclear when, where and if Sicknick was even rushed to the hospital.

NYT Retracts Story First Published on Jan. 8 That Capitol Hill Police Officer Was Killed by a Fire Extinguisher Thrown by Protesters.  Wow, what coincidental timing.  The story claiming that a police officer was murdered by Trump supporters during the Capitol Hill protest on January 6 is, for all practical purposes, retracted by the NYT the day after Pres.  Trump is acquitted on the impeachment charge of having instigated those protests — which were declared by Democrats and the media an "insurrection" against the government. [...] Julie Strong at American Greatness has been aggressively pursuing this story for weeks, and two days ago she published a column that noted efforts by media outlets — including the NYT — to slowly back away from narrative created by the early reporting done by the NYT and acknowledging that the cause of Sicknick's death was still undetermined.  The narrative built around that early reporting was that he was struck by a demonstrator wielding a fire extinguisher — a narrative advanced by both liberal and conservative media outlets in their effort to railroad Donald Trump over the past 5 weeks.  That narrative has now unraveled because there simply is no evidence to support the claim that the fire extinguisher episode actually happened.

7 Reasons Fake News Media Had a Very Bad Friday.  [#3] Andrew "Grandma Slayer" Cuomo Exposed:  Although everyone has known for months that Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) forced nursing homes to accept people still contagious with the coronavirus and that he lied about this and then buried the truth of just how many people died as a result, on Friday [2/12/2021], fake news outlets like CNNLOL and the New York Times — outlets guilty of aiding Gov. Grandma Slayer in this cover-up — were at long last forced to report the truth.  Better still, this story is only starting to explode.

The Times' Superspreader Lie About Officer Sicknick.  Like so many fabricated storylines intended to damage Donald Trump and his supporters, the New York Times cited anonymous sources to support a shocking claim in an article alleging Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by a Trump "insurrectionist" on January 6.  "[P]ro-Trump rioters attacked that citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials," Times reporters claimed January 8, the day after Sicknick died.  "With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.  He died on Thursday evening."  That horrifying account quickly made its way into the vernacular of journalists, lawmakers, political pundits, and regular Americans without dispute.  CNN, as Raheem Kassam detailed here, for weeks repeated the line as fact.  Ditto for MSNBC.  In a tirade earlier this week, "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough called Donald Trump a "cop killer" and raged that GOP Senators wouldn't vote to convict. [...] But the narrative about what happened to Sicknick is quickly unraveling, as I wrote earlier this week.  Not only is CNN, the network that helped perpetuate the initial storyline for more than a month, questioning the circumstances about Sicknick's death, so too is the New York Times.

Ex-New York Times boss Jill Abramson responds to unrest at the paper.  I have been called by many reporters about the controversial departure of reporter Donald McNeil from The New York Times.  "Do I think the Times treated McNeil unfairly?" "Is there a management meltdown at the Times?" "Why are 'woke' reporters up in arms inside the Times?" Because I'm a journalist, I always try to respond truthfully and on-the-record, which I have done.  But some of the reporters who call me are mainly looking for little "scooplets" to feed controversy, to stoke conflict, to keep the story going for another news cycle.  I do have a unique perspective that I'm eager to share.  I know what it feels like to be pushed out of an important job at The Times in a public manner, as was the case when I was fired as executive editor in 2014.

Read the column the New York Times didn't want you to read.  Every serious moral philosophy, every decent legal system and every ethical organization cares deeply about intention.  It is the difference between murder and manslaughter.  It is an aggravating or extenuating factor in judicial settings.  It is a cardinal consideration in pardons (or at least it was until Donald Trump got in on the act).  It's an elementary aspect of parenting, friendship, courtship and marriage.  A hallmark of injustice is indifference to intention.  Most of what is cruel, intolerant, stupid and misjudged in life stems from that indifference.  Read accounts about life in repressive societies — I'd recommend Vaclav Havel's "Power of the Powerless" and Nien Cheng's "Life and Death in Shanghai" — and what strikes you first is how deeply the regimes care about outward conformity, and how little for personal intention.

Trump was much sicker with COVID-19 than previously reported, report says.  Former President Trump was more seriously ill from the coronavirus in October than the White House publicly acknowledged at the time, according to a report from The New York Times.  The Times reports that Trump experienced extremely depressed blood oxygen levels and was found to have lung infiltrates, an issue associated with pneumonia caused by the coronavirus.  The outlet reports Trump's condition was so poor before he was taken from the White House to Walter Reed National Military Center that officials believed he may need to be put on a ventilator.  At the time, it was reported that Trump experienced a fever and had trouble breathing when he was taken to the hospital on Oct. 2., although his medical team tried to downplay the severity of his condition in comments to the public.

The Editor says...
Compare the New York Times treatment of President Trump to their treatment of Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Roosevelt was partially paralyzed during his four terms in the White House, yet the New York Times kept it quiet.  The NYT kept a lot of other stuff about FDR quiet, too.

NYT Editor Retracts Racial Slur Standard Used to Justify McNeil Ouster: 'Of Course Intent Matters'New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet has walked back a staff-wide email he sent last week to explain the ouster of reporter Donald McNeil Jr., who used the n-word on a 2019 Times trip to Peru for high school students.  "We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent," Baquet wrote in a staff-wide email announcing McNeil's departure.  Social media critics quickly pointed out that the Times had printed the n-word in various contexts in the months leading up to McNeil's departure.

Nikole Hannah-Jones Scrubs Social Media After Doxxing Free Beacon Reporter.  Nikole Hannah-Jones wiped her entire Twitter history after she "inadvertently" doxxed a Washington Free Beacon reporter who asked for comment.  According to online archives, the New York Times journalist's tweets were available as of 9:00 PM Monday night [2/8/2021].  By Tuesday midday, all of them had vanished, save for a single retweet of the Associated Press.  Hannah-Jones came under fire for posting a screenshot of this reporter's cell phone number on Twitter in response to an inquiry regarding Donald McNeil's ouster from the Times.  A Times spokeswoman informed the Free Beacon Monday night that Hannah-Jones had deleted the tweet.  "We received your message about the fact that one of our journalists inadvertently posted Aaron's number when she tweeted an email she received from him," Eileen Murphy emailed at 9:28 PM.  "She's deleted that tweet."  It had been up as recently as 9:24 PM.

At [The New York] Times, Don McNeil Scandal Deepens.  This business over The New York Times pushing out veteran science journalist Donald G. McNeil, Jr., is shaping up to be deeply symbolic of the way wokeness has corrupted a major American institution.  Seriously, the rot goes all the way to the top.  You will recall that publisher A.G. Sulzberger and editor-in-chief Dean Baquet pushed out McNeil, 67, who has over four decades of service to the Times, after the Daily Beast reported that a group of high school kids on a Times-sponsored field trip accused McNeil of using the N-word, and other offenses.  It turns out that Baquet was aware of this, and had done an internal investigation, but clear McNeil after he (Baquet, who is black) became satisfied that McNeil had meant no harm.  The Beast story made the issue public, and stirred up the Woke Mob within the Times.

How the Times misreports the impeachment.  The New York Times reported on February 8 that David Schoen, one of the lawyers representing private citizen Donald J. Trump in his Senate trial on impeachment, has asked that the Senate not to convene on Saturday because Mr. Schoen is a Sabbath-observing Orthodox Jew.  The article, by Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman, stated that Schoen is among "a second group of lawyers who has stepped in to represent Mr. Trump in his second impeachment trial."  This account then explained that the first set of Trump lawyers for the second impeachment trial "quit after [they] refused to commit to the former president's preferred trial strategy — that they defend him by repeating his baseless claims that the election was stolen from him."  The interjection of the invidious words "baseless claims" leads one to speculate that Times reporters are required to insert anti-Trump propaganda in their coverage of Donald Trump lest staffers demand the immediate termination of any Timesperson who does not comply with the paper's anti-Trump line.

More than 150 New York Times staffers write letter to bosses revealing new allegations of 'bias against people of color' by top reporter.  More than 150 New York Times staffers have written a letter to bosses revealing new allegations of bias against people of color by a top reporter who reportedly used the N-word and said white privilege 'does not exist'.  The letter to the executive leadership Wednesday stated that staff were 'deeply disturbed' by the paper's lack of action and demanding a full investigation into 'newly surfaced complaints' against the veteran journalist.  The company employs 4,300 people, of which some 1,600 are journalists.

Biden's Banana Republic.  A New York Times reporter has suggested the president appoint a "reality czar," who would lead "a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism."  Please tell us, comrade, when the show trials begin.  We don't want to miss them.  The author of this idea is Times technology reporter Kevin Roose, who was writing about "how the Biden administration can help solve our reality crisis."  His is not a lone recommendation on how the ruling class should re-educate, curb, and cancel the unruly masses to the right of center.  Others want the Biden White House to establish various versions of George Orwell's Ministry of Truth, which was itself a ministry of propaganda.  The Democrats and allied activists are itching to shut down speech they don't agree with, but do it under the cover of preserving and honoring "truth." [...] A country and a culture are in trouble when those in authority allow only one voice to be heard, when they decide what is acceptable speech and what isn't, when the controversial and the unpopular are treated as crimes to be punished.

Double standards abound at The New York Times.  Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, decided to give science reporter Donald McNeil a second chance despite finding that he'd made offensive (allegedly quite racist) remarks on a trip with schoolchildren.  Fair enough — but how does that square with the Times' crucifixion of ESPN's Doug Adler a few years back?  Adler's only "crime" was to describe Venus Williams' play at the net as "guerilla" tactics.  But, as our own Phil Mushnick has reported repeatedly, a Times critic took it as "gorilla" — and that was enough not only to get ESPN to fire Adler, but to destroy his career.  And no matter that "guerilla" is used often enough in tennis talk that Nike made an ad with Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras playing "guerilla tennis."  McNeil, meanwhile, faced claims from multiple sources that he made sexist and racist remarks on a Times-organized 2019 student trip.  He allegedly used the N-word and insisted white supremacy doesn't exist.  Yet, after an investigation, Baquet decided that McNeil's intentions weren't "hateful or malicious" and so opted to "formally discipline" the ace science reporter.

New York Times Writes Entire Article About Lincoln Project Sex Scandal Which Fails to Mention Biden.  How was the media going to handle the sex scandal at the Lincoln Project, which had worked to elect Joe Biden and Democrats?  Obviously by insisting that they're Republicans.  The New York Times went from touting Lincoln Project ads in the election to pretending that they're Republicans.  And so the Times produced an article about the Lincoln Project which never mentions the word, "Biden" or "Democrats". [...] The Times describes the Lincoln Project as anti-Trump.  But that's that.  No mention of which party they were backing.  That's a little like talking about the World Series while only mentioning the other team.  The Lincoln Project outlived its usefulness and with its sex scandal, its operatives have now suddenly been rebranded as Republicans all over again with no mention of whose team they were playing for by the propaganda press of that team.

Biden Allies Trash NYT Over Editorial Telling President To 'Ease Up' On Executive Actions.  President Joe Biden's allies inside and outside the administration are hitting back at The New York Times over a Wednesday editorial calling on him to work with Congress.  The Times editorial board knocked Biden for pushing his agenda through dozens of executive actions in the days following his inauguration rather than wheeling and dealing with lawmakers in Congress.  The Times pointed out that everything Biden does solely through executive authority can be undone by the next person to sit in the Oval Office.

The Editor says...
When VP Harris takes over in a couple of months, she could revoke all of the really costly executive orders and play the role of "moderate," so she can be elected in 2024.

America Isn't Make-Believe.  [Scroll down]  If America is just an "imagined community," we can choose to imagine it any way we want to, or even not at all.  We could, for example, imagine it as a 400-year-old system of racial supremacy.  That's the narrative that Nikole Hannah-Jones and the New York Times have put on sale in the 1619 Project.  That the historical claims in that Project are preposterously false is not an obstacle.  It may even be an asset — a way of liberating believers from the tyranny of facts.  The imagined community need only stir the willingness to believe.  It need not rest on foundations of actual fact.  Sophisticated people know, or at least "know," that history itself is just story-telling, replete with events that never really happened.  Hannah-Jones does not mention the "imagined community" conceit, but she deploys it by describing the ideals of America as "false when they were written."  That is, America's founders hoodwinked people into believing they were a nation because their real intent was to establish a durable race-based tyranny.

NYT opinion writer admits being paid $265k by Iranian mission to UN.  An opinion writer who frequently contributed op-eds to the New York Times has admitted to being paid well by the Iranian mission to the United Nations but insists that this did not make him an agent of the Iranian government or influence his writing.  Kaveh Afrasiabi is currently under arrest, accused of violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).  For its part, the New York Times, which still claims to publish "all the news that's fit to print," is dummying up, keeping its readers in the dark on the subject, and offering no comment.

New York Times Slammed for Labeling Joe Biden as 'Most Religious' President.  Conservatives slammed the New York Times for labeling President Joe Biden "perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief" in 50 years in a story published Saturday.  Pundits pointed out that former presidents Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were also known for their outspoken faith.  [Tweet]  "George W Bush said Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher and credited Billy Graham with changing his life.  Jimmy Carter taught Sunday School.  Cmon," pastor and author Daniel Darling wrote on Twitter.

The Editor says...
What about George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, or Alexander Hamilton?

New York Times feels the wrath of angry libs after story on Biden wearing a 'luxury' watch.  Reporters for left-wing publications and other liberal critics tore into The New York Times after the paper published a story focusing on an expensive Rolex watch worn by President Joe Biden.  Reporter Alex Williams, in a story headlined, "Is That a Rolex on Biden's Wrist?" claimed that the president is "breaking from prevailing presidential tradition" by wearing a brand of watch often associated with luxury.  "At his inauguration, Mr. Biden laid his hand on the family Bible wearing a stainless steel Rolex Datejust watch with a blue dial, a model that retails for more than $7,000 and is a far cry from the Everyman timepieces that every president not named Trump has worn conspicuously in recent decades," wrote Williams.

Paul Krugman Gets Disturbed that Band Played This Song for Biden During Inauguration.  One thing that never ceases to amaze is how Paul Krugman has a job anywhere when he is so continuously wrong.  No question that on this site we have been fond of pointing out his many faux pas and foibles.  But sometimes they're just so stunningly dumb, it astonishes even us.  Krugman was losing his mind, swooning all over Joe Biden and Kamala Harris today.

NY Times Says We Need A Return To Trump's Booming Economy But CNN Admits Biden Has No 'Magic Wand'.  According to the NY Times, Biden's incoming economic team has one goal:  Get back to the booming pre-Covid economy of the Trump administration: [...] Hmmm... I wonder if that kind of praise of the Trump economy would have been published prior to November.  In any case, Biden's plan to get there is apparently to spend, spend, spend.

Everything You Need to Know About Kamala's Niece, Resistance Grifter Meena Harris.  "Ambition runs in the Harris family," said Jenna Bush Hager during a recent Today Show interview with Meena Harris, the 36-year-old niece of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.  No argument there.  It's why Joe Biden's team was skeptical about choosing Kamala as a running mate, and it's why Meena's "woke" apparel company, Phenomenal, will print the word "ambitious" on a sweatshirt for $59.  Ambition isn't the only thing Kamala and Meena have in common.  Both are also adored by professional journalists to an unhealthy degree.  Meena, for example, was recently the subject of a New York Times profile that is indistinguishable from a professional public relations campaign.

NYT Falsely Claims Embassy Move Caused 'Unrest Across the Middle East'.  The New York Times falsely claimed in a Tuesday [1/12/2021] piece on the death of Sheldon Adelson that the United States's decision to move its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem "led to unrest across the Middle East."  The piece by Jeremy Peters and Shane Goldmacher argues that the recently deceased Jewish billionaire's push for moving the embassy had disastrous consequences.  "The Adelsons were among those who helped persuade Mr. Trump to lean into a hard-line pro-Israel stance, which led to his decision in 2017 to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv," the article reads.  The authors then contend that the move "incensed Palestinians and led to unrest across the Middle East after it was announced."

New York Times Suggests Wearing Two Masks Instead Of One.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says to stem the spread of COVID-19, all Americans should wear a mask.  The New York Times says if one mask works, maybe two will be twice as nice.  "Football coaches do it.  President-elects do it.  Even science-savvy senators do it.  As cases of the coronavirus continue to surge on a global scale, some of the nation's most prominent people have begun to double up on masks — a move that researchers say is increasingly being backed up by data," the paper writes.  The Times cites Linsey Marr, an expert in virus transmission at Virginia Tech, who said "if you combine multiple layers, you start achieving pretty high efficiencies" of blocking viruses from exiting, and even entering, the nose or mouth.  Of course, there's a drawback:  "We run the risk of making it too hard to breathe."

Do Not Believe These People.  When it was learned that Congressman Eric Swalwell, who has access to this nation's most important national security secrets as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, had a long-term connection with a Chinese communist spy, and that she helped him fundraise for his reelection in 2014 even though she was a college student (which should seem weird how a foreign national college student could have enough contacts to be a political money bundler), the networks barely touched the story.  CNN had him on for a short, softball interview, and The New York Times, to this day, hasn't mentioned it once.

The New York Times Is Now Officially Chinese Communist Propaganda.  The New York Times has a long, sordid history of being in bed with brutal authoritarian regimes.  From Walter Duranty praising the goodness of the Soviet Union to the Times' gentle treatment of Adolf Hitler, the paper of record is always on board with tyranny.  The current generation of gatekeepers at the Gray Lady is no exception.  In a shocking and sickening article this week, author Li Yuan celebrates Chinese "freedom."  The article beams about how China has gotten its society back to normal after unleashing a deadly plague on the planet and lying about it.  They eat in restaurants, they go to movies, and they are free from fear.  They have the freedom to move around, the Times proclaims, assuring us this is the "most basic form of freedom."  Really?  Do the 1 million Uighurs currently in concentration camps have "freedom of movement"?  They must have been unavailable for comment, as they aren't mentioned once in this advertisement for the Chinese Communist Party.

NYT: Covering The Elites, Or Covering For The Elites?  Whatever else might have once been said about liberal bias at the New York Times, at least you could say that they covered the elites.  What else can you say about their wedding announcements section, which, as I think David Brooks once joked, reads more like a mergers and acquisitions page, since the couples spotlighted are invariably ivy league uber-overclass climbers.  But now it seems the Times mission is to provide cover for the elites.  Their long story about the Hilaria Baldwin scandal a couple days ago reads like a Babylon Bee parody designed to ward off any criticism of lying about one's identity on a grand scale.  All these puff pieces about her in Spanish language publications?  Hilarious Baldwin now says she didn't see or read any of them.  It's all someone else's mistake.

WaPo and NYT ring in the new year with attacks on capitalism.  In the year of Joe Biden, set to steal a fraudulently won presidency, the mainstream media are pushing another fraudulent "narrative," this one of America rejecting capitalism.  Both the New York Times and the Washington Post opened the new year with an appalling attack on free markets. [...] These attacks are propaganda, same as the Soviets used to do, designed to make Americans blame capitalism rather than big government, using the pandemic to extend its reach and power.  A few crony capitalists gain in the process, creating a propagandistic narrative with the explicit aim of making Americans hate and blame capitalism, matching their other self-created narrative of encouraging Americans to hate their country.  The aim of course is socialism.  Which is rather redolent of the last time they tried this, in the famous 2009 Newsweek headline in the wake of President Obama's election claiming:  "We're All Socialists Now."  We all know how well that worked out.

New York Times admits award-winning doc 'Caliphate' did not meet 'standards for accuracy'.  The New York Times revealed Friday morning [12/18/2020] that its award-winning 2018 podcast "Caliphate" about the Islamic State terrorist group did not meet the paper's "standards for accuracy."  Following a more than two-month internal investigation, The Times found that the 12-part audio documentary, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and won a Peabody Award in 2019, focused too heavily on the false or exaggerated accounts of Shehroze Chaudhry, a man who was charged by Canadian authorities in September with perpetrating a terrorist hoax.  "When The New York Times does deep, big, ambitious journalism in any format, we put it to a tremendous amount of scrutiny at the upper levels of the newsroom," executive editor Dean Baquet said in a podcast interview Friday.

New York Times: 'Caliphate' podcast didn't meet standards.  The New York Times admitted Friday [12/18/2020] that it could not verify the claims of a Canadian man whose account of committing atrocities for the Islamic State in Syria was a central part of its 2018 podcast "Caliphate."  The series was a Pulitzer Prize finalist and had won a Peabody Award, the first ever for a podcast produced by the newspaper.  Peabody administrators said the Times would return the award.

'Oh, they do this to me every day': Trump rubs salt in NY Times' fail after mega-retraction.  President Donald Trump is justifiably calling out the New York Times after the far-left news organization to acknowledged that a podcast contained bogus information.  "Oh, they do this to me every day.  When will they apologize?" the president tweeted with feelings of vindication upon the disclosure that the Times had to retract a key premise of its 2018 "Caliphate" podcast.  Shehroze Chaudhry, the purported central figure of the 12-part Times podcast, who allegedly claimed to be a terrorist executioner, apparently made it up, and the news outlet fell for it.  After a four-year investigation, Canadian authorities have charged him with carrying out an alleged terrorist hoax, which could land him in prison for up to five years should he be convicted in a court of law.

NYT's Greenhouse's Fact-Free Flaying of Justice Barrett's 'Grievance Conservatism'.  The New York Times' former Supreme Court-beat reporter Linda Greenhouse is still opining for the paper, and any residual sense of objectivity has been jettisoned, as shown by last week's screed on the newest member of the court:  "Justice Amy Coney Barrett's Choice — Will she join the Supreme Court's grievance conservatives?"  Ostensibly, Greenhouse was writing about the recently decided COVID-related religious-freedom Supreme Court case Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v.  Cuomo, but that case was only a peg from which to inaccurately pontificate against pro-religion rulings from the newly conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

'Anonymous' Anti-Trump NY Times Writer Identified as Witness in Gen. Flynn Probe:  Senators.  Two GOP Senate committee chairs have requested FBI documents that apparently identified the "anonymous" anti-Trump New York Times op-ed writer who claimed to be part of the "resistance inside the White House" two years ago.  Several weeks ago, former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) staffer Miles Taylor outed himself as the "anonymous" author.  He also penned a book that was released in 2019.  Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), in a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), requested the declassification of an 11-page document that allegedly "includes information about the status of the then-ongoing investigations into those individuals and references new information obtained through witness interviews."

To Tell the Truth:  NYT and WAPO Deliberately Invalidate Election Tampering Claims.  As concerns mount surrounding election tampering in multiple key states, The New York Times and The Washington Post have all but ignored credible allegations.  In its Wednesday report that Biden "won Michigan," The New York Times emphasized that Biden's "campaign invested heavily to secure a straightforward path to victory." The Times did note that the Trump campaign announced that it was taking legal action due to "what it called insufficient transparency."  The report glazed over these concerns, quoting "Mr. Trump's" campaign manager's accusation that "President Trump's campaign has not been provided with meaningful access to numerous counting locations to observe the opening of ballots and the counting process, as guaranteed by Michigan law."

NYT outraged over execution of man who kidnapped, raped, and buried teen alive.  Two people will witness the same traffic accident and come away with very different retellings of what they saw and heard.  In a similar vein, a New York Times story that appeared Friday [11/20/2020] gives the details of a series of heinous crime that occurred in 1994 and the execution late Thursday of a man found guilty of those crimes.  But the order in which the paper presents these details is problematic.  For one thing, a description of the crime is delayed until paragraph eight.  It's not until then that we learn that Orlando Cordia Hall "and others went to the home of a man in Arlington, Texas, who they believed had reneged on a drug transaction. ... There, the group kidnapped the man's 16-year-old sister, and members of the group later raped her, beat her over the head with a shovel, soaked her with gasoline and buried her alive."  The name of the victim and details of her horrific last moments on earth — including the trauma of being serially raped — are omitted.

New York Times Columnist Urges Democrats to Commit Voter Fraud in GeorgiaNew York Times columnist Thomas Friedman urged national Democrats to move to Georgia and vote in its upcoming Senate runoff elections — a clear violation of state law, should the voters leave after the races conclude.  "I hope everybody moves to Georgia, you know, in the next month or two, registers to vote, and votes for these two Democratic senators," Friedman said during a Monday-night CNN appearance.  Georgia election law does not include a length-of-residency requirement in order to vote in the state.  It does, however, prohibit prospective voters from "residing in the state briefly with the intention just to vote and then move away."  "You do not have to establish residency for a period of time before an election in order to qualify to vote, but you do have to establish intent to remain a resident," Honest Elections Project executive director Jason Snead told the Washington Free Beacon.

"Right-Wing Misinformation"? It's True!  [Scroll down]  At the New York Times, indisputable truth is "misinformation," and must be denounced as such, if it doesn't advance that newspaper's political agenda.  Truthful information, in Timesspeak, is what helps the Democratic Party.  "Misinformation" is what could harm the Democratic Party.  As, very often, the facts tend to do.  I have been saying for a while that the principal job of journalists these days is to block Americans from receiving information that they are better off (in the opinion of the Left) not knowing.  Journalists don't so much report the news as cover it up.  This is an excellent example of that sick phenomenon.

The fast-falling New York Times has gone mad.  A jaw-dropping piece in New York Magazine reveals just how far and fast the paper has fallen, executive editor Dean Baquet somehow allowing his millennial social justice warriors to dictate not just how stories are covered but who writes them, edits them, or whether they should run at all.  Make no mistake:  The Times is engaging in self-censorship, which extends to outright censorship.  The paper has been steadily morphing from a news organization into a far-left propaganda sheet that can please no one but the truest believers.  Think about "All the President's Men" or "Spotlight," cinematic depictions of buzzy newsrooms, journalists hot to expose corruption at the highest levels, grizzled editors interested in only one thing:  Does the story stand up?  Is it bulletproof?  Over at the Times, the No. 1 concern is hurt feelings.  No. 2 is what Twitter thinks.

New York Times' Kevin Roose Calls Accurate Stories About Election Integrity Fight 'Misinformation'.  In a sign of things to come from the blacklisters in the corporate media, New York Times' tech writer Kevin Roose attacked Facebook for allowing stories that are 100 percent accurate to rise to "the 10 most-engaged URLs on the platform over the last 24 hours."  "Facebook is absolutely teeming with right-wing misinformation right now.  These are all among the 10 most-engaged URLs on the platform over the last 24 hours," the far-left propagandist tweeted from his verified account on Monday [11/9/2020]. [...] All four of those stories are news stories.  All four of those stores are reporting on events that actually happened.  All four of those stories are informing readers of what is going on.  A Republican in Michigan did win an election after a glitch was found.  That's a fact.  That happened.  Attorney General Barr did authorize his staff to look at voting irregularities.  That's a fact.  That happened.  The Michigan legislature did hold an emergency session about election irregularities.  That's a fact.  That happened.  Both of Georgia's Republican U.S. Senate candidates — Loeffler and Perdue — did call on Georgia's secretary of state to resign.  That's a fact.  That happened.

NY Times Can't Wait to Crown Biden, Still Puzzled By Pro-Trump Pollster.  The New York Times tried to hurry the vote-counting process along and declare Joe Biden the winner on Thursday's front page in a story by White House reporters Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman, "Win or Lose, Trump's Clout Will Not Fade." [...] There were bits of the paper's standard labeling bias in the special Election 2020 section, with correspondent Isabella Grullon Paz calling Alabama "this deeply conservative state."  In Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was "a conservative icon and one of the most divisive figures in politics," from a "deeply red state." Matt Stevens called Nebraska an "overwhelmingly conservative state," and Jon Hurdle found Pennsylvania's "deeply conservative interior."  No similar "deep" or "divisive" terminology was spotted describing Democrats.

The 'Anonymous' saga ended with a dud — a perfect example of the problem of Trump-era media.  There will be many incidents from the past four years of the Trump era that will erode the public's faith in the press to provide fair, accurate information — all the nonsense from the Russia collusion story, pings in Prague, the Steele dossier mess, false promises of what would be in the Mueller report and more.  These will leave lasting, damaging marks.  But no story better exemplifies the core problem with the media's anti-Trump instincts to elevate every crumb of a story to an 11 out of 10, only to be let down consistently for their exaggeration or outright falsehood, than the saga of "Anonymous." For those who don't remember [...] The New York Times published a column in September 2018 from someone identified as "Anonymous," whom the Times described as a "senior official inside the Trump administration." [...] If [Miles] Taylor published the column under his own name and title, it wouldn't pack nearly the punch it did the way it was shrouded in mystery and secrecy.

Captain Anonymous Exposes Lapsed Media Ethics.  It was the wrong time for 33-year-old Miles Taylor to announce he is the much-celebrated "Anonymous" Trump official who wrote a New York Times op-ed and then a New York Times-bestselling book in which he trashed the president.  The announcement came in the last days of the presidential election campaign, as the establishment media are bloviating that they can't rush to cover the New York Post's evidence about Hunter Biden because they have such high standards for confirming facts.  None of them had such a standard when they gushed over Captain Anonymous in September 2018.  No one needed to know who he was to spread his claims far and wide.  ABC, CBS and NBC poured out nearly 15 minutes of excitable coverage the night the story broke.

The New York Times' Palsied and Unprofessional Slagging of the Competition.  It is illustrative of the remarkable success of the Epoch Times, a weekly newspaper in which I have been a columnist for the last year, that it has been vehemently attacked in a very extensive hit piece starting on page one of the Sunday New York Times on October 25. While the article was nasty, sketchy, and inaccurate in many places, it is a considerable recognition of the Epoch Times.  Given the length, (almost two full pages), and the prominence of the piece, it is a noteworthy milestone in the remarkable progress and influence of the Epoch Times (ET).  The article, by Kevin Roose, who spent eight months on it (with pretty thin gruel to show for it), credits the Epoch Times with having become "one of the country's most powerful digital publishers."  The Times (NYT) reporter also credited the Epoch Times with a very ingenious promotional strategy based on using dozens of Facebook pages and "filling them with feel-good videos and viral click-bait, and using them to sell subscriptions and drive traffic back to its partisan news coverage."  While acknowledging that the Epoch Times has been a remarkable success, the principal point in the New York Times article was the implication that the ET is an insidious fringe publication propagating dubious religious opinions and falsely disparaging the People's Republic of China's authoritarianism, while making itself a partisan shill for President Trump and his administration.

The real story behind the New York Times's big 'anonymous' op-ed is exceptionally sleazy.  Indeed, based on what we know now, everyone involved in this sad episode comes across as remarkably unethical, most especially the op-ed's author, former Department of Homeland Security employee Miles Taylor.  For starters, Taylor and the New York Times grossly exaggerated his credentials as a "senior" member of the Trump administration.  Taylor served as a "Deputy Chief of Staff" at the time he submitted his op-ed to the paper.  He did not hold the position of chief of staff until later.  Yet, the New York Times billed him anyway as a "senior official in the Trump administration," an overblown descriptor that Taylor himself made no effort to correct.

Project Veritas Sues New York Times for Calling Group "Deceptive".  Project Veritas [...] sued the New York Times on Friday [10/30/2020].  The plaintiff alleged that it was defamatory of the Times to call the group "deceptive."  "The Times' newsroom was incensed at what it viewed as Project Veritas stealing its thunder," the outfit insisted in a 73-page complaint filed Friday in Westchester County Supreme Court.  The lawsuit takes aim at journalist Maggie Astor's article in the Times on Sept. 29 titled "Project Veritas Video Was a 'Coordinated Disinformation Campaign,' Researchers Say," reporting that Stanford University and the University of Washington researchers found that the group's video accusing Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) of voter fraud was a "concerted disinformation campaign."

New York Times opinion section comes unhinged ahead of the 2020 election.  And you thought the New York Times's news division had problems.  The paper's opinion section on Friday [10/30/2020] published a collection of essays titled, "What have we lost?"  Featuring all 15 New York Times opinion columnists, the collaboration asserts that its aim is to explain "what the past four years have cost America, and what's at stake in this election."  However, rather than explore seriously and realistically the short- and long-term consequences of the Trump presidency, the project comes across more like a collective nervous breakdown, full of self-absorbed handwringing and wild-eyed proclamations about the future of the republic.

Yes, [the] Media Are Rigging [the] Election Against Half The Country.  Here's How.  This week saw the news that the supposedly high-ranking "Anonymous" government official that published a 2018 New York Times op-ed about secretly undermining a president he personally disagreed with was in fact a 30-year-old mid-level bureaucrat nobody had ever heard of.  The fake narrative that the New York Times knowingly promulgated roiled the administration for months, if not years, as high-level cabinet officials took turns denying that they were secretly and unconstitutionally undermining the elected president of the United States.  Miles Taylor was the Homeland Security Department policy analyst who turned out to have written the op-ed and a best-selling book about how he and other Resistance members put their personal political preferences over the ones chosen by the voting populace when they elected Trump president.  That little op-ed was nothing compared to the preposterously false Russia collusion hoax that the media promulgated for years thanks to dubious and selective leaks from politically motivated sources.

Lawyer for falsely accused Trump loyalist lashes out at New York Times for 'hoax' Anonymous.  The attorney for a former White House official falsely accused of being the anti-President Trump persona "Anonymous" lashed out on Thursday at the New York Times for perpetrating a "hoax."  Cleta Mitchell represents Victoria Coates, former National Security Council deputy director who moved to the Department of Energy as a special adviser to the secretary.  Based on anonymous sources, a Real Clear Investigations story in April accused her of being the nameless provocateur.  The New York Times ballyhooed Anonymous in a 2018 op-ed, identifying the person as a "senior official in the Trump administration."

New York Times' Miles Taylor Op-Ed Shows Everything Wrong With Anonymous Sources.  Two years after the New York Times published an op-ed from what they described as an anonymous, principled conservative "senior administration official," it turned out to have been written by a low-level bureaucrat who later worked for tech giant Google and gave money to far-left Democrats.  Miles Taylor revealed he was the author of the highly hyped op-ed headlined "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration." He claimed to secretly work to thwart Trump's policy goals as the elected president of the United States.  While constitutional scholars worried about implications of such unaccountable thwarting of the will of the people, most media focused instead on identifying who "Anonymous" was.  The New York Times assured readers that when it said "senior administration official," it meant someone "in the upper echelon of an administration."

Chris Cuomo confronts CNN colleague Miles Taylor over 'Anonymous' revelation: 'You lied to us'.  CNN's Chris Cuomo confronted Miles Taylor, a former U.S. government official recently hired by the network, over revelations Wednesday [10/28/2020] about him anonymously writing an anti-Trump op-ed and book.  The "Cuomo Prime Time" host questioned his colleague's credibility during an interview done shortly after Mr. Taylor revealed he wrote the 2018 op-ed and subsequent book slamming President Trump.  Mr. Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official who resigned from the agency in 2019, previously denied being the anonymous author, Mr. Cuomo reminded him during the discussion.

The New York Times' 'Anonymous' is an insignificant pipsqueak.  In 2018, the New York Times proudly published an anonymously written piece from a purported "senior official in the Trump administration," knowing that this statement was a lie.  "Anonymous" claimed that Trump was an idiot, but that a brave band of "senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda."  In fact, the author was Miles Taylor, a low-level functionary in DHS when he wrote the hit piece.  The anonymous article, published on Sept. 5, 2018, bore the lofty title, "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration:  I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."  As noted above, to give the piece heft, the New York Times claimed it came from a "senior official in the Trump administration."  We now know this statement was an outright lie, for the Times admitted that the author's "identity is known to us."  The article was a nauseating glue of arrogant piety and self-serving condescension.

Infamous 'Anonymous' Op-Ed Writer and Trump Official Has Been Revealed, and It's Hilarious.  Some years ago, a supposed "high-level" Trump administration official penned a scathing op-ed in the pages of The New York Times.  That set off a wave of speculation.  Was it Nikki Haley?  Was it Jared or Ivanka Trump?  There was even talk it could be Mike Pence.  Well, the identity of that person has finally been revealed and it's absolutely hilarious.  The media have egg all over their face after this revelation. [...] You probably had the same reaction I did.  Who is this guy?  And how does this qualify as a "senior level" Trump administration official?  Further, given his meager rank at DHS, how exactly was he even in a position to influence policy the way he asserted he could in his original op-ed?  Remember, this guy painted himself as literally steering Trump away from tyranny.  This was an absolute grift, nothing more, and the media fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Trump calls for firings after 'Anonymous' revealed as little-known official.  President Trump on Wednesday [10/28/2020] called for the New York Times to fire employees responsible for an explosive 2018 op-ed after its anonymous author was revealed as little-known former Department of Homeland Security official Miles Taylor.  "Who is Miles Taylor?  Said he was 'anonymous', but I don't know him — never even heard of him," Trump tweeted during a campaign trip in Arizona.  "Just another @nytimes SCAM — he worked in conjunction with them.  Also worked for Big Tech's @Google.  Now works for Fake News @CNN. They should fire, shame, and punish everybody associated with this FRAUD on the American people!"  Trump said moments later at a campaign rally, "Anonymous turned out to be a low-level staffer.  A sleazebag.  He's never worked in the White House.  Anonymous was a nobody, a disgruntled employee who was quickly removed from this job a long time ago for, they tell me, incompetence."

Famed 'Anonymous' Trump Official Is Actually Junior Staffer Who Never Worked w/ POTUS.  Miles Taylor, a former Trump appointee who publicly endorsed Joe Biden for President, has revealed himself as the author of an infamous New York Times op-ed rebuking the Trump administration.  The former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Homeland Security from 2017 to 2019 claims to be "Anonymous" — the author of a 2018 article "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration." [...] The article garnered considerable traction in establishment circles, bolstering mainstream media's claims about President Trump as an incompetent leader.  Taylor's claims, however, are undermined by the fact he was a junior staffer in the administration who never worked directly with President Trump.

Former "Senior Administration Official" (According to the Media) Who Penned Anti-Trump Diatribe As "Anonymous" Reveals Himself, and It's.. a Nobody.  Why call yourself "Anonymous" when you can use your real name and no one would know who [...] you are?  Ah well, the media was able to take this minor flunkie and get people to speculate that it was actually John Kelly or even Mike Pence writing the diatribe.  It's Miles Taylor.  That's right, you heard me — the Miles Taylor.  He claims that he joined the Trump Administration in a minor position because he rilly rilly rilly wanted Trump to succeed, which is why he... joined other liberals and NeverTrumpers who had infiltrated the government to subvert and "resist" Trump.

The New York Times' Troubling Descent Into Falsehoods and Biased Attacks.  On the front page of the Sunday, Oct. 25 New York Times was an article entitled "How an Obscure Newspaper..."  The paper sought to attack the publication this article appears in, The Epoch Times, in part by attacking the religious beliefs of some of its founders, who are Chinese Americans who practice Falun Gong.  As the executive director of the Falun Dafa Information Center, I would like to respond to this attack against Falun Gong.  The article raises serious concerns about the New York Times' reporting on Falun Gong.  Specifically, this article propagates false narratives and inaccuracies about the Buddhist-based spiritual practice, as well as a striking trivialization of the nature and scale of human rights abuses faced by people who practice Falun Gong in China. [...] At a time when millions of innocent Falun Gong believers in China — who have no connection with the U.S. media and political landscape — continue to face abduction, torture, and extrajudicial killing at the hands of the CCP, these problems constitute a gross negligence, or perhaps even mal-intent, on the part of the New York Times.

The Intersectional Angela Davis.  "Before the world knew what intersectionality was, the scholar, writer and activist was living it, arguing not just for Black liberation, but for the rights of women and queer and transgender people as well," reads the sub-title of Nelson George's New York Times Magazine profile of Angela Davis.  In the article, which runs more than 5,000 words, readers learn that Davis is more than a mere "social activist."  In the early going George mentions Davis' "membership in the Communist Party," which was not like other parties.  The CPUSA was a construct of the Soviet Union, an all-male, all-white Stalinist dictatorship.  George fails to recall that back in 1979, the USSR awarded Davis the International Lenin Peace Prize, and in a video of the ceremony Davis beams with joy, as though she just bagged an Oscar.  George does recall Davis' involvement in the 1970 "takeover of a Marin County courthouse that left four people dead."  The fugitive Davis became "a symbol of the struggle for Black liberation, anticapitalism and feminism," but never lost sight of her mentors.

China's Communist Party is backing the left's revolution, seeking our downfall and subjugation.  It is remarkable that the New York Times is embracing left revolution by ignoring and covering up the very obvious fact that Biden is bought and paid for by the Chinese communists.  In the 1930's the Times was an apologist for Soviet Russia and Stalin.  In 1932 the Times' Moscow Bureau Chief, Walter Duranty, won a Pulitzer prize, apparently for his glorification of the Soviet Union, while famine raged in Ukraine, a famine deliberately imposed by Stalin.  Now a Pulitzer has been won for the vicious rewriting of American history featured by the New York Times, the 1619 Project.  The first slave ships arrived in 1619.  The left is busy turning the 1619 Project into a school curriculum.  The object of the 1619 Project is to claim that America is all about racism and to destroy young people's attachment to their country.  Promoting Biden as president serves the objective of the left.  Since he is grossly corrupt, when the time comes to get rid of him, it will not be necessary to fabricate false charges.  That he suffers from age related mental decline is all the better, making it easy to manipulate him.

The New York Times Discovers China.  The latest revelations about Biden family influence peddling in China are having an adverse effect on the patriarch's prospects of becoming President.  Despite the best efforts of the Fourth Estate and the big social media platforms to censor the story, it is eroding Biden's lead in the polls and has driven his campaign back into its Delaware hideout.  Thus, with the grim inevitability of Greek tragedy, the New York Times has suddenly discovered that President Trump is the true villain of the piece.  Before he became President, it seems, Trump pursued a few unconsummated business deals in China and has a dormant bank account there.  This soporific Times story has received more coverage by the media during the past 48 hours than the Biden corruption story has received during the past 48 months.

5 Big Problems With The New York Times Investigation Of Amy Coney Barrett's Children.  The New York Times ran an in-depth story Monday [10/19/2020] on Judge Amy Coney Barrett's adoptions from Haiti.  The story, which is the result of more than three weeks' investigation by the Times, turns up nothing in the way of bombshell revelations.  It does, however, fly in the face of pleas by adoption experts not to make children's lives the center of a politically motivated investigation.  Whether from restraint or lack of content, the Times article avoids being an overt hit piece.  On first blush it reads almost like a personal profile — which is notable, considering it was written without cooperation or comment from its subject.  The Times uses quotes from Barrett and her family in prior speeches and interviews to insert their voices into the story.  But it's inescapably clear that reporters went on a fishing expedition, combing through the records of the Barretts' adoption agency, interviewing families who adopted from Haiti contemporaneously, and seeking out information on the orphanage from which the children were adopted.

A Handy Media Guide To Covering (Up) Democratic Scandals.  In the week after the New York Post published its damaging report on Hunter Biden, the New York Times has run a grand total of five news stories on the topic.  The first report started this way:  "The Biden campaign on Wednesday rejected a New York Post report about Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter that the nation's leading social media companies deemed so dubious that they limited access to the article on their platforms."  Two of the other stories focused on the social media angle.  Another hinted that the scandal was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.  The fifth was about how some reporters at the New York Post had "questioned the credibility" of the story.  Whatever you think of the New York Post or Donald Trump or Joe Biden, this story is what we in the news business call "news."  Yet the rest of the mainstream press handled it almost exactly as the Times did — as an inconvenience.

Destroying the Institutions We Inherited.  [Scroll down]  Earlier this year, New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones won the prestigious Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for her work on The 1619 Project.  She has argued that 1619, the year African slaves first arrived on North American soil, and not 1776 marked the real founding of America.  Almost immediately, distinguished American historians cited factual errors and general incoherence in The 1619 Project — especially Hannah-Jones' claim that the United States was created to promote and protect slavery.  Facing a storm of criticism, Hannah-Jones falsely countered that she had never advanced a revisionist date of American's "real" founding.  Yet even The New York Times — without explanation — erased from its own website Hannah-Jones' earlier description of 1619 as "our true founding."

New York Times' '1619 Project' Named to 'Top Ten Works of Journalism of the Decade'.  The "1619 Project" of the New York Times, which falsely claimed that the American Revolution was fought partly to preserve slavery, has been named to the "Top Ten Works of Journalism of the Decade" by New York University's journalism school.  The Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute announced Wednesday [10/14/2020] that the "1619 Project" had made the decade's top ten for "placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative."

NYT: Experts Confident Pandemic To Be Over 'Far Sooner' Than Expected, Trump Efforts 'Working With Remarkable Efficiency'.  A new report from The New York Times indicates that experts have "genuine confidence" that the coronavirus pandemic will end "far sooner" than originally expected and that President Donald Trump's Operation Warp Speed — the administration's efforts to facilitate and accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics — has been "working with remarkable efficiency."  The report, published on Monday [10/12/2020], comes with just over three weeks left in the presidential race between Trump and Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Even the New York Times Is Admitting Trump's Strategy on COVID-19 Is Working Now.  The New York Times may have just given President Donald Trump one of the greatest nods they've ever given him, even if they didn't mean to.  The Democrats have been attempting to sell the idea that Trump failed the coronavirus response and that there are so many dead here in America because he failed to act in a timely manner.  This is, of course, a whopping falsehood.  When Trump was closing off countries from the United States in order to limit the spread, Democrats were calling him xenophobic for doing so.  In fact, it was Democrats who were out in the streets telling everyone to come out and not be afraid of the virus at all.  Now, the New York Times released a report citing experts who have "genuine confidence" that the pandemic will be over far faster than many anticipated and that Trump's plan to combat the virus called "Operation Warp Speed" is "working with remarkable efficiency."

Times Change — or Stephens' Suicide Note?  It is worth taking a second look at Bret Stephens's extensive takedown of the New York Times's egregious 1619 Project on Friday [10/9/2020].  My understanding from a longtime Times person I know is that one of the unwritten rules is that you never criticize a colleague in print — especially on the editorial pages.  And yet Stephens names names and takes prisoners.

Trump-Hating Journalists Write Fiction, Not News.  [Scroll down]  The New York Times and other celebrated children's comics are also devoting rivers of ink to covering such plausible hypotheses as my impending marriage to the Queen of England, like Trump's non-acceptance of an electoral defeat, the massive manipulation of the postal vote, or the organization of pro-Trump gangsters to stage shootings in the vicinity of Democratic-majority polling stations to deter voters.  All of this is fantastic, it gives me goosebumps, and as a journalist I couldn't be more excited about the outcome of all these prospective Pulitzer-winning pieces that are flooding the press this week, if it weren't for one tiny nuance:  none of it has happened.

Pulitzer Board Must Revoke Nikole Hannah-Jones' Prize.  We call on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the 2020 Prize for Commentary awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her lead essay in "The 1619 Project." That essay was entitled, "Our democracy's founding ideals were false when they were written." But it turns out the article itself was false when written, making a large claim that protecting the institution of slavery was a primary motive for the American Revolution, a claim for which there is simply no evidence.  When the Board announced the prize on May 4, 2020, it praised Hannah-Jones for "a sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay for the ground-breaking 1619 Project, which seeks to place the enslavement of Africans at the center of America's story, prompting public conversation about the nation's founding and evolution." Note well the last five words.  Clearly the award was meant not merely to honor this one isolated essay, but the Project as a whole, with its framing contention that the year 1619, the date when some twenty Africans arrived at Jamestown, ought to be regarded as the nation's "true founding," supplanting the long-honored date of July 4, 1776, which marked the emergence of the United States as an independent nation.

Dowd spikes ball, which hits her in the face.  [Scroll down]  Speaking of threadbare realities, has the Times returned either of its two Pulitzers for the Russian Collusion story?  It turned out to be a hoax.  Anyway, Dowd was glad President Trump got covid 19.  She wrote, "This was the week when many of the president's pernicious deceptions boomeranged on him.  It was redolent of the 'Night on Bald Mountain' scene in Fantasia, when all the bad spirits come out in a dark swarm."  Only in Washington is it considered classy to publicly wish death upon a political adversary.  And she is a lifelong Washingtonian.

'International Intervention' in U.S. Elections Would Be a Disaster.  There are many reasons to take issue with Peter Beinart's provocative New York Times piece calling for "international intervention" in the aftermath of the November election.  One important question, though, stands out:  Just who, according to Beinart, should do the intervening?

Letter Calls for Withdrawal of '1619 Project' Pulitzer.  An open letter released today [10/6/2020] and signed by 21 scholars and public writers calls on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the Prize for Commentary awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her lead essay in "The 1619 Project."  The letter is posted at the website of the National Association of Scholars [elsew]here.  (I am one of the signatories.)  The letter revisits the sorry tale of the 1619 Project's errors and distortions and invokes these in calling for the revocation of the prize.  The recent revelations that The New York Times stealthily edited out the signature claim of the project — that the advent of slavery in the year 1619 constitutes our country's "true founding" — were, however, the immediate occasion for this letter.  As Phillip Magness (another signatory) has shown, Nikole Hannah-Jones has several times denied ever claiming that 1619 was our true founding, although in fact she has made this latter claim repeatedly.  These actions on the part of both the Times and Hannah-Jones are profoundly irresponsible and disturbing.

NYT: Say, Why Is Biden Being So "Cagey" About His Health?  A fair question, albeit a surprising query coming from the New York Times.  Joe Biden has gone out of his way to set a good public example of social distancing and mask-wearing in the COVID-19 pandemic, in contrast with Donald Trump's efforts to make things look more normal than they really are.  However, Biden and his campaign have been remarkably opaque about the protocols in place to protect the septuagenarian's health in this election, the NYT notes, and it's beginning to worry them.  Is something going on?

Biden spokesman rips NY Times for report claiming campaign is 'cagey on health questions'.  A spokesperson for the Biden campaign slammed The New York Times over a recent report alleging that the former VP's campaign has been "cagey on health questions" following President Trump's coronavirus diagnosis.  "With transparency on health newly significant in the presidential race, Joe Biden's safety protocols have remained largely under wraps.  But on Sunday evening [10/4/2020], his campaign said he had again tested negative for the coronavirus," the Times began a report on Sunday.  The report praised the Democratic nominee for going "great lengths to model responsible behavior in the coronavirus era," highlighting his mask-wearing, him not holding rallies, and his social distancing at campaign events.

'Bombshell' fades:  Lawmakers call for probe of New York Times' Trump tax story.  A woman who, when she was an illegal immigrant, worked at one of President Trump's golf courses says she paid more to the IRS than President Trump did, given what has now been reported about his finances.  Others point out that if what The New York Times wrote about Mr. Trump's debt is true, then he may not even be the wealthiest candidate in the presidential race.  That might be Democratic nominee Joseph R. Biden.  The newspaper said Mr. Trump, through use of tax breaks and write-offs, paid no income tax most of the past 15 years.  In 2016 and 2017, two years he did show a tax liability, it was just $750 each year.

NYT disgraces itself again, publishing a ChiCom shill's praise for China's crackdown in Hong Kong.  File under 'unclear on the concept.'  Or more directly, the New York Times has disgraced itself yet again.  The Times in this instance has yielded its precious column inches to one Regina Ip, a Hong Kong functionary who defends China's treaty-busting crackdown on the enclave, something millions of Hong Kongers oppose.  But never mind them.  She's got the New York Times to serve as her megaphone.

New York Times Puts Non-White Lives In Danger.  The New York Times is being criticized for publishing a lengthy op-ed defending the Chinese government's authoritarian crackdown in Hong Kong.  Under the headline, "Hong Kong Is China, Like It or Not," the Times granted valuable journalistic space to Chinese politician Regina Ip to denounce pro-democracy protesters for "stirring up chaos and disaffection toward our motherland," and defending government-led efforts to postpone elections.  A Washington Free Beacon analysis of the newspaper's decision to publish the controversial opinion piece determined that the New York Times was putting the lives of people of color at risk by effectively endorsing an authoritarian regime that considers pro-democracy advocacy to be a form of domestic terrorism.  The dangerous op-ed also threatens the lives of professional journalists attempting to report on the situation in Hong Kong, and empowers a regime that views the media as the enemy of the people.

People are misreading the New York Times' article about Trump's taxes.  The Times claims that it has obtained Trump's individual and business tax documents going back over twenty years, a "trove" containing mountains of data.  Trump denied the charges, but the left ignored him.  However, an astute Twitter user noted something that others missed:  While the Times wrote the report to imply that Trump paid only $750 in taxes for several years, a careful reading reveals that Trump did pay millions in taxes, plus an additional $750.  On Sunday, the New York Times published a lengthy article based on Donald Trump's personal and business taxes.  It bears repeating here that this was grossly illegal conduct on the part of the person who gave the Times these taxes and, quite possibly on the part of the Times itself which, at the very least, aided and abetted a felony.  But to get to the point, the main thing every Trump hater (and some Trump supporters) took from the article was that Trump, the billionaire, paid only $750 in taxes for a couple of years.

NYT Bombshell:  Trump Paid Millions in Taxes, Owes No Debt to Russia.  "Trump Paid Millions in Taxes" isn't nearly as scandalous a headline as "Trump Paid Only $750 in Taxes," although, to be fair, it does have the advantage of being true.  Alexandria Brown dug deep into the New York Times' story to see if there was any truth to the shrieking headlines: [...] In reality, Trump has paid enough in taxes just this century to buy more than one $85 million F-35A Lightning II stealth strike jet.  I haven't paid enough in taxes my entire working life to buy a single one of the $2 million helmets F-35 pilots wear.

NYT Admits Trump Actually Paid Nearly $6 Million in Taxes in 2016 and 2017.  Trump PAID, as in transferred to the US Treasury, $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017.  Note also that most of the overpayment was rolled forward, not refunded.  The $750 figure is an ADDITIONAL $750.  Thus every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie.

NYT Debunks Three Media Conspiracy Theories With Trump's Tax Returns.  I don't even know where to begin with the story on President Donald Trump's tax returns in The New York Times.  There is so much wrong with it that someone like me, with no accounting or tax background, can figure out the article is worthless.  But how about the three media conspiracy theories debunked by the story?

NYT 'Bombshell' Report On Trump Taxes [is] Missing One Key Word: 'Illegal'.  With just over one month left until Americans decide whether we get to experience four more raucous years of Donald Trump, The New York Times released what has been presented by the mainstream media as a "bombshell" report on the real estate mogul's tax documents — documents Trump says are "illegally obtained" (which the Times denies) and his lawyers say are incomplete, inaccurate and misleading.  The Times' conveniently-timed report, which runs some 10,000 words, has inspired a flood of media coverage citing the supposedly "damning" revelations contained within.  But if you look closer at those 10,000 words, something is conspicuously missing.  Any direct, evidence-based claim of actual illegal action on Trump's part.  In fact, the word "illegal" only appears a single time in all those words, and not in direct reference to Trump's taxes.

NY Times Meddles in Election with Dud on Trump's Taxes.  Now we're recycling Trump's taxes, and they got him again, folks.  They got him again.  They thought they had him four years ago on this.  They thought they had him three years ago on this. [...] By the way, folks, isn't the New York Times using this tax information to sway an election?  Well, isn't that illegal?  Isn't that meddling in an election?  What's the difference in this and whatever they alleged that the Russians were doing in 2016?

Kayleigh McEnany:  Media 'Desperatel Trying to Smear' Trump, Who Has Already Donated $1.4 Million of Salary to Government.  White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told Breitbart News exclusively that the New York Times piece on President Donald Trump's taxes represents "liberal media" in an attempt to "desperately" engage in a "smear" of the president ahead of the election.  The Times claimed that Trump only paid $750 in taxes in a piece over the weekend, but McEnany said this hit piece will not convince voters to turn on Trump, because the public sees Trump donating his entire $400,000 annual salary as president back to the government every quarter and that he has "sacrifice[d]" his successful business career to serve as president.

Ignoring Clinton Charity Frauds to Attack Trump for Paying Taxes.  Yesterday [9/28/2020], the New York Times published 10,000 empty words on Donald Trump's taxes, a barrage of self-inflicted wounds gutting the integrity of the editorial staff and management of this publicly traded, yet family influenced company.  Yet it was not an effective indictment of any Trump family member.  It is not a crime to offset losses against income, a fact that has been true for decades.  And, it is profit-seeking businesses, and their owners and employees that produce the bulk of taxable income, yielding revenue needed to defray expenses of government.  Over decades, generations of Trumps employed thousands of New Yorkers directly and indirectly producing incomes and spending that filled tax coffers at federal, state, city and county level.

More On Trump's Taxes.  First, I doubt whether anyone cares.  Donald Trump has been president for four years, and if you think he has done a good job (as I do), you are hardly going to be deterred from voting for him by the fact that he hires good accountants.  The people who are excited about the [New York] Times felony/scoop weren't going to vote for him anyway.  Second, on its face the Times "expose" falls flat.  I understand that someone at the IRS feloniously leaked Trump's tax returns for more than 20 years, and it is true, as Trump has said, that he has been subject to one or more audits also extending over a period of years.  So apparently the IRS has been unable to find anything wrong with Trump's tax returns.  Case closed.

New York Times Fails at Outlining President Trump's Taxes Again.  Once again the New York Times attempts to make an issue out of President Trump's real estate holdings working as a tax shelter and reducing income taxes.  In the article the Times completely obfuscates the way income taxes are strategically offset by depreciation, mortgage interest and the entire reason why real estate ownership is viewed as a business. [...] Anyone who has ever operated a business knows that offsetting income is one of the primary reasons to be self-employed.  Additionally, the Times completely skips over the tens-of-millions in payroll taxes paid by the Trump organization and tens-of-millions in property and sales taxes paid by all of the various Trump properties.

Who cares about Trump's tax returns?  Is anyone really surprised that Donald Trump's tax affairs are opaque?  Or that he is not as rich as he claims?  Is it really all that horrifying that he has for years claimed business losses in order to offset his significant income tax liability?  Does it appall us that the Trump family used a Delaware-based consulting group to pay themselves?  Of course not.  The New York Times's big Trump tax files splash on Sunday is therefore something of a flop.  It is well-timed — an election is fast-approaching and the story might give Biden a good attack line in the big TV debate on Tuesday night.  The reportage is quite interesting, too, especially to those of us who take a sordid interest in how the richest among us can get away with paying so little to the government.  But there is no smoking gun.  Despite clearly exhaustive efforts, the Times investigative team has failed to uncover any illegality or clear wrongdoing.

New York Times Debunks Several Conspiracy Theories with Trump's Tax Returns.  The New York Times' exposé on Donald Trump's tax returns suggests that the president has suffered financial losses for many years, resulting in many years when he paid little or no federal income tax.  The Times speculates that the presidency itself is Trump's only hope to recoup his losses, either through burnishing his brand or using his political power, ignoring conflicts of interest.

The Times is proud that it released Trump's tax returns, but it shouldn't be.  The New York Times is undoubtedly pleased that it published more than two decades' worth of Donald Trump's tax returns.  The self-congratulations are premature.  The Times' article reveals that Trump was telling the truth all along about his audit.  We can also see that Obama's policies benefitted rich people.  Finally, because the policies show how our complicated progressive tax system will always benefit rich people with good accountants, the Times unwittingly advanced the argument for a flat tax.

Jill campaigns for husband Joe before an itty bitty crowd.  Sleepy Joe has taken a lot of days off this month.  The AP disingenuously calls it a "low-key campaign style" but admits it concerns some Democrats.  Biden made 12 visits outside of Delaware since August 12 and President Trump made 24 visits to 17 states.  The NY Times dishonestly claims that Slow Joe's inability to put sentences together is a "stutter."  Neither Joe nor Kamala Harris are answering many reporters' questions and when they do, the questions are softball.

NYT Discovered Protesters/Antifa Are Harassing Residential Neighborhoods, Even Threatening to Burn Down Couple's Home.  Sounds like The NY Times may have just discovered Antifa in Portland, so we wanted to take note of that fact.  Also they've discovered Antifa has moved into harassing people in residential neighborhoods.  [Tweets]  Now of course Antifa has been in residential neighborhoods for months bothering people and the Times is identifying these people as "protesters against police brutality."  But they do mention Antifa in the story and how Antifa in black bloc are involved.  So we welcome the Times for finally catching up to at least part of the story.

The 1619 Project is a fraudNew York Times Magazine editors have quietly removed controversial language from the online version of Hannah-Jones's 1619 Project, a package of essays that argue chattel slavery defines America's founding.  Hannah-Jones herself also asserts now that the project's core thesis is not what she and everyone else involved originally said it was.  It "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding," she said on Friday.  She declared elsewhere in July that it "doesn't argue, for obvious reasons, that 1619 is our true founding."  This is a brazen lie.

Let the Winning Continue!  [L]ast Thursday, Constitution Day, Trump took direct aim at the pernicious 1619 Project, and announced his plan to have a 1776 Commission to confront the 1619 Project directly.  The left naturally freaked out, but amazingly the NY Times is suddenly backtracking from a few of the more egregious claims the 1619 Project contained.

The New York Times Deceptively Edits False Claim At The Center Of 1619 Project.  When the New York Times published an interactive version of their 1619 Project online in August 2019, they included the bold claim that the year 1619 is the United States' "true founding."  At some point in the last year, while defending their project from the disputes of respected historians and issuing corrections for other central claims, the paper of record quietly omitted the controversial "founding" claim from its description.  A look at the source code of the original description found through internet archives confirms that lead essayist Nikole Hannah-Jones and the New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project removed the line "understanding 1619 as our true founding," from the description of the project sometime after August 2019.

White-Counting.  Last week, The New York Times complained that whites now make up only three-fifths of the population but still hold four-fifths of the most powerful jobs in America: [...] Ironically, the NYT project appears to have started off as an attempt in this Summer of George to argue that blacks get themselves in trouble with the police so often because of too much white power.  Thus, the first two categories tabulated in the Times are police chiefs and district attorneys.  But that plan quickly came a cropper because only 44 percent of the chiefs in charge of the 25 biggest police forces are white.  Another 44 percent are black and 12 percent are Hispanic.  The NYT gripes (using the hilarious new reverential capitalization of "Black" but not of "white"):  ["]While half of the 25 largest police forces are run by people of color, the shootings and killings of Black people by white officers this year are a painful reminder of systemic bias.["]

Democrats Versus the Vote.  A recent New York Times piece about the presidential election reads more like an article in The Onion or Babylon Bee.  It claims that "President Trump's litigiousness and unfounded claims of fraud have increased the likelihood of epic postelection court fights."  The president's "litigiousness"?!  In state after state, almost all the lawsuits filed over this year's elections have been filed by Democrats and liberal or progressive organizations, seeking to change election rules by judicial fiat.  Their objective: force all-mail elections or huge increases in absentee balloting while simultaneously eliminating safeguards against abuse and fraud.  The Times top brass must not have read their own reporters' story very carefully.  That story cites law professor Richard Pildes's count of at least 160 lawsuits filed by "party organizations, campaigns and interest groups," noting that the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee "are involved" in only 40, "some in response to Democratic lawsuits." For those familiar with basic arithmetic, the "litigiousness" is on the other side of the political aisle.  Perhaps the Times didn't bother to do the math.

Texts And Emails In Palin Defamation Lawsuit Show NYT Editorial Negligence.  In 2017, the New York Times ran an editorial claiming that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was connected to, and even incited the 2011 shooting that killed six people and wounded Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.  Palin is now suing the paper of record for defamation, and discovery documents obtained by The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) reveal how chaos and editorial negligence played out in the Times's newsroom.

New York Times' sleazy narrative on Trump is nothing but a joke:  Goodwin.  A former colleague at The New York Times once explained why he kept reading the paper even though he no longer trusted it:  "I want to see what they're up to."  What they're up to now is staggering.  Not content with four years of biased coverage of President Trump, the Times is plunging head first into new depths of partisanship and deceit. [...] We are long removed from any possible claim that Baquet's Times is fair and impartial.  He has single-handedly abolished more than a century of standards in pursuit of his white whale: defeating Donald Trump.  Baquet launched his quest in 2016 but his slant then seems almost restrained compared to his scheming now.  This time, the top editor has institutionalized a ruthless commitment to partisanship that I believe will someday be seen as rivaling the Times' historic scandals.  In the 1930s, the paper cozied up to Josef Stalin and ignored the famine in Ukraine, then downplayed the Holocaust and later supported the rise of Fidel Castro while hiding his commitment to communism.  Using distortions and duplicity to influence a presidential election deserves to be included in that roster of infamy.

The New York Times on Trial.  [Scroll down]  The Times tried to avoid trial by hiding behind a precedent that makes it especially difficult for public figures to sue for libel.  That precedent was handed down by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1964 in a case called Times v. Sullivan.  The high bar it set for a public figure — like, say, Mrs. Palin or, say, Mr. Trump — to win a libel case is that they would have to prove "actual malice." What actual malice meant was either lying or acting with reckless disregard for the truth.  All of us newspapers have these past 56 years sheltered in the lee of that landmark.  Governor Palin filed her case against the Times in June 2017. After a good bit of wrangling, a United States judge, Jed Rakoff, of the district court in Manhattan, tossed out the case.  The Second Circuit, however, reversed Judge Rakoff and sent the matter back down to the district court.  There was yet more wrangling, until Friday, when Judge Rakoff ordered the trial to start — "pandemic permitting" — on February 1.

NYT Writer Falsely Claims Trump 'Cheers' And Incites Violence.  In an attempt to downplay President Donald Trump's efforts to combat rioting, Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times wrote an opinion editorial trying to elevate and equate right-wing violence to the destruction caused by Black Lives Matter demonstrators and Antifa rioters.  In her article, Goldberg claims that Trump's words and actions are meant to incite and "cheer" more violence because "his interests served by the destruction of civic peace."  "If the president succeeds in making political violence a Biden liability, he'll have all the more incentive to set this country on fire," she claims.

Who is Behind the 1619 Project?  The 1619 Project tells many doozies, but the biggest lie that the New York Times propagates, in this radical and anti-American document, is that the Revolutionary War was fought because of a desire to maintain slavery, which they thought the British were about to abolish.  The lie makes your head explode in its sheer audacity.  Thomas Paine's Common Sense is the pamphlet that circulated for months before the war, generating discussions at taverns and other public venues, and yet there's nary a word within its pages about slavery.  Instead, Paine's work focused on galvanizing the colonies to break free from England and create an independent republic, a system of self-government, that was not monarchical and that recognized the rights of the individual.  The other document that lays out the reasons for the Revolutionary War is of course the Declaration of Independence.  Twenty-seven reasons are given for the need to break from the tyranny of England. [...] Again, the desire to maintain slavery is not among those complaints listed.

Judge Allows Sarah Palin's Defamation Lawsuit Against New York Times to Proceed.  U.S. Judge Jed S. Rakoff, a Bill Clinton appointee, allowed Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times to proceed, saying that a jury should decide whether editorial page editor James Bennet acted with "actual malice" in writing that Palin was responsible for "political incitement" that led to the mass shooting in Tuscon, Arizona, in January 2011.  The Times published the editorial in the wake of a June 2017 mass shooting by a deranged leftist who targeted Republican members of Congress at their baseball practice.  The Tuscon shooter was mentally disturbed; accusations against Palin had long since been disproved.

Judge rules Sarah Palin's defamation suit against The New York Times can go to trial.  Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against The New York Times is moving forward and headed to trial after a federal judge ruled Friday that a jury will decide whether the newspaper acted with "actual malice" when it published a false editorial pointing to Palin as the motivation behind the 2011 assassination attempt on former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.).  Palin sued The Times in 2017 over a piece that linked materials distributed by the former Alaskan governor's political action committee and the Tucson, Arizona, mass murder at a Giffords event that left six people dead and Giffords injured.

About That Kenosha Shooter.  Let's stipulate starting out that Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois, who has been arrested and charged with murder for shooting two people during the Kenosha riots two nights ago, should not have been present at the scene with a semi-auto rifle.  That's no place for a 17-year-old, even if he is a regular at the gun range.  And resorting to vigilantism is a sure path to a breakdown in the rule of law and perhaps even open civil war.  We'll hold off a recitation of Lincoln' Lyceum Address on this point for some other time, as well as scoring the appalling negligence of Democratic political leaders in Wisconsin.  That said, there appears to be a decent case that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.  Who says this?  Sit down for the answer:  a team of reporters from the New York Times.  I'm starting to think someone from Fox News has spiked the water at the Times, as this story makes two sensible news stories in one day from the Times.  Or maybe the panic is that high at DNC headquarters.

Kenosha Burning.  [Scroll down]  Even the New York Times has the gall to say "The politically calculated warnings of President Trump and the Republican Party about chaos enveloping America should Democrats win in November are reverberating among some people in Kenosha."  I guess "politically calculated" is newspeak whenever a Republican says something that's obviously true.

If you want to see media malice in a single article....  The second night of the Republican convention has come and gone (and very successfully too) but what should live forever is the article the New York Times wrote about the line-up of speakers for the evening.  It is a triumph of misdirection and fraud by omission.  It may well be the most perfect example ever of how the media functions, not to inform, but to mislead.  The article, entitled "How to Watch the Republican National Convention," gives practical advice about how to find the convention on the internet and television.  Interestingly, it does not mention C-SPAN, which is proving to be a preferred venue for many conservative viewers.  What's really fascinating, though, is what the Times says and does not say about some of the speakers.

There is No "Straight News" Anymore.  [The New York] Times always had a liberal bias in its news pages, but the bias was almost entirely in what was covered and how it was covered. [...] Things have been slipping ever since the 2008 presidential campaign, when for the first time I thought the tone of coverage made it clear which side the reporters were on.  Nevertheless, it was relatively subtle, and even during the Trump-Clinton campaign, with passions obviously very high, the Times was still a world away from NPR, whose reporting seethed with Trump-loathing.  Since 2016, the Times has faced a revolt from its staff regarding neutrality, as they believe that the Times should have gone full resistance against Trump, and its failure to do so bears responsibility for Trump's election.  It's been a downhill spiral ever since, including widely reported internal meetings in which the staff made clear that it doesn't believe in "objective journalism."

New York Times Manipulates FBI Lawyer's Guilty Plea To Hide Real Spygate News.  A New York Times reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for his role perpetrating the Russia collusion hoax was tasked with framing the news that a former top FBI lawyer was to plead guilty to deliberately fabricating evidence against a Donald Trump campaign affiliate targeted in the Russia probe.  The resulting article is a case study in how to write propaganda.  Adam Goldman broke, and cushioned, the news that former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was to plead guilty to fabricating evidence in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application to spy on Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page.  His job was to present the news as something other than an indictment of the FBI's handling of the Russia collusion hoax, to signal to other media that they should move on from the story as quickly as possible, and to hide his own newspaper's multi-year participation in the Russia collusion hoax.  One intelligence source described it as an "insult" to his intelligence and "beyond Pravda," a reference to the official newspaper of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.  Here's how Goldman did it. [...]

Touting Kamala Harris as a moderate is a liberal dose of deception.  The New York Times was quick out of the blocks with the Democratic pitch that Kamala Harris is a "pragmatic moderate."  It's pulling your leg.  Joe Biden's running mate had the most liberal voting record in the Senate last year — surpassing even Bernie Sanders — according to government watchdog GovTrack.  Harris advocates late-term abortion, thinks Catholics are not fit to serve on the Supreme Court, has tried to criminalize climate-change denial and the manufacture of guns, wants to give taxpayer-funded health care to illegal immigrants and, as California's attorney general, wielded power like a callous autocrat.  But, if by pragmatic, the Times means this Barack Obama protegé will be whatever you want her to be, it's correct.  Her record shows her to be a gifted shapeshifter.

New York Times:  Wall Street Backs Joe Biden.  Notably, the article did not mention one of Wall Street's greatest heartburns with Trump — his on-again, off-again popular push to reduce the immigration inflow of foreign workers, consumers, and real estate customers.  Trump's popular lower-immigration promise could reduce the federal government's policy of annually inflating the new labor supply by roughly 20 percent.  If implemented, it would force CEOs to pay higher wages and would pressure investors to transfer some of their new investments from the coastal states to the heartland states.  In the last few months, Trump has zig-zagged on his low-immigration promises as his poll ratings stay under Joe Biden's numbers.  But on June 22, Trump blocked several visa worker pipelines and promised regulations to ensure that CEOs are forced to hire Americans first.

Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential run erased from memory at the New York Times.  Hillary Clinton's loss of the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump was so traumatic for members of the Democrat elite that a form of PTSD appears to have taken hold, relegating all memory of the candidacy itself to amnesia.  That's the only plausible explanation for a stunning column published by one of the paper's stars, Maureen Dowd, and then excerpted in a tweet, completely relegating the Clinton-Kaine ticket to the memory hole.

Hillary Clinton blasts NYT columnist for forgetting she chose a man as her running mate in 2016.  Hillary Clinton leveled a jocular broadside against New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd on Saturday, pointing out that the writer appeared to forget wholesale that Clinton chose a man to run as her vice president during the 2016 election.  Writing on the 1984 vice presidential candidacy of Geraldine Ferraro ahead of Joe Biden's announcement of a female running mate, Dowd in a Saturday column wrote that it had been "36 years since a man and a woman ran together on a Democratic Party ticket."  That claim ignored the 2016 presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton selected Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine as her running mate on the Democratic ticket that year.

Hillary Clinton tells New York Times columnist to lay off 'pot brownies'.  Hillary Clinton told longtime New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd Saturday [8/8/2020] to lay off the pot brownies.  The jab came after a column from Dowd which stated that Biden and his yet to be announced female running mate would be the first Democratic male/female presidential ticket since Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.  The analysis apparently forgot Clinton's run for the White House in 2016 with Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine. [...] The mistake was live for less than an hour before the Times issued a correction.

NY Times panned after op-ed claims it's been '36 years' since a man and woman ran together on Dem ticket.  An opinion piece published in The New York Times on Saturday that incorrectly asserted it has "been 36 years since a man and woman ran together [in a presidential election] on a Democratic Party ticket" was immediately panned on Twitter, prompting The Times to delete its tweet and correct the column.  The article, written by Opinion Columnist Maureen Dowd, is titled "No Wrist Corsages, Please" and asks the question, "Has America grown since 1984, or will the knives still be out for [Joe] Biden's running mate?"

Head of NY Times' 1619 Project backs away from [her] entire premise.  A year ago, The New York Times Magazine, led by staff writer Nikole Hannah Jones, introduced the "1619 Project," a series of racially charged essays asserting America's true founding occurred in August 1619, when the first African slaves were brought to the shores of Virginia, rather than in July 1776.  Jones won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary, became a celebrity journalist and was established at the forefront of the intellectual vanguard that fuels the current Black Lives Matter protests.  Now, however, Jones is backing away from the central premise of her entire project.

New York Times Op-Ed Suggests Scrapping The 2020 Presidential Debates.  As the November election draws near, one thing is becoming clearer by the day.  The media is absolutely terrified by the idea of Joe Biden debating President Trump.  They're afraid he is going to melt down on national television or have a serious senior moment, showing the country he is unfit to lead.  Over the weekend, CNN suggested Biden skip the debates, now the New York Times is joining in.

Ex-New York Times writer Bari Weiss says paper 'living in fear of an online mob'.  Former New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss told Bill Maher that the paper of record is making illiberal editorial decisions that alienate "half of the country" because it is living in constant fear of being the next target in today's cancel culture.  Ms. Weiss made an explosive exit from The Times last month after she published her resignation letter online, alleging that she had been constantly bullied at the publication for her "centrist" political beliefs and that Twitter had become the paper's "ultimate editor."  Appearing Friday on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," Ms. Weiss expanded on her resignation letter and said the last straw was when former Editorial Page editor James Bennet was ousted from the paper in June after he published a controversial op-ed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton.

New York Times Guild mocked for requesting 'sensitivity reads' in its publication process.  The New York Times Guild raised eyebrows on Friday [7/31/2020] for recommending "sensitivity reads" as part of the paper's publication process.  The group of unionized journalists revealed they have met with Times leadership earlier in the month, stressing that the paper needs "a top-to-bottom resetting of priorities to improve the working conditions of our colleagues of color."  The guild urged its employer to diversify its workforce to 24 percent Black employees and over 50 percent people of color by 2025 as an apparent reflection of the New York City population.  They also called for a minimum of job applicants to be people of color and that staff of color should be added to the Standards team as well as investing in mentorship programs.

With silencing of speech, is America entering Orwellian territory?  In too many venues today, the purpose of political speech isn't to question and debate ideas but rather to ensure ideological conformity dictated by a cancel culture elite that punishes those with "contradictory true thoughts" because those thoughts are seen as incompatible with what amounts to an absolute belief in the infallibility of their own dogma.  Bari Weiss, a former opinion page editor of The New York Times, is a case in point.  She sent shock waves across the ideological spectrum when she issued a blistering indictment of the Times' oppressive newsroom in her resignation letter.  Weiss hit the newspaper hard.  "Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions."

Woke beyond words.  The New York Times is having an identity crisis.  Is it a newspaper and the paper of record still, which has its own point of view but prints both some hard news and some other opinions?  Or is it an "opinion journal," a magazine like National Review or the Nation, which has one view and sticks with it while patrolling all parts of its turf?  The indications suggest it's becoming the latter.  The 1619 Project is Exhibit A.  This project suggested the defining moment of the new country was not its Declaration of Independence in 1776 but the arrival on these shores of the first slave ships nearly 160 years earlier.  In short, racism and the enslavement of black people formed the entire basis for the founding of this nation before the colonies even had names.

How To Disprove The 6 Most Outrageous Myths Of The 1619 Project.  Nikole-Hannah Jones, the famed conceptualizer of The New York Times's 1619 Project, is one of the most protected and vaunted leftist personalities in America today.  Such is the fascination with her venture that Oprah Winfrey plans to turn her ideas into a series of films and televised programs.  Telling the story of the American people is always a laudable goal.  But we must counter attempts to indoctrinate citizens into believing that America is a distinctly callous nation.  The 1619 Project's fabrications commit a horrific injustice on American history.  The project perpetuates dangerous myths about the country's founding, and by painting its roots as structurally racist and oppressive, it stokes racial tensions.  Yet despite the project's myriad erroneous claims, they have been widely accepted and even celebrated.  This must be countered.  So, here are some of the most egregious myths this project foists on the country, along with corrections. [...]

The New York Times' Dark History of Slave Ownership.  Starting in 2019, The New York Times has embraced a false narrative about the founding of America entitled the "1619 Project."  Instead of our country beginning with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Times argues it started in 1619 when approximately two dozen slaves were transferred to colonial Virginia.  The 1619 Project is an attempt to look at all American history through the prism of race and slavery.  While embracing the false "alternative history" promoted by many Marxist college professors such as Howard Zinn, the Times proclaims that the American Revolution was all about America's desire to keep their slaves.  They believe when the Founders were defending liberty and freedom, they were secretly doing their best to protect slavery.  James M. McPherson, the dean of Civil War Historians, historian Gordan Wood, and other scholars, have thoroughly debunked this outrageous claim.

Rioters Are Using Racial Discontent to Promote a Marxist Agenda.  [Scroll down]  It has become clear that it matters little to the Marxists and anarchists what a statue or monument represents.  All that matters to them is that it represents America's past, and therefore, it must come down.  It's also clear that they're not interested in resolving race issues.  Destroying monuments, burning churches, and looting businesses do nothing to bring attention to racism or to advance police reforms.  They're simply using racial discontent to forward their Marxist agenda.  Meanwhile, spineless politicians who agree with the rioters' agenda, if not their tactics, have told police to stand down.  After rioters in Baltimore recently tore down a statue of Christopher Columbus and tossed it into the harbor, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Baltimore native, blithely excused the behavior, telling reporters, "People will do what they do."  Many of these mal-educated rioters and politicians believe everything about America's past is based in racism.  They are fed this lie in schools and by institutions like The New York Times, which claims with great historical illiteracy in its 1619 Project that this country wasn't founded based on humanity's highest ideals in 1776, but rather in 1619, when the first slaves were brought to the New World.  The Times even absurdly asserts that the Revolutionary War wasn't fought to gain our independence but to keep slavery alive in the colonies.

New FBI Notes Re-Debunk Major NYT Story, Highlight Media Collusion To Produce Russia Hoax.  The FBI official who ran the investigation into whether the Donald Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election privately admitted in newly released notes that a major New York Times article was riddled with lies, falsehoods, and "misleading and inaccurate" information.  The February 2017 story was penned by three reporters who would win Pulitzers for their reporting on Trump's supposed collusion with Russia.  The FBI's public posture and leaks at the time supported the now-discredited conspiracy theory that led to the formation of a special counsel probe to investigate the Trump campaign and undermine his administration.

Tucker Carlson's Fans Give the New York Times Doxing Team a Dose of Their Own Medicine.  On his Monday night [7/20/2020] show, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson revealed that the New York Times had assigned a "news" team, and I use the term "news" sarcastically because a) it involves the New York Times which is incapable of reporting actual news these days and b) the mission they were engaged on, to essentially "dox" him.  That is, they intended to do a story in which they revealed Carlson's home address. [...] There is no news value in publicizing Carlson's home address other than to try to intimidate him and to put his family at risk of injury or death at the hands of an Antifa mob.  But that is where we are.  Happily, this episode did not turn out the way The New York Times had scripted it.  Not only did The New York Times back off, they got a taste of their own medicine.

The New York Times' stunningly false and deceptive hit piece to preserve climate alarmism.  Joe Stiglitz wrote a lengthy review of my new book for The New York Times.  It is overwhelmingly negative, but also overwhelmingly false.  The piece consists of Stiglitz enumerating four specific and compounding mistakes that I apparently make, and then another six separate observations.  I will go through all of them below, starting with the four mistakes.  My first mistake is that I draw "heavily on the work of William Nordhaus of Yale University, who came up with an estimate of the economic cost to limiting climate change to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels."  Instead the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, which Stiglitz co-authored, showed that 1.5°C to 2°C, goals "could be achieved at a moderate price."  This is triply wrong.  I don't rely on Nordhaus for the cost on limiting temperature rise for 1.5°C to 2°C, simply because Nordhaus does not make that estimate. [...]

New York Times-Hyped Korean Report Actually Shows Kids Are Not Spreading Coronavirus.  In an incredible redux of when they hyped the Christian Drosten fake paper claiming children were highly infectious — when his math actually showed the opposite — the New York Times and Chicago Tribune pushed screaming headlines that a new Korean government report proves children ages 10 to 19 are highly infectious.  The Korean government report, based on data from March and ignoring all newer research, does make that claim, with qualifications, in its narrative summary.  Its actual math, however, shows exactly the opposite.  Do the elite newspapers even bother to consult anyone numerate?  As Professor Francois Balloux of the University of Lausanne Genetics Institute immediately replied, the New York Times writer completely misunderstood the report.

Tucker Carlson Was About to Be Doxxed By The New York Times, And Here's Why.  On Monday evening, Tucker Carlson closed out his show with a monologue on the New York Times.  The paper, it appears, has been working on a story about Carlson's house in Washington D.C. being targeted by activists and vandalized.  Things got so intense during that time that he and his family had to move.  The Times, it seems, has found out where he moved to and is working on a story about his new home and the drama that led him there.  In this story, Carlson alleges, they are planning to publish his home address.  Here's the monologue.  [Video clip]

The Insidious Impact of Twitter.  Twitter claims to be a modern-day public square wherein those without a forum can discuss, debate and share their opinions and views.  However, it has evolved into a primary source of fabricated stories and copy farming for the media, the principal driver of policy for the political parties, particularly the Democrats, and a vehicle to intimidate businesses and major corporations. [...] It is not just a reliance on Twitter for stories.  Editors and publishers oftentimes react to the volume of tweets directed at their news outlet to determine what stories to publish, whether to rebuke a reporter or commentator or to tint a story with a certain, in virtually all cases left-wing, point of view.  Falsely believing that Twitter is representative of not only their readership but the viewpoint of a vast swath of the citizenry, they react accordingly.  It is not the accuracy or fairness of their reporting that is paramount but clicks on the internet and the number of positive Twitter comments and likes.

Media told America FBI had proof of collusion as bureau was realizing it had nothing.  Despite what The New York Times and Washington Post were loudly reporting in early 2017, the FBI had failed to find any evidence of Trump-Russia "collusion" — and indeed had found that the central source of those claims was a joke.  This is a key takeaway from the Justice Department's latest release of documents from the FBI's investigation.  One shocker is the summary of the long FBI interview that January with the "Primary Subsource" for the infamous Steele dossier — indeed, about the only source.

New York Times Stands By Report Of Trump-Russia Connections Despite FBI Memo Debunking It.  The New York Times is standing by a February 2017 report alleging that Trump associates were in communication with Russian intelligence officers, even after the release of an internal FBI memo that identified numerous inaccuracies in the story.  "We stand by our reporting," New York Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy told her own paper for its report on the newly released documents.  Attorney General William Barr declassified two documents this week related to the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign.  One released Friday [7/17/2020] is a 57-page memo of interviews that dossier author Christopher Steele's primary source conducted with the FBI in January 2017.

Tucker Carlson:  NY Times Threatening to Reveal Where I Live.  At the close of his program on Monday night [7/20/2020], Fox News Channel's Tucker Carlson revealed The New York Times had a story in the work that would divulge the location of his home, which could potentially put him and his family in harm's way.

Tucker Carlson denounces The New York Times for threatening his family's safety and Times responds.  It's a line so hackneyed that everyone can recite it.  The mob goon goes into a local business to force the owner to pay protection money.  The goon looks around and says, "Nice little business ya' got here.  Shame if something happened to it."  That's how the mafia operates:  It threatens people into compliance.  And that's how the New York Times is trying to silence Tucker Carlson — by threatening his family's safety so that he'll stop sharing facts and intelligent conservative analysis with the American people.

The family that owns The New York Times were slaveholders:  Goodwin.  It's far worse than I thought.  In addition to the many links between the family that owns The New York Times and the Civil War Confederacy, new evidence shows that members of the extended family were slaveholders.  Last Sunday, I recounted that Bertha Levy Ochs, the mother of Times patriarch Adolph S. Ochs, supported the South and slavery.  She was caught smuggling medicine to Confederates in a baby carriage and her brother Oscar joined the rebel army.  I have since learned that, according to a family history, Oscar Levy fought alongside two Mississippi cousins, meaning at least three members of Bertha's family fought for secession.

Does the New York Times Really Need to Make a Trebek Interview About Trump?  The answer, obviously, is yes.  The New York Times became profitable by slamming Trump and its coverage is put out in the expectation that every story must have a tribal Orange Man Bad angle.  Even an interview with a seriously ill game show host about his memoir.  Here's how the New York Times sells it. [...]

Paul Krugman says polls show it's 'impossible' for Trump to win, but just in case, here's how he cheated.  Liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman set off a wave of social media mockery and outrage for an unhinged thread on and election conspiracy theory.  In a long, mind-numbing thread posted on Twitter, Krugman announced that President Donald Trump can not possibly win reelection "legitimately" and will therefore resort to trying to steal it.  And while Democrats including former Vice President Joe Biden and failed 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton have been dropping commentary about Trump not accepting a loss in November, Krugman went on to theorize how it will unfold.  "And if you don't think that can happen, you're not paying attention," the Nobel-prize winning economist wrote as he kicked off his Twitter rant.

New Russia probe memos expose massive errors in NYT anti-Trump story, Steele dossier.  The first document is a 57-page summary of a three-day FBI interview in January 2017 with Christopher Steele's 'primary sub-source' in the anti-Trump allegations and 'dossier.' Document number two takes apart a New York Times article written by Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo.

The New York Times Has Been Ridiculous for a Long Time.  The much discussed resignation letter from New York Times op-ed editor Bari Weiss was written in the metaphorical equivalent of Braille.  It allowed even the blind to see what the rest of us have known for years:  the Times is a joke.  Writes Weiss of the Times newsroom, "Truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else."  Indeed, the only difference between the Times and the old Soviet Pravda is that Pravda readers knew they were being lied to.

NY Times reveals DNC's 2020 mission.  [Scroll down]  Behind the veil, we see the Democrats are not running for office to serve you.  The end-zone of their 2020 campaign is to embarrass the President and gerrymander congressional districts.  The swamp creatures at the DNC seek only to maintain and expand their power.  They do not care about your individual rights, and they certainly are not concerned with racial equality, nor have they ever been, or any other real-world issues.

Reaction to NYT resignation shows the press hates conservatives.  Because Bari Weiss's resignation as an opinions editor at the New York Times was too accurate in exposing the hypocrisy of the Times, newspaper management could not deny her allegations, So it fell upon the Poynter Institute — an apologist for the liberal press — to attack Weiss.  She is a Jewish conservative from Pittsburgh.  Her bat mitzvah was at the Tree of Life Synagogue, where a gunman later shot and killed 11 worshipers attending services on the Sabbath. [...] Forget conservative, you cannot be a centrist at an American newspaper any more.  Rioters and looters must be called peaceful protesters, black must be capitalized but not white, and any statement of fact by President Donald John Trump must be couched as "without evidence."  Her letter was lengthy and spirited.  My guess is Weiss will sue the Times.  She's 36 and has the time.

Fake news!
Did the [New York] Times Print an Urban Legend?  This week, the Times brings us a story from Methodist Hospital in San Antonio.  The headline is:  "Texas Hospital Says Man, 30, Died After Attending a 'Covid Party,'" and what we get is a story with one source. [...] It's a morality tale, really.  Don't believe it's a hoax!  Or that you aren't at risk because you are young!  Maybe don't live in a bad red state where they aren't taking COVID seriously, or go to these parties.  The only thing missing was a MAGA hat and a rueful dying admission, "I shouldn't have trusted Trump or my Republican governor!"  But, as I read the story originally earlier this week, I realized the details didn't quite add up.  If you believe COVID is a hoax, why would you attend a "Covid Party?"  And, in a pandemic for an airborne disease, aren't all parties potentially COVID parties?  Chicken pox parties were aimed at spreading a local infection purposely to younger children who have milder cases.  People don't hold them because they are skeptics.  Something doesn't make sense.

The Harper's Letter, Bari Weiss And Tucker Carlson:  Why Are We Still Talking About 'Cancel Culture?'.  After a blissful period of relative silence, "cancel culture" discourse has returned with a vengeance.  The old debate was reignited by a now-infamous letter published by Harper's Magazine, which proposed that professors, editors, writers and others, are in danger of being silenced by ... somebody.  The most striking thing about the letter is its hazy ambiguity; the letter doesn't cite a single specific example, only vague allusions to events that the reader may, or may not, be aware of.  It doesn't say who, exactly, is being silenced, or which opinions are being silenced.  It doesn't say who is doing the silencing, but implies that social media might have something to do with it.  Maybe. [...] Responses to the letter ranged from enthusiasm, to condemnation, to outright contempt — after all, many of the people who signed the letter hold positions of tremendous power and influence, their opinions regularly broadcasted around the world.

The Conspicuous Fatuousness of the Harper's Letter.  The recent letter "on justice and open debate," published in Harper's magazine on July 7 and signed by some 150 self-nominated intellectuals, will stand as one of the conspicuous fatuities of this intense American election year.  The intellectuals begin with the portentous assertion that "Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial."  It is then explained that forces that have all long demanded "police reform and greater equality and inclusion across our society," goals whose championship these signatories claim throughout for themselves, are now being threatened.  They have "intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity."  Morons incapable of understanding a single sentence written by any of the signatories could heartily agree with that proposition, and a great many people who do not claim to be intellectual have been doing their best to express that concern for quite some time.

Is Bari Weiss the New York Times' James Damore?  Insider Spills the Beans on Stifling Cancel Culture.  On Tuesday [7/14/2020], Bari Weiss, a centrist staff editor for The New York Times, resigned in protest over the paper's "new McCarthyism" and cancel culture atmosphere.  She described getting harassed as a "Nazi" and a "racist" for daring to question the stifling leftist orthodoxy.  She wrote to management, "I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do," that is to bring in "voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages:  first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home."  Weiss described a climate of fear and self-censorship at America's newspaper of record.  "Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery," she wrote, lamenting that "intellectual curiosity — let alone risk-taking — is now a liability at The Times. ... And so self-censorship has become the norm."

Where Did 'Cancel Culture' Begin?  Bari Weiss was not the first victim of "cancel culture," and certainly she will not be the last, but her exit from the opinion pages of the New York Times has finally focused national attention on the steadily increasing toll of intellectual intolerance among the soi-disant progressive elite.  Ms. Weiss's public resignation letter, which described "constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views," with her superiors at the newspaper evidently condoning this harassment, exposed a cult-like climate of ideological conformity at the Times.  Because she is rather young — she was born in 1984, the year Ronald Reagan was reelected — Ms. Weiss is not old enough to remember when liberals posed as champions of free speech and open debate.  Some of us are old enough to remember, however, and have a duty to teach young people how it was that liberalism slowly succumbed to totalitarianism.

Tom Cotton's New York Times op-ed hysteria reveals shocking cowardice at the paper.  This week, The New York Times ran an op-ed by United States Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., urging that the military be used to quell the fires, looting and violence gripping the nation's cities.  A Morning Consult poll from this week found that 58 percent of registered voters agreed with that idea.  But apparently it's an opinion forbidden in the Times.  Black staffers at the paper said the column made them feel unsafe.  The day after it ran, the paper [...] apologized for it.

Why Bari Weiss' New York Times resignation has rocked the media world.  Nothing stings like criticism from an insider.  Bari Weiss, a New York Times op-ed editor whose sin was not being a lockstep left-winger, has delivered a scathing indictment of the paper's out-of-control liberal culture — in the form of a resignation letter.  Her open letter to Publisher A.G. Sulzberger might sound overheated coming from an outside critic.  But Weiss, a controversial writer hired from the Wall Street Journal opinion section, says some colleagues have privately complained to her of a "new McCarthyism" at the Times.

Bari Weiss Resigns From the Times, 'A Distant Galaxy' Far From America.  [Scroll down]  Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times.  But Twitter has become its ultimate editor.  As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space.  Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.  I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history.  Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.  My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views.  They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I'm "writing about the Jews again."  Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.  My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in.  There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly "inclusive" one, while others post ax emojis next to my name.  Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action.  They never are.  There are terms for all of this:  unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge.

Death of a Nation.  "No whites in the Bronx," screams an intimidating 6-foot-6 black BLM leader by the name of Hawk Newsome.  "We don't want white people in the Bronx, otherwise we'll burn the place down."  This on a Fox TV interview ignored by the [New York] Times, of course, which also ignores the 25% rise in murders and 205 shootings last weekend in New York alone.  In response, Mayor de Blasio cuts the police budget by a billion and a half to appease the mob.  Mostly white thugs scream, spit, and insult the police in downtown New York while TV networks give them the publicity they crave.

Why New York Times praises 'cancel culture' but skips over its own racist history.  [Scroll down]  Four years after it abandoned its traditional standards of fairness to try to defeat Donald Trump, the paper is now fixated on rewriting the story of America.  The drive-by attack on the Rushmore presidents was part of its cancel-culture agenda.  Yet the Times has never applied to its own history the standards it uses to demonize others.  If it did, reporters there would learn that the Ochs-Sulzberger family that has owned and run the paper for 125 years has a "complicated legacy" of its own.  That legacy includes Confederates in the closet — men and at least one woman who supported the South and slavery during the Civil War.  In fact, Times patriarch Adolph S. Ochs contributed money to the very Stone Mountain project and other Confederate memorials the Times now finds so objectionable.

The Authoritarian Left Fears a Level Playing Field.  New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's proposal that Joe Biden shouldn't debate President Donald Trump unless "a real-time fact-checking team" is part of the mix is an ironic illustration of the closed-mindedness of the left.  Why would Friedman want a candidate who is eager to contrast his views with Trump's to impose conditions that would make a debate less likely, unless, of course, Friedman realizes that the failing Biden would be particularly disastrous in a debate?  That seems to be the case here, as Friedman's other condition — that Trump agree to release his tax returns for 2016 through 2018 — is just as unrealistic but not for the reason Democrats would have you believe.  It's not that they think Trump is concealing some sinister criminality but that the returns would be a gold mine for ginning up class resentment against the mega-wealthy Trump and fodder to smear him with innuendo.

A Nightmare Campaign of Outright Idiocy.  As we get into high summer, there must be a very large number of Americans now actively considering whether the country is going mad. [...] In the absence of a feasible presidential nominee, the Democratic campaign is being conducted by the national political media with almost the sole exception of Fox News and its affiliates, the Wall Street Journal and New York Post.  The New York Times has at least declared that its objective is not simply to report even-handedly but to oppose the Trump Administration.  All the others do the same without acknowledging it.  This is the general and entirely voluntary immolation of the professional integrity of the American news media.  The majority of Americans recognize and respond in polls that they think the media is untrustworthy.

Press Now Plumbs Its Own Depths Of Depravity.  [T]his is the first presidency, at least in living memory, in which almost the entire national political press have completely and constantly misreported the president's public remarks and policies.  The former newspaper of record, the New York Times, has been commendably forthright in declaring that it was opposing rather than just reporting on the Trump administration.  Mr. Trump delivered the greatest speech of his career on Friday evening at Mount Rushmore, devoted altogether to celebrating the idealism of the American Revolution, the suppression of the Confederate insurrection in the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, and the enactment — albeit tardily — of the Jeffersonian promise, renewed by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, that all men are created equal.  The Washington Post editorial board declared that he had reached "new depths of depravity."  This is an outrage worthy only of the press of a totalitarian country describing an opposition figure.

The Media and 2020: Deja vu All Over Again.  As Michael Barboro wrote in the [New York] Times on November 9th, 2016, the morning of Trump's historic victory, "It's 3:30 a.m. in the newsroom, and we're in a state of shock.  Donald J. Trump, against what we thought were all odds, collected swing state after swing state after swing state.  Hillary Clinton has conceded the race.  Mr. Trump has won.  How did he pull off such a stunning victory?  How did almost no one — not the pundits, not the pollsters, not us in the media — see it coming?"  Well, here we are, nearly four years later, and the media and the so-called "intellectual elites" have learned absolutely nothing from 2016.  They have not even attempted to try to answer the most fundamental questions that Barboro posed.  Instead they have fully committed themselves to their ritualistic practice of hatred and antagonism towards the president and his supporters in an attempt to influence the outcome of the 2020 election.

The New Moralists Take Over Journalism.  The New York Times op-ed page has featured contributions from Vladimir Putin, pedophiles, and the Taliban without a peep from the paper's staff, so it might seem odd that an opinion piece by Senator Tom Cotton was the one that would spur a professional revolt.  But Cotton's op-ed argued for using the American military to help local police quell violent unrest in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.  In the eyes of hundreds of Times staffers, that view — shared, according to one poll, by 3 in 5 Americans — could not be permitted.

NYT Finds Themselves in a Blunder Over Their Botched Russia-Taliban Story.  Members of the American intelligence community have concluded that members of the Russian intelligence unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants if they successfully killed members of the American military, the New York Times reported.  The problem, however, is that almost everyone involved in this story says it isn't true.  The White House, Russia and even the Taliban have said the Times' story is false.

Countering the Lethal Narrative of the 1619 Project With Robert Woodson and Kenneth Blackwell.  According to The New York Times, the true founding of the United States of America did not begin with the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Rather, the Times informs us, the founding occurred in 1619, the year 20 or so African slaves were brought to Jamestown, Virginia.  The American Revolution occurred, the Times says, primarily because of Americans' desire to keep their slaves.  Consequently, "America is irrevocably and forever rooted in injustice and racism."  My guests Robert Woodson and Kenneth Blackwell emphatically do not agree, and Woodson has launched the 1776 Project to refute the Times' claims in its 1619 Project.

New York Times Embraces Partisan 'Truth' Over Objectivity.  The New York Times continues to shake up its editorial page after the resignation of James Bennet, the opinion editor who angered many of his former colleagues by publishing an op-ed written by a Republican.  In addition to hiring Charlotte Greensit, former managing editor at the Intercept, the Times announced the promotion of Talmon Smith to the position of staff editor.  Smith, who has previously written for Salon, the New Republic, and HuffPost, has a history of what some would describe as blatant partisan bias on social media.  "All I want for Christmas is impeachment," Smith wrote in November 2017.  That was before he started working for the Times, which maintains a strict social media policy under which its journalists "must not express partisan opinions [or] promote political views."

The New York Times lays off 68 people, mostly in advertising.  The New York Times has laid off 68 people, mostly on its advertising team, the company said in an internal memo to employees Tuesday, obtained by Axios.  There were no layoffs in the company's newsroom or opinion sections.

The Oldest Hatred Rears Its Head.  It's been more than two days now since the New York Times opinion page, policed closely by the paper's readers and employees for evidence of bigotry, published an op-ed that approvingly cites the black anti-Semitism explained away in a 50-year-old essay by the writer James Baldwin.  We've been waiting for the reference to spark some sort of backlash and outcry from the paper's reporters, for the Twitter hashtag decrying the insensitivity, for the internal finger pointing about who dropped the ball and allowed the publication of a piece that could make American Jews feel so unsafe.  Are you surprised to hear it never came?

One newsroom in particular.
Campus War on Free Speech Reaches US Newsrooms.  Two weeks ago, if you'd asked what American institution was most intolerant of dissenting opinion, preoccupied with promoting radical ideology, and prone to erupting into disruptive temper tantrums, the answer would have been easy.  Now it's not so clear — the hysteria on college campuses has spread to America's newsrooms.  Over the weekend, the opinion page editor of The New York Times, James Bennet, resigned under pressure, and another opinion editor, Jim Dao, was reassigned to the newsroom.  Their offense was soliciting and publishing an op-ed by GOP Sen. Tom Cotton last week on invoking the Insurrection Act.  After recent protests in over 700 cities, polling showed a majority of Americans, including nearly 4 in 10 African Americans, were amenable to using the military to restore order.  Whatever you think of the need for the Insurrection Act, which was last used during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992, Cotton's op-ed had undeniable news value.  That didn't matter to the more than 1,000 employees of the Times who signed a letter objecting to the Cotton op-ed.

A tale of two Americas.  Last week, The New York Times, in perhaps the single most appalling bout of journalistic malpractice this century, reneged upon an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton about a dusty piece of federal legislation, the Insurrection Act of 1807, that President Donald Trump had discussed a couple days prior.  The headline read, "Send in the Troops."  In arguing to restore law and order in America amidst a once-a-generation anarchic breakdown, Cotton — a double Harvard alum, former U.S. Court of Appeals law clerk and Bronze Star Army combat veteran — spoke for a sizable majority of his fellow American citizens, according to reputable opinion polling.  For the grievous sin of permitting a U.S. senator's informed, erudite opinion to grace its opinion page, hundreds of staffers of the Gray Lady threatened a "virtual walkout."  The echo chamber that is left-wing Twitter went positively haywire, deeming The Times complicit in fomenting racial strife and/or outright bigotry.  In cowardly fashion, The Times publicly threw under the bus its own junior editor who had edited the piece before its editorial page editor "resigned" in disgrace.  Again, all The Times did was publish a well-informed argument by a U.S. senator who spoke on behalf of a majority of Americans.

NYT Publishes Op-Ed 'Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police', Author Is Terrorist Supporter, Soros Fellow.  On Friday night [6/12/2020], The New York Times published an editorial entitled, "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police.  Because reform won't happen."  It was written by Mariame Kaba whom The Times says is an "organizer against criminalization."  That's not the only thing she is.  According to independent journalist Jordan Schachtel, she is both a terrorist supporter and a radical leftist.  He tweeted a copy of the editorial with the caption, "Abolish the Police, brought to you by George Soros and the gang."

New York Times Publishes Op-Ed Of Apparent Terrorist Supporter Who Calls For Abolishing 'Prisons And Police'.  The New York Times has published an op-ed from a far-left activist that was a fellow at George Soros' Open Society Foundation and who is an apparent terrorist supporter, which comes just a week after the newspaper said that it should not have published an op-ed from Republican Senator Tom Cotton (AR) that espoused a political view that the majority of Americans support.  The op-ed was written by Mariame Kaba, who, according to a website that is in her name and a blog that she purportedly runs, is an apparent supporter of Assata Shakur — who is on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list.

Media and the leftist code.  Go ahead and make it official:  Senator Tom Cotton is the 2024 Republican presidential frontrunner.  In driving the staff of the New York Times positively batty (including woke hostage victim and executive editor Dean Baquet), Cotton singlehandedly threw a wrench into the workings of America's premier liberal institution.  Not since making rubble bounce in Baghdad as a captain in the 101st Airborne has Cotton kindled so much chaos in the heart of an enemy.  In using his senatorial status and martial background to endorse the deployment of the National Guard to quell citywide rioting, Cotton effected a veritable coup, toppling James Bennet, the editorial page editor.  The Gray Lady's cosseted staff turned on management, incensed by the fascistic concept of entertaining contrary beliefs.  Like the Arab Spring, the newsroom-led uprising sparked subversive rebellion in sister publications.

The Media Suppresses Anyone Who Thinks Like You.  Tom Cotton was invited to write a New York Times op-ed that expressed the sensible position that if local governments could not (or, as seems plausible) would not prevent mass leftist violence, the president should consider the use of active-duty military forces under the Insurrection Act.  Polls said that 58 percent of folks agreed with this position, and it is hardly unprecedented in American history.  I was personally part of the federal Army force that suppressed the Los Angeles riots in 1992.  But the Red Guard Kids who apparently now run the NYT collectively wet themselves in horror and declared a position held by six in 10 Americans completely out of the bounds of acceptable discourse.  The sissy management of that garbage fish wrap rolled over and submitted.  And the Lil' Maoists delighted in their total victory.  The alleged Newspaper of Record not only will not, but cannot, dare mention what a huge percentage of Americans believe.

As the New York Times Goes, So Goes Biden.  he resignation of the editorial page editor of the New York Times for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton calling for the military to quell the riots marks the completion of the long, slow transformation of the Democratic Party.  Whatever face the Democrats present to the world, their woke left fringe is now in charge.  That fringe has not only abandoned core American principles like freedom of speech and due process, it has reimagined American history as a story of "systemic" oppression and demanded radical transformation along identitarian — socialist lines.  If the New York Times can't stand up to Nikole Hannah-Jones, Pulitzer Prize-winning creator of its odious and just-plain-false 1619 Project, how will Joe Biden stand up to a woke New York Times?

The thought police are seizing control of America's liberal newsrooms.  Debate is no longer allowed in America's liberal newsrooms, and the left has the scalps to prove it.  James Bennet is out as New York Times editorial-page editor; Stan Wischnowski, as top editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer.  Neither man was allowed to stay even after humiliating themselves by admitting their thought crimes and hailing the virtues of the lynch mobs.  Bennet's sin:  His paper published an opinion column by a US senator arguing for deploying the military if riots got out of control.  "This puts Black @nytimes staff in danger," numerous Times employees tweeted, without explanation, with some (virtually) walking off the job in protest.  Letting Sen. Tom Cotton write what a majority of Americans believe is dangerous?  Pure idiocy.  Especially when the paper's run pieces by a host of tyrants, without complaints.

Vote for Trump?  These Republican Leaders Aren't on the Bandwagon.  Former President George W. Bush and Senator Mitt Romney won't support Mr. Trump's re-election, and other G.O.P. officials are mulling a vote for Joe Biden.

Bush Aide:  NYT Fabricated Trump Story.  All presidents have critics within their own parties.  Some Republicans, for example, lament President Trump's occasional lack of decorum.  More than a few GOP luminaries fretted over former President George W. Bush's frequent solecisms.  Yet it's rare for a prominent politician to publicly renounce a sitting president of his own party during an election year.  Consequently, it was surprising to see a Saturday [6/6/2020] New York Times story titled, "Vote for Trump?  These Republican Leaders Aren't on the Bandwagon."  Nor was one's initial skepticism quelled when the article's author claimed, "Former President George W. Bush won't support the re-election of Mr. Trump," with no supporting quote from Bush.  The story's credibility collapsed completely when it attributed this revelation about Bush's intentions, as well as those of his brother Jeb, to unnamed sources "familiar with their thinking."  Sure enough, when the Bush people got wind of this tale, they denounced it as just another manifestation of the Gray Lady's penchant for fiction.

The Guard Is Always Changing at the New York Times.  Author and presidential historian Tevi Troy reminds me of a quote from the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in a 1970 memo to President Nixon about the changing nature of the news media in that era, particularly at the New York Times under Abe Rosenthal:  "Every time one of [the veterans] goes and is replaced by a new recruit from the Harvard Crimson or whatever, the Maoist faction on West 43d Street gets one more vote.  No one else applies."

Can this American version of the French Revolution bring change?  [Scroll down]  Some journalists at the New York Times denounced their publication for running a column written by Republican Senator Tom Cotton on the use of military troops to address the rioting.  Despite the public outcry and calls for editors to resign over the issue, the New York Times publisher gave a strong defense of using the opinion section to hear all sides of every national controversy.  It was a high point in journalistic ethics that did not last.  New York Times editors soon confessed they had sinned in allowing Cotton to express his conservative perspective in the opinion section.  They swiftly promised an investigation and a reduction in the number of columns.

NYT Editorial Page Editor Resigns After Blowback For Cotton Op-Ed.  On Sunday, The New York Times announced that their editorial page editor has resigned after blowback erupted because the paper published an op-ed by Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton arguing that the government should "send in the troops" as a last resort in response to the wave of riots and looting that swept the country.  The Times had already issued a statement on Thursday saying that they should have never published Cotton's op-ed.  "We've examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication," a spokesperson said.  "This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards.  As a result, we're planning to examine both short-term and long-term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish."

Leftists are in firm control at The New York Times.  In a lecture at Hillsdale College last year about the erosion of standards at The New York Times, I borrowed a memorable exchange from Ernest Hemingway's novel "The Sun Also Rises."  "How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asks.  "Two ways," Mike responds.  "Gradually and then suddenly."  For the Times, "suddenly" has arrived.  Its standards are now bankrupt.  The revolt of the paper's newsroom over the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton's op-ed and the craven surrender of management marks the end of any semblance of basic fairness.  The gradual metamorphosis of the Times from a great newspaper into a leftist propaganda sheet is complete.  Stick a fork in the Gray Lady.

Krugman goes bonkers again, with conspiracy theories about Trump's record on jobs.  Paul Krugman is going bonkers.  Again.  After making a nutty statement about President Trump somehow cooking the books on job creation, he was forced to apologize for it, not because it was utterly invented out of whole cloth, the product of a fevered mind steeped in Trump Derangement Syndrome, but because it made him look stupid.

The Inside Story of the Tom Cotton Op-Ed that Rocked the New York Times.  When a newspaper publishes a bombshell op-ed, it doesn't want the chief casualty to be its own credibility.  But this is what has happened with the New York Times and the op-ed it ran by Arkansas senator Tom Cotton this week advocating using federal troops to quell riots.  The piece caused a revolt among woke Times staffers, and now the paper has issued a statement saying that the process was rushed and that it's going to expand its fact-checking operation in response.  The paper hasn't yet identified any factual errors in the piece, and its statement seems a transparent way to try to climb down from its decision to publish the piece to appease its staff and readers.

What Is Fact-Checking without Facts?  "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  How quaint seems this trenchant observation by the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the greatest progressive thinkers of the 20th century's latter half.  Not because of the patriarchal pronoun presumptions of the aging white cis male; I refer to Senator Moynihan's very assumption that there are facts.  That there is an objective reality on which we can all agree, even if we disagree about what it means.  And equally important, that there is a way of getting to facts, a common language of reason that enables us to investigate, communicate, and explicate.  Senator Moynihan would not recognize that paragon of 21st century progressivism, the New York Times.

NYT Writer Describes 'Civil War' Raging Within Company, Says One Side Believes In 'Safetyism' Over 'Free Speech'.  The New York Times staff is apparently in the midst of a "civil war" between two groups, with one side pushing for the idea of "safetyism," NYT reporter Bari Weiss tweeted following public clashes over an op-ed published Wednesday [6/3/2020]. NYT employees openly rebelled against the publication's decision to publish Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton's op-ed calling for the U.S. military to be deployed in an effort to "restore order" amid nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd.  During the debacle, Weiss, a staff editor and NYT opinion writer, tweeted about the two sides currently at war within the company.  Weiss named them as "The Old Guard" and "The New Guard."

NYT Editor Admits Paper Pitched Op-Ed To Tom Cotton!  During an internal Town Hall meeting at the New York Times, opinion editor James Bennett issued a mea culpa, telling staffers that he let his section be "stampeded by the news cycle," according to the Daily Beast.  Most interestingly, however, Bennett admitted that Cotton had been invited to write the opinion piece!

To smear Trump, New York Times pivots from Russiagate hoax to racism.  We live in the age of narratives, where propagandized storylines, not facts, matter.  Leaked remarks from a recent town hall meeting that The New York Times hosted for its employees show how a mainstream newsroom today transitions from one anti-Trump smear to the next.  When will the fake news end?  The event in question was conducted by Dean Baquet, Times executive editor, who was grilled by his staff over the newspaper's coverage of President Trump.  The leaked transcript is a fascinating document, showing a newsroom in disarray, with staff writers champing at the bit to call the president a racist at every turn.  Baquet's remarks make one thing very clear:  The Times is deliberately emphasizing Trump's "racism" in response to the failed Russia collusion witch hunt.

Fleeing The Collapsing Imperium.  Everybody knows that the [New York] Times is a liberal paper, but this newsroom coup is turning it into an illiberal left-wing paper.  This has been coming for a long time, in both journalism and academia.  Some years ago, I published a comment by a conservative academic who said that he is the lone conservative in his department, but he feels safe under the leadership of the old-fashioned liberal who is department head.  But when that Boomer generation retires, it's over.  The Millennials and Gen Zers behind them are Jacobins, he said.  The Jacobin generation is taking over the Times now.  They will also be consolidating power within other media institutions, under the guise of racial justice.  Anyone who is not willing to swear allegiance to the Social Justice left has no future.

America in the 21st Century: 20 Long Years of Constant Brainwashing.  On Twitter last night [6/3/2020], every reporter for the New York Times threw a fit because the Times' own op/ed page ran a piece written by a Republican U.S. Senator, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who advocates that the President should call in the military to help restore order in the cities run by Democrat mayors who refuse to let the police do their jobs.  This is the same New York Times, mind you, that ran an op/ed piece by Adolph Hitler in June, 1941, even as Hitler was loading millions of Jews onto cattle cars and send them off to their deaths.  None of the paper's reporters, then or now, were horrified by that.  The title of Hitler's op/ed — The Art of Propaganda — was obviously taken to heart by the New York Times editors and apparently remains the subject of Chapter 1 in the Times' editorial handbook.  In February of this year, the Times ran an op/ed by the leader of the Taliban, a Muslim sect in Afghanistan that kills homosexuals and treats women like we treat rats.  In 2013, it ran an op/ed by Vladimir Putin, who is supposed to be the devil incarnate today, according to the current dogma.

NYT Issues An Apology For Publishing Tom Cotton's Op-Ed.  On Thursday [6/4/2020], after staffers at The New York Times had rebelled because the Times had published an opinion piece by Senator Tom Cotton in which he suggested using the U.S. military to quell the violence rampaging across the nation, the Times meekly offered an apology, adding it would publish less op-eds in the future.  The Times stated:  "We've examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication.  This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards.  As a result, we're planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact checking operation and reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish."

NY Times writers in 'open revolt' after publication of Cotton op-ed, claim black staff 'in danger'.  The New York Times is facing backlash, some of it from the paper's own reporters, after publishing an op-ed in which Sen, Tom Cotton, R-Ark., called on the federal government to send in the military to quell violent uprisings over George Floyd's death.  "NYT reporters in a rare open revolt over the opinion side running Tom Cotton's op-ed calling to deploy the military to 'restore order,'" tweeted Politico's Alex Thompson, who cited posts from writers Taylor Lorenz, Caity Weaver, Sheera Frankel, and Jacey Fortin.  In a series of tweets on Wednesday, op-ed writer Roxane Gay attacked the decision to publish Cotton's piece and also argued it put the newspaper's staff in danger.

How to destroy civilization.  The violence that is exploding across the country now has almost nothing to doing with the killing of George Floyd, a black man, by Derek Chauvin, a white policeman.  That was merely the catalyst for a process that has deep roots in American culture.  The moral is:  ideas matter.  For decades now, our colleges and universities (and increasingly our grades schools) have been preaching a gospel of cultural self-hatred.  America, according to this gospel, is evil.  The country is inextricably racist and beholden to an irredeemably exploitative economic system.  The latest retelling of this creation myth is the Pulitzer-Prize-winning '1619 Project' whose fundamental message is that America was started as a 'slavocracy.'  According to this malignant fantasy, the Revolutionary War was fought primarily 'to protect the institution of slavery.'  At last count, elements of this disgusting bit of historical revisionism were being adopted in the curricula of some 4,000 school districts.

The Media's Riot Defenders.  As Jews were beaten and killed in the 1991 Crown Heights riots, New York Times columnist and erstwhile executive editor A.M. Rosenthal penned a thundering denunciation of the violence and its cheerleaders.  "Using grievances real or imagined as an excuse for violence will not be tolerated — not by black society or white, not by the press, not by City Hall, not now, not ever," Rosenthal wrote.  He was wrong.  As similar scenes play out across America today, with rioters shooting police officers, innocent bystanders dying, and businesses being destroyed, the news media has adopted a different attitude. [...] The Times now publishes calls for defunding police nationwide.  The editorial board on which Rosenthal once sat cannot muster a denunciation free of qualifiers and compromise.  In place of clear-eyed condemnations comes the incessant refrain that rioting and looting are lamentable, but the result of legitimate grievance.  Those same grievances, they argue, can only be addressed through aggressive federal investigations, the stripping of legal protections for cops and, of course, voting for Democrats.

Navy SEAL pardoned by Trump sues New York Times, Navy secretary.  A retired Navy SEAL whose rank and qualification pin were restored by order of President Trump accused military officials of leaking confidential court documents to a New York Times reporter last year during his high-profile war crimes trial in an effort to create a false narrative about the case and ultimately taint the jury pool.  Former Chief Special Operator Edward Gallagher was convicted of posing for a photograph with the corpse of an Islamic State fighter in Iraq in 2017 but was acquitted of more serious charges, including murder.  The uproar over the case eventually led to the firing of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer.  Mr. Gallagher has filed a lawsuit against veteran New York Times reporter David Philipps — who wrote almost 30 articles about the case — along with new Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithewaite, Mr. Spencer's just-sworn-in successor, in his official capacity.

Jerry Falwell Jr. vows to sue NY Times for claim he brought coronavirus to Liberty U.  "They never spoke to anybody at Liberty."  That's what Jerry Falwell, Jr., says about reporters from the New York Times who came to Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. at the end of March.  Falwell had made the then-controversial decision to welcome back a small fraction of residential students to the school, a move that ignited nationwide controversy and led to claims that Falwell was facilitating the spread of the virus and exposing Liberty students to grave danger.  That fear was best personified by a headline at the Times on March 29:  "Liberty University Brings Back Its Students, and Coronavirus, Too."  The paper quickly changed that assessment when it was learned that the one Liberty student to test positive for coronavirus actually lived off-campus.  (The school at the time was not offering on-campus instruction to any student, residential or not).  The headline was edited to state instead that the school brought back "coronavirus fears."

The NYT Libels The Military For Memorial Day.  Before looking at their screed, let's take a look at the NYT editorial board.  It is made up of 15 mostly lily-white men and women, and not a single one of these worthless scum have a bio indicating even a day spent in military service to our country.  There are plenty of the fifteen who graduated from ivy league journalism schools, and there is even one man who proudly listed his award of a 2010 Soros Justice Fellowship.  These people have no [...] clue what goes on in the U.S. military.  What they have is an incredibly refined ability to invent racism where none exists.

The Late Unpleasantness.  [Scroll down]  I speak specifically of the New York Times.  It has long been my conviction that no honest person would ever wish their name to be associated with that disreputable publication, but over the weekend, the Times went far beyond their usual "fake news" with an unseemly attack on the United States armed forces.  "Why Does the U.S. Military Celebrate White Supremacy?" was the headline on a disgusting 1,800-word column, signed by the editorial board of the Times, its deliberately insulting theme summarized by a subhead:  "It is time to rename bases for American heroes — not racist traitors."  Of course, it would be a mistake to believe that the New York Times is against treason.  They have spent decades heaping praise on America's enemies, both foreign and domestic, a tradition dating back at least as far as the 1930s, when Walter Duranty was writing propaganda for Stalin.  No one should imagine that the Times has developed a concern for the morale of U.S. military, and their attack on the tradition by which military installations in the South were named for Confederate generals is simply a further effort by A. G. Sulzberger's publication to deserve the contempt of every patriotic American.

Trump wins the lockdown wars.  President Trump has won the lockdown wars as coronavirus-related restrictions on businesses are eased across the country, so far with few signs of dire health consequences for the population.  Just weeks ago, the question was whether to reopen, with the first states to press ahead accused of engaging in human sacrifice and killing their residents to appease the "Trump death cult."  New York Times columnist Paul Krugman asked, "How many will die for the Dow?" as recently as Thursday [5/21/2020].  Now, the debate is primarily over how quickly and to what extent reopening should take place, with the stragglers mainly blue states.

New York Times on Memorial Day Weekend:  Why Does the U.S. Military Celebrate White Supremacy?'.  The New York Times published an editorial on the first day of Memorial Day weekend asking:  "Why Does the U.S. Military Celebrate White Supremacy?"  The article's byline is the entire editorial board, and it is accompanied by an image of a bullet shaped like a Ku Klux Klan robe.

NYT Issues Correction After Coronavirus Death List Includes Suspected Homicide Victim.  The New York Times' list of 1,000 coronavirus victims displayed at the top of its Sunday edition included the name of at least one individual whose death reportedly had nothing to do with the pandemic.  "U.S. deaths near 100,000, an incalculable loss," the headline reads, just above the list of 1,000 names, meant to be 1% of the overall toll.  The outlet, however, removed the name and reposted the list via Twitter along with a correction notice: [...]

New York Times: "'Believe All Women' Is a Right-Wing Trap".  Here's a brief history of leftist ideas.  1. A radical idea is born[,]  2. A radical idea is mainstreamed[,]  3. The radical idea has become inconvenient and is now reactionary[.]  Here's the end stage of this thing with a Susan Faludi op-ed in the New York Times headlined, "'Believe All Women' Is a Right-Wing Trap".  Don't you understand?  We have always been at war with women accusing men of things.  In the brief period from Kavanaugh to Biden, believing women, formerly a passionate rallying cry and a firm ideological plank, is now a right-wing trap.

The new Beto:  Washington Post and NY Times publish flattering profiles of Stacey Abrams.  The flattering profiles of Stacey Abrams are coming so fast now that it's hard to keep up.  Two days ago the Washington Post Magazine published a piece titled "The Power of Stacey Abrams." [...] Today the NY Times published another profile of Abrams titled, "Stacey Abrams Wants More Than the Vice Presidency."  This one is slightly less glowing but still opens with the same kind of Beatlemania for Stacey, albeit online in this case.

NYTs and L.A. Times Reject NSC Advisor O'Brien's Column on Ventilators Because it 'Didn't Fit Their Narrative'.  National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien on Friday revealed in an interview Friday that the New York Times and Los Angeles Times declined to publish his recent column on American ventilator diplomacy because it "didn't fit their narrative."  Back in early March, many experts feared that a shortage of ventilators in America could be a public health catastrophe because there would not be enough of the life-saving machines in hospitals to treat critically ill COVID-19 patients.  The column describes in detail how the Trump administration became a world leader in the fight against the coronavirus by ramping-up production of ventilators.  The piece, which had high praise for Trump's handling of the crisis, was published at Fox News.

How the 1619 Project Destroys the True Moral Meaning of America.  Honest patriots of our great republic are upset at the recent bestowal of the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary on Nikole Hannah-Jones and her 1619 Project.  As most readers might already know, the 1619 project was inaugurated with a special issue in the The New York Times Magazine in August of 2019.  Its goal was and remains one of challenging us all to reframe U.S history by marking the year when the first enslaved Africans arrived in Virginia as our nation's foundational date.  The project promulgates the idea that everything that has made America exceptional literally grew out of slavery.  It, therefore, establishes 1619 and not 1776 as our nation's true founding date.  The egregious historical inaccuracies of the project and Hannah-Jones' claims have been well documented.  The most egregious among them which the Times has had to minimally correct, included claiming that the American Revolution was literally fought to preserve the institution of slavery, and that Abraham Lincoln opposed the equality of blacks.

1619 Project Creator Says Her Series Is 'Journalism' and 'Not a History'.  The creator of the controversial 1619 Project, a New York Times Magazine commentary series on the impact of slavery in America, is now saying her work was meant to be "journalism" and "not a history."  "The 1619 Project is not a history," Nikole Hannah-Jones said in an MSNBC interview on Sunday.  "It is a work of journalism that examines the modern and ongoing legacy of slavery."  Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer Prize for the 1619 Project last week, but the initiative has been frequently criticized for its inaccuracies by historians.

Tell A Lie, Win A Pulitzer!  Maybe you missed the news that the august New York Times won yet another Pulitzer Prize, this one for its much-debunked "1619 Project."  If you didn't, we have a question:  Is there any better illustration for why Americans now hold the big media in such low esteem?  Nikole Hannah-Jones of the Times won the Pulitzer for Commentary on Monday, proving once again that the American media and its guiding institutions have continued to move far left, and that includes the Pulitzer Prize judges.  Among major media, none have made the sinistral shift more determinedly than the New York Times under Executive Editor Dean Baquet.  The 1619 Project is aptly titled.  It's not journalism so much as a twisted piece of progressive propaganda that even now is being imposed on thousands of grade-school students as part of our "education" curriculum.  It would be funny if it weren't so tragically true.

How the 1619 Project slandered America.  [Scroll down]  A number of universities have already said they will make the 1619 Project a tool for teaching US history.  Given what we know about freedom of intellectual thought on campuses on the issues of race, gender and sexuality, chances are that this view will become the unchallengeable official version of events quite soon.  No one challenges the proposition that US history is bound up in a history of repression and exploitation of minorities, from the slaughter and dispossession of Native Americans to slavery and Jim Crow laws.  But to assert, on the basis of zero historical evidence, that its very foundational motivation was the persecution of those minorities is a conscious effort not to provoke academic debate but to inculcate the entire country, its people and its institutions in a continuing crime against humanity.

Liberals Rewrite History to Justify Their #MeToo Hypocrisy.  You can believe whomever you choose in the alleged sexual-misconduct cases of Joe Biden and Brett Kavanaugh, but you can't revise history to erase your partisan double standards.  One of the most egregious examples of revisionism can be found in a column by the New York Times' Michelle Goldberg, who employs nearly every attack Americans were warned never to use against alleged sexual-assault victims during the Kavanaugh hearings — questioning their motivations, asking why they didn't file charges, attacking them for not remembering specifics, etc.  And yet, even if we adopt Goldberg's new standards, Tara Reade still emerges as a more credible accuser than Christine Blasey Ford.

Pulitzer Prize to New York Times Essay Falsely Claiming American Revolution Was Fought to Preserve Slavery.  The 2020 Pulitzer Prize for commentary was awarded Monday [5/4/2020] to Nikole Hannah-Jones for an essay in the New York Times that falsely claimed the American Revolution was fought primarily to protect slavery.  The essay, titled "Our democracy's founding ideals were false when they were written.  Black Americans have fought to make them true," launched the Times' controversial 1619 project.

The only Pulitzer the 1619 Project deserved was for fiction.  As it was designed to do, The New York Times' woefully mistaken 1619 Project just won a Pulitzer Prize.  Worse, the award for commentary actually went to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her essay introducing the series — that is, to the article that brought the most sustained criticism from historians across the spectrum for its naked errors of fact.  The project's central conceit is that "out of slavery grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might, its industrial power, its electoral system." Hannah-Jones even argued that the main reason American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery — a claim so contrary to the truth that the Times eventually corrected that part of her essay, though only to add two words:  Now it says "some of" the founders fought chiefly for that reason.

Even anti-Trump NY Times wants Biden sexual assault allegation investigated — Bad news for Dems.  Former Vice President Joe Biden's disastrous interview Friday on "Morning Joe" on MSNBC has caused more problems for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee than it solved.  Biden's denial of an allegation by a former member of his Senate staff that he sexually assaulted her in 1993 was followed Saturday by a call from The New York Times for a further investigation.  When the paper dedicated to seeing Donald Trump become a one-term president turns on his challenger, you know the Democrats are facing a serious problem

The New York Times is too oblivious to realize how insufferable it is.  [Scroll down]  The Times has given those of us who hate-read it an unintentional gift:  Its utter humorlessness, wrapped in reflexive self-regard and condescension, has never been so funny.  Of course, we all want to read lighter takes on life amid coronavirus.  Problem is, there is almost zero acknowledgment here that some pandemic-related problems are more important than others — as in their recent coverage of rich New Yorkers who have had their expensive home renovations suddenly halted, the equivalent of having elective cosmetic surgery postponed.  There is zero self-awareness among writers and editors, who regard the Times as their religion and themselves as its apostles.

The NY Times Used to Correct Its Whoppers.  But Not These Two.  Here's Why.  The New York Times is widely admired for owning up to its errors.  In addition to the corrections it runs each day, it has a tradition of publishing extensive Editor's Notes and even full-length investigations when it has determined that flawed reporting misled readers and botched the rough first draft of history.  Since 2000, these have included lengthy reassessments of its reporting on whether a Chinese American scientist, Wen Ho Lee, had collaborated with the Chinese; the false stories filed by a troubled black reporter, Jayson Blair, and articles regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  During the last few years the Times has published two other sets of deeply flawed articles that also demand such extended corrections:  "The 1619 Project" and its Trump-Russia coverage.  It is a sign of how much the Times, and mainstream journalism in general, have changed that it appears highly unlikely the "paper of record" will correct the record.

How the N.Y. Times Swung at Fox News, and Missed.  Not content to accuse Donald Trump of killing Americans with his incompetence during the coronavirus pandemic, Democrats and their allies in the media have turned their fire on the president's supporters as well.  Those with "blood on their hands," to use the smear du jour, range from Republican governors reluctant to issue quarantine orders to Michigan autoworkers protesting being locked out their jobs.

Snitching reporter from NYT sees bid to censor Cedars-Sinai for COVID-19 light research blow up in her face.  Trump derangement syndrome makes some "journalists," usually Buzzfeed alumni, do disgusting things.  For some, it brings out their inner scolds and snitches and comrade censors.  And it most certainly doesn't go over well for them on places like Twitter.  So here's the doings of the New York Times' Davey Alba, the former Buzzfeed hack, same as Ali Watkins, turned "technology and disinformation" reporter who proudly announced that she'd "reported" medical researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, one of the most prestigious medical institutions on the planet, to the YouTube site police, for their YouTube video showing how they had conducted UV light research as a means of killing off viruses within the body, something that had been brought up by President Trump a few days ago.

Misleading NYT graph juices Colorado virus death trend.  Defying apocalyptic predictions, Colorado was not particularly hard-hit by the Coronavirus.  The number of cases and deaths per capita were in the middling part of the U.S. range.  Moreover, in Colorado the virus is nearly dead now. [...] It can be seen that the daily death toll follows the classic bell-shaped curve that epidemiologists learn in med school.  If anything, it's better than one might hope for, in that the decline in right-hand part of the curve is steeper than the increase in the left-hand part.  Yesterday, the death toll was zero.  One might think that the state's largest newspaper would see this as news.  They don't.

Media Push Fake News About FDA Official Supposedly Fired Over Opposing Hydroxychloroquine, Then the Real Story Comes Out.  It's almost like The New York Times is nothing but a partisan gossip rag.  Yesterday [4/22/2020], a story was put out by Maggie Haberman that made a rather convenient claim that just so happened to reinforce every media narrative.  Namely, that an FDA official named Rick Bright was fired for selflessly sounding the alarm on the supposed vast dangers of hydroxychloroquine.  [Tweets]  But, like all stories that appear in the Times and other mainstream outlets, it's always best to give them a few hours.  In this case, it didn't take long for the real story to start coming out and you'll be shocked to learn that Haberman's original piece was completely wrong.

A free nation cannot long survive if its press takes sides.  On March 16, the New York Times' Mara Gay posted a stunningly dishonest tweet about President Trump's conversation with state governors concerning medical equipment needed to treat coronavirus patients:  [Tweet]  Gay lied in saying Trump told governors they are on their own, thus misleading readers to think he refused to provide the governors with federal funds for critical medical equipment.  Below is what Trump actually said — the part in boldface is what Gay selectively quoted, everything else is what she maliciously omitted:  "We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves.  Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself." [...] What Gay did was journalistic malpractice at its most evil, a fake news political hatchet job against a president she hates in hopes of torpedoing his re-election.  Mara Gay is no rookie reporter who made an innocent mistake.  She's a member of the New York Times Editorial Board.  Her dissembling brand of destroy-Trump journalism has been practiced non-stop for nearly four years by virtually the entire mainstream media.

A Double Game behind the Biden Double Standard?  [Scroll down]  Second, they wanted to air the accusation, undermine it and then dismiss it, in order to inoculate Biden from Reade in the general election campaign.  This presumption is entirely true to a degree.  We know this because the Times executive editor, Dean Baquet, admitted as much in an extraordinary and humiliating interview with the Times' own media reporter, who questioned Baquet about the evident double-standard in reporting.  At the request of the Biden campaign, the Times edited the story to omit prior accusations that Biden's touchy-feely habits and hair-sniffing violated the women subjected to it.  Baquet's coordination with the Biden campaign leaves little doubt that the Times story served the political purpose described above.  We can also assume that the Post and "NBC Online" ran their own stories for similar reasons.  Indeed, all the stories read almost exactly the same, as if written by drones programed in similar left-wing journalism schools.

Even more on the NY Times' hypocrisy over Biden, Kavanaugh allegations.  I continue to be somewhat stunned by the NY Times' glaring hypocrisy over the sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden.  Today [4/15/2020], National Review published a piece titled "The New York Times Knows Nobody Believes It about Biden, Kavanaugh, and Sexual Assault" which highlights some additional reasons everyone should be upset (if not quite surprised) by the Times' behavior.  Author Dan McLaughlin points out that it wasn't just the news division of the Times that pushed the allegations against Kavanaugh to the forefront, it was also the paper's editorial page.

Believe All Women - Unless They Accuse Joe Biden.  Over two weeks after Tara Reade, a former Biden Senate staffer, accused him of sexually assaulting her, the media finally got around to tackling her and the threat she poses to Biden by calling her a liar.  The New York Times' article dryly titled, "Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden" by Lisa Lerer and Sydney Ember seeks to discredit Reade's claims.  "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation," the article insisted.  "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses, and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."  Then that awkward paragraph with its mix of admissions and denials went down the memory hole.

The New York Times Knows Nobody Believes It about Biden, Kavanaugh, and Sexual Assault.  A remarkable thing happened Monday:  The New York Times executive editor, Dean Baquet, actually had to answer questions about his paper's very different coverage of sexual-assault allegations against Joe Biden and Brett Kavanaugh.  It did not go well.  It is simply impossible to read the interview and the Times coverage of the two cases and come away believing that the Times acted in good faith or, frankly, that it even expects anyone to believe its explanations.  The paper's motto, at this point, may as well be "All the News You're Willing to Buy."

NYT clipping Highlights of the News.  [Item #7] The presumption of innocence applies even to creepy, sleazy, and dopey politicians.  The New York Times wrote, "Ms. Reade, a former Senate aide, has accused Mr. Biden of assaulting her in 1993 and says she told others about it.  A Biden spokeswoman said the allegation is false, and former Senate office staff members do not recall such an incident."  Brett Kavanaugh never even met Christine Blasey Ford.  The Times insisted he raped her.  The Times also did a little post-posting editing of "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."  It now says, "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."  The truth is out there.

New York Times admits Biden team influenced edits to story on sexual assault allegation.  The New York Times revealed that Joe Biden's campaign influenced the newspaper's decision to edit out allegations of sexual misconduct from a story published over the weekend.  On Sunday [4/12/2020], the New York Times was criticized for editing a sentence and deleting a tweet noting that Biden has been accused of sexual misconduct by women who found that his hugging and hair sniffing crossed the line. [...] The newsroom claimed at the time that it made the edits because the original language was confusing, tweeting, "We've deleted a tweet in this thread that had some imprecise language that has been changed in the story."  On Monday, however, Executive Editor Dean Baquet admitted that the Biden campaign's reaction to the piece played a role in making the changes.

NY Times Editor Admits Editing Article on Biden Sexual Assault Allegation After Campaign Complained.  The New York Times edited a controversial passage in an article about a sexual assault allegation against former vice president Joe Biden after his campaign complained, the paper's executive editor said Monday [4/13/2020].  Dean Baquet, in an interview with Times media columnist Ben Smith, explained why edits were made to the following sentence, which appeared as follows in the print edition of the paper, on page A20: "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."  Baquet said the Times decided to delete the second half of the sentence, without explanation in the form of an editor's note, because "the [Biden] campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct."

An obituary for The New York Times.  When prominent people die, the press publish "obituaries," reports of their death and a summary of their life.  I recently read a New York Times obituary that accidentally summarized the last years of The New York Times, a once-great newspaper.  The Times obit was meant to be about Dr. S. Fred Singer, a noted scientist, prolific writer (including at American Thinker), and prominent critic of popular climate change models that contend that man has heated up the Earth.  The entire NY Times report — including a snooty and biased headline — was not a factual account but an ideological argument meant to discredit the life and work of Fred Singer, once the chief atmospheric scientist at NASA and a man who had penned a book of more than 1,000 pages critiquing popular climate theory.  "A leading climate change contrarian."  That is how The Times headline describes Singer.  The article never mentions that Singer was chief atmospheric scientist for NASA, a science-based organization not known for employing quacks.  In fact, the article never mentions NASA or quotes anyone from NASA who knew Singer.

The Left's Ugly Reaction to Hydroxychloroquine.  A widely shared, four-person-bylined, "wow"-provoking New York Times story today [4/7/2020] informs us that Donald Trump is personally benefiting from his "aggressive advocacy" of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine because he owns stock in one of the companies that manufacture the drug.  The story might be one of the most ridiculous articles published by mainstream media in the Trump era — though, admittedly, the field is highly competitive.  But while knee-jerk anti-Trumpism is expected, the angry obsession over the president's championing of hydroxychloroquine is uniquely ugly.

How the liberal media weaponizes COVID-19 against Trump.  Instead of a rallying point for America, our fight against the pandemic has become a political football.  New York Times media critic Ben Smith has even suggested that America could have averted the coronavirus crisis altogether during "two crucial weeks in late February and early March," when Fox News Channel's "hosts and guests, speaking to Fox's predominantly elderly audience, repeatedly played down the threat of what would soon become a deadly pandemic."  Let's get the facts right.  In Mr. Smith's cherry-picking of Fox News Channel transcripts, he ignored altogether the larger point the hosts and guests had made: the "hoax" they complained about was the partisan media onslaught against the president's handling of the crisis, not the crisis itself.

Media mystified as America rallies behind President Trump during coronavirus crisis.  For decades, Americans have rallied behind their president in time of crisis, so it's no mystery that President Trump's approval ratings are up.  Except, that is, to anti-Trump obsessives — including much of the media.  "Who Are the Voters Behind Trump's Higher Approval Rating?" a New York Times headline asked last week.  That is:  Who could possibly think he's doing a good job — when no one at the Times does?

New York Times Demonizes the South with Misleading Coronavirus Map.  In a bigoted effort to mislead its readers and demonize the American South, the far-left New York Times on Thursday [4/2/2020] manufactured a wildly misleading coronavirus map.  Using a desperately sweaty piece of reverse-engineering to make Southerners look as irresponsible as possible, the Times — a fake news outlet that hires racists, spreads deliberate misinformation, and has already smeared Christians as the cause of a coronavirus outbreak that's currently hitting mostly secular, urban areas like New York — published a steaming pile of fake news.

After Threat Of Lawsuit, New York Times Issues Corrections On Article Defaming Sharyl Attkisson.  The New York Times has issued several corrections regarding an article published two weeks ago insisting Attkisson was a "coronavirus doubter."  After the article was published, Attkisson and her lawyers sent a letter to the Times demanding they correct their story or face a defamation lawsuit.  The Times article was about five people, including Jerry Falwell Jr. and Dr. Drew, who doubted the severity of the coronavirus.  As Attkisson's attorneys stated in their letter, the Times' article included "false and defamatory" statements regarding the ex-CBS journalist's reporting on the coronavirus.  "Through a combination of discrete statements of fact, the defamatory headline, and the juxtaposition of defamatory statements concerning a small group of individuals with whom you have lumped Ms. Attkisson, the article conveys the false and defamatory gist that my client, among other things, lied to her readers and listeners, reported as fact lies that endanger the lives of the public, and otherwise violated the litany of ethical standards by which responsible journalists conduct themselves," wrote Attkisson's attorney G. Taylor Wilson of Wade, Grunberg & Wilson, LLC.

The Mainstream Media Spins a Pandemic.  A New York Times report this week criticizes pro-Trump media figures who downplayed the threat of coronavirus.  Fair enough.  But it is worth examining how mainstream media outlets treated lawmakers who were warning about the virus and about China's potential malfeasance early on.  Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), for example, encouraged President Donald Trump in January to implement a travel ban from China. [...] Cotton also argued that the virus might have originated at a Chinese biochemical lab in Wuhan that sits near the seafood market where Chinese officials initially claimed the disease originated.  The New York Times accused him of spreading a "conspiracy theory," writing that it was "the sort of tale that resonates with an expanding chorus of voices in Washington who see China as a growing Soviet-level threat to the United States, echoing the anti-Communist thinking of the Cold War era."

NYT is a threat to public health.  The Daily Beast reported, "A group of 74 journalism and communications professors have written an open letter to Fox News accusing the network of purveying misinformation to its older viewers, including the president."  Those professors should send a similar letter to the New York Times for misinforming the public about the antimalarial drugs that are treating COVID-19 with great success.  Management at the Times have become anti-vaxxers in their opposition to this cure.  The newspaper is doing this in its continued effort to end the Donald John Trump presidency, a campaign that had it lying about the Russian collusion, the Ukraine telephone call, and sundry other falsehoods promoted by the Democrat Party.  The Times Fake News campaign against chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine began March 19.

Do the Media Hate Trump More Than They Hate the Virus?  On March 25, President Trump conducted a daily briefing on the coronavirus.  Attorney General Barr was there to warn people about price gouging.  Health experts were there to update everyone on the latest information about testing — including the promise of a soon-to-be-approved test that can detect the virus with a finger prick and produce results in a matter of minutes.  But you wouldn't learn any of this if you read the New York Times the next morning.  An article by Michael Grynbaum managed to stretch 23 paragraphs long without giving readers a single fact that was conveyed at the briefing.  The article could easily be Exhibit A in the case that the New York Times is a regular source of Fake News[.]

Misleading NYT Map Suggests The South Is Uniquely Dangerous for Coronavirus.  On Thursday [4/2/2020], The New York Times published a story suggesting that the South is uniquely dangerous for the spread of the coronavirus.  Michael Barbaro, host of the Times podcast "The Daily," shared the map with the text, "In a word... The South."  Yet both the NYT article and Barbaro's tweet ignored basic realities about American life that help explain the reasons behind the map — and show that the South is not a uniquely dangerous region during this crisis.  In the article, "Where America Didn't Stay Home Even as the Virus Spread," James Glanz dissects cellphone location data from the data intelligence firm Cuebiq.  Cuebiq tracked 15 million people's cellphone locations to map travel patterns across America.  The resulting map does indeed suggest southerners continued to travel more than two miles even as states and local governments were issuing stay-at-home orders to slow the spread of coronavirus.

Does the New York Times Realize That Abortion Kills a Baby?  The New York Times, the famous "Gray Lady," long has seen its role as a standard-bearer for modern liberalism.  Of course, the paper still employs competent, and sometimes brilliant, reporters and editors.  The news operation, however, is as opinionated as the editorial page, only less honest about its bias.  Editorials have gone from advocacy to crusading.  The Left's agenda is the paper's agenda.  Those who disagree on issues are treated as wrong on morality as well as policy.  So it is with abortion.  On Sunday, March 29, the Times devoted almost half the page to an editorial demanding unrestricted abortion at public expense.  That position has become the litmus test for admission to the Church of High Liberalism.  No departure from orthodoxy is allowed.

New York Times publishes fake news about American Thinker.  In its Sunday edition, with the biggest readership of the week, the New York Times published an utterly baseless accusation, "The American Thinker falsely claimed that the [Fauci] email was evidence that he was part of a secret group who opposed Mr. Trump."  In other words, the newspaper did exactly what it purported this website did: "falsely claimed" something without a factual basis.  Moreover, in its online edition, the Times failed to link to the post in question, so that readers could see for themselves that the accusation was untrue.  This libel comes as the latest in a series of mainstream media attacks on American Thinker over its critical coverage of Dr. Anthony Fauci, a presidential advisor on the Coronavirus pandemic.

What the Media Isn't Telling You About the United States' Coronavirus Case Numbers.  On Thursday [3/26/2020], the New York Times made a big fuss over the fact that more than 81,321 Americans have been infected with the coronavirus, which is "more cases than China, Italy or any other country has seen."  According to their report, the United States, following "a series of missteps," is now "the epicenter of the pandemic."  But, is it really?  China's confirmed cases topped out at around 80,000, but, as PJM's Victoria Taft noted, China reportedly stopped conducting tests in order to show the world they've contained the spread of the virus.  So, comparing any country to China at this point is useless.

Fear and Panic for A Purpose — The Coronavirus Evolves Into "The Blue Plague".  The "Blue Plague" is an intentional effort by various interests to create fear-porn amid the American population by intentionally hyping a mass hysteria about the coronavirus.  In many ways the Blue Plague is exponentially more dangerous than COVID-19 itself.  Earlier today [3/26/2020], The New York Times became the epicenter of the Blue Plague by stating people in hospitals throughout the city were dying, as desperately under-prepared and under-equipped doctors and nurses could not find ventilators for thousands of arriving patients in a state of panic.  This was/is incitement at its worst.

The New York Times Tries to Spread Panic About Ventilators, Gets Fact-Checked.  The New York Times has been one of the worst news outlets during the Wuhan virus pandemic.  They've consistently taken partisan positions and purposely mislead the public.  For example, after Nancy Pelosi tried to blowup the latest relief package, the Times decided to say it was the fault of Republicans — who had previously negotiated the bill in a bipartisan manner — because of course they did.  Today [3/26/2020], the paper of record went back to the old steadfast during this crisis, which is to try to create panic in order to score political points.

Journey to Surrealville:  What's really fuelling Pelosi's shutdown of America's relief package?  After days of unusual comity between Republicans and Democrats in the coronavirus crisis, the big congressional economic aid package to help hospitals, laid off workers, and battered small businesses all came crashing down as Nancy Pelosi jetted in from vacation, blocking the set-to-go bill over the weekend.  In place of that, she came up with a 1,400-nightmare political goody bag for the left — everything from ballot-harvesting to corporate diversity requirements to greenie airline regulations to a $15 minimum wage and a lot of other horrors — attempting to slip through the entire panoply of laws her party wants to enact but can't get passed.  It was Pelosi's and other Democrats' doing, all right — just look at how the New York Times changed its headline sequence, first putting out the facts about Democrat road-blocking, then, likely after some Pelosian phone calls, softening the blame, and then declaring the whole thing a bipartisan morass.  Yeah, sure.

Ex-CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Demands New York Times Correct 'False And Defamatory' Article.  Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson had her lawyers send a letter to the New York Times demanding they correct the "false and defamatory" article titled "From Jerry Falwell Jr to Dr. Drew: 5 Coronavirus Doubters," which painted Attkisson as one of those doubters.  Attkisson published the legal threat to her personal website, saying her attorney would "pursue legal redress" if changes were not made.  Attkisson's attorney, G. Taylor Wilson of Wade, Grunberg & Wilson, LLC, says in the letter that she had attempted to get the article corrected previously, but was provided a "cavalier response" from the Times.

Kowtow to Commies:  Friedman Says We NEED China to Get Through Virus Crisis.  Apparently, American manufacturing workers and scientists weren't good enough to help America through the coronavirus crisis and we could only get through it with the help of those that caused it:  China.  That's according to Beijing-loving New York Times columnist Tom Friedman during a Thursday night [3/19/2020] appearance on CNN's Cuomo Prime Time.  Just after noting that there would be an "explosion" in more domestic manufacturing of essential supplies needed in a pandemic once this crisis was over, Friedman immediately defended the communist regime from the current round of denunciations for their role in creating the crisis.

Cheap TVs, Expensive Flu.  [Scroll down]  A few weeks ago — before a trillion dollars in wealth was destroyed by the coronavirus panic and we learned the real disease was racism — everyone, including the [New York] Times, admitted that the virus was brought to Italy by two Chinese tourists.  "[T]here had not yet been any confirmed cases in Italy," the Times reported, until Jan. 30, "when the government announced the first two cases."  The scientific director of an infectious diseases hospital in Rome identified them:  "two Chinese tourists visiting Rome."  The Times buried this fact in an article perversely titled: "Cruise Passengers Are Held at Italian Port in False Alarm Over Coronavirus."  On one hand, a bunch of cruise passengers were inconvenienced for 12 hours; on the other hand, a viral pandemic that could kill millions was introduced to Italy.  You write the headline.

The American press's entire energy is bent towards destroying Trump.  The mainstream American media have abandoned journalism's formerly-prized ethos of "who, what, where, why, when."  There is no pretense anymore that they serve a purpose other than maligning Donald Trump in the hope of destroying his presidency.  The latest example comes from The New York Times, a once-respected institution that now would offend the birds whose cages it might line. [...]

10 Ways the Left Has Politicized the Coronavirus Pandemic.  [#6] With Trump surviving impeachment and the economy booming, the left, desperate to take down Trump, really wanted the public to blame him for the virus, as opposed to, say, China, where it originated.  New York Times opinion columnist and former member of the editorial board Gail Collins literally declared that "if you're feeling awful, you know who to blame," in an op-ed titled "Let's Call It Trumpvirus."  This was shameless politicization designed to instill fear in the public that the Trump administration isn't doing enough to deal with the outbreak, and, should you get sick, that Trump is to blame.  The op-ed was widely panned, but you can bet there are plenty of people nationwide who believe that everything bad relating to the virus is Trump's fault.

Paul Krugman Celebrates Stock Market Rout Because He Thinks It Hurts Trump.  Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning trade economist and New York Times columnist, celebrated the sharp decline of the stock market due to the coronavirus on the grounds that, in his opinion, it would hurt President Donald Trump.

It's 1776, Not 1619: Don't Let the Times Steal America's Birthday.  The New York Times wants to teach your kids and grandkids to be woke.  Don't let them.  Like most professional academics, I watched the launch of the New York Times' "1619 Project" with a mix of genuine scholarly interest, an occasional desire to critique, and mild amusement at some of the authors' wilder claims — such as Nikole Hannah-Jones arguing that the desire to preserve slavery was a "primary" reason for the American Revolutionary War or Kevin Kruse claiming that historical oppression "caused your traffic jam."  But, that said, I frankly expected to quickly forget the whole thing.  It is an open secret in the creative community that most "hot new scholarly topics" or "special issues of the magazine" influence the national conversation for a week or two and then fade into justified obscurity.  But, then, the 1619 Project refused to go away, muscling in on my turf of youth education and higher education.

Exploding the New York Times' Anti-American 1619 Project.  In what should prove to be the most embarrassing endeavor ever undertaken by a prominent periodical, the New York Times is publishing a series of essays called the "1619 Project," which argues that "out of slavery grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional," citing first and foremost its "economic might" and "industrial power."  Not surprisingly, this project wasn't the brainchild of a historian, but of a staff writer named Nikole Hannah-Jones, whose introductory essay "provides the intellectual framework for the project," according to the Times. [...] And as leftist propaganda goes, this one's a doozy.  The "framework" of the series is predicated on the two central arguments that Hannah-Jones lays out.  The first is the contention that the Founders revolted against Britain in order to protect the institution of slavery from potential British efforts to abolish it.  The second is the contention that slavery is not only what made the colonies rich, but that America's historical association with slavery cobbled the path to America's "economic might" and "industrial power."  Both arguments are absurdly false, of course, and I'll leave it to two famous historians to explain why. [...]

NYT Editor and Brian Williams: Bloomberg Could Have Given Every American $1 Million With the Money He Spent on Ads.  I've started this sentence three times already.  I hardly even know how to describe what I saw on social media tonight.  In the most bad-at-math tweet I've ever seen in my entire twitter life, Mekita Rivas — a writer with bylines in Glamour Magazine and the Washington Post — lamented that Bloomberg's half a billion in ad money could have provided one million dollars for every American and still have money to spare.  Not a typo.  [Tweet]  This seems bad.  It is bad.  But it gets worse.  Mara Gay — New York Times editorial board member — was on MSNBC with Brian Williams — Yes, THAT Brian Williams — when he brought up this tweet that put it "all in perspective" for the longtime new analyst and noted lover of fish tales.  You may imagine that at some point in this video one of them thinks about the math.  They did not.

MSNBC's Brian Williams, NY Times editor marvel at tweet that got Bloomberg math really wrong.  If someone had simply stopped and double-checked some math, they might have saved MSNBC's Brian Williams and New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay some embarrassment Thursday night.  Instead, both Williams and Gay marveled on air in reaction to a Twitter user's post about Mike Bloomberg's campaign spending.  Trouble is, the post had gotten the math all wrong — yet neither Williams nor Gay seemed to notice.

You Are Not Going to Believe This Was Broadcast on MSNBC — But it Was.  If you've ever wondered why it is impossible to have a conversation with modern liberals about politics, this video snippet is a case study in the answer.  MSNBC host Brian Williams and New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay are having a serious discussion about money, politics and Michael Bloomberg's spending in the primary election.  You have to watch it to believe it.  Think about how many people were involved in creating, preparing and producing what you are about to witness.  [Video clip]

NYT's 1619 Project is (dishonest) attack on nation's founding principles.  It isn't an overstatement to describe The New York Times' 1619 Project as a journalistic declaration of war against America.  Many of the project's historical claims are downright fabrications — but in the most decisive respect, that's besides the point.  The project's leader, Nikole Hannah-Jones, has tried to brush off the criticism of many distinguished historians by claiming that such disagreement is how historiography always proceeds — as we learn progressively more, a new "narrative" challenges old ones.  The 1619 Project, however, isn't about new historical scholarship, and insofar as journalism is about the quest for truth, it isn't quite journalism, either.

Fact-Check: Obama Waited Until 'Millions' [were] Infected and 1000 Dead in U.S. Before Declaring H1N1 Emergency.  "Let's call it Trumpvirus," urged a New York Times opinion writer conspiratorially.  Nancy Pelosi groused that President Trump waited too long to attack the coronavirus (COVID-19) and then impetuously declared he couldn't have leftover and unspent Ebola virus money to fight it, while Senator Chuck Schumer looked down his nose and over his glasses to intone that it was the end of the world and the president hadn't spent enough money to stop the scourge.  Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg have both been called out for politicizing the virus.

Racist America?  Countering the 1619 Project's False Narrative.  A group of predominantly black scholars, journalists, entrepreneurs, clergy, and community leaders, led by Robert Woodson Sr., a respected anti-poverty activist, have launched "1776 Unites" to counter the false and harmful narrative promoted by the New York Times' "1619 Project."  The Times rolled out its woke narrative of America the racist nation as a Sunday magazine in August.  Then it swiftly disseminated the collection of essays, along with teacher guides, lesson plans, and other educational aids, to thousands of classrooms nationwide, according to the Pulitzer Center, which crafted the curricular materials.  Woodson and his colleagues are very concerned about the "lethal" impact of this race grievance ideology on children who are being taught that blacks are forever second-class American citizens, lacking agency to improve their lives.

The New York Times' Editorial Retreat.  The New York Sun marks with regret the New York Times' decision to retreat from its tradition of issuing daily editorials.  We may lurk well to the right of the Times, but we've read nearly every editorial the Gray Lady has issued in our lifetime — even in recent years, when her editorials have helped lead the leftward lurch of the Democratic Party and fanned the heavy swells in which liberalism has capsized.

Trump campaign sues New York Times for libel over Russia reporting.  President Trump's long-running war with the "failing" New York Times intensified Wednesday when his reelection campaign sued the news organization for libel, seeking millions in damages for allegedly publishing false information about a conspiracy with Russia.  The president said of his libel suit Wednesday night [2/26/2020], "There'll be more coming."  The eight-page complaint, filed in the New York State Supreme Court, seeks to hold The Times accountable for an opinion column by former editor Max Frankel that asserted the campaign had "an overarching deal" with Russia to "help the campaign against Hillary Clinton" in return for U.S. policies that would be friendlier to Moscow and provide relief from economic sanctions.  The article appeared March 27, 2019.

Why is The New York Times Outing Lower Level FBI Spygate Operatives?  A previously incurious New York Times is now exposing members of the FBI crew who participated in fraud upon the FISA Court.  Are the corrupt former top-tier FBI officials starting to position lower-level FBI participants as scapegoats?  Inside an insufferable article, engineered to defend the need for the DOJ and FBI to continue using FISA intelligence gathering information against U.S. persons, the New York times outlines Stephen M Somma as Case Agent 1, the handler for FBI confidential human source Stefan Halper.

New York Times publishes Taliban propaganda.  It used to be that a murderous regime needed a pliable Western journalist to get its propaganda printed in the New York Times. Not anymore!  It can submit directly to the Times opinion section, as the Taliban proved this week.  "What We, the Taliban, Want," reads the actual headline to an article published Thursday [2/20/2020] by an actual American newsroom.  The op-ed, authored by Taliban deputy leader and suspected terrorist Sirajuddin Haqqani, opens with a series of sentences that attempt to "both sides" the conflict between the Taliban and the United States and present the Americans as unreliable and untrustworthy negotiators.

Campaign Donations Show Letter Demanding Barr's Resignation Comes From Leftist Hacks Pretending To Be 'Bipartisan'.  "More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials called on Attorney General William P. Barr on Sunday to step down after he intervened last week to lower the Justice Department's sentencing recommendation for President Trump's longtime friend Roger J. Stone, Jr.," The New York Times reported on Sunday — if you can call it reporting.  Not once in the 800-word article did the Times address the overwhelming evidence that the thousand-plus signatories were politically motivated critics of President Donald Trump.

Leftwing Group Organized Barr Attack Letter.  More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors signed a letter to condemn Attorney General William Barr and encourage Justice Department employees to tattle on the nation's top lawman if they see anything naughty. [...] [New York] Times reporter Katie Benner, trying to make the stunt look like a legitimate grassroots effort, attributed the letter to Protect Democracy, which she described as a "nonprofit legal group."  But Protect Democracy is not an organic activist group spontaneously created by high-minded legal experts alarmed by Trump's alleged flouting of the rule of law.  Protect Democracy was launched in early 2017 as part of an extensive anti-Trump operation managed by a leftwing tech billionaire:  Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay.  This is who is behind Protect Democracy and a number of other nonprofits formed to destroy the president.

NY Times Reporter Gets Shredded After Criticizing Trump For Lap At Daytona 500.  If Barack Obama had done it, the mainstream media would've gone nuts.  But it was President Trump who took a lap on the Daytona International Speedway, so of course it was the worst thing that's ever happened in the history of the world.  Trump flew into Daytona on Sunday (swooping over the crowd at just 800 feet in Air Force One) and served as grand marshal for the big NASCAR race (he even got to say, "Gentlemen, start your engines!").  And in a fantastic first, Trump took his presidential limo known as The Beast out onto the 2.5-mile track to serve as pace car for the full field of 40 racers (which at least one driver really loved).  But one New York Times reporter — clearly suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) — found the whole thing objectionable.

Uncovering 'Anonymous' in the White House.  In swamp news, Deputy National Security Advisor Victoria Coates is reportedly being pinned by senior officials in the Trump administration as the so-called "Anonymous," the hideous little operative deep within the Trump administration who claimed to be the anti-Trump "resistance" on the inside, brazenly writing an essay in the New York Times to 'assure' us that the Trump administration was full of such people.

Dems' New Talking Point on the Trump Economy:  Obama Built It.  The morning after Trump's election, Paul Krugman, economics professor and columnist for The New York Times, wrote:  "Now comes the mother of all adverse effects — and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work.  Effective fiscal support for the Fed?  Not a chance.  In fact, you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence, and be bullied by cranks.  So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.  I suppose we could get lucky somehow.  But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened."

NYT's Thomas Friedman Begs Dems to Nominate 'Moderate Progressive' Bloomberg.  You know politics have gotten weird when a liberal New York Times columnist begs Democrat voters to abandon Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in favor of nominating Michael Bloomberg to lead the Democratic ticket.  Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote a wacky February 11, op-ed headlined "Paging Michael Bloomberg."  In the piece, Friedman suggested Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg News, was more capable of appealing "to independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women" than self-proclaimed democratic socialist Sanders.  Friedman was determined to get Democrats not to nominate Sanders:  "Please, Democrats, don't tell me you need Sanders's big, ill-thought-through, revolutionary grand schemes to get inspired and mobilized for this election."

Four major journalistic errors in just 10 hours.  The New York Times's Maggie Haberman, for example, tweeted the following falsehood at around 5:30 p.m. Monday evening:  "Republican voter registration in NH is down roughly 20k voters from 2016 to now.  It's a reminder that Trump's increased GOP popularity is in part because in some places, the GOP registration rolls have shrunk."  This is not only false, but it has been debunked several times.  At some point, repeating the lie becomes a choice.

Joe diGenova:  WH Official Who Penned Anonymous NYT Op-Ed Has Been Identified.  Joe diGenova, a former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, claimed to 105.9 WMAL on Monday the anonymous White House official who wrote the New York Times op-ed describing how they were resisting President Trump from within had been identified and will be leaving their job soon.  "I am told that soon there will someone else leaving the White House, who wrote that article.  Apparently they have identified 'anonymous' and we were told that — Victoria and I were at dinner with a senior government official last week — and we were told that by this person they have, in fact, identified 'anonymous,'" diGenova said.  DiGenova said he was unable to provide anymore details on what he was told out of fear of outing his source, but "anonymous" will be leaving the White House soon.

NY Times Attacks 'Ruthless' McConnell on Front Page, [but] Never Used [that] Word for Harry Reid.  In the wake of the failed impeachment of Donald Trump, the New York Times' Elaina Plott took a 2,000-word front-page look Saturday at how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has elevated his reputation in the eyes of Republican voters in "A New Image Of McConnell In G.O.P. Eyes." [...] Plott's tone was mild, but her word choice harsh, using a form of "ruthless" three times to describe McConnell. [...] One partisan politician who has never been termed "ruthless" in a Times news story, according to a search?  Harry Reid.

America's Opinion Journalists Ranked:  The Good, The Bad, and The Worst.  Paul Krugman (New York Times).  If pomposity were diamonds, Paul Krugman would be the shiniest person in journalism.  Ever since the Nobel Committee gave him an economics award (just one year before they preposterously gave the Peace Prize to Obama), Krugman has written one imperious piece after another.  Days after Trump's election, for instance, he forecast ruin for the nation's economy, and he has become an over-the-top climate change alarmist.  But Krugman is mostly notable for the hatred he displays for everyone who disagrees with him.  In his review of Krugman's 2007 book, "Conscience of a Liberal," economist David Kennedy wrote "Like the rants of Rush Limbaugh or the films of Michael Moore, Krugman's shrill polemic may hearten the faithful, but it will do little to persuade the unconvinced."  And as evidence that the beat goes on, just this month Sebastian Mallaby wrote in the Atlantic that Krugman is a prime example of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The Hate America Project.  The founding of America during the revolutionary era 1776 [to] 1787 was based on principles that provide the sinews of our national identity.  They are what create a unity out of the diverse peoples that have settled and occupied this country since its founding.  They have been the inspirational force that enabled America to abolish slavery, become a global symbol of freedom, and provide the world's chief bulwark against global tyrannies.  It is this inspirational memory that the political left has set out to erase and destroy.  The most disturbing manifestation of this sinister aggression is the so-called "1619 Project," the brainchild of a staff writer at The New York Times, named Nikole Hannah-Jones.

Wikileaks Proved Maggie Haberman Is a Dem Operative and Her NYT 'Expose' Should Go in the Garbage.  Maggie Haberman and her "bombshell" article in the New York Times about John Bolton's manuscript, and claims that he holds information that could convict the president, should be completely ignored or mocked for what it is:  planted opposition strategy.  It is an indisputable fact that Haberman was used by the Hillary Clinton campaign to "plant" stories favorable to Clinton in the press.  John Podesta's hacked emails prove it.

10 Years Later:  Gloomy Predictions Following Citizens United Decision Didn't Happen.  Predictions that the decision by the Supreme Court 10 years ago in Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission) would allow "dark money" to invade and take over the political process in the United States have failed to materialize.  Instead, the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech has been strengthened in the political arena, to the benefit of the Republic.  Some Democrats still haven't gotten the memo.  Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) declared just last week that "Ten years after Citizens United our democracy has reached a crisis point.  Just look at the ever-increasing amount of secret money flooding [into] our elections."  The New York Times whined at the time of the ruling that the decision "paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections ... thrust[ing] politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century."  Udall didn't bother to check his facts, and the Times is silent over the failure of its gloomy prediction.

Bolton's People Deny He's Behind Leak, But People Aren't Buying the Coincidences.  As my colleague Bonchie reported earlier, the New York Times dropped a "bombshell" about what supposedly was in a draft of John Bolton's new book that supposedly has President Donald Trump saying to Bolton that he wants to withhold aid in exchange for investigations.  There are of course many other questions about this last minute drop just as Republicans are destroying the Democrats's impeachment case.  It's all about breaking the wall to get in witnesses and damage Trump.  But the basic response is a simple one:  no actual quid pro quo was ever asked for, the transcript and President Volodymyr Zelensky confirm that.  So whatever was actually said, if anything was, it's completely irrelevant.

What's Bolton up to with that new move to play Schiff's game?  Hard to say what fired and now former national security adviser John Bolton is up to these days now that the Senate impeachment trial is on.  The latest news is here on the front page of the New York Times, reporting an anonymous "leak": [...] Bolton says the leak didn't come from him, but the Deep Staters reviewing his book for disclosure of secrets.  One of them. [...] Bolton earlier had said he didn't want to play Adam Schiff's game to Get Trump and told the latter he'd testify as a witness for him only with a subpoena.  Now he's practically asking to testify, just as he's got a book out with the very claims Democrats wanted to hear.  What changed?  He's still opting to play Adam Schiff's game with this.  Book timing?  Publication schedule?  You decide.

Another Carefully Timed National Security Council Leak? — John Bolton Book Manuscript Leaked to New York Times.  The timing, purpose and narrative engineering here are transparent in the extreme.  Tonight [1/26/2020] the New York Times (Schmidt and Haberman) write an article claiming to have exclusively gained portions of a transcript of a John Bolton book manuscript that was given to the White House National Security Council for pre-publication review.  Of course The Times attempts to frame the narrative around the need for John Bolton to testify in the Senate Impeachment Trial, all too transparent in motive.  Timed to work around the House fraud; impeachment article construction without Judicial review for subpoenas; and timed to bolster House managers' unconstitutional demand for Bolton as a Senate witness.

Bolton's Lawyer:  Draft Book was Leaked to New York Times.  Chuck Cooper, an attorney for former National Security Adviser John Bolton, said that Bolton's book manuscript was submitted to the National Security Council for a standard review for classified information, but its contents appear to have been leaked to the New York Times.  Cooper was reacting to a story in the Times that alleges President Donald Trump told Bolton that he wanted to withhold aid to Ukraine until it completed investigations Trump had requested.

Historians Say New York Times Gets History Wrong.  We live in history-making times [...] because of what looks like an ongoing battle for control of the central narrative of American history.  That battle was opened back in August when The New York Times ran the first several articles of its 1619 Project.  Named for the year when the first African slaves were offloaded in the dozen-year-old colony of Virginia, the central theme is that slavery and its effects are the central driving force in American history, the underpinning of everything from corporate capitalism to suburban sprawl.  The latest salvo on the other side comes from Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, writing in The Atlantic.  Wilentz makes mincemeat of The 1619 Project lead Nikole Hannah-Jones' contention that protecting slavery was a main motive of the American Revolution, of her statement that Abraham Lincoln "opposed black equality" and of her avowal that blacks fought "alone" for equal rights after the Civil War.

NY Times Beclowns Itself with Double Democrat Endorsement.  The last Republican presidential candidate the N.Y. Times endorsed was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, more than half a century ago.  Since then, every endorsement has been for the Democrat candidate.  So much for having an open mind.  While not surprising, it loudly screams partisanship, an appearance a major newspaper might seek to avoid.

The New York Times presidential endorsement shows why newspapers must end the practice.  The media landscape in 2020 is radically different than even the vitriolic (and sometimes physically dangerous) climate that enveloped the 2016 election.  Still, many newspaper editorial boards are going about business as usual by issuing formal endorsements of candidates in the Democratic primary — as The New York Times did on Sunday night with Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. — before they will most likely endorse the party's nominee over Donald Trump, much as they did in 2016. But editors nationwide need to wake up to the new reality and sit out endorsing anyone in the 2020 election.  If the nation's newspapers do what they did in 2016 — when only one major newspaper, Sheldon Adelson's Las Vegas Review-Journal, endorsed then-reality TV star and now President Donald Trump — they risk irreparable harm to not just their bottom lines but to their formerly essential place in voter's lives.  Americans of all stripes are now seemingly more convinced by fact-less memes than by thoroughly researched articles.  The media has a credibility problem, and that's what's truly threatening the very underpinnings of our democracy.

Should You Hate the Media?  The cold truth is that the men who preside over The New York Times and The Washington Post, and they are all men, believe THEY should be running the United States, not Donald Trump who is a vulgarian in their eyes.  These men well know the Democratic Party will blindly follow their editorial lead as will TV news executives at CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS.  Thus, the so called "free press" in America has become an industry that now seeks power over Americans.  The far left vision these operations usually champion cannot be realized at the ballot box, the bosses know that.  So it must be imposed by destroying progressive opposition, which the media does with enthusiasm.  Just ask Brett Kavanaugh.

New York Times' laugh-out-loud 'endorsement' wants anyone but a man.  The New York Times' anyone-but-a-man presidential "endorsement" of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar is a laugh-out-loud ode to indecision, ageism and condescending claptrap.  It's definitely worth a good read, even for just the unintentional hilarity.  "Senator Warren is a gifted story-teller," the editorial asserts straight-faced.  Like her story about being an American Indian?  "She speaks fluently about foreign policy."  Like her flip-flop on the drone strike against Iran's Qassem Soleimani, turning the targeted killing of a mass "murderer" into the "assassination" of a "senior foreign military official"?

The Times' disgraceful smear of America's top defense officials.  Agenda-driven misreporting is a painfully regular feature of the Trump era, but last Sunday's New York Times account of how President Trump came to order the drone strike that took out Gen. Qassem Soleimani still stands out.  "Trump's Choice of Killing Stunned Defense Officials," blared the top Page One headline of the Jan. 5 Times.  Under four reporters' bylines, the story claimed the president chose an option that Pentagon officials had presented to him only to make the other choices seem more acceptable. [...] This is an outrageous smear of the nation's top defense officials.  In fact, as Alex Plitsas, an Obama-era chief of sensitive activities for the assistant secretary for special operations, told The Federalist:  "The options that go to the executive are vetted through the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense before they are presented to the president."

John Kerry Complains Donald Trump Ruined Iran Deal.  Former Secretary of State John Kerry complained Thursday that President Donald Trump was ruining everything he and former President Barack Obama achieved with the Iran deal.  "He put his disdain for anything done by the last administration ahead of his duty to keep the country safe," Kerry wrote in a mournful 1,000 word op-ed for the New York Times.  The former secretary of state is currently supporting former Vice President Joe Biden for president and campaigning for him in Iowa.

NY Times Embarrasses Itself Again — On Iran-9/11 Ties.  The sloppy New York Times is once-again embarrassing itself.  In a prominent "fact-check" piece appearing on Friday, cub reporter Zach Montague ripped into Vice President Mike Pence for a series of tweets that described the terror-drenched record of the ex-Quds Force commander, Qassem Suleymani.  At issue was Pence's account of Suleymani's links to the September 11, 2001 attacks on America.  In one tweet, the vice president noted that Suleymani and his terrorists "assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the Untied States.

The Media's Worst Year.  [Scroll down]  Lamenting that the singular focus of the New York Times newsroom around "Russia, Russia, Russia" failed to achieve its desired effect, NYT executive editor Dean Baquet promised to do better by weaponizing the newsroom around writing about "race in a thoughtful way" by means of the 1619 Project, which is intended to replace the consensus view of American history with one in which slavery and racism become the focus of the entire American saga.  This is somehow supposed to accomplish what the Russian collusion story failed to do.

Paul Krugman's strange tweets about his hacked computer.  [Scroll down]  Leftists consider QAnon to be an evil, right-wing hoax and conspiracy theory.  One thing I did learn from my conversation, though, was that Q contends that a major connection linking the world's power players is pedophilia.  One doesn't need to be a conspiracy theorist, though, to notice from recent news stories that people in power often use that power to abuse children.  From Jeffrey Epstein (did he or didn't he kill himself?), to the endless stories about pedophiles in Hollywood, to the appalling and real pedophilia scandal in England, people who believe themselves free from ordinary rules and morality do very bad things.

Paul Krugman "claims" hackers used his IP address to download child pornography.  Many believe that Krugman is guilty and downloaded or watched something that he should never have done and is now playing the victim card as an act of defence against any allegations that might surface in the future. [...] An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device connected to a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication.  An IP address serves two main functions:  host or network interface identification and location addressing.  Paul Krugman is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and is a known vicious critic of US President Donald Trump.

Paul Krugman Denies Responsibility for Child Pornography Located on His Computer.  In a rather bizarre tweet without any background context New York Times columnist Paul Krugman denies responsibility for child pornography found on his computer: [...] In a follow-up tweet Krugman states:  "The Times is now on the case".  Apparently calling the police for a forensic review was out of the question, or something.

NY Times columnist Paul Krugman says hacker 'compromised' his IP address to 'download child pornography'.  New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is appearing to be having technical difficulties as he acknowledged Wednesday [1/8/2020] on Twitter that his IP address had been "compromised" and used to "download child pornography."  "Well, I'm on the phone with my computer security service, and as I understand it someone compromised my IP address and is using it to download child pornography," Krugman wrote in a now-deleted tweet.  "I might just be a random target.  But this could be an attempt to Qanon me.  It's an ugly world out there."  Qanon is a reference to the group of conspiracy theorists who in recent years spread incriminating myths against many high-profile Democrats on social media.

NY Times reporter's tweet of Soleimani reciting poetry draws backlash.  A New York Times reporter received backlash Friday after posting a video on social media showing slain Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani reciting poetry.  Farnaz Fassihi, an Iranian-American journalist who covers Iran for the paper, shared the video in the early morning hours after the Pentagon confirmed President Trump ordered a targeted drone strike that killed Soleimani and other military officials at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq.  "Rare personal video of Gen. Soleimani reciting poetry shared by a source in #Iran.  About friends departing & him being left behind," she wrote in a tweet with the video.

Trump-Hating NY Times Pouts Trump Doesn't Throw Christmas Parties for Journalists.  The front of the New York Times Sunday Styles section was a microcosm of self-absorbed journalists indulging themselves over the holidays:  "The Pall Before Christmas."  It was written by Shawn McCreesh, previously an editorial assistant to Maureen Dowd and who here shares Dowd's contemptuous irreverence toward Trump[.]  It takes some gall, after prominent Democrats have encouraged confrontation of Trump staffers (and the Times running op-eds advocating "doxxing" migrant detention center employees), for the paper to suddenly wonder where everyone is.

1619 & all that.  It was to console its core readership that The New York Times undertook The 1619 Project in a special flood-the-zone issue of its Sunday magazine in August and then in a snazzy, graphics-heavy series of features on its website.  For two years, the Times had invested heavily in the vaudeville entertainment called "Trump-Russia."  The spectacular failure of its leading man, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, to deliver a happy ending to that fiasco underscored the essential futility of the entire enterprise.  This was something that Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of the Times, grasped instantly.  Last summer, he huddled with his staff in a town-hall-style meeting — the proceedings of which were promptly leaked — and acknowledged a sad truth:  "We built our newsroom to cover one story" (the now-debunked story that Donald Trump had "colluded" with Russia to steal the 2016 election).  The story didn't pan out.

NY Times Puffs Bloomberg 2020, Decried Trump as 'Brink of Fascism' in 2015.  The liberal media seem to only care about propping up billionaires when the views of the rich align with their own.  The New York Times did an entire puff piece elevating the candidacy of liberal billionaire 2020 candidate Michael Bloomberg, with little criticism.  The Times published what could be read as a teaser for an unofficial political biography for the billionaire owner of controversy-laced liberal outlet Bloomberg News, Dec. 22. [...] Fellow billionaire and President Donald Trump would never have gotten such softball profiling from the Times.  Its Editorial Board decried him as a "singular celebrity narcissist who has somehow, all alone, brought his party and its politics to the brink of fascism" around the same period before the 2016 election in December 2015.  But then Trump also hasn't given millions furthering radical gun control or spending $500 million on an environmentalist crusade to completely shut down the coal industry in the U.S. by 2030.

Liberal Media Scream:  New York Times' columnist demands impeachment 'to preserve America'.  This week's Liberal Media Scream features celebrated New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman declaring that only impeaching President Trump will preserve the nation.  In a "Point-CounterPoint" segment on CBS's Sunday Morning [12/15/2019], Friedman declared:  "President Trump not only should be impeached, he must be impeached, if we're to preserve America as we've known it."

A Divisive, Historically Dubious Curriculum.  Hannah-Jones's essay has come under withering attack from eminent historians such as Gordon Wood and James McPherson for its historical distortions.  But the 1619 Project's curriculum does more than encourage teachers to ignore key elements of the historical record; it asks students to blot them out. [...] Historians, journalists, and politicians frequently accuse one another of twisting history to advance political agendas — and the accused parties always deny the charge.  By contrast, the 1619 Project's curriculum openly encourages such historical revisionism.  Its "reading guide" aims to ensure that students don't miss core partisan talking points.

Pathetic NYT spin on Horowitz report.  The New York Times is operating in a pure propaganda mode, attempting to minimize the impact of the forthcoming (Dec. 9) report of the Department of Justice Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.  Sundance, of The Conservative Treehouse, calls his article on leaks from the report, "highly structured obfuscation," doing justice to the careful and artful misleading of readers.  Keep in mind in understanding these leaks that principals named in an IG report are afforded an opportunity to comment on sections of the report that mention them prior to publication of the report.  They don't see the entire report, only those sections directly involving them.  The IG is also able to write a rebuttal to those comments.  This means that nobody leaking is likely to have seen the full report, and thus the leakers do not grasp the entire context of the portions they have been given to review.

Prominent historians criticize the NY Times' 1619 Project as 'biased,' 'anti-historical'.  The NY Times' 1619 Project was a sprawling effort earlier this year to convince Americans that slavery was part of the DNA of America.  Made up of various pieces by different authors, the 1619 Project seemed to promote an idea that matched current far left sentiment about the importance of identity with an underlying anti-capitalism.  The Times is now promoting the Project for inclusion in high school curricula, so it's likely it will be with us for some time.  But where did all of this material come from?  One site has done some important work looking into the Times' Project by simply asking top scholars what they though of it and whether or not they were consulted.

The New York Times' long descent from credibility.  The separation of news from opinion was an ingrained part of the culture at The New York Times when I started there in the 1970s. [...] After Abe Rosenthal left the newsroom in 1986, a succession of editors relaxed his rules.  Accuracy declined but the most glaring change was that coverage began to reflect the bias of editors and reporters. [...] The defining moment came in August of 2016 with an article by the Times' media columnist.  It began this way:  "If you're a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation's worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?"  Under standards I grew up with at the Times, the answer is easy:  Because you hold blatantly partisan views, you probably can't provide impartial coverage.  You should be writing about sports or food or fashion — anything but politics.

New York Times Obtains Resignation Letter From Kamala Harris Staffer.  The New York Times obtained a strongly-worded resignation letter from a former Kamala Harris campaign staffer, who said she has "never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly."  The Times published the letter Friday [11/29/2019] as part of a longer story about Harris' fading campaign.

A Response to Thanksgiving History as Told by the NYT.  The NYT gives space to a lily-white George Washington University History Professor, David J. Silverman, who, surprise, thinks that Thanksgiving is a tragedy of colonialism.  He states that the "Native American past and present tend to make white people uncomfortable because they turn patriotic histories and heroes inside out and loosen claims on morality, authority and justice."  According to this [writer], white people were evil, while red people were pristine, good, and with a culture that was "every bit as ancient and rich as in Europe."  Thanks for the Howard Zinn version of history, professor.  The reality is that all of the Eastern woodland Indian tribes were a stone age people without iron metallurgy or even the wheel.  They were in constant warfare with other tribes each trying to take the other's land or defend their own.

Leftists show their class, allowing kids to 'boo' Melania Trump who was there to help them.  In a non-partisan speech to middle school and high school students seeking to protect them from drug use, first lady Melania Trump was booed by the kids, signaling just how bad the leftist school system is in instituting manners.  According to the all-but-drooling New York Times, which blamed the bad behavior on President Trump's past remarks.

NYT Author Rips Gabbard For White Pantsuit, But Praised Hillary For It In 2016.  An author at the New York Times ripped Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for her white pantsuit look, but praised Hillary Clinton for the same thing in 2016.  Vanessa Friedman, chief fashion critic for The NYT, wrote Thursday that Gabbard's "white pantsuit isn't winning."  Gabbard has stood out from her competitors during debate season with an all-white pantsuit, and Hillary often made the same fashion statement when she ran for president.

Unable to take Tulsi Gabbard down, the NYT turns to attacking her white pantsuit.  Unconventional Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, who singlehandedly drove a stake through the heart of Kamala Harris's campaign, and who called Hillary Clinton "the embodiment of corruption" is not popular with the Democratic establishment.  But they can't seem to do anything to get rid of her.  Gabbard was unfairly excluded from the September Democratic debate, despite meeting all its requirements, and from there, her support only grew bigger, making it impossible to deny her a podium at the November Democratic debate.  She was there, and they can't get rid of her, but oh, do they want to.  So now the public relations arm of the Democratic Party, the New York Times, has taken to attacking her for her white pantsuit.

NYT style critic attacks Tulsi Gabbard's stunning white pantsuits as cult-like and 'fringe'.  The Democratic establishment despises the insurgent candidacy of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.  From her decision to buck party orthodoxy and endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2016 over Democratic National Committee favorite Hillary Clinton, to her constant criticisms of Democratic foreign policy mistakes, Gabbard has made herself no friends with the party elite.  She's perfectly fine with that if it's required to put the people first.  Still, this means establishment Democrats and their allies regularly smear and attack the Democratic congresswoman.  But, as if we need more proof of how deranged the establishment's hatred for Gabbard has become, the New York Times style section is now criticizing her... wardrobe?

The Editor says...
Isn't that exactly what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wore to the Mexican border for her photo op and phony crying act?

Does the Left Hate America?  Here are six reasons to believe the Left hates America: [#1] No one denies that the international Left — the Left in Europe, Asia, Latin America and elsewhere — hates America.  Therefore, in order to argue that American leftists do not hate America, one would have to argue that on one of the most fundamental principles of international leftism — hatred of America — American leftists differ with fellow leftists around the world:  All the world's left hates the U.S., but the American left loves it.  This, of course, makes no sense.  Leftists around the world agree on every important issue.  Why, then, would they differ with regard to America?  Has any leftist at the New York Times, for example, written one column critical of the international Left's anti-Americanism?

New York Times Admits No One Believes the Liberal News Media Anymore.  Here's an excerpt from the Trump-hating New York Times.  ["]But just when information is needed most, to many Americans it feels most elusive.  The rise of social media; the proliferation of information online, including news designed to deceive; and a flood of partisan news are leading to a general exhaustion with news itself.["]

New York Times Scrubs 'Terror' from Islamic Jihad Story.  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was a "terrorist" who led a "terrorist group" that committed "acts of terror" before ultimately losing his life during a U.S. "counterterrorism action," the New York Times reported in numerous stories following the ISIS leader's death in late October.  Those are all accurate, precise terms to describe the head of an organization that's clearly guilty of targeting civilians with violence for political aims.  But now, two weeks later, after Israel's military killed senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Baha Abu al-Ata, the T-word is nowhere to be found in the New York Times report on Tuesday [11/12/2019] about the incident.  More puzzling is that the first versions of the article, published in the early morning hours of November 12 after the terrorist was killed, did accurately note Islamic Jihad's terror designation — but that information was later scrubbed from the story.

NY Times Hates 'Embarrassing' Fox, Longs for Good Old Days of Three NetworksNew York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof attacked the one network not pushing all-out for a Trump impeachment in the Sunday Review:  "Is Fox 'News' Or Trump's Bodyguard?"  For the veteran liberal commentator, things were better during the Nixon impeachment period, when the three networks spouted the same brand of anti-Nixon corporate liberalism to an audience with few other news choices. [...] CBS, NBC, and ABC were strident supporters of Bill Clinton during his 1998 impeachment, but that's not of import to Kristof.

The Editor says...
This country isn't going back to the days of three TV networks distributed nationwide by the (one) telephone company.  Not unless there is some catastrophic technical issue with the geostationary satellites, e.g., war in space.  But if TV ever returns to the 1950s, "three networks" might be enough, as long as none of them are PBS, CNN, or MSNBC.  If television is restructured from the ground up someday, let's make some drastic improvements:  Outlaw 30-minute commercials, advertisements for lawyers, and ads for prescription drugs.  Then make it illegal for a single company to own more than ten television stations, and no more than 15 broadcast stations any sort (AM, FM, TV).

Oops: White House Release Exposes Fake News From New York Times.  Seven weeks ago, after the White House released its official summary of a July 25 phone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian President, the New York Times noted that the two had previously spoken on April 21 and wrote the following about that conversation: [...] On Friday morning [11/15/2019], the White House released its official summary of that earlier call, and it completely debunked the Times reporting that appeared in a front-page September 26 article.  The official summary shows a light-hearted conversation about Zelensky's election victory, Trump's promise that a "very, very high level" delegation would attend his inauguration, and an invitation for Zelensky to visit the White House.

When Did Ukraine Become a 'Critical Ally'?  On hearing the State Department's George Kent and William Taylor describe President Donald Trump's withholding of military aid to Ukraine, The New York Times summarized and solemnly endorsed their testimony:  "What clearly concerned both witnesses wasn't simply the abuse of power by the President, but the harm it inflicted on Ukraine, a critical ally, under constant assault by Russian forces." [...] "One would think, listening to this," writes Barbara Boland, the American Conservative columnist, "that the U.S. had always provided arms to Ukraine, and that Ukraine has relied on this aid for years.  But this is untrue and the Washington blob knows this."  Indeed, Ukraine has never been a NATO ally or a "critical ally."

Impeachment witness cites NYT as source for his understanding of Trump's Ukraine motive.  Along with the announcement that the first public impeachment probe hearings would start next week, on Wednesday, House Democrats released the deposition transcript of one of their star witnesses in the probe:  Top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine Bill Taylor. [...] But while impeachment boosters may hail Taylor's testimony as damaging to the president, they might need to take a second look at it.  Indeed, it appears that many of Taylor's opinions about the Ukraine matter were, as the Federalist's Sean Davis put it, "formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy." [...] He even admitted at one point that his main source for his understanding of why the president wanted the investigations was the New York Times.  When asked whether or not he did any due diligence to find out what the concerns about Burisma or the 2016 election were before he took his post earlier this year, he responded "no."

Trump Judicial Nominee Steven Menashi Advances Despite NYT 'Smear' Story.  The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) has advanced President Donald Trump's judicial nominee Steven Menashi despite an attempt by the New York Times to kill his nomination, says Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director to Judicial Crisis Network (JCN).

Killing America in anonymity.  On Inauguration Day, the New York Times ran a front-page story based on transcripts of that wiretapping — but six weeks later the newspaper lied and denied the wiretapping.  Now the Fake News media that promoted the Russian Collusion Hoax refuses to name Eric Ciaramella as the phony whistle blower behind the Ukrainian Collusion Hoax.  The media that pushes every unfounded rumor about President Trump said it cannot verify this.  The only quid pro was Joe Biden holding up a billion in aid to Ukraine until the government fired a prosecutor who threatened Hunter Biden's $600,000-a-year no-show job by a crooked Ukraine company seeking favor from Obama.  Quid Pro Joe Biden bragged about this in 2018.  Every American who cares about justice wants Biden investigated.  Everyone in the media seems to want to let his abuse of office slide.  Instead the media wants to impeach President Trump.

The Justice Department is fishing for details about the anonymous 'resistance' op-ed writer.  The Justice Department is looking for identifying details about the anonymous Trump administration official who excoriated the president's "amorality" in an unsigned New York Times opinion column last year, according to a letter the agency sent Monday [11/4/2019].  The author of the column, whose identity has remained a secret for more than a year, has also written a tell-all book that will publish this month — and Assistant Attorney General Joseph H. Hunt wants proof that the writer is not bound by a government nondisclosure agreement.  Either that, Hunt wrote in the letter, or the book's publisher and the author's agents should turn over the official's employment information: where in the government the person worked, and when he or she worked there.  If the official had access to classified information, Hunt warned, the book should be "submitted for pre-publication review."

Republicans Lie, Democrats Misstate:  A New York Times Style Guide.  The New York Times, for example, took a markedly different tone in covering Hillary Clinton's bogus 2008 claim about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia than it did with President Donald Trump's dubious statement that the late ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi went down "whimpering" during a U.S. raid last month.  In 2008, after the Washington Post published a Four-Pinocchio "fact check" of Clinton's oft-told Bosnia story from 1996, the Times reported Clinton's "admission that she had misspoken."  A story the following day discussed her attempts to put "a softening spin on her misstatement."  By contrast, the Times has devoted three news reports to fact-checking Trump's statement that al-Baghdadi died "crying and whimpering and screaming," including a front-page story on Saturday headlined, "The 'Whimpering' Terrorist Only Trump Seems to Have Heard."

Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming.  A surge of oil production is coming, whether the world needs it or not.  The flood of crude will arrive even as concerns about climate change are growing and worldwide oil demand is slowing.  And it is not coming from the usual producers, but from Brazil, Canada, Norway and Guyana — countries that are either not known for oil or whose production has been lackluster in recent years.

The Editor says...
The article above, apparently from the New York Times and quoted by MSN, reeks with bias.  Oil is not produced and has never been produced "whether the world needs it or not."  Oil production is always a response to steady demand.  The combustion of hydrocarbons (resulting in carbon dioxide as a byproduct) does not cause climate change.  The climate is not changing.  Most of the global warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, when internal combustion engines were still relatively rare.  An abundant supply of cheap oil is a good thing.  The writers at the New York Times apparently hate America, and can't stand to see capitalism succeed.

NY Times' 10-Page Attack on Trump Twitter's Racist, Conspiratorial, Anti Media-Madness.  President Trump's dangerous Twitter.  That was the paper's overriding obsession in Sunday's edition.  The enormous story launched on the top half of the front page and jumped to a special 10-page section, "The Twitter Presidency."  The timing is apt, considering the paper is pressuring Twitter to be better than Facebook and actually squelch political messaging as the 2020 campaign nears.  This enormous, breathless expose, which reviewed every tweet and retweet the President sent from Jan. 20, 2017 [to] Oct. 15, 2019, was put together by (inhale) Michael Shear, Maggie Haberman, Nicholas Confessore, Karen Yourish, Larry Buchanan, Keith Collins, Matt Flegenheimer, and Mike McIntire.  Their multi-month investigation uncovered all sorts of Trump Twitter iniquity: [...]

NY Times Pretends It's 'Provocative' for TV Stations Returning to National-Anthem Video.  David Krayden at Daily Caller noted The New York Times is once again describing the national anthem as a wildly divisive song.  Media liberals also think "God Bless America" is controversial, when they weren't quoting radicals saying that song was "a whitewash of everything wrong in America."  Times culture reporter Julia Jacobs reported on Wednesday [10/30/2019] on the "divisive" trend of TV stations returning to broadcasting a national-anthem video in the wee hours of the night.

The New York Times says airing national anthem on TV could trigger viewers who hear 'political overtones.  The New York Times poo-pooed the long-standing tradition of television stations airing the "The Star-Spangled Banner" because some night owl viewers could be offended by the "politically charged" national anthem.  The piece, written by culture reporter Julia Jacobs and published Wednesday, is headlined "Local TV Revives a Bygone Tradition:  Airing the National Anthem," and declares that the song can "be a dividing line" for some Americans.

The Editor says...
Kids these days are too young to remember when TV stations operated less than 24 hours a day.  When TV stations started running 30-minute commercials all night long, the idea of signing off was abandoned forever.  But back in the old days, prior to about 1980, the stations would run out of things to show at about 1:00 a.m., play the national anthem, and shut down.  Then the viewers would go to bed, if they weren't in bed already.  The TV stations played the national anthem because America was a superpower.

NY Times:  Refugees Needed to Fill 'Void of Cultural Diversity' in White Towns.  More refugees must be resettled across the United States to fill a "void of cultural diversity" in towns that are made up of a majority of white Americans, a New York Times report states.  As President Trump is set to lower refugee admissions for the third year, keeping his 2016 campaign promise to significantly reform the program after almost four decades, the New York Times published a report this week detailing how Congolese refugees already living in the U.S. are looking to bring their foreign relatives to the country through the refugee resettlement program.

The Editor says...
There has never been any popular demand in this country for immigrants from other countries.  The influx of foreigners and so-called refugees is entirely the work of the government and the immigrants themselves.  Most of the people who are called "refugees" are just indigent families and destitute individuals from poor countries that lack welfare programs, and they're only coming here to get free meals.  The newcomers are tolerated and welcomed only as long as they assimilate, work, learn English, and behave like us.  Nobody thinks their little town would be a better place if only a few hundred strangers from the other side of the world showed up tomorrow.  The New York Times is pushing the idea of "refugee resettlement" to whitewash Barack H. Obama's legacy and to support the arrival of future Democrats.

NY Times:  Trump Gets No Credit for Baghdadi Raid.  The Washington Post says al-Baghdadi was just an "austere religious scholar," but if you don't buy that line the New York Times has another hot take: the successful raid on Baghdadi's hideout occurred despite, not because of, President Trump: [...] These are no doubt the same "military, intelligence and counterterrorism officials" who have been behind 5,000 or so previous anti-Trump stories in the Times.  As William Jacobson points out, there is nothing to the Times story.  Intelligence sources located Baghdadi, the military asked for permission to go after him, Trump granted permission, and the raid was carried out successfully.  The Times has nothing.

NY Times thinks it found the real enemy in al-Baghdadi raid:  TRUMP.  [Scroll down]  The Times does not identify its sources.  Let's say they really exist, is it a shock that the Times could find some people to criticize Trump on just about anything?  Note that there is no claim the raid had been greenlighted and was interrupted.  Or even that there was actionable intelligence.  To accept this as interference, you'd have to say no troop movements or changes in policy could be ordered until al-Baghdadi was capture or killed — something that already had taken years of unsuccessful efforts.  The Times also admits that the "military called off missions at least twice at the last minute" without claiming those aborted missions were related to the troop withdrawal.  Also, actionable intelligence only became available a few days ago.

Bureaucratic Rule: By What Right?  The New York Times long has tried to school us in the rightfulness of the bureaucracy's attempt to rule America contrary to the results of elections.  Last year, the editorial board published an anonymous piece, in an unprecedented move, purporting to be written by a "high official" arguing that mandarins like himself serve the country by subverting the Trump administration. [...] That, in turn, means that the bureaucrats, whom we pay but may not fire, are the rightful deciders and any notion of a sovereign people ruling themselves through representatives whom they elect and fire is a quaint and outmoded one to be discarded by those of superior understanding, like themselves.  Their superior right supposedly comes from superior knowledge and morality.  In short, they should rule us because they are better than we.

NYT blows gaping hole in Ukraine quid pro quo.  The New York Times may have just backed up a key Trump administration talking point on Ukraine, ironically while trying to bury the president.  Democrats in Washington are busy pushing closed-door impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump based on the unproven allegation that he used foreign aid as a bargaining chip during a July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  But a key part of the Democratic case seems to have fallen apart, and the left-leaning Times inadvertently confirmed it.  On Wednesday [10/23/2019], the newspaper ran a piece that was meant to discredit the president's defense on the ongoing scandal.  Instead, it seems to have helped him.

Trump: Obama's 'Treasonous' Acts Against Me Even Worse Than We Thought.  The Obama White House, President Trump allegedly told author Doug Wead, was engaged in a "treasonous" act when it was "spying on my campaign." [...] The "spying" comments from Trump are particularly timely as The New York Times reported Thursday [10/24/2019] that the Justice Department's review into the origins of the Russia "collusion" investigation has officially become a "criminal investigation."  "Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter," the Times reported Thursday.  "The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to convene a grand jury and to file criminal charges."  The Times, like many of its fellow left-leaning mainstream media outlets, has framed the development in terms of Trump using "the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies."

NY Times Wrote an Entire Fake Article About Ukraine 'Scandal'.  The New York Times alleged in a false news article that "Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by August, Undermining Trump Defense."  The Trump-Zelensky phone call was made the end of July.  There goes another NYT lie.  The August info didn't undermine anything.  It backed up the President.  The NYT wrote, "In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times."  That is irrelevant since the call took place on July 29.

NYT's former information security director speaks out after sudden termination.  It appears that The New York Times has let go of its senior director of information security and that staffer is speaking out about the paper's decision.  Runa Sandvik began with the Times in 2016. As the paper described in a profile about its then-employee, the Norwegian-born tech expert was hired to "spearhead" security improvements, including the implementation of two-factor authentication, which is a growingly common two-step log-in process outside of the typical password.  She also developed a confidential page for collecting tips and improved communication methods and the accounts of Times subscribers.  At the time the profile was written in 2018, her work was "increasingly crucial."  But, as of Tuesday [10/22/2019], her work was no longer needed.

No, Men Don't Need To Be More Like Women.  The New York Times recently ran an op-ed entitled "Enough Leaning In.  Let's Tell Men to Lean Out," opposing the assertiveness movement's message that women should aspire to male standards. [...] At the risk of stating the obvious, not all men are jerks.  Many are quite wonderful.  But what incentive (beyond internal discipline) do men have to behave admirably if women dismiss them as undifferentiated oafs lacking emotional intelligence?  And if we agree that it's condescending, and even harmful, to tell women to be more like men, why would we turn around and tell men to be more like the stereotypical woman, as this essay does?

Who Do They Think They Are?  Retired Admiral William McRaven devoted the bulk of a New York Times op-ed to appropriating for himself the moral and hence political authority of generations of soldiers and sailors (pointedly, especially the female ones) who have sacrificed for America, for "the good and the right."  Then he gratuitously stated — citing no specifics, as if everyone already knows — that "President Trump seems to believe that all these qualities are unimportant or show weakness."  McRaven concludes, "it is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better."  At the very least, McRaven called for impeachment ahead of an election, or perhaps for a coup, and pretended to do so on the military's behalf.  In fact, his was just one more voice from an establishment that has squandered the public's trust, senses that it can no longer win elections honestly, and is pulling out all the stops.

No, James Comey, America Doesn't Want Your Help.  In a lengthy article over the weekend that was part puff-piece, part cover-up, and part damage control, the New York Times struck fear in the hearts of Americans everywhere with the headline, "James Comey Would Like to Help." Reporter Matt Flegenheimer, bless his heart, had to spend more than two hours with the former FBI director in Comey's well-appointed home located outside of Washington, D.C.  The front-page feature included several photos of the lanky G-Man.  Look, here's Comey holding his grandson!  Look, here's Comey manspreading in front of his godson's collection of Star Wars Legos!  Look, here's Comey getting a hug from a college student during a six-figure speaking gig at Yale!  Comey showed off what can only be described as a shrine to himself in the form of a private office ornamented with FBI memorabilia, just to remind us how great he is.

NYT: 'Whistleblower' Redacted Third Fact Suggesting Potential Bias Against Trump.  The New York Times reported that, along with the intelligence officer "whistleblower" being a registered Democrat and having a "professional relationship" with a 2020 Democrat, there remains a third redacted reason critics could accuse him of "potential bias" when submitting his complaint to the Intelligence Community inspector general.  The Washington Examiner's Byron York reported Tuesday [10/8/2019] that the intelligence officer "whistleblower" had a "professional relationship" with a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate and was a registered Democrat, which critics could use to accuse the "whistleblower" of bias against President Donald Trump and his administration.

Anti-Kavanaugh Book Written by New York Times Reporters Flops.  The new anti-Kavanaugh book written by two New York Times "reporters" is a massive bomb.  According to the source you choose, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh:  An Investigation, which received an enormous amount of free publicity through excepts published at the Times and a[n] extensive media tour for authors Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, either sold 3,120 copies or 4,000 copes during its first two weeks in release.  Either way, it's a catastrophe.

Anti-Trump Fraternity and NeverTrump Sorority Collude in Impeachment Scam.  The fabricated, make-believe scandal of Donald Trump's telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky began unravelling before the ink was dry on the newspapers reporting it. [...] "The official," intoned our fishwrap of record, "has more direct information about the events than the first whistle-blower, whose complaint that Mr. Trump was using his power to get Ukraine to investigate his political rivals touched off an impeachment inquiry."  And just in case the anti-Trump bias of that was not sufficiently patent, the [New York] Times helpfully provided this caption to a photo of the President:  "President Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. during a phone call."  Oh really?  In addition to assuming our stupidity and presuming on our patience, the Times apparently believes that we cannot read.  That call in July between Donald Trump and the Ukrainian President was about efforts to influence the 2016 election, not the 2020 election.  How do we know?  President Trump said so in his call.

Impeachment #2 May Have Jumped the Shark.  Two stories today [10/2/2019] undermine the rush to impeach President Trump on the Ukraine matter.  The first concerns a difficult-to-understand detail in one of the early stories on the matter by Kenneth Vogel of the New York Times.  Vogel reported that the Ukrainians were unaware of the suspension of U.S. military aid when Presidents Trump and Zelensky had their phone call on July 25.  That detail has now been confirmed by Christopher Miller, an expert reporter in Kyiv, in a Buzzfeed dispatch:  "The Ukrainian government didn't know it was being held up in Washington by Trump, according to the two Ukrainian officials.  Nearly a month after the call — which Zelensky has since described as 'good' and Trump has called 'perfect' — the Ukrainian government was left stumped when they received word that the aid had in fact been suspended."  Obviously, if Zelensky did not know about the aid suspension, then the entire notion that the call was drenched in Trumpian mob-boss menace is wrong.

New York Times Kavanaugh book bombs, just 3,120 sold, Amazon rank #6,795.  The latest book on Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a critical biography from two New York Times reporters that made new sexual assault charges that were immediately undermined, has suffered an epic sales crash, according to publishing insiders.  Expected to sell at least 10,000-12,000 in the first two weeks and propel The Education of Brett Kavanaugh:  An Investigation onto the newspaper's bestseller hardcover list, it has sold about a third of that in the first two weeks.  A publishing source provided the latest BookScan numbers, which can account for about 80% of sales.  That number is 3,120.  "If you add in ebooks — they may have sold a total of 4,000.  That's one of the most epic bombs in political publishing over the past decade," said the source.

New York Times columnist David Brooks mocked for creating imaginary 'Flyover Man' Trump supporter.  The blue checks of Twitter attacked New York Times columnist David Brooks for his latest column attempting to explain how a Trump voter in middle America views the president's potential impeachment.  Brooks created a fictional character called "Flyover Man" to represent the average Trump voter in a column called "Why Trump Voters Stick With Him."  Flyover Man argues with a character called "Urban Guy" that no matter what deals Trump may or may not have struck with the government of Ukraine, the president does not deserve to be impeached.  Brooks was mocked for his characterization from people all across the political spectrum.

To hide the fact they amplified another race hate hoax:
NY Times Removes Race Context After Black Girl Admits Faking Hate Crime.  After a 12-year-old African-American girl admitted she lied about a group of white boys cutting off her dreadlocks, the New York Times decided to strip the fact that the accused were "white" from its follow up headline. [...] In the vast majority of these media reports, the fact that the boys were white was included in the headline.  It subsequently emerged that Allen had faked the entire story, with her grandparents today apologizing to those falsely accused.  However, in the media reports that carried the update to the story, the fact that the entire narrative was predicated on the incident being a racist hate crime was stripped from the story.

Letter From Australian Official Emerges That Casts Doubt On Report From New York Times.  A letter emerged late on Monday from the Australian government that directly disputed the accuracy of a New York Times report that claimed that President Donald Trump "pushed" Australia to help Attorney General William Barr investigate the origins of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation in an attempt to "discredit" the investigation in what The Times claimed was an example of Trump "using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests." [...] The development comes after The New York Times tried to suggest that it was a scandal for Trump to ask for Australia to cooperate with an ongoing Department of Justice (DOJ) into the origins of the Russia investigation.  Shortly after The Times' report was published, a source at the DOJ pushed back on it, telling Fox News:  "The countries have been helpful.  There was no pressing required."

Like It Never Even Happened.  Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court was a devastating blow to liberals. [...] [W]ith Anthony Kennedy's retirement, liberals saw Kennedy's moderate, often-liberal swing vote being replaced by Kavanaugh's predominantly conservative views and so liberals were apoplectic over what they viewed as a courtly shift to the right, possibly endangering their sacred Roe v.  Wade ruling.  Incapable of accepting a legitimately decided outcome that is not to their liking, the Left just recently resurrected their anti-Kavanaugh efforts with a new NY Times book excerpt in which Kavanaugh was once again accused of sexual misconduct several decades ago.  It was quickly revealed to be a bogus claim, an embarrassing liberal journalistic hoax.  Yet that didn't prevent every Democratic presidential candidate from instantaneously denouncing Kavanaugh and calling for his impeachment from the Court.  The revelation of the actual truth didn't elicit one single "Oops, sorry" from any Democratic corner, whether politician, spokesperson or liberal media reporter.  Not a single one.

New York Times Kavanaugh Reporter Told Source What To Say.  Year-old texts contained in a Senate Judiciary Committee report show that New York Times reporter Robin Pogrebin engaged in questionable journalistic tactics to shape a false narrative against Kavanaugh by telling a source what to say and by asking sources to confirm information she herself had given them.  And despite including a highly opinionated discussion of the text exchange in their book, the authors never admitted that Pogrebin was a key player in the exchanges.  Pogrebin made a bizarre and unsupported claim this week that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had told her to lie.  It turned out Pogrebin had mischaracterized discussions with the Supreme Court's public information officer, not Kavanaugh, who had merely explained the terms of an off-the-record interview that was being sought and never obtained.  Despite the many errors and false claims Pogrebin and her co-author Kate Kelly made, corporate media picked up on this false statement as if it were true.

NYT's 1619 Project Writer Has History of Anti-White, Anti-Semitic Tweets.  As exposed by Breitbart, it appears another editor at The New York Times has a history of making anti-Semitic and anti-white tweets.  What's more, this same editor worked on the Times' infamous 1619 project, which "reframes" America under the lens of racism and slavery.  This comes after several other high-level employees at the paper were found to have made racist remarks on their social media accounts.  Breitbart reporter Haris Alic discovered that Jazmine Hughes, who is an associate editor at the New York Times Magazine, and an employee since 2015, made several controversial tweets mocking white people and Jews from 2014-2017 on her Twitter account.  In other words, she made these tweets before she was hired, and she continued making them in the two years after she was hired by the Times, with apparently no consequence.

Dowager Dowd cries impeachment again.  In Washington, where there's smoke, there's mirrors.  After 67 years of living there, Maureen Dowd knows this.  Nevertheless, she rode toward the smoke to cover the impeachment fire that isn't.  Readers of the New York Times expect self-righteous outrage no matter how ignorant and misplaced that anger may be.  She delivers.  Fortunately for her the latest attempt to sabotage Justice Brett Kavanaugh fell apart within 24 hours of the Times's World Exclusive last Sunday.  The Times had another Pulitzer-worthy story except for the alleged victim of the alleged crime does not recall a thing.  But submit the story anyway.  As they say at the state lottery, you can't win if you don't play.

Another Week, Another Pseudo-Scandal.  Just this last week, we saw the New York chapter of the left-over Left make a last-ditch effort to smear Justice Brett Kavanaugh by fabricating yet another spurious complaint that an 18-year-old Kavanaugh had been over-served and acted rudely to a fellow female student at Yale.  Only the student in question had no memory of the incident.  Like every other complaint against the teenaged Kavanaugh, it was a matter of "my cousin Ernie's brother's girlfriend heard from her college roommate that three people whose names she cannot remember told her best friend that someone who might have been Brett Kavanaugh was rumored to have exposed himself at a drunken white-privilege party at Yale 35 or maybe 36 years ago."  That was enough for the wretched New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly to take to the bank.  In fact, it was worse, for the fount of the rumor they published, without mentioning that the woman in question had no memory of the incident, wasn't even your cousin Ernie; it was a Democratic Party activist named Max Stier.

Another day, another coverup for Democrats by the New York Times.  After numerous poor young black male homosexual prostitutes were found drugged and/or dead in the home of homophobic homosexual (and no, that is not contradictory), racist, sadist and not so incidentally major white Democratic donor, (yes, on this I'm proudly judgmental) Ed Buck was finally arrested in Los Angeles last Thursday. [...] Also, strangely — okay, not so strangely — the New York Times, which recently announced with great fanfare its 1619 Project, a series of articles how slavery affected all aspects of American life which continues until today, took little notice of a not-major Democratic donor who was white, paying young poor black men for various sexual acts and injecting them with addictive, and often deadly, drugs.

'New York Times is having a rough year': CNN anchors lament recent 'mistakes'.  CNN anchors Brian Stelter and S.E. Cupp discussed the New York Times' litany of recent "mistakes" and how the flubs "damage" the reputation of the media.  "To put it kindly, The New York Times is having a rough year," Cupp began, before recounting the list of "controversial, regrettable" flubs on her show Saturday night, but added, "None of these things represent the Times entirely," but "they're also not helping."  The Times has faced backlash in recent months for publishing an anti-Semitic cartoon of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump, Brett Stephens' overreaction to being called a "bedbug" on social media, the paper changing a headline involving Trump, and their botched story about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last week.

Comey and Baquet — united against Trump — have caused a nonstop feeding frenzy.  Among the casualties of our domestic political war is the abandonment of professional standards.  For proof, consider how two of America's premier institutions are being dragged through the mud because their leaders decided that standards are for other people.  I speak of the FBI and The New York Times, and the men who damaged them, James Comey and Dean Baquet.  It is no coincidence that Baquet's newspaper became an errand boy for Comey's corrupt team of G-men.  Birds of a feather, you know.  They were united against Donald Trump.  Both tried to block him from becoming president, and both tried to get him removed.  And are still trying.  Comey and Baquet decided their agendas were more important than the time-tested rules of behavior that built the credibility of their respective institutions.  Like arrogant leaders everywhere, they believed the end justified the means.

New York Times Kavanaugh Reporter Told Source What To Say.  Year-old texts contained in a Senate Judiciary Committee report show that New York Times reporter Robin Pogrebin engaged in questionable journalistic tactics to shape a false narrative against Kavanaugh by telling a source what to say and by asking sources to confirm information she herself had given them.  And despite including a highly opinionated discussion of the text exchange in their book, the authors never admitted that Pogrebin was a key player in the exchanges.

The Propaganda of the Left Is a Weapon of War.  The hallmark of propaganda is that outright lies are more useful than the truth.  The New York Times' vile lies about Justice Brett Kavanaugh were so flimsy, they couldn't last the day.  Yet even after the Times' correction (which amounted to a retraction), Democrats kept shooting the fake ammunition.  That's because their target isn't actual investigations or impeachment proceedings.  The lie itself is the goal.  Once out, even if retracted, it serves their purpose:  to smear and intimidate.  Truth need not apply.  The more outrageous, ugly, and frightening the propaganda, the more powerful it is.  That's all that is necessary for success.  The lie doesn't even have to be plausible.  It just has to meet the base desires of the targeted audience.

NYT reporters haven't kept their story straight about Brett Kavanaugh asking them to lie.  As with all things Kavanaugh-related, you would be wise to take this new allegation with a very, very large grain of salt. [...] Is this story just complete bunkum?  Pogrebin and Kelly have already badly oversold parts of their book, while also authoring an essay for the Times' Sunday Review section that omitted key exculpatory details regarding one of the allegations against Kavanaugh.  Only a fool would continue to accept their explosive claims at face value.

The Entire News Media Is Biased.  They Should Just Embrace It.  [Scroll down]  Obviously, Pogrebin and Kelly have an agenda, just as their reporting was obviously guided to a large extent by their emotions, not the facts.  The problem isn't necessarily that these two journalists are biased against Kavanaugh.  The problem is that they pretend they're not biased when everyone can see that they are.  The entire purpose of their book is to dredge up these horrible accusations — however flimsy, regardless of the credibility of the accusers or the denials of supposed eyewitnesses — and smear Kavanaugh.  If you want to write a book about how you think Kavanaugh was a serial sexual predator in college, and how you believe the accusations against him even though they can't be corroborated, then fine.  Write away!  But don't then go on national TV and claim that you're just a reporter reporting the facts.

The Architect of the Latest Kavanaugh Smear Just Gave a Self-Damning Radio Interview.  There is no substantiated evidence of any sexual misbehavior by Brett Kavanaugh at any point in his entire life.  Several shaky claims have been made along these lines, but all of them are badly undercut by available evidence.  None of them is more likely than not to be true.  Yet in a casual radio interview this morning, New York Times reporter Robin Pogrebin, a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale, gave an unintentionally revealing report about her approach to the story.

The Great Oversight in the NY Times Kavanaugh Smear.  [Scroll down]  In the Times article, the reporters note that "we found Dr. Ford's allegations credible during a 10-month investigation."  The reporters have blamed their editors for the article's shortcomings.  For the book, however, they have no one to blame but themselves.  Throughout the book, in fact, the reporters would assign the word "credibility" to Ford as though her story was unimpeachable.  It wasn't.  Pogrebin and Kelly simply chose not to look at the evidence.  It stared them in the face.

Kavanaugh Smear an Escalation of Court War.  The fact that the New York Times published one of the most absurd stories in news history, a straight up lie-filled smear of Brett Kavanaugh, shows just how important the battle for the courts is to the Left.  There is no depth to which these people won't dive in an effort to maintain their chokehold on this institution.  But good propaganda has at least a kernel of truth hidden somewhere in it to sow doubt.  This story didn't even have that, making it one of the worst examples of journalistic malpractice in years, topping even the collusion delusion narratives.  Most of the Democrat presidential candidates rushed out to demand Kavanaugh's impeachment based on a series of confirmed lies so transparent that even the New York Times news room is trying to stay clear of the fallout.

As Democrats Thrash, Trump Rises Above It All.  The New York Times produced an allegation that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted a woman 30 years ago, and Senators Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and, even more predictably, the almost-brain-dead former congressman Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas), called for Kavanaugh's immediate impeachment and removal.  There was not the slightest question of waiting for the justice's response or for any independent corroboration.  The mere fact that the Times published a story alleging Kavanaugh had drunkenly assaulted someone 30 years ago, without any substantive details beyond hearsay, was enough to prompt three prominent Democrats to demand that Kavanaugh be ousted from the high court.  Three candidates, bear in mind, who among them appear to have the combined support of 30 percent of their party's base.

NY Times Completes Its Long Journey Down the Toilet With 'Women Poop' Article.  After spending four days mired in controversy over some of the sloppiest journalism in an era of sloppy journalism, The New York Times decided to jettison its last vestiges of being a serious news source with a long article on the bowel movements of women.

Yellow Journalism to Fake News:  Media lies against Justice Kavanaugh.  [Scroll down]  The New York Times is retracting a story written by two "journalists" about Supreme Court Justice Bret Kavanaugh.  It is not only untrue but despite its position in the opinion section, the NYT, media and Democrats began treating the story as news.  Despite that the written lie is really just the fanciful opinion of Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly as well as their employer, The New York Times.  However, as guests later on MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell (another swell story-teller) Pogrebin and Kelly offered, not surprisingly, another opinion; that being that the editor screwed the pooch.  Not our fault for calling a man a sexual deviant by accident.  The story that Judge Kavanaugh was indecent many years ago to a woman in the presence of others is garbage.  The story not including the "fact" that the woman says she knew nothing of the incident.  A fact conveniently left out by the NYT writers and editors.  This is not Hearst and Pulitzer yellow sensationalism.  It is not even an honest mistake.  It is vile contemptible despicable and if they had any, shameful.  Why anyone takes this newspaper, unless they have not-yet housebroken puppies, is a mystery.

Why the New York Times' Kavanaugh Correction Doesn't Matter.  The mainstream media paints Justice Brett Kavanaugh as a dangerous sexual predator.  Yet, every story they push falls apart immediately.  Last weekend, The New York Times had to correct an article that claimed Kavanaugh flashed another woman when he attended Yale.  The correction stated that the woman doesn't remember such an incident and refused to be interviewed about the matter.  Ultimately, the correction doesn't matter.  Kavanaugh is perceived as a sexual predator and this latest hack job only reinforces that smear.  The facts can't change that.  Here's how the mainstream media and prominent Democrats reacted to the latest New York Times story: [...]

The American Left Is Completely Insane.  This week, two New York Times reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, launched their new book, "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh:  An Investigation." The Times published an essay promoting the book.  The public was promised "new bombshells."  What they got was a warmed-over accusation that has been denied by the very woman someone else (Max Stier, who just happens to be a former aide to President Bill Clinton) claims was assaulted.  The woman herself refused to be interviewed and has told friends she has no memory of any such incident.  There was widespread shock at The Times' apparent deception and manipulation.

NYT Has Become A Dangerous Misinformation Tool Of The Left.  The New York Times was founded in 1851, and in the first two presidential elections it gave no endorsement. [...] During [the] last 60 years, the paper has become more openly liberal.  Its op-ed page is, of course, hardcore left.  But that bias has been creeping into the news pages for years, with reporters and editors twisting facts and spinning the news to fits its leftward lean, often in support of Democrats.  But everything changed Sunday.  On September 15, 2019, The New York Times became a dangerous tool of misinformation controlled by the Left, one that simply can no longer be trusted on any story.

New York Times Ends its Spanish-Language VersionThe New York Times announced Tuesday [9/17/2019] that it would be shutting down its Spanish-language version, NYT en Espanol, according to The Hill.  A spokesperson for the Times confirmed to The Hill that the publication had "discontinued NYT en Espanol as a separate, standalone operation" after it had launched three years prior, admitting that "it did not prove financially successful."

New York Times Smears Kavanaugh All Over Again.  You knew it was going to happen.  Just as they cannot concede that Donald Trump won the presidency, they refuse to accept Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. [...] These are not just liberal activists.  They are leftist agitators who specialize in the art of character assassination.  They are radicals for whom truth means nothing.  Only results matter.  And they work at The New York Times.

The Cowardice of New Age Journalism.  "Report, then verify" should be the new masthead motto for The New York Times and other news outlets that have lost all semblance of balance and professionalism.  This phenomenon is especially prominent in articles about President Trump and his administration.  A "blockbuster" scoop about the president, or Republicans in general, seems to be followed shortly by an editor's note clarifying the "facts" of the story; and, in many cases, repudiating it altogether.

The Kavanaugh Clownshow Cavalcade.  [Scroll down]  But on Sunday night [9/15/2019], the Times sheepishly ran a correction to the article, noting that the supposed victim declined to be interviewed by the feds who vetted Kavanaugh and friends of hers say she doesn't remember the incident.  So how did the Times uncover this shocking and Very Seriously True You Guys allegation?  Because it was made to the paper by one Max Stier, who is described by the Times as running a nonprofit organization in Washington.  This might have been true as far as it goes, but Stier also happens to have been a partisan Clinton operative who had worked on the former president's defense team when he was being investigated by special prosecutor Ken Starr following the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  Kavanaugh had been on Starr's investigative team at the time.  Safe to say no objective journalist would take Stier's allegation at face value given his background.  But that's the New York Times for you.  It is no longer a reputable journalistic organization but rather a Democrat party organ decreasingly interested in so much as a patina of credibility.

Oh, So That's Why the Star Witness For Christine Blasey Ford Changed Her Remarks.  The publication that decided to self-immolate was The New York Times that tried this QB sneak.  It got stuffed.  And it fell apart quickly.  Why?  Well because the new allegations they all peddled for about 36 hours came to an ignominious end when the supposed new accuser didn't even know what the paper was talking about.

Brett Kavanaugh Breaks the Democrats.  Rarely does a story implode as spectacularly as the New York Times' latest effort to resurrect the claim that Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a teenage sexual predator.  By now, you know the facts:  The Times published an excerpt from a forthcoming book alleging that another woman suffered the same form of abuse and objectification from Kavanaugh that was alleged by another accuser, Deborah Ramirez.  No sooner had the universe of liberal political observers and politicians worked themselves up into a frenzy than the story fell apart.  The woman whose uncorroborated experience supposedly substantiated Ramirez's uncorroborated assertions wasn't even the one making these accusations.  Rather, they came from a Washington D.C. attorney with conflicts of interest who did not contact the Senate Judiciary Committee during Kavanaugh's confirmation proceedings.  What's more, she doesn't even remember the experience that was supposedly so traumatizing — a revelation that was inexplicably omitted from the Times' original draft.

Don't believe the victim, says New York Times reporter — she was probably drunk!.  [Scroll down]  What could motivate a journalist to attack a victim in this way?  Why, a desire to downplay concerns that the alleged victim of Kavanaugh's alleged depredations featured in Pogrebin's upcoming book reportedly does not at all recall the thing being alleged.  The sole source of the allegation, Democratic consultant Max Stier, talked to investigators but refuses to speak publicly about what he claims he saw all those years ago.

In the Land of No Consequence, Bad Behavior Festers.  Shortly after the New York Times published a "bombshell" article over the weekend that described more graphic, decades-old sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the paper was forced to post a significant correction to its original story. [...] The correction was prompted not by the Times' own fact-checking but after Mollie Hemingway, a senior editor at The Federalist and co-author of a book detailing the Kavanaugh debacle, identified the blatant error on Twitter early Sunday morning [9/5/2019].  (The Times has refused to review Hemingway's book, which was released in July.)  But by the time "America's newspaper of record" sheepishly admitted its (intentional) error, the damage had been done.  Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates called for Kavanaugh's impeachment while celebrities and columnists wailed about the patriarchy, white privilege and, of course, the Bad Orange Man.

Trump, Kavanaugh, Lewandowski and our malignant Left.  This new attempt by the NYT and two wholly unethical reporters at that paper again crosses all lines of respectable, legitimate journalism.  The NYT is no longer, and has not been for ages, an honest broker of the news; it is rag that dispenses fake news intended to deceive.  The facts of this campaign to ruin Kavanaugh and his family, because the left wants to protect unimpeded abortion rights, are well-known and obvious.  They are also a stain on all those who participated in the scheme, a scarlet letter of a sort.  Nothing any of them ever writes again can be or will be trusted.  Nothing published by the NYT can be trusted.

The New York Times Still Doesn't Understand What It Did.  [Scroll down]  All in all, the story was one of the worst examples I've ever seen of neglecting story for narrative.  The true story casts strong doubt on the narrative that many New York Times readers and staffers firmly believe; so the Times fed its readers the narrative.  But does the Times get what it did even now?  After the truth has been put on blast across the length and breadth of social media?  No, it does not.  In an extraordinary piece that purports to "answer reader questions" about the Brett Kavanaugh debacle, it does not even address the failure to report the true blockbuster.  Instead it lamely attempts to backfill the new allegation.

As Trump calls for resignations, NYT finger-pointing begins on deceptive Kavanaugh hit piece.  President Trump, an enthusiast for hitting back harder when attacked, is not about to let his arch-enemies at the New York Times off the hook for their disgraceful hit piece on Justice Kavanaugh and is now calling for the resignations of all involved in covering up the exculpatory evidence that was omitted from the Sunday op-ed piece. [...] The omission of the exculpatory evidence is inexcusable by any legitimate journalistic standard, and while the activist fanatics want to press onward, journalists know that the stink is going to permanently attach itself to someone.  The authors of the book and op-ed, NYT reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, took to MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell's show to point fingers at their editor, claiming that their submission to the editor included the exculpatory evidence.

NYT reporters behind Kavanaugh story grilled on 'The View,' blame 'oversight' by Gray Lady editors.  The New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly appeared on "The View" Tuesday [9/17/2019] and blamed "an oversight" by Gray Lady editors for the controversial piece on Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh cutting key details during a fiery interview in which they claimed not to have an agenda.  Co-host Whoopi Goldberg immediately pointed out that Pogrebin and Kelly were "under fire" from critics after the Times walked back an explosive report about a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Kavanaugh from his college days.

The New York Times Anti-Kavanaugh Bombshell Is Actually a Dud.  If you opened Twitter on Sunday morning [9/15/2019], you were likely greeted with the bombshell headline of the top trending news story:  "NYT reporters' book details new sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh." [...] The book isn't released until Tuesday, but Mollie Hemingway got a copy, and she writes on Twitter:  "The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event."  Omitting this fact from the New York Times story is one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent memory.  If you take this confusing accusation in the essay at face value, it doesn't even appear to be an allegation of assault against Kavanaugh.

The New York Times faces questions over Kavanaugh story.  Between an offensive tweet and a significant revision, The New York Times' handling of a new sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh attracted almost as much attention as the accusation itself.

Daily Life in the New York Times Pigpen.  A few of us journalistic old-timers are feeling creaky and cranky over the liberties today's media take concerning truths that turn out not to be so true. [...] How in the world have we come to this cultural point?  What does it say of us as a society that formerly honored institutions, along with candidates for the presidency, suddenly see themselves free for a good roll with the pigs?  Is it because in modern times we have so diminished our moral standards that the behavior of pigs seems normal?

NYT reporters behind Kavanaugh story suggest key information was removed by editors.  The New York Times reporters behind the controversial piece on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh claimed Monday night that key details missing from the sexual misconduct allegation may have been removed from the original draft in the editing process. [...] The paper was forced to issue an update that included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault.  The newspaper also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no other comment about the episode.

NYT Reporters Say Editors Removed Exculpatory Information About Kavanaugh.  The co-authors of a new book about Brett Kavanaugh blamed New York Times editors Monday [9/16/2019] for removing a key passage from an essay they published over the weekend that laid out a new, but uncorroborated, sexual misconduct allegation against the Supreme Court justice. [...] Buried at the back of the book was the revelation that the woman in question refused to be interviewed and that her friends said she did not recall the incident.  After backlash across the political spectrum, The Times eventually added a correction to the story on Sunday that included the full passage from the book.

Trump: Check Out What NYT Just Had To Do After 'Assaulting' Kavanaugh With Smear Report.  The New York Times was forced to issue a significant correction Sunday to its "bombshell" report on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after being called out by other journalists for excluding exculpatory evidence from their initial report.  President Trump, who blasted the initial report, unloaded on the paper again early Monday, pointing to the forced correction and its "assault" on the conservative justice as another example of how the left-leaning mainstream is "working with their partner, the Dems," to push a political agenda rather than reporting the facts.

Desperado Democrats Punked By Their Own Media Surrogates.  The New York Times tossed a mouldy "bombshell" bone out to the drooling-for-revived-scandals Democrats on Friday.  Like ravenous wolves presidential hopefuls Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker, and Julian Castro, among others seized upon the bone as if it were their last meal, which unbeknownst to them most likely was.

New York Times excoriated for omitting bombshell Kavanaugh details.  The New York Times has been excoriated after publishing new allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh only to later add a bombshell update that undercuts the entire piece.  The Saturday evening report was adapted from an upcoming book by reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly titled The Education of Brett Kavanaugh:  An Investigation and due out this week.  Their report details an alleged incident that occurred during Kavanaugh's time at Yale University.  One of his classmates, Max Stier, said he witnessed Kavanaugh make inappropriate sexual contact with a female student.  In the updated version of the article, the following passage was added, "The female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode."

Carrie Severino calls out New York Times' 'shameful attempt to reignite smears' against Kavanaugh.  The short-lived new "allegations" against Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh were so weak that Senate investigators didn't follow up on them during the confirmation process, author Carrie Severino said Monday [9/16/2019].  "This is the weakest of the weak type of allegations.  It's really a shameful attempt to reignite these smears against Judge Kavanaugh that are utterly baseless," said Severino, the founder of the Judicial Crisis Network, on "Fox & Friends."  Late Sunday, the New York Times walked back an explosive report about a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Kavanaugh from his college days.

The Editor says...
How could it have "resurfaced" if it had never surfaced before?

Another spurious Kavanaugh smear proves the depravity of the left.  Each time we think the left can stoop no lower into the gutter of the politics of personal destruction, they prove us wrong and descend further into yet another of Dante's circles of hell.  And who is right there leading the charge?  The New York Times, perhaps the most despicable news outlet on the planet, and long ago re-formulated into an arm of the DNC intent upon foisting their particular agenda upon the masses.  Keep in mind that they have nothing but contempt for said masses whom they believe to be dumber than rocks and so easily led down the destructive path of socialism.  So how stupid do they think we are with their latest story, a smear on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh?  How stupid could we be, really, that we would fall for another fabricated allegation of sexual impropriety by a man they already put through the wringer?  This time, they've thrown out to us an allegation that even the supposed "victim" does not recall.

New York Times Admits Alleged 'Victim' Of Kavanaugh Incident Has No Recollection Of It.  The New York Times has finally admitted that the premise of its much-hyped story about an alleged incident with United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was false, as the alleged victim says she has no recollection of the incident in question.  The admission undermines what was an already weak story of dubious credibility. [...] Last year, the New York Times called "dozens" of people attempting to corroborate the story and came up with nothing.

The Real Reason for That Kavanaugh Smear.  The New York Times on Saturday [9/14/2019] joined The New Yorker and many other media outlets in upending a dumpster full of garbage on its own reputation in an effort to smear Brett Kavanaugh.  After more than a year of digging, the Democrats and their media allies still have no supported allegations of sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh at any point in his entire life.  Why would the media do this?  Call it the asterisk strategy.  This is a coordinated, full-on effort to undermine the legitimacy of Brett Kavanaugh's work on the Supreme Court.  The reputations of news outlets are so many eggs that must be broken in pursuit of this omelet.

NYT updates Kavanaugh 'bombshell' to note accuser doesn't recall alleged assault.  The New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.  The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all.  The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.  The only firsthand statement concerning the supposed attack in the original piece, which was published on Saturday [9/14/2019], came from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it.

Smearing Brett Kavanaugh:  NYT, Harris, and Booker live in glass houses.  The New York Times renewed the Brett Kavanaugh smear campaign with claims of decades old sexual misconduct at Yale.  Senator Kamala Harris immediately, and predictably, called for Kavanaugh's impeachment.  One year after the spectacle of his confirmation hearings the Democrat smear merchants and their partners in the media, are gearing up the calculated smear machine.  Ready to provide another round of unprovable claims.  Apparently Democrats are even less informed about the rule of law now than they were a year ago.

'Kind of enjoying how bad this is': Mollie Hemingway rips new Kavanaugh accusation.  "So I'm reading the new anti-Kavanaugh book by shockingly (really) biased reporters at NYT," Hemingway wrote.  "All claimed anonymous sources are anti-Kavanaugh while all but a tiny few on-record sources are downright effusive.  Just interesting how highly they contradict each other."  Hemingway was referencing The Education of Brett Kavanaugh, which was written by New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.  The book highlights a previously unreported allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh and offers fortification for previous accusations Deborah Ramirez made.

The New York Times Has Abandoned Liberalism for Activism.  "Our democracy's ideals were false when they were written."  I've been struggling with that sentence — the opening statement of the introductory essay to the New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project on the legacy of slavery in America — for a few weeks now.  It's a very strange formulation.  How can an enduring "ideal" — like, say, freedom or equality — be "false" at one point in history and true in another?  You could of course say that the ideals of universal equality and individual liberty in the Declaration of Independence were belied and contradicted in 1776 by the unconscionable fact of widespread slavery, but that's very different than saying that the ideals themselves were false.

'Some People Did Something' and 'Airplanes Took Aim'.  [Scroll down]  In a related bit of diversionary dehumanizing spin, the Leftmedia's flagship newspaper, The New York Times — yes, the one based in New York — marked the day with this:  "18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center."  That's right, "airplanes took aim" at the WTC instead of the sociopathic Islamists who flew them.  So, it's an "airplane problem"?  This absurd claim is tantamount to asserting that it's "guns that take aim" at victims rather than the sociopaths who use them, which is why Democrat Party and their Leftmedia publicists claim crime is a "gun problem."  At least they are consistent.

The Media Has A Problem Covering 9/11.  The New York Times began its 9/11 coverage this year with an avian appeal.  The 9/11 tribute lights, they claim, are putting 160,000 birds at risk every year.  Apparently the "Tribute in Light" — two columns created by 88 searchlights — is affecting the migratory patterns of our winged friends.  That is, unless you read the article.  The headline's claim is debunked about halfway in:  "But according to radar studies ... the 20-minute breaks are enough to allow birds to resume their migration."  This isn't the first year they've done it, but the articles are getting longer and the shrieks are becoming shriller:  "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the yellow warblers?!"

NY Times Reports 'Airplanes Took Aim' at World Trade Center on 9/11.  The New York Times deleted a tweet and updated a piece Wednesday after writing that the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred when "airplanes took aim" at the World Trade Center.  "18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center," the Times Twitter account tweeted.  "Today, families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died."

Those airplanes are really mean!
New York Times remembers 9/11 as the day airplanes became sentient and killed 2,000.  I count at least three problems in this since-deleted tweet.  First, there is no mention of who carried out the 9/11 attacks or what motivated them.  That's like writing a headline memorializing the Aug. 3 El Paso, Texas, mass shooting and not once mentioning that there was a white nationalist gunman involved.  Second, and I hate to be the one to say this, airplanes lack agency.  They did not take aim or crash themselves.  The terrorists flying them did.

Illegal immigrant invites ICE to town hall, then is shocked to find he's being deported.  This is one of those heartwarming stories that only comes along once in a while and is too good to not share.  It takes place in Houston, Texas and features local businessman Roland Gramajo. [...] If you click through to the Times article, you'll see that I wasn't trying to mislead you about this story.  That's how they told it.  In fact, you have to work your way down several paragraphs before finally locating the following biographical information.  "Mr. Gramajo had been staying in the country illegally — raising his five children, running a business in Houston and helping fellow immigrants with translations — without contact from ICE for about 15 years."  The crux of the Times coverage focuses on suspicions that ICE is "targeting activists" who are "helping" (illegal) immigrants.  But let's face the facts here.  Dude... you're in the country illegally and have been breaking the law by operating a business for a decade and a half.  And then you decided to throw a big shindig and you invited the office of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

The Divine Right of the Democratic Party.  Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times has a dream, a dream in which about half of the American people are deprived of an effective means of political representation, a dream of one-party government in which the Democrats are the only game in town — "Dare We Dream of the End of the GOP?" her column is headlined — which also is a dream of visiting vengeance upon those who dared to vote for their own interests as they understood them and thereby schemed "to stop the New America from governing."

New York Times writer's advice to Democrats:  Lie about what you believe to defeat Trump.  Here's a hot new tip for Democrats wanting to win the presidency next year:  Lie about what you believe!  That piece of advice comes from liberal New York Times columnist David Leonhardt, who on Sunday warned Democrats that they have lately been professing policy views that "alienate most American voters."  It turns out that eliminating private health insurance and opening up the southern border to all of the world's poor aren't home runs with the electorate.  But these are precise examples of what the 2020 Democratic field has been pushing.

Liberals haunted by social media tactics they use against the right.  The people who have made an industry out of destroying ordinary people's lives over old social media posts and out-of-context comments are very upset that it's happening to them.  The New York Times, clearly worried by the recent exposure of blatantly anti-Semitic tweets posted by one of its reporters, and clearly worried that even more embarassing material is in reserve, tried to stop the hemorrhaging with a rambling article demonizing the independent journalists who uncovered the tweets.  In fact, much of the liberal media sphere went into panic mode, vehemently declaring that this particular exercise of the First Amendment is actually an attack on the First Amendment.

More fake news:  New York Times doesn't understand Opportunity Zones.  A New York Times (NYT) reports that President Trump's tax cuts once again benefited his wealthy friends and not average Americans.  It appears that the NYT doesn't fully understand how business, economics and public policy work together.  And this lack of economic literacy produces more fake news.  As part of the tax cut that Congress passed in 2017, special tax treatment was given to certain sections of the country.  These sections were mostly inner-city, low-income areas that really needed redevelopment.  The goal of these Opportunity Zones (OZ) is to encourage developers to invest in poor neighborhoods.  The new development would replace blighted, drug invested and high crime areas.

NYT Keeps Readers In The Dark On Bernie Sanders' Population Control Comments.  The New York Times is keeping readers in the dark about Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' embrace of population control, including abortion, as a means of combating climate change.  Sanders was asked during CNN's climate town hall on Wednesday whether he would support measures to curb population growth in order to protect the climate.  The Vermont senator answered yes, and said using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion abroad, "especially in poor countries around the world," is something he "very, very strongly" supports.

1619: Founding Fallacies.  [Scroll down]  Of course, the Times' trope that America's "true founding" was the arrival of blacks in 1619 contradicts another fashionable bit of hype: that America is a Nation of Immigrants instituted by the huddled masses of wretched refuse on Ellis Island.  As we've all been instructed in recent decades, immigrants should be "at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are," much more important than all those boring settlers, founding fathers, frontiersmen, and cowboys, even if, technically speaking, they might have arrived earlier.  But do the descendants of Ellis Island immigrants possess bragging rights over the descendants of slaves?  And do blacks who aren't the descendants of slaves, such as President Obama, also get Intersectional bonus points from the 1619 Story Line even though their ancestors sold African-Americans into slavery?

NY Times polling guru cautions Trump-hating readers that his approval numbers may go higher.  [T]he New York Times' own polling guru is picking up signs that the paper's bête noire may be surging in public support.

MSNBC and NY Times don't let facts get in way of anti-Trump stories — Fiction is more interesting.  MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, who used to write for the fictional TV show "West Wing," proved this week that he hasn't lost his touch.  He showed that he's not limited to discussing real news — he can make it up and report his fictional version as if it were real.  Like much of what is wrong with the media, it began with a tweet.  And then O'Donnell repeated his fictional claim on MSNBC Tuesday night.  In on-air conversation with Rachel Maddow, whose show immediately precedes his, O'Donnell said he had information about how years ago businessman Donald Trump was "able to obtain loans when no one else would loan him money."

New York Times writer blames 'the phonies, the charlatans' for 'why people hate religion'New York Times opinion writer Timothy Egan published a scathing rebuke of Evangelical Christians who "give cover to an amoral president" because they believe God is using Trump to promote their causes.  The op-ed, published on Friday [8/30/2019], notes how evangelicals allegedly have turned a blind eye toward Trump's rhetoric and appear to be thrilled by Trump's bullying antics.  "There has never been anyone who has defended us and who has fought for us, who we have loved more than Donald J. Trump," conservative activist Ralph Reed said at a gathering of Christian activists earlier this summer.

Alternative AmericaThe New York Times has become obsessed with what it portrays as America's mounting slavery crisis, with its use of the word "slavery" quadrupling in its columns over the half-dozen years of the Great Awokening.  The Times' 1619 project to portray blacks as the very foundation of America affords us an opportunity to imagine an alternative America that had resisted the temptations of importing Africans.  Would the U.S. have been impoverished without blacks, as the 1619 spin implies?

The Lies of the 1619 Project.  First, it's hard to take its claims seriously when its creators and contributors are privileged blacks holding exalted positions in journalism, the media, and academia owned and controlled largely by whites.  The Project's creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is a black reporter employed by the white-owned New York Times.  She holds a 2017 fellowship with the MacArthur Foundation, which was founded and endowed by a white man, in which she received a $625,000 no-strings-attached grant.  She's doing pretty well as a black woman in what she claims is a white, racist America.  And, ironically, even though she condemns white America for its alleged systematic discrimination against blacks, she demanded that whites be excluded from the Project.

The Left Can't Stop Lying About The Tea Party.  "In the late summer of 2009, as the recession-ravaged economy bled half a million jobs a month, the country seemed to lose its mind," The New York Times says, kicking off its tenth anniversary retrospective of the Tea Party movement.  As you can imagine, the rest of the article continues in this vein, portraying conservatives who organized against Obamacare as a bunch of vulgar radicals.  Yet even this revisionism wasn't enough for most contemporary leftists, who see everything through the prism of race.

NYT Does It Again:  Changes Piece After Left-Wing Backlash, Adds 'Racist' References.  In the second high-profile instance in less than a month, The New York Times has once again made changes to an article after backlash from leftist critics who did not feel the paper painted the right with a critical enough brush. [...] On Wednesday, the Times published a piece portraying the Tea Party as supposedly having "unleashed the politics of anger" that lives on in the era of Trump.  "The Tea Party Didn't Get What It Wanted, but It Did Unleash the Politics of Anger," the loaded headline reads.  But after publishing the piece and being met with yet more backlash from its left-wing readers for having not portrayed the Tea Party as enough of a villain, the Times notified readers that the piece has been revised "to include context about attacks on President Barack Obama and racist displays at some Tea Party rallies."

More about accusations of racism in the Tea Party.

How To Replace Howard Zinn's Communist Account Of U.S. History For American Kids.  [Scroll down]  "Land of Hope" is published in a year in which hatred of America seems bigger than ever.  To take a recent and prominent example, The New York Times, once the United States' paper of record, has newly released the "1619 Project," named after the year in which African slaves first arrived on American shores.  The project purports to be a work of history:  "aim[ing] to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are."  But it is better described as anti-history propaganda.  To take just one demonstration of this, its premise and name fully ignores that Native Americans frequently enslaved each other on this continent long before Europeans arrived.  It also sidelines the fact that most of the African slaves brought to the Americas were sold by enemy African tribes, who also routinely held their fellow man in slavery going back centuries.  Native Americans held black slaves.  African Americans held black slaves.  The whole world has held slaves.

The New York Times's double standard.  As New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin recently pointed out, rampant bias in news coverage at the direction of the paper's leadership has swept away the "Gray Lady's" position as a bastion of journalism.  And the paper doesn't seem to care.  Media bias, however unprofessional, is to be expected in the Trump era.  Even as we sit here today and discuss the egregious implications of Times executive editor Dean Baquet's leaked comments during a staff meeting, the headlines will fade, the commentators will stop talking, and the Times will follow through on its plan to paint the president as a vile racist, now that the Russian collusion narrative has failed to oust him from office.  Although atrociously unprofessional, this seems to be par for the course in today's media.

New York Times takes hits from all sides.  The New York Times is fighting to maintain a middle course while being beset by criticism on all sides — and it has suffered some self-inflicted wounds in the process.  The Times, the single most influential news outlet in the nation, has been accused of anti-Trump bias by the right and excessive deference toward the president by the left.  It has come under fire for being too slow to defend itself from President Trump's "fake news" jabs — yet it's also taken fire for being overly sensitive to the churn of criticism from Washington pundits and political Twitter.

Beginning of US Slavery.  The New York Times has begun a major initiative, the "1619 Project," to observe the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery.  It aims to reframe American history so that slavery and the contributions of black Americans explain who we are as a nation.  Nikole Hannah-Jones, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine wrote the lead article, "America Wasn't a Democracy, Until Black Americans Made It One."  She writes, "Without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different — it might not be a democracy at all."  There are several challenges one can make about Hannah-Jones's article, but I'm going to focus on the article's most serious error, namely that the nation's founders intended for us to be a democracy.  That error is shared by too many Americans.  The word democracy appears nowhere in the two most fundamental founding documents of our nation — the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.  Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, declares, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

The Times Outraged:  Panics as Media Matters Tactics Turned on Paper.  One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry at the utter hypocrisy in this story. [...] There on audio tape, plain as day, is the [New York] Times leadership saying outright that there had been a failure in the effort to get Trump on Russia collusion.  This was a story that the Times and other liberal media anti-Trump outlets have relentlessly presented for two years as truth carved in stone.  Failing, the Times announced it would now move on to paint Trump and his supporters, not to mention the founding of the nation itself, as racist.  And the Times is shocked to realize the president, not to mention millions of Americans, think their paper and the larger media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and the larger American Left?  Really?

What Does The Washington Post Know About New York Times Reporters That You Don't And Why Is It Laughing.  Reporters having to live by the rules they have created, which is that a notation in a high school yearbook could result in a demand for your firing thirty years after the fact, is a very good thing.  The this that struck me here was the rather gleeful tone.  It's almost as if reporters talk and they know which of their colleagues have posted stuff which would be, in the left's vernacular, "problematic" if brought to light.  The group working on this project claim "that the operation had unearthed potentially "fireable" information on "several hundred" people." The subtext here, in my reading, is that there is some really bad stuff floating around that is common knowledge but that no one in the industry has done anything about because their first loyalty is to their group and ratting out a fellow journalist would get you blackballed.

Breitbart burned the New York Times.  And the Times really doesn't like it.  [Scroll down]  And just what would this "damaging information" be?  Illicitly obtained DMs?  Gossip about their sexual habits?  HIPAA-protected information?  Nope.  "Four people familiar with the operation described how it works, asserting that it has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people who work at some of the country's most prominent news organizations." Bolding added to note that this "damaging information" is available not only to a "loose network of conservative operatives" but also to the loose network of everyone with access to the Internet.

Washington Post: 'Breitbart Burned the New York Times.  And the Times Really Doesn't Like It.'.  The Washington Post's medic critic, Erik Wemple, on Monday scorched the New York Times for its "triggered" reaction to a Breitbart News article that exposed antisemitic and racist tweets from one of its senior editors.

Hypocrisy: New York Times Alleges Conspiracy After Backing Boycotts of Conservative MediaNew York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger alleged that his newspaper was the target of a vast right-wing conspiracy on Sunday [8/25/2019], after the paper boosted an effort to shut down conservative media by encouraging boycotts since early 2017.  Last week, Breitbart News exposed a history of racist and antisemitic tweets by a Times politics editor, Tom Wright-Piersanti.  The Times admitted Sunday, in a news article, that the tweets were racist and antisemitic — though it did not indicate what action, if any, it was taking against the editor.

NYT and Democrat Bolsheviks echo Farrakhan:  "White people are devils!"  Democrat Bolsheviks and their subservient minions in the national media have decided to channel the worst impulses of Louis Farrakhan, Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam.  The New York Times (NYT) managing editor recently declared in a secretly taped meeting that, having failed to make the Russia hoax stick for the last three years, they will be focussing on racism, white supremacy, and white nationalism as the biggest threats to America for the next two years.

NYT's Bret Stephens:  Trump 'Either Mentally Unwell or Morally Unfit, Maybe Both'.  Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," New York Times columnist Bret Stephens said President Donald Trump was "either mentally unwell or morally unfit."  Stephens said, "The real issue for Republicans is simply to call out the fact that the president does not stand in any way for the traditional conservative economic principles that have defined the party for the better part of last 70 years."

Stand by for frogs, locusts, and pestilence.
New York Times Office Treated for Bedbugs.  The New York Times' head office in Midtown Manhattan was treated for a bedbug infestation over the weekend.  The newspaper's Building Operations team sent a company-wide email on Monday [8/26/2019] disclosing that a sweep of the newspaper's newsroom uncovered "evidence of bedbugs" in a "wellness room" on the second floor, as well as on the third and fourth floor.

Lee Zeldin:  New York Times' Double Standard [is] 'Crushing Their Credibility'.  Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) charged on Sunday that the New York Times' double standard on racism and antisemitism is "crushing their credibility."  Zeldin lashed out at the New York Times in the wake of a Breitbart News investigation which found that the newspaper's politics editor Tom Wright-Piersanti wrote racist and antisemitic comments on Twitter.  The Times admitted Sunday [8/25/2019] that the comments were racist and antisemitic.  The paper also admitted that Wright-Piersanti's remarks were in "violation" of its standards.

New York Times Admits Editor's Comments Were Racist and Antisemitic.  The New York Times has, several days after Breitbart News first exposed politics editor Tom Wright-Piersanti's racist and antisemitic comments on Twitter, admitted the comments were in fact racist and antisemitic.  A piece the New York Times released on Sunday [8/25/2019], which described a broader operation of loosely organized supporters of President Donald Trump fighting back against the media with aggressive new tactics, was the first time the newspaper in its own pages addressed the scandal regarding Wright-Piersanti.

[One] Day After Stating [there is] No Link, [The] NY Times Blames Amazon Fires on Global Warming.  In Sunday's [8/25/2019] [New York] Times, Johannesburg bureau chief Norimitsu Onishi falsely conflated the Amazon rain forest fires in Brazil with global warming in "Europe Tries to Fill Void On Climate Left by U.S.," a two-for-one story that blamed both President Trump and Brazil's "far right" president Jair Bolsonaro for failing to act on "climate change."  A photo showing burning forest had a caption that underlined the purported connection:  "Europe 'has to be a green superpower,' a member of Parliament said, as the Amazon burned."  Onishi either fell victim to a lazy leftist assumption that the wildfires in the Amazonian rain forest were somehow connected to global warming, or else did his best to force the connection himself[.]

New York Times Publisher Irked at Trump Allies' Effort to Fight Back Against MediaNew York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger issued a lengthy statement on Sunday afternoon [8/25/2019] to newsroom staff, a statement published in a release by the Times and quoted in a longer article by the newspaper on efforts by allies of President Donald Trump to combat the media through exposing racism and antisemitism inside the establishment media, including the Times.  Sulzberger's quote in an article by reporters Jeremy Peters and Ken Vogel stated specifically that the Times will not be "intimidated or silenced" by allies of Trump who expose embarrassing past comments that staffers at the newspaper have made.

Bias has killed the 'Gray Lady' — and Dean Baquet fired the fatal shot.  While reading the transcript of a New York Times staff meeting, a Lily Tomlin line came to mind:  "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up."  In this case, it is also impossible not to be disheartened and furious.  The transcript shows that the rot of bias at the Times is far beyond the pale and there is no hope of recovery.  Yet not a single person there declared the obvious — that the paper is betraying its principles.  Rigor in reporting and restraint in judgment once made the Gray Lady noble.  Now she is dead, her homicide an inside job.

The 1619 Project:  Scholarship Or Race Hustling?  Neo-Marxist progressives are in a full court press to destroy the foundations of this nation by tying the Constitution, the application of our laws, and our economic system to racism.  The problem is, there is precious little overt modern day racism in this country — and indeed, apparently most of what accounts for actual racial incidents today on the fringes of society are more likely than not to be hoaxes.  What is a good proggie to do?  Well, claim everything is inherently racist or, to use the words of the NYT in announcing the 1619 Project, all that the neo-Marxists progressives oppose is the "legacy of slavery [that] continues to shape our country."  There is nothing fair or benign about any of this.

Slavery In America Did Not Begin In 1619, And Other Things The New York Times Gets Wrong.  The project's summary makes the aim quite clear:  "[The 1619 Project] aims to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are."  Considered this way, the 1619 Project looks very different.  It isn't mostly about helping Americans understand the role played by plantation agriculture in American history.  It's mostly about convincing Americans that "America" and "slavery" are essentially synonyms.

Reframing American History is Activism, Not Journalism.  The New York Times has commissioned their 1619 Project.  According to the Times, the project "aims to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are."  They key word is "reframe."  The Times does not seek to tell the story of the United States.  Nor does it seek to add to the story.  Instead, the New York Times has a conclusion and is working backwards to twist and contort facts to fit the conclusion.  This is activism.  The Times is not reporting, but building narratives where they must ignore or fabricate facts.

New York Times unable to figure out what to do with politics editor who is trying 'to be less anti-Semitic'.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out why the New York Times hired Tom Wright-Piersanti to oversee political coverage as senior staff editor and has kept him employed in that capacity for more than five years.  He fit right in with the paper's organizational culture, with nary a public hint that anyone there saw him as out of line with the paper's values[.]

Project 1619: History Or Just Politics?  It is common knowledge that the founding of America is a mixed bag.  The values upon which the country was built represented the loftiest of aspirations of a burgeoning free society.  But the institution of slavery served as a striking reminder that even many of the nation's founders did not live up to the ideal.  It is this reality that The New York Times claimed they wanted to bring to the forefront when they launched Project 1619.  This initiative is designed to reframe the telling of American history and center it on the "peculiar institution" of slavery.  But is this a sincere effort to highlight the role of American slavery in the evolution of the country?  Or just a cynical ploy to support the current left-wing effort to make racism the focus of the 2020 election?

New York Times Editor's Anti-Semitic, Racist Tweets Exposed.  The New York Times is now actively recruiting antisemites.  It's gone completely off the rails.

All The People Who Think They Are Better Than You Are Much, Much Worse.  Now our grotesque liberal elite, backed up by the Fredocon goobers whose awakening into wokeness happened to perfectly coincide with their utter rejection by us actual conservatives, have decided that our entire history is based upon slavery.  The New York Times is spearheading this latest trash-the-rubes initiative, fresh off its "RUSSIA! TREASON! COLLUSION! EMOLUMENTS!" humiliation.  Trying to shame us — many of us literally veterans of the Cold War — with allegations of partying with Putin didn't work out so great, so why not pivot to morally undermining us for having slaves we didn't have?

Why the New York Times Is Unreformable and Must Die.  Even before The New York Times launched its "All Slavery, All the Time" project, no one could accuse that paper of skimping on its race coverage, particularly stories about black males killed by white(ish) police officers. [...] The Times has told wild lies about the racist shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri (false), the racist arrest of Freddie Gray in Baltimore (false), the racist shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida (false), the racist gang-rape of a black stripper by a Duke lacrosse team (false) and so on.  Antwon Rose's shooting wasn't even a flood-the-zone, hair-on-fire story.  But the Times lied about it, too.

Former NY Times Top Editor Fights with Fox About Paper's Trump-and-Racism Hype.  Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson appeared on the Fox News program America's Newsroom on Wednesday morning [8/21/2019] to defend the Times after angry staffers leaked a transcript to Slate of an internal "town hall" meeting that executive editor Dean Baquet had with employees.  Abramson was effusive over how Baquet's position was perfect, that he spoke out for "independent" journalism that holds people accountable.

New York Times Editor's Antisemitism, Racism Exposed.  A New York Times political editor has a years-long history of antisemitic and racist comments on his Twitter page, a Breitbart News investigation has found.  Tom Wright-Piersanti, who has been a Senior Staff Editor at the New York Times for more than five years according to his LinkedIn page and according to his Twitter page oversees the newspaper's political coverage, has made a series of antisemitic and racist tweets over the years.  Many of them are still public on his Twitter page as of the publication of this article, but some have since been deleted.

Beto and the Press Throw America under the Bus.  Beto O'Rourke has taken the measure of America and found it wanting.  "This country, though we would like to think otherwise," he intoned over the weekend, "was founded on racism, has persisted through racism, and is racist today."  This is now a mainstream sentiment in the Democratic party.  Bernie Sanders said earlier this year that the United States was "created" in large part "on racist principles."  The New York Times has begun the so-called 1619 Project, marking the 400th anniversary of the importation of slaves from Africa.  The series seeks nothing less than "to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are."

The Editor says...
According to the NYT, this wasn't a country until the slaves arrived from Africa.  That was the moment the country was founded.  (A country without slaves isn't a country at all.  Is that what they're saying?  Or are they saying that a country without blacks isn't a country?)  Until this month, there has never been any dispute that our country was founded in 1776.  Such an assertion is perceived as plausible only because of the vast number of poorly-educated citizens.

The Ghost Of John C. Calhoun Haunts Today's American Left.  It's impossible to understand The New York Times' 1619 Project as anything but sweeping historical revisionism in the service of contemporary left-wing politics.  The gist of the project, named for the year the first Africans were brought to North America to be sold as slaves, is that everything about America, from our capitalist economy to our politics to the food we eat, can be explained by slavery and race.  In other words, America was conceived in sin, born of evil intent, and all its lofty ideals about equality and liberty are nothing but a sham — the hypocritical stylings of slavers and white supremacists bent on the subjugation of their fellow man.

The New York Times Is Trying to Rewrite History to Fits Its Biases.  Remember the controversy in 2012 when President Barack Obama said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen."  In context, the president was trying to make the point that in addition to our own hard work, others contributed to whatever level of success we have attained.  The president suggested no one achieves success on his or her own.  Republicans took his words as just another indicator that Democrats want more government control over our lives and businesses.  The New York Times appears to have endorsed Obama's view and gone a step further.

NYT: The People Are Our Enemy.  A revealing look inside the newsroom at The New York Times leaves little to the imagination.  Executive editor Dean Baquet is convinced that America is divided into woke goodness and white supremacists, and the white supremacists are led by President Trump (who up to a few weeks ago, was a Russian stooge). [...] Suddenly, the New York Times discovers that there's racists peddling hatred in the world.  Scoop!  Stop the presses!  But it's not simple racism, because the paper wouldn't have to go further than Al Sharpton's Harlem office (which he burned to avoid tax disclosures) to find that.  No, this is about a Trump-led white supremacy, that every voter — all 62,984,828 of them — has joined as a complicit, if unaware, racist.  The NYT sees anyone defending Trump, or in the least bit friendly to him, his administration, his policies, or the parts of the federal government that aren't against him, as their enemy.  In other words, the people are their enemy.

The New York Times Is the Trump-Hate Drug Kingpin.  If Russian collusion has been the opiate of the Trump-hating masses for more than two years, the New York Times was one of its biggest suppliers. [...] And just as the high wore off, the Times would offer another hit, provoking hallucinations about Trump and his corrupt family being hauled out of the White House in handcuffs by Robert Mueller.  So, in a way, you can't blame the Times for obsessively covering the fabricated Trump-Russia collusion storyline.  It's what successful drug dealers do — keep their customers hooked on a steady drip of dope and desperate for more.

Trump: NYT Just Admitted What I've Been Saying All Along About Their Anti-Trump Agenda.  [Scroll down]  "The Failing New York Times, in one of the most devastating portrayals of bad journalism in history, got caught by a leaker that they are shifting from their Phony Russian Collusion Narrative (the Mueller Report & his testimony were a total disaster), to a Racism Witch Hunt," Trump wrote in a pair of tweets.  "'Journalism' has reached a new low in the history of our Country.  It is nothing more than an evil propaganda machine for the Democrat Party.  The reporting is so false, biased and evil that it has now become a very sick joke ... But the public is aware!"

The Role of Gun Control in Dictatorship.  The New York Times, it has been revealed, is about to embark on their latest propaganda project, on the heels of their last foray into pervasive disinformation claiming the president was allied with Russia.  Now, the lie will be rampant racism which, if it did exist, wouldn't need the New York Times telling us about it.  We would see and be alarmed by it on our own.  Preceding this effort has been the lie that virulent white supremacy is everywhere.  The illusion exacerbates the anger and hatred on the left, and solidifies their resolve to marginalize, demonize and attack anyone branded with this fabricated label.

Dean Baquet Kills the New York Times.  The revelations from an internal town hall between New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet and key members of the paper's staff, which leaked to Slate and were reported Thursday [8/15/2019] with an extensive transcript, prove everything we already knew — namely, that the paper was dedicating its coverage and its very credibility to the Trump-Russia narrative.  "We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well," Baquet told the assemblage.  "Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story."  Think about that statement for a minute.  Baquet says he "built our newsroom" to cover a story which turns out to have been based on a hoax spread by Democrat Party operatives and used by a corrupt Obama administration to spy on innocent American citizens while attempting to prejudice a presidential election.

New York Times Magazine Declares War on America and History.  Four hundred years ago this month, the first ship carrying African slaves came to the shores of the New World.  This ship would be the first of many, and it would help establish one of the worst institutions of American economic history.  It was an institution that would officially last for 250 years, more than half of our country's lifespan, and it would taint many of the institutions that would come during and after American slavery.  None of this is new to you, and none of it is new to the vast majority of American citizens.  That isn't stopping New York Times Magazine from launching an interactive website that declares its mission to revise American history as we know it and tell it from a viewpoint that can only lead its readers to assume that America is terrible, has always been terrible, and, without some sort of political revolution, will continue to be terrible.

Real Clear Politics Is What the New York Times Pretended to Be.  Once upon a time in a universe far far away, the New York Times was known as "the newspaper of record."  They purported to report "All the News That's Fit to Print." [...] Now the paper is little more than a left-wing propaganda sheet — and not a very good one, notwithstanding its seemingly unbreakable and unremitting influence on the mainstream media who still check the Times before they check themselves.  These days the paper almost feels run by idiots.  Certainly banking on Trump-Russia collusion as their main story for two years is not a sign of intelligence.  It was an obvious absurdity from the beginning, promulgated by lies, largely published, wittingly or unwittingly, by the NYT.

Gingrich spurns New York Times history project as 'propaganda'.  Newt Gingrich said the New York Times project that claims to contextualize the history of slavery in America is "propaganda."  "The NY Times 1619 Project should make its slogan 'All the Propaganda we want to brainwash you with' it is a repudiation of the original NY Times motto," the former House speaker said Sunday [8/18/2019] on Twitter.

A blatant attempt to revise history:
New goal for New York Times: 'Reframe' American history, and target Trump, too.  Perhaps when you think of the founding of the United States, you think of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers.  Now, the New York Times wants to "reframe" your understanding of the nation's founding.  In the Times' view (which it hopes to make the view of millions of Americans), the country was actually founded in 1619, when the first Africans were brought to North America, to Virginia, to be sold as slaves.  This year marks the 400th anniversary of that event, and the Times has created something called the 1619 Project.

The New York Times Is Clueless About Conservatives.  This week, Slate released a transcript of a meeting held by New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet and his staff. [...] As a conservative, what leaps off the page is the fact that the staffers actually seem to think the paper skews right, and they want it to skew more progressive. [...] The overwhelming majority of everything the Times prints skews left.  It's amazing that the staff doesn't understand this.  Even rare examples of conservative ideas are too much for them.

New York Times chief outlines coverage shift:  From Trump-Russia to Trump racism.  Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, said recently that, after the Mueller report, the paper has to shift the focus of its coverage from the Trump-Russia affair to the president's alleged racism.  "We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well," Baquet said.  "Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story."  Baquet made the remarks at an employee town hall Monday [8/12/2019].

New York Times Admits 'We Built Our Newsroom' Around Russia Collusion HoaxNew York Times executive editor Dean Baquet accidentally admitted to the whole wide world that for two years his far-left newspaper was "built" around spreading a hoax.  When I say "accidentally," what I mean is that he likely didn't know he was being secretly recorded and that his remarks would be made public.

Refugee Trouble in Sweden?  Just Russia, Neo-Nazi Disinformation, Says NYT.  Reporter Jo Becker got huge front-page play on the front of Sunday's [8/11/2019] New York Times for the investigation, "How Nationalism Found a Home in Sweden — A Global Machine Fuels the Far Right's Rise."  It's part of the paper's "The New Nativists" series on "the evolution of hard-line immigration politics."  But while battling two of the paper's favorite villains, Russia and "Islamophobia," along with the Swedish political party Sweden Democrats (using lots of guilt-by-association to make links to neo-Nazism) Becker left out the context of quite a lot of recent Swedish history.  It turns out that the concern over assimilating Muslim immigrants in Sweden is neither a recently hatched Vladimir Putin plot or a figment of racist imagination.

A letter to our subscribers, from the New York Times.  Dear Valued Subscriber, For a mere $39.99 a month, about what you pay your Guatemalan nanny, you depend on us for thought-provoking personal reassurance, award-winning arrogance, hard-hitting sycophancy, and up-to-the-minute coverage of Orange Man — who is very, very bad.  The New York Times remains the world's most prestigious Viewpoint Validation Service because we understand the crippling emptiness permeating the wealthy liberal soul — we are that emptiness — and you entrust us to make you feel good, smart and worthy every day.

The business strategy behind the descent of the New York Times into Trump-hatred.  The New York Times has abandoned its former business strategy of being the "newspaper of record" in favor of catering to the political passions of those who hate Donald Trump.  The editors' cave-in to Trump-haters by changing a factual headline on its front page to one that disparaged the president on Tuesday is dramatic evidence of this.  The Grey Lady is no longer a provider of even-handed news coverage, it is a cheerleader for Trump-haters.

NY Times Finds That All of Its Trump-Bashing Isn't Working as Planned.  The leftists in this country are myopic and rarely exposed to people who don't agree with them.  They truly believe that all of the hate spewed at President Trump by the MSM is received in the same manner that they receive it.

The New York Times Company tanks 20% after saying ad revenue will decline next quarter.  The company said it expects total ad revenue to decline in the high-single digits in the third quarter compared to the same period last year.  Digital ad revenue, which is becoming a bigger chunk of the publisher's business, is expected fall by high-single digits as well.

'New York Times' Changes Trump Headline to Appease Far-Left Extremists.  The far-left New York Times caved to the leftist Twitter mob with a major switch in headlines between its first and second editions.  The first print edition's headline read, "Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism."  But after the Blue Checkmark Mafia freaked out, the Times caved with a late edition headline that reads, "Assailing Hate But Not Guns."

After Democrat Pushback, New York Times Switches Headline To One Slamming Trump.  When President Trump addressed the nation in the aftermath of mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, the New York Times headline read, "TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM."  A firestorm from the left ensued.  Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote the front page was "a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by — and often relies upon — the cowardice of mainstream institutions." [...] Shortly thereafter, the Times published a second edition with a new headline:  "ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS."  Similarly, the Times' website led with "Trump Condemns Bigotry but Doesn't Call for Major New Gun Laws."

New York Times headline of Trump's remarks on mass shootings ignites backlash.  A New York Times headline about President Trump's remarks on the recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton drew condemnation online — including from some Democratic presidential candidates — and was subsequently changed late Monday [8/5/2019]. The newspaper summarized Trump's comments, in which he denounced hate and white supremacy, with the headline "Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism" on the front page of its first edition.

Bipolarized Journalism.  In the latest exhibition of bipolar narrative engineering, the New York Times encapsulates everything wrong with the current state of U.S. journalism.  The first New York Times headline for tomorrow was presented with text:  "Trump Urges Unity VS. Racism" [...] This triggered the mob; who immediately began an apoplectic outrage campaign against the publication.  So the editors jumped quick to the typeset to correct their headline, acquiesce and engineer a more adversarial narrative; as below.  The second New York Times headline for tomorrow was changed to the text:  "Assailing Hate But Not Guns"

After Appellate Victory, Sarah Palin's Lawsuit Against The New York Times Goes Forward.  On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, in a major victory for the former vice-presidential candidate.  The unanimous decision greatly increases the odds a jury will hear Palin's claim that the Times acted with actual malice by publishing an editorial linking her to the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.  The case also provides a timely reminder about the harm caused by speculating about motives for murder, even when the attempted victim is a politician.

Court revives Sarah Palin defamation case vs NY Times over editorial on shootings.  A federal appeals court revived former U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, over an editorial that she said maliciously linked her to the 2011 mass shooting that seriously wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

New York Times Fudged Book Sales Data To Torpedo 'Justice on Trial' Best-Seller Ranking.  The New York Times fudged book sales data in order to deny top-five billing to the best-selling "Justice on Trial," the definitive and deeply reported account of the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which was written by Carrie Severino and Mollie Hemingway, a Senior Editor for The Federalist.  Industry sales figures show that the New York Times ignored actual data on nationwide sales in order to depress the rankings not just for the Hemingway/Severino book, but also Mark Levin's latest book on the corruption of modern journalism.  According to Publisher's Weekly, the only public source of point-of-sale data on book sales, "Justice on Trial," was the top-selling non-fiction book published over the last week.

New York Times Article Praises Soviet Union For Diversity In Losing Space Race.  The New York Times published an article detailing "How the Soviets Won the Space Race for Equality" Tuesday [7/16/2019], highlighting how socialism allowed people of "the humblest origins" to become successful.  The article, published under the "Past Tense" section, compared the "segregated United States" to the Soviet Union during the space race.  While America put the first man on the moon, the Soviets sent the first man into space in 1961, before the U.S., and then sent "the first woman, the first Asian man, and the first black man into orbit — all years before the Americans would follow suit," the article read.

The Editor says...
The United States landed men on the moon in 1969.  No other country has yet been able to replicate that feat.  The New York Times seems to value gender and skin color far more than actual accomplishment.

NYT Writer Says A 'Just,' 'Rational' Society Would Eliminate Pronouns 'He' And 'She'.  Writing in The New York Times, that arbiter of left-wing respectability, Farhad Manjoo argues that "language should not default to the gender binary."  Specifically, he wants to eliminate gendered pronouns such as he and she.  This effort to control language is a deliberate erasure of the identities of those who have not embraced the latest trends in gender ideology, and who are happy to identify with our biological sex.  It is a form of cultural and ideological imperialism directed against us, insofar as it linguistically erases our lived reality of biological sex as an essential, integral part of the human experience, and therefore of our identities.

NYT: What's The Mystery Behind The Sharp Drop Of Arrivals On The Southern Border?  Well, here's a clever whodunit from the Paper of Record.  Whatever might be the cause of a sudden drop in border crossings?  What could it possibly be? [...] In other words, Donald Trump's get-tough policies have had their desired impact.  No wonder the Gray Lady waited until the twelfth paragraph to mention it.  In fact, eighteen thousands asylum seekers were sent back into Mexico last month, which might have sent a clear message to others not to bother with the trip for just economic reasons.  At the moment, they won't even have court dates until October to resolve asylum applications, and historically less than ten percent of those will qualify anyway.

NYT: Middle-Class Americans Must Sacrifice Their Suburbs to Aid Poor Immigrants.  The federal government must force tens of millions of suburban voters to sacrifice their houses' value, their quiet schools, and their green neighborhoods so poor immigrants can have cheaper rents and investors can build more houses, according to the New York Times' editorial board. [...] The editorial starts with a complaint about housing prices — but it never mentions the obvious fix:  Ending the federal policy of annually importing 1 million immigrant workers, consumers, and renters, which inflates housing prices and class competition for good neighborhoods and good schools.

The New York Times Enlists in the War on 'Sexist' Air Conditioning.  The Internet Isn't Having It.  Shortly before the Fourth of July, The New York Times published an op-ed attacking air conditioning as unnecessary, contributing to global warming, and oppressive.  Taylor Lorenz, a staff writer at The Atlantic took up the call, calling air conditioning itself "unhealthy, bad, miserable, and sexist."  She called for a ban on air conditioning in general, and the internet rushed to defend the technology.  "Air-conditioning is unhealthy, bad, miserable, and sexist.  I can't explain how many times I've gotten sick over the summer b/c of overzealous AC in offices," Lorenz tweeted, adding "ban A/C."

NYT Journalist to Cruz:  Frederick Douglass's Name Has 'No Business in Your Mouth'New York Times journalist and editorial board member Mara Gay took aim at Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) Friday [7/5/2019] after the Texas senator set the record straight on Colin Kaepernick's failed attempt to turn a Frederick Douglass quote into a slam on America on Independence Day.  "Frederick Douglass is an American hero, and his name has no business in your mouth," Gay tweeted in response to Cruz's thread, which added much-needed context to Kaepernick's misleading quote.

NY Times Devotes Entire Op-Ed Tantrum to Hating Trump's 4th of July Party.  One of Trump's greatest achievements as president thus far has been to unmask the brand of coastal elite liberalism that wants to cherry pick the parts of the American experience that fulfill their needs all the while decrying whatever they deem the stuff that is only enjoyed by anachronistic yahoos.  Like unabashed patriotism, especially on the Fourth of July every year.  Now that the president of this great nation has decided to go really big for this year's Independence Day celebration, the [New York] Times is not amused.

Some Never Trump Figures Suddenly Discover What Other Republicans Did Years Ago.  In a pathetic plea to a party that's been objectively catering to the far-left for well over a decade, David Brooks begs Democrats to not continue being left wing because it may drive him away.  I'll also note that while Brooks makes claims of morality in his piece, he's got a story much akin to the insufferable Charlie Sykes.  Namely, he cheated on his wife and then married his researcher.  Many of these people are not the best voices to make the moral case against Trump.

Media wants Democrats to hide their socialism.  In the wake of the Democrat cattle call (aka "debates) this week, the New York Times ran two columns on Friday that called for Democrats to tone it down on their communism.  Granted these columns were by token Republicans but the message was clear.  David Brooks wrote, "I could never in a million years vote for Donald Trump.  So my question to Democrats is:  Will there be a candidate I can vote for? [...] Brooks objected not because he disagrees with the communists.  Indeed, in his very next paragraph, he wrote, "The progressive narrative is dominating in part because progressives these days have a direct and forceful story to tell and no interest in compromising it.  It's dominating because no moderate wants to bear the brunt of progressive fury by opposing it."  His complaint is not that he disagrees with the communist policy but that you cannot win with it.

NYT Op-Ed Calls For Public Shaming Of Border Protection Agents.  The New York Times published an op-ed Saturday that calls for border protection agents to face "serious social costs" and public shaming over their work at facilities housing migrant children.  "The identities of the individual Customs and Border Protection agents who are physically separating children from their families and staffing the detention centers are not undiscoverable," writes Kate Cronin-Furman, an assistant professor at University College London.  "Immigration lawyers have agent names; journalists reporting at the border have names, photos and even videos.  These agents' actions should be publicized, particularly in their home communities."  In the article, Cronin-Furman proposes a public shaming campaign — which she insists is not the same as "doxxing" — in hopes of forcing border protection agents to quit their jobs.  She also said her proposal would deter others from taking jobs as border agents.

New York Times guy can't quite figure out why O'Keefe's Google revelations are a story.  It's often said that the denizens of the New York Times live in a bubble, and nowhere is it more obvious than at the Times' editorial page on the matter of James O'Keefe's undercover reporting revealing how Google intends to skew the 2020 election in favor of Democrats. [...] Google, by way of contrast, could see an issue, and the Google official in question deleted or privatized her social media accounts as a result.  Google also removed O'Keefe's YouTube presentation about the matter, since they own YouTube.  And Google itself is known to be under fire for this very issue of censorship anyway.  They have been facing talk of anti-trust action in Congress for months, and have signaled that they know they've got a problem, based on their bland denials of any bias in Google algorithms.

The New York Times, CNN and Deliberate Omission in Journalism.  There — in the pages not of the New York Times but rather the Wall Street Journal — was no less than the publisher of The Times, A.G. Sulzberger, as he blasted the President of the United States.  And in the very first paragraph Sulzberger misled readers.

New York Times Reporter Falsely Labels Segregationist Senators Republicans.  Appearing Thursday [6/20/2019] on CNN Newsroom, New York Times national political reporter Astead Herndon falsely labeled segregationist Democrat senators whom former Vice President Joe Biden praised for their "civility" Republicans.  The day prior, MSNBC host Kasie Hunt made the same error by misidentifying Sens. James Eastland (D-MS) and Herman Talmadge (D-GA). She has since issued a correction, while Herndon has yet to follow suit.

Calls for censorship:  The last desperate gasp of our dying legacy media.  It's sometimes hard to know if the folks at The New York Times are simply trolling us or if they're completely serious.  Times reporter Kevin Roose spun quite a yarn last Sunday [6/16/2019] entitled, "The Making of a YouTube Radical."  By radical, he and his paper mean those free-thinking Americans whose ideas lack the proper vetting from, well, them.  Those that require censorship.

Black NYT Writer Mocks Blacks Testifying Against Slave Reparations:  They 'Have No Apparent Qualifications Other Than Being Black'.  A black writer for The New York Times, apparently incensed that other blacks might not support the move toward reparations for American slavery, ripped the black witnesses testifying against reparations, tweeting that the witnesses "have no apparent qualifications other than being black."

Double Standards?  It would appear that a breath of journalistic reality has made its way into the upper echelon of the New York Times.  It seems that CNN and MSNBC reek so openly of anti-Trump bias that even the Times can no longer ignore it.  Henceforth, it is barring its reporters from irreparably damaging their reputations by appearing on the amateur hours hosted by Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Don Lemon.  At the same time, the paper has banned their reporters from appearing with Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson on Fox, but as I don't believe they do or ever have, that might just be the NY Times' way of attempting to be fair and balanced.

'Radicalized' YouTuber Article Shows A New York Times Threatened By Conservative Competition.  A number of prominent YouTubers, including Dave Rubin and Philip DeFranco, criticized The New York Times' inclusion of their images on the front page of its Saturday edition next to the headline, "The Making of a YouTube Radical."  The image and headline combination, they said, is biased and leads readers to believe they radicalize people. [...] Some of those included in the collage took to Twitter last weekend to accuse The New York Times of smearing them, saying the headline and text lead readers to believe they radicalize people to the far right, and is paramount to libel.

The New York Times and its glorification of communism.  The New York Times confused many on Tuesday [6/11/2019] publishing an opinion piece calling for "fully automated luxury communism" (?), a supposed "new politics" to liberate us from disease, starvation, and boredom.  Communism is nothing new; it is a nearly 200-year-old death cult that has taken 100 million lives, a low estimate given that communist states like China, North Korea, and Cuba continue to add to the death count on a daily basis — and the fact that the ideology has spread even further to places like Venezuela, South Africa, and Sri Lanka through its cuddlier alter ego, "socialism" or "democratic socialism."  Only slightly younger than the political dinosaur that is communism is the New York Times' insistence on publishing propaganda that defends it.  Aaron Bastani's asteroid mining fever dream is merely the latest in a century of apologism, revisionist history, and fake news designed to promote authoritarianism.

Contra New York Times Scare Story, Trump is Trying to Improve Climate Forecasts.  The Trump administration has made, and is still making, adjustments in the way the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies approach climate change and make the predictions that drive climate policies.  Not everyone is pleased, to put it mildly.  New York Times reporters Coral Davenport and Mark Landler, in a piece that sounds more like a screed than a news story, can barely contain themselves.  "Now, after two years spent unraveling the [environmental] policies of his predecessors," they write, "Mr. Trump and his political appointees are launching a new assault."

NYT Is Ending All Political Cartoons.  The New York Times will end all of its political cartoons, effective July 1.  The move comes weeks after publishing an anti-Semitic cartoon in its international paper that drew widespread condemnation.  The decision was first brought to light by Times cartoonist Patrick Chappatte, who published a blog post linking the move to the April 2019 cartoon of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, though the Times denied that it was related.  "I'm afraid this is not just about cartoons, but about journalism and opinion in general.  We are in a world where moralistic mobs gather on social media and rise like a storm, falling upon newsrooms in an overwhelming blow," Chappatte said.

The Editor says...
One does not have to participate in a "moralistic mob" to object to antisemitism.  If the editors of the NYT don't have any discernment at all, perhaps they should stop publishing editorial cartoons — including Doonesbury.

Is America Experiencing Europe's Growing Anti-Semitism?  Is America experiencing Europe's growing anti-Semitism?  That was the central question at the Hudson Institute last Tuesday afternoon.  As Hudson Institute CEO Ken Weinstein noted in opening remarks, it's a question we never thought we'd have to ask.  Yet, in 2019, it's an unavoidable, even urgent question.  After deadly attacks in Pittsburgh and Poway, along with openly anti-Semitic rhetoric in the U.S. Congress and anti-Semitic imagery in The New York Times, the climate has clearly changed.

Pelosi's Deep Fake Video, while funny, freaks out the mainstream media.  The mainstream media maintains that when it wants answers to troubling questions, it has the investigative resources necessary to ferret out the truth.  That was not the case when it came to uncovering the truth behind the Obama administration's gun sales to Mexico's deadly Sinaloa drug cartel in Operation Fast and Furious.  Or the recent Russia collusion hoax.  In fact, the Pulitzer committee awarded The New York Times its top journalism award for the newspaper's false coverage of the latter.

NY Times reportedly directing writers away from appearing on heavily partisan cable shows, MSNBC not happy.  In what appears to be an attempt to appear less partisan than usual, The New York Times is now reportedly requesting that its "journalists" and "reporters" abstain from appearing on conspicuously partisan programs such as MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."  This fascinating revelation was unveiled Thursday by Vanity Fair's Joe Pompeo, who was tipped off by MSNBC itself about a Times reporter who was recently forced to cancel a scheduled appearance with network host Rachel Maddow because of this new request.

Former NY Times boss admits paper has 'unmistakably anti-Trump' bias and it's all about the money.  Jill Abramson, the former executive editor of the New York Times, says the liberal newspaper is definitely biased and has become "unmistakably anti-Trump."  So basically, Ambramson confirmed widespread suspicions that the mainstream media are little more than leftist political operatives masquerading as "journalists."  Abramson made the observations in her book, "Merchants of Truth," where she says the New York Times trashes President Trump around the clock because he is a cash cow for them.

Ignore lib predictions of a Trump victory.  The New York Times ran a column this weekend by Steve Rattner, "Trump's Formidable 2020 Tailwind."  A Treasury official under Obama, Rattner wrote, "The economy invariably ranks among the top issues on the minds of voters in presidential elections.  At the moment, it appears to offer President Trump a meaningful tailwind."  He cited at length a forecast by Ray Fair of Yale, who got the last three presidential elections "correct" in that he predicted the eventual winner.  He also mentioned two other models.  Beware of liberals telling you what you want to hear.  They are a devious people who regularly mislead more often then they lie, and they lie with a regularity your gastroenterologist would envy.

Tears of the Times.  I was deeply touched by the concern implicit in the Julian Barnes and David Sanger in New York Times story reporting President Trump's authorization of Attorney General Barr to declassify the documents underlying the greatest political scandal in American political history — i.e., the Russian collusion hoax.  Their concern for national security permeates the story.  There it is right at the top, for example, in the lead paragraph: [...]

New York Times:  War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Abortion is Life.  "Pregnancy is a life-threatening condition.  Women die from being pregnant.  We have known that for thousands of years," Warren M. Hern writes.  Life is, more accurately, a life-threatening condition.  People die from eating, from breathing and from walking down the street.  They also, it goes without saying, die from abortions.  Just ask Kermit Gosnell.  "Vagueness and confusion are tools of tyranny," Hern writes without a quibble of irony.

NY Times Deletes Tweet After Liberals Complain Republican Quotes Weren't Called 'Lies'.  The New York Times deleted a tweet last week of one its articles published after liberals complained on Twitter that the headline didn't label quotes from Republicans "lies," even though the article used the terms "misinformation," absurdity," and even false.

Conservatives Win Shock Victory in Australia, NYT Laments Climate Alarmist Los.  On Saturday [5/18/2019], the conservative party — the Liberal/National coalition — held on to its majority in Australia's parliament, even picking up a few seats and stunning observers who had predicted a Labor Party victory.  In fact, The New York Times ran a lament that the climate alarmists lost their election. [...] Prime Minister Scott Morrison called his coalition's victry a "miracle," since polls had predicted a Labor victory.

NY Times Somehow Avoids Socialism While Discussing Venezuela's Failing Economy.  The New York Times front-page story Saturday brought the latest sad update from the failed socialist state of Venezuela — with a strange but predictable omission.  Reporter Anatoly Kurmanaev graphically described the day-to-day tragedy in "Venezuela's Fall Like A Civil War — A Once Robust Economy Has Become a Ruin."  But the culprit is left unnamed?  Socialism, installed in the once-prosperous country by strongman Hugo Chavez, to disastrous results, is not mentioned a single time.  Not even the generalizations of "left-wing" or "left" make appearances.

NY Times Claims Trump Adviser is Trying to Obstruct the President.  The New York Times showed clear bias in its reporting about Chinese trade talks, painting Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow as somehow trying to obstruct his boss and omitting key facts about U.S.-Chinese trade.  "Larry Kudlow Breaks With Trump, Saying 'Both Sides Will Pay' in Trade War With China," the Times reported, claiming that Kudlow as "contradicting" President Trump and that "Mr. Kudlow's acknowledgment was merely a recognition of Economics 101.  But it flew in the face of one of the president's favorite arguments: that trade wars are easy to win, and that the pain falls disproportionately on America's trading partners, which he accuses of having exploited the United States for years through predatory trade practices."

The New York Times' ignorant, biased reporting on Trump taxes continues.  On May 8, the New York Times (NYT) reported that after seeing President Trump's tax returns from 1984 to 1995, Trump had losses of over a billion dollars.  The NYT concluded that Trump "appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American Taxpayer."  The reason Trump had tax losses but was still able to build a real estate empire was due to how the tax code allows a business to recover its capital.  The explanation is very simple.  In fact, anyone who has taken at least one course in accounting can easily explain this to the completely uninformed and obviously biased New York Times.

Biden Gets New York Times Headline For Not Saying Anything Stupid.  The New York Times gave Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden free press Sunday [5/12/2019] because he hasn't said anything stupid recently.  Biden is praised in the story, which was featured on the paper's app Sunday night, for making it a few weeks into his presidential bid without going off message.

Who's the Victim When a Somali Muslim Police Officer Shoots an Innocent White Woman?  The NYT Thinks It Knows.  It's the New York Times, of course, so we know this is not really a question at all, and that it can only be hypocrisy that explains why Noor, a black Muslim immigrant from Somalia, is being punished for killing a white woman while white and Hispanic officers have escaped similar consequences for killing black men.  And, lest you still entertain the notion that this could be an unbiased news story, consider that it was written by John Eligon, whose bio informs us he is "a national correspondent covering race," and that he "documents the nuances of America's struggle with race issues, from the protest movement over police violence to the changing face of the nation's cities and suburbs."

New York Times story on Trump's billion-dollar tax write off was told by Trump 15 years ago on 'The Apprentice'.  The New York Times led readers to believe it had blown the lid off of President Trump's massive business failures with its very long report Tuesday night [5/7/2019], detailing his $1.17 billion loss between 1985 and 1994.  But the story has been told before, by Trump himself, on NBC's "The Apprentice."  On Jan. 8, 2004, at the top of the show's very first episode, Trump laid out a summarized version of the same story about himself that the Times so proudly ran Tuesday.

Tax Document Leak:  Donald Trump Rips New York Times 'Fake News Hit Job'.  President Donald Trump defended reports of his enormous business losses over 30 years ago, arguing Wednesday [5/8/2019] that it was a common practice for real estate developers at the time to avoid taxes.  "Real estate developers in the 1980's & 1990's, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write-offs and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases," Trump wrote on Twitter.  "Much was non-monetary.  Sometimes considered 'tax shelter,' you would get it by building, or even buying."  The New York Times published information from previously undisclosed tax data transcripts from 1984 [to] 1994 showing that Trump lost more than a billion dollars in that period of time.  "You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes, almost all real estate developers did — and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport," Trump wrote.

With Democrats drunkenly denying a border crisis, NYT attempts an intervention.  The New York Times is trying to get Democrats to admit they have a problem on the U.S.'s southern border and is now calling for funds to be appropriated for detention beds. [...] The authors are calling for cash for better detention facilities to accommodate all the illegal border-crossers, which sounds like a downwind patch-up solution to the far more effective ones that House Democrats could do without appropriating any money — such as by reducing the incentives to emigrate illegally by reforming loopholes in U.S. asylum law.

NYT Trump Taxes Story is Funniest News of Year (so far).  Seriously, the 'Trump-taxes' story has to be the biggest, funniest, most well documented, and most absurd, ongoing snipe hunt in history.

Why This NY Times Maple Syrup Story Tastes Odd.  Climate change is at it again, ruining everything good.  This time around it's maple syrup that is at risk, according to the New York Times, which on Saturday had the alarming headline, "Warming Climate May Slow the Flow of Maple."  Or at least it would be alarming if it weren't for the tell-tale word "may."  If a warming climate were actually slowing the flow of the sap that makes for syrup, you can be sure the Times would declare it clearly.  To say it "may" slow the flow suggests that it isn't actually happening, at least not yet.

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?  Imagine if the New York Times cartoon that depicted Israel's Prime Minister as a dog had, instead, depicted the leader of another ethnic or gender group in a similar manner?  If you think that is hard to imagine, you are absolutely right.  It would be inconceivable for a Times editor to have allowed the portrayal of a Muslim leader as a dog; or the leader of any other ethnic or gender group in so dehumanizing a manner.  What is it, then, about Jews that allowed such a degrading cartoon about one of their leaders?

The New York Times Says "Give Trump His Border Money".  The New York Times has endorsed giving Trump the $4.5B he requested in funds for the border.  Not just a single writer either, it's the whole editorial board. [...] While the Times manages to get the top line decision right, they still had to get their shots in.

Did the NY Times just admit — and defend — Obama's spying on Trump?  They've done it, they've finally done it!  The New York Times has picked up the scent of the scandalous spying on Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and is joining the hunt for the truth.  That's how the president and some supporters reacted after the Times reported the FBI sent a "cloaked investigator" to a London meeting with Trump aide George Papadopoulos in September of 2016.  The cheering section saw the story as evidence that, in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller's report, the facts were forcing even the Gray Lady to abandon its notorious anti-Trump agenda.  If only that were true.  In reality, we'll see pigs fly before we see the Times fully committed to getting to the bottom of what Trump calls "Spygate."

NYT Finally Admits Biden's Strong-Arming Ukraine — and Whether His Son Benefitted — Is a Story.  The New York Times has finally decided that former former Vice President Joe Biden's successful push to fire a prosecutor in Ukraine, who just happened to be investigating a company in which Biden's son was a key player, might be newsworthy.  On Thursday [5/1/2019], [the] newspaper finally caught up to The Hill's John Solomon, who reported on April 1 that the Ukrainians had reopened probe into the company, Burisma Holdings.  So the question is whether Biden acted to benefit his son.

Jesus was not a Palestinian.  It's one thing when Palestinian activists and Muslim propagandists recreate Jesus in their own image, calling him a Palestinian.  It's another thing entirely when a member of the House of Representatives does this same thing — and the New York Times jumps on board to perpetuate the lie. [...] In an op-ed in the New York Times, published one day before the misleading tweet, Eric V. Copage claimed that "Jesus, born in Bethlehem, was most likely a Palestinian man with dark skin."  Jesus the Palestinian!  And note carefully that, in an op-ed of roughly 700 words, the word "Jew" does not occur a single time.  The same with the word "Israel."  Not one single mention.

New York Times claims nearly half of students are 'going hungry' by citing survey with 6 percent response rate.  It's no secret among academic researchers that journalists frequently mischaracterize their research, likely because the journalists don't understand it.  Perhaps the most misreported statistic in higher ed, the 1-in-5 campus-rape figure, has been explicitly disavowed by the researcher who led the study.  But sometimes reporters and their editors just want a better headline than the research can deliver.

This Is GNN: Gaslight News Network.  Legacy media is staggering, bouncing off the ropes.  The ratings of CNN and MSNBC have cratered since the release of the Mueller Report.  The New York Times has been reduced to serving as the leak outlet for the foxes who were once hounds.

New York Times now promises 'Anti-Semitism sensitivity training' for its staff.  The New York Times is handling the controversy over its anti-Semitic cartoon exactly the opposite of the reigning wisdom on crisis management. [...] The newspaper that considers itself the premier provider of political insight for Americans has managed to bungle its own crisis management.

Jewish Leaders Refuse to Accept New York Times' Apology for Anti-Semitic Cartoon.  On Thursday [4/25/2019], the international version of The New York Times published a horrifically anti-Semitic political cartoon, depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a dachsund with a blue Star of David dog tag, leading President Donald Trump, who is wearing a kippa.  The New York Times pulled the cartoon and apologized, but the cartoonist insisted his work was not anti-Semitic and at least one Jewish leader is not accepting the Times's apology.

It's Getting Difficult To Tell The Difference Between The New York Times And Al Jazeera.  Whether the Muslim Brotherhood's many disparate groups and organizations meet the criteria of a single terror organization under U.S. law is debatable, but what isn't debatable is that a large faction of the Muslim Brotherhood leads a Sunni movement that aims to implement sharia law under a global caliphate.  Its deep network of "charitable" institutions and political parties form an infrastructure for extremist causes.  One could, if not a New York Times writer, describe its philosophy as dogmatic, illiberal, theocratic, and violent; and its "storied" history a long-term threat to secularism, Muslim reformers, liberalism, Christians, and Jews in the Middle East.  These days, members of the Muslim Brotherhood advocate for child suicide bombings, political assassinations, mass murder of minorities, violent mobs — basically the entire deadly menu of jihadist activities.  This is context that Times readers would not learn.

New York Times, Central Clearinghouse of Antisemitism in America.  The past several days have left many Jews in the United States feeling shell-shocked.  Attacks against them seem to be coming from all quarters.  First, on Thursday [4/25/2019], the New York Times' International Edition published a stunningly antisemitic cartoon on its op-ed page. [...] Under a torrent of criticism, after first refusing to apologize for the cartoon, which it removed from its online edition, the Times issued an acknowledment on Sunday [4/28/2019], but has taken no action against the editors responsible.

The New York Times and the Climate of Anti-Semitism.  [Scroll down]  Before the second cartoon hit the wires, Times opinion writer Bret Stephens called out the paper for its anti-Semitic cartoon while describing the accusation that the Times was purposefully anti-Semitic as a "calumny," a false and despicable accusation.  Stephens' colleagues rose almost immediately to deny the Times' obsession with depicting Jews in the vilest ways, its description of the Arab/Israeli conflict as resting solely on the shoulders of Israel, and its role as a bully pulpit for the emergent anti-Semitism of the left.  Despite years of documentation of these trends by Honest Reporting and Algemeiner, Stephens' colleagues dismissed his observations as fantasies.  Fantasies?  This is a newspaper that attributed the measles outbreak in New York City to Orthodox Jews.  While the views of Orthodox Jews on vaccination are perfectly fair game, it is interesting that the Times barely noted outbreaks in other communities that have resistant attitudes toward vaccination — such as the Amish or the Somalis in Ilhan Omar's congressional district.  Rather it is the historic Jew as the transmitter of disease and the infamous black death that the Times seizes upon.

Today's anti-Semitism festers in online sewers — and the pages of The New York Times.  The San Diego synagogue shooter was self-radicalized on a right-wing message board on the website 8chan, posting before he went on his rampage a thank-you to the board's users:  "What I've learned here is priceless."  The attack, which killed one and injured three, came six months to the day after the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh that killed 11.  The San Diego shooter declared the Pittsburgh shooter — also a creature of fringe internet culture — one of his heroes.  Anti-Semitism is a millennia-old phenomenon, and anti-Jewish shootings in the US aren't new, either (several occurred while George W. Bush and Barack Obama were president).

Why Most Jews Aren't Bothered by the Times' Anti-Semitic Cartoon.  Last week, The New York Times published a cartoon so anti-Semitic that Bret Stephens wrote in his Times column that it was "an image that, in another age, might have been published in the pages of Der Sturmer."  Der Sturmer was the Nazis' major anti-Semitic newspaper.  A Times columnist charging the Times with publishing a Nazi-like cartoon is quite a moment in American publishing history. [...] Of course, the cartoon is not just about Israel or Jews.  It is about Trump, whom the left so hates.  It depicts him as the stooge of both Vladimir Putin and Netanyahu.  There is no truth to either depiction, but if truth mattered to the left, there would be no left.

Report from last night's rally outside the New York Times against its cartoon jihad.  The issue of the day was deploring the cartoon coverage of the N.Y. Times on one occasion, though public outcry forced a tepid "deeply sorry" from the dingy Gray Lady.  Sadly, the sanctimony, long known as inadequate where Jews and Israel are 'reported on' by this 'newspaper of record,' was torn even as the small crowd grumbled below the new face of the Times on West 41st and 8th Avenue.  The paper published yet another incredibly biased cartoon by a European graphic political artist.

Der New York Stürmer.  The New York Times? How about more accurately calling it Der New York Stürmer?  This despicable anti-Semitic publication has been attacking Jews mercilessly for more than half a century.  Now its Jew-hatred has been translated into pictures for those neo-Nazis of the Left and Right who have difficulty keeping up with words that are spelled with letters.  In a vicious, unforgivable cartoon over the Passover holy season, the international edition of Der New York Stürmer published a cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a dog — a dirty Jew dog — with a big Jewish Star of David hanging from its neck.  Get it?  Jew dogs?  Get it?  A Star of David?  Get it?  Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) surely got it.  Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) certainly got it.

New York Times Drops Syndication Service That Supplied Anti-Semitic CartoonThe New York Times decided on Monday [4/29/2019] to cease the Times' relationship with the syndication service that supplied an anti-Semitic political cartoon that ran in last Thursday's international print edition of the newspaper.  The cartoon, drawn by Portuguese artist António Moreira Antunes and originally published by the Lisbon newspaper Expresso, depicted a blind, yarmulke-wearing Donald Trump being led by a dachshund sporting the face of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a Star of David dog collar.

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?  Imagine if the New York Times cartoon that depicted Israel's Prime Minister as a dog had, instead, depicted the leader of another ethnic or gender group in a similar manner?  If you think that is hard to imagine, you are absolutely right.  It would be inconceivable for a Times editor to have allowed the portrayal of a Muslim leader as a dog; or the leader of any other ethnic or gender group in so dehumanizing a manner.  What is it, then, about Jews that allowed such a degrading cartoon about one of their leaders?

The Peculiar Progressive-Islamist Alliance.  After Congresswomen Ilham Omar's and Rashida Tlaib's incendiary anti-Semitic rants directed at Jewish Americans and American ally Israel, the Democrat House "progressive caucus," led by Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, rallied around to protect and support them.  The progressive media chimed in, supporting the Islamist congresswomen.  Even after Rep. Omar dismissed the 9/11 attacks as "someone did something," Democrat progressives defended her, accusing the president of religious bigotry when he objected.  Not to be outdone, the ever more progressive and pro-Islamist New York Times published a political cartoon that even they admit is anti-Semitic, as well as an article claiming that Jesus was a Palestinian, which was applauded by Ilhan Omar!  The anti-Semitic congresswomen and media were right in tune with the powerful "Women's March" leaders, who allied with notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, calling him "The greatest of all times."

By its own standards, the New York Times deserves blame for the Poway synagogue shooting.  Does anyone else remember when a New York Times editorial blamed Sarah Palin for the shooting of Gabby Giffords because of a bulls-eye on a map?  The New York Times published a hideous, obviously anti-Semitic cartoon the day before a gunman entered a Chabad synagogue in suburban San Diego, killing one person and injuring 3.

New York Times Publishes Antisemitic, 'Offensive' Cartoon, Forced to Apologize.  In Thursday's [4/25/2019] international edition of The New York Times, a cartoon with "anti-Semitic tropes" was published that portrayed a blind President Trump led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu depicted as a dog with a Star of David collar around its neck.  The cartoon appeared in the April 25 international edition and coincided with the end of the Passover holiday and Shabbat, two days many observant Jews were not online.

NYT Columnist Friedman:  Solution To Immigration Is A 'High Wall With A Big Gate'.  New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman explained on Wednesday [4/24/2019] on CNN how he thinks the U.S. government can solve the situation at the border, following his trip there.  Friedman's appearance on the network corresponded with his op-ed from the day before, in which he described the port of entry at San Diego a "troubling scene."

NYT Finally Acknowledges That Steele Dossier Might Not Be That Factual.  The salacious and uncorroborated "dossier" compiled by ex-British Intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used by the media to justify its endless attacks on President Donald Trump and accuse him of treason.  The dossier was never anything more than opposition research paid for by Fusion GPS — and not even good opposition research at that.  Steele reported rumors and gossip, including some Internet comments, to bolster his report.  What wasn't corroborated was downright debunked by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, including the allegations that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen went to Prague to meet with Russians.

NY Times Columnist Kristof:  Happy Easter!  Is the Virgin Birth a 'Bizarre Claim'?  New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof spent yet another Easter Sunday trying to see just how little one can believe of Christianity's anchoring ideas, and still consider oneself a Christian.

National Reckoning, My Eye.  Okay, sports fans, get your wallets out and start giving.  That's the latest brainstorm from a New York Times columnist who makes however unconvincing a case for reparations to black people.  For slavery, that is.  And that means you, whitey — or brownie, and I guess that goes for yellow ones also.  He wants these reparations to be legislated into law, and everyone except African-Americans has to pay.  His idea is hardly original.  Race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Kamala Harris, even Jesse Jackson, have been dropping heavy hints for years.  Black Americans want money, and the rest of us have to give it to them, "punto basta," as they say in the land of pasta.  The media has managed to impose a kind of groupthink that tells us that America is rife with racism and bigotry, but looking around and watching television, the only racism I seem to notice nowadays is the one against whites who go to church and raise law-abiding families.

Obama Adviser's Book is Ranked 1,030 on Amazon.  How Did It Make NYT's Bestseller List?  Valerie Jarrett, a top adviser to former President Barack Obama, published a book that ranks dismally on Amazon and at Barnes and Noble, but was placed on The New York Times Best Seller list.  Anomalies around the book's sales figures in industry databases have some in the book business questioning whether Jarrett, who's rumored to have received a million-dollar-plus advance, paid a company to game the numbers.  Her book, which was published April 2, is number 1,030 on Amazon's list of top sellers and has only three reviews on the site.  It similarly ranks 1,244 on Barnes and Noble where signed copies are being sold for less than the suggested retail for unsigned copies.

The U.S. Is Not 'Too Empty' or 'In Dire Need of New Faces', as the N.Y. Times Puts It.  Part of the usually on-target "The Upshot" team at the New York Times wrote a long piece about the "decline of the work force" and the supposedly related "dire need" for more immigrants. [...] Yes, America is getting a little older; and, yes, birth rates have fallen; and, yes, happily, the published unemployment rate is down, but the whole thrust of the article was a sensed need for more immigrants to fill those empty jobs.  It was if there were no other ways of expanding the work force without adding to our already high rates of legal and illegal immigration.  And, from their cozy perch on Manhattan's West Side, there was no indication that the writers sensed that there are huge benefits for the powerless in tighter labor markets.

Mainstream media outlets change their tune on border crisis amid illegal immigration surge.  Months after repeatedly dismissing and mocking President Trump's claim of a national emergency at the Southern U.S. border, the mainstream media are grappling with reality, with no less than The New York Times declaring the border crisis at "breaking point."  Yet as recently as February, a New York Times fact-checker of Trump's State of the Union speech tweeted:  "President Trump described illegal border crossings as a 'urgent national crisis.'  This is false."

New York Times Advanced Narrative Move:  IG Office Investigating Stefan Halper.  Something is coming... something delicious.  How can we tell?  Well, whenever a bombshell is about to drop on the corrupt Intelligence Community, the New York Times does a quick narrative dump to get out ahead of the story. [...] The FBI has a "Brennan" problem.  CIA Director John Brennan organized foreign intelligence assets to run against the Trump campaign March through July 2016 to help construct Brennan's "EC" memo that he gave to James Comey to initiate the official start of the FBI counterintelligence operation.

Donald Trump Is Trying to Kill You.  There's a lot we don't know about the legacy Donald Trump will leave behind.  And it is, of course, hugely important what happens in the 2020 election.  But one thing seems sure:  Even if he's a one-term president, Trump will have caused, directly or indirectly, the premature deaths of a large number of Americans.  Some of those deaths will come at the hands of right-wing, white nationalist extremists, who are a rapidly growing threat, partly because they feel empowered by a president who calls them "very fine people."  Some will come from failures of governance, like the inadequate response to Hurricane Maria, which surely contributed to the high death toll in Puerto Rico.

The Editor says...
Donald Trump did not cause Hurricane Maria, and even if he had, the government has no constitutional obligation to clean up after a hurricane.  Nobody has been killed by "right-wing, white nationalist extremists."  I could offer rebuttals to the rest of the canards in the article above, whatever those canards may be, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to read it.  If you actually pay to read the New York Times, in print or on line, you are welcome to visit t for re-education.

NYT Says Border at 'Breaking Point' 1 Month After 'Fact Check' Claimed No Emergency.  One month after claiming there is "no emergency" at the border, the far-left New York Times now concedes the border is at a "breaking point."  In real time, as President Trump gave his State of the Union speech last month, the Times branded the president a liar over his claim that there is an "urgent national crisis" at our border.

The Climate Scare:  Ever More Shrill, Ever Less Serious.  The Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives!  And, for their first act, how about some scary "climate" hearings?  The New York Times, of course, takes the occasion to run a big front-page story with the headline (in the print edition — online is different) "2018 Continues Warming Trend, As 4th Hottest Year Since 1880."  Let's apply a little critical analysis.  The Times adorns their article with a huge temperature graph, covering the period 1880 to 2018, that goes across two-thirds of the top of the front page.  The overall trend looks up at first glance.  But on not-very-much-closer inspection, it is obvious that 2017 was down from 2016, and 2018 was down from 2017.  How exactly does that constitute 2018 "continu[ing the] warming trend"?  I would have said that the last two years in a row down is the opposite of "continuing the warming trend," but what do I know?

Jill Abramson falls.  In the prologue to her new book, "Merchants of Truth:  The Business of News and the Fight for Facts," former New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson addresses the organization of her look at contemporary media struggles.  "The Powers That Be," a 1979 book by David Halberstam on four media organizations, provided an organizational blueprint for Abramson's look at the New York Times, The Post, Vice and BuzzFeed.  She even writes about "copying Halberstam's template."  Turns out that's not all she copied.  Vice correspondent Michael Moynihan in a Wednesday Twitter thread flagged a series of overlaps between Abramson's work and the work of other authors: [...]

After Plagiarism Claims, Ex-Times Editor Says Her Book 'Will Be Fixed'.  Jill Abramson, the former executive editor of The New York Times, responded on Thursday to accusations that her latest book, "Merchants of Truth," contains passages that were plagiarized or not properly attributed to the original source material.  "I was up all night going through my book because I take these claims of plagiarism so seriously," she said in a statement issued by the book's publisher, Simon & Schuster.

NYT big Jill Abramson accused of plagiarism in new book, and boy, is it bad.  Jill Abramson, the former New York Times editor who carries a little plastic Obama doll in her purse for comfort, has written quite a book, trying to describe the news industry the same way the great David Halberstam once did in The Powers that Be in the 1970s.  She examines four news outfits, plus Facebook, in an attempt to replicate Halberstam's tome about how the news industry evolved in her new book, titled Merchants of Truth.  Her conclusion?  Legacy media rule.  Upstart media have no value.  After a big buildup from this, she's got a problem:  she's being accused of plagiarism.

New York Times reporter slammed for seeking 'opposition research' on Christian schools.  A New York Times journalist is facing backlash for what some critics are calling a slanted report on Christian schools in America.  Dan Levin, who covers American youth for the Times, took to Twitter in hopes to seek testimonials about people's experiences while attending Christian schools.

Apologies Aren't Enough After The Covington And BuzzFeed Media Fiascos.  On Saturday, the New York Times ran a story with the headline:  "Boys in 'Make America Great Again' Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March." [...] The article described it as an "unsettling encounter" that "became the latest touchpoint for racial tensions in America, particularly under Mr. Trump."  The story quoted Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky's Democratic secretary of state, condemning the "horrific scenes."  The Washington Post followed up with a story on Sunday quoting the Native American, Nathan Phillips, saying that he "felt threatened by the teens and that they swarmed around him."  Then, later that same day, the story fell apart.  More complete video evidence — not just the misleading seconds-long clip — showed that Phillips approached the students, not the other way around.  It showed that another group of adult men had been hurling obscenities at the teenage students before Phillips showed up.  And it showed that, if anything, the students acted with restraint as chaos mounted.  What it didn't show were racists threatening a Native American who happened to be walking by.  Meanwhile, Phillips turned out to be a very unreliable witness.

More about News Media vs Covington Catholic High School.

NBC, NY Times Set Up 'Trump About To Cave' Narrative.  As the government shutdown barrels toward the one-month mark with no sign Republicans are caving or the president is having second thoughts, the mainstream media has taken to attempting to nudge things in the Democrats' direction.  NBC News attempted to push the president by declaring his poll numbers were declining.

The True Story of the Media's Role in Trump's Victory.  Last weekend, the New York Times (America's leading Very Serious Newspaper) published an opinion piece from Frank Bruni in which he cautioned the media to learn from their mistakes in 2016: [...] It is high time for the media to learn some lessons from 2016.  But which lesson does Bruni refer to?  That the media need to return to their disinterested objectivity in election coverage?  Far from it.  A close read of the passage above shows that Bruni (and, by extension, the New York Times) thinks the problem was that the media were too objective in 2016.  Bruni would have us believe that had news outlets taken an even more partisan approach to covering Trump, Hillary might have won. [...] Bruni is calling for those in the legacy media to work harder than ever at rigging the democratic process in this country.

The New York Times Proves There's No Russia Collusion.  The New York Times wants you to believe that President Trump "colluded" with Russian intelligence to swing the 2016 presidential election in his favor.  A "breaking" story, released late last week, carried the conclusive headline:  "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia."  But the story is neither conclusive nor accurate.  In fact, it elides that which both the president and his supporters have been arguing for nearly three years:  the American Left has hijacked the country's hallowed democratic institutions and weaponized them, turning them into nothing more than political assassins operating on behalf of the Democratic National Committee.

For Real 'Russian Collusion,' Look to the Democrats.  In trying to lob a Molotov cocktail into the Trump White House, the New York Times last Friday succeeded only in blowing off yet another of its appendages.  Fixated on its manic desire to destabilize the lawfully elected government of the United States (at what point does the "Resistance" become active sedition?), the media has chosen to fight as down and dirty as possible, and in so doing hit a new low. [...] This is, in a nutshell, the heart of the MSM's "case" against the president, a mixture of wishful thinking, venality, and downright criminality.  It is also one of the most egregious cases of psychological projection we've ever seen, for reasons that will soon become clear.

The brazen plot against Trump by the Obama-era FBI and DOJ continues, enabled by a complicit media.  A stench has been emanating from the J. Edgar Hoover Building (FBI headquarters) for over two years.  It landed Saturday [1/12/2019] on the front page of the New York Times in an article citing "former law enforcement officials" claiming they had to deal with "explosive implications" that President Donald Trump was "knowingly" or "unwittingly" working for Russia.  Thus, the story goes, there was a basis to begin the Russia collusion investigation.  In fact, "The Gray Lady" was covering the derrieres of the Obama administration officials involved in the cabal to frame Trump, who now fear an imminent Special Counsel finding that during the 2016 campaign there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians.  The article is intended to convey the following message:  Even though there was no evidence to support the allegations, those making the decision to investigate Trump did so in good faith.  No, they did not.  The rotting of the FBI hierarchy began when then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-agent Peter Strzok, enabled by former Director James Comey and the Obama-era Justice Department, utilized an "unsubstantiated" dossier created by former British spy, Christopher Steele, and financed by the Clinton campaign, to request a FISA warrant to wiretap Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.  Yet, the New York Times described the dossier as a "factor fuel[ing]" the "FBI's concerns."

We the Press.  Frank Bruni, formerly the New York Times's White House reporter and now a columnist for the paper, has a long, long op-ed that is unintentionally revealing.  It is headlined, "Will the Media Be Trump's Accomplice Again in 2020?"  As though the press were pro-Trump in 2016!  "We have a second chance.  Let's not blow it."  A second chance to help a Democrat beat Donald Trump.  Bruni's piece displays a remarkable lack of self-knowledge.  Republicans should be happy to note that he still has no idea why Trump won in 2016:  he thinks Hillary was a fine candidate, and it was the press's fault for not being sufficiently anti-Trump.

Stupid New York Times tricks.  An obituary the New York Times recently published illustrates how averse that journal is to giving credit to Donald Trump for anything good, while maintaining a claim on journalistic integrity.

Hey, Frank Bruni!  When will the media 'redeem' itself for Barack Obama's election?  In between the lines of Frank Bruni's column Friday [1/11/2019] in the New York Times, he admits what any normal person should have accepted long ago:  President Trump won the 2016 election in spite of the news media, not because of it.  I literally mean between the lines.  The piece is largely a plea for the national news media to "redeem" itself (the actual word he used), but here and there, he confesses that his complaint may not only be hopeless but also pointless. [...] Will the media take the opportunity to "redeem" itself for the 2008 election?  Of course not, and that's not what Bruni wants.  What he wants is for Trump to have never been elected and for the media to do everything it can to ensure he doesn't win a second term.

NYT Uses Tiny New Mexico Town to Claim There's No Border Crisis.  Somewhere along the United States' 2,000-mile border with Mexico is a town unconcerned by what President Donald Trump has called a border "crisis," and the New York Times is on it.  "On the Border, Little Enthusiasm for a Wall: 'We Have Other Problems That Need Fixing,'" the Times reported.  The source for this claim is not polling data, but rather interviews primarily with residents of the tiny town of Columbus, N.M.  Columbus is home to residents who see little issue with their proximity to the border.  The Times identified at least one citizen who seemed to wish there were more illegal immigration, not less.

New York Times Makes Major Correction to Report on Manafort and Russian OligarchNew York Times has made a significant edit to their report on Paul Manafort's sharing of Trump campaign polling data with an associate believed to be connected to Russian intelligence.  There's been a great deal of commotion lately after Manafort's legal team botched a series of court redactions and inadvertently revealed that he gave campaign data to his former business partner, Konstantin Kilimnik.  When the Times initially reported on the news, they said Manafort had his former campaign deputy Rick Gates pass the data to Kilimnik so it could be relayed to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch closely tied to the Kremlin.  On Wednesday [1/9/2019], the Times made a correction to their piece, saying Manafort actually wanted Kilimnik to direct the data to Ukrainian oligarchs Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not Deripaska.

Former New York Times Editor Admits Outlet Apologized to China for Critical Story.  A former New York Times executive editor has admitted the publisher of the media outlet drafted an apology letter to the Chinese regime after publishing an investigative report about corruption within the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP's) ruling elite.  Jill Abramson, executive editor at the outlet from 2011 to 2014, wrote in her upcoming book Merchants of Truth that her blood pressure rose when she first came across a draft letter from publisher Arthur Sulzberger, according to Fast Company.  She said the letter was written with input from the Chinese embassy, and sought to appease the regime in hopes the outlet's business in the country could be salvaged.

NYT Hack Defends Paper's Non-Stop Attacks on President Trump Despite His Historic Presidency.  Over the past few days, former NYT editor Jill Abramson has slammed her former newspaper for being "unmistakably anti-Trump" in preparation for the release of her new book "Merchants of Truth."  As President Donald Trump has claimed, Abramson said the slanted coverage is a direct result of the financial benefit the struggling newspaper has seen from an increase in subscribers due to their crazed coverage of Trump.

Ex-New York Times editor Jill Abramson rips paper's 'unmistakably anti-Trump' bias.  Jill Abramson, the Harvard lecturer who served as the first and only female executive editor of The New York Times from 2011 to 2014, has some harsh words for her former employer in her upcoming book, saying its "unmistakably anti-Trump" agenda risks damaging its credibility.  In "Merchants of Truth:  The Business of News and the Fight for Facts," reviewed by Fox News, Ms. Abramson complains about the unabashed liberal bent taken on by her successor, executive editor Dean Baquet.

Former NY Times editor rips Trump coverage as biased.  A former executive editor of the New York Times says the paper's news pages, the home of its straight-news coverage, have become "unmistakably anti-Trump."  Jill Abramson, the veteran journalist who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says the Times has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility.

Another Year of Torrential Media Bias.  [P]ick up the New York Times at random and you will find at least one story resting on the premise that it is outrageous for members of a conservative institution to resist liberal revolutionaries seeking to remake that institution in their own image.  The liberal revolutionaries always wear the white hats, no matter how presumptuous their claims.  Anything less than capitulation from the conservatives is treated as nefarious.

NYT's Editorial Board Claims That 'Trump Imperils The Planet'.  The New York Times editorial board says that President Donald Trump is literally endangering the entire planet with his rolling back of the Obama administration's climate agenda.  The Times' editorial, titled "Trump Imperils the Planet," comes as the print edition published a 12-page special section on the "far-reaching and potentially devastating" consequences of Trump's environmental policies.

Here are the Most Egregious Fake News Stories of 2018.  [#4] NYT accuses Nikki Haley of purchasing expensive curtains:  The New York Times initially tied U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley to expensive curtains hanging in the ambassador's apartment in New York, writing, "Nikki Haley's View of New York Is Priceless.  Her Curtains? $52,701."  However, NYT's own article later admitted that the curtains were approved in 2016 and that Haley had no say in the matter.

Dear New York Times, here's why Hezbollah is bad.  The New York Times made waves on Christmas after the "paper of record" decided to publish a piece that trumpeted the supposed good deeds of the Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.  In the piece "Christmas in Lebanon: 'Jesus isn't only for the Christians,'" Times reporters Vivian Yee and Hwaida Saad paint a sympathetic picture of the U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.  Writing on Christmas in Lebanon, they report:  "Even Hezbollah, the Shiite political movement and militia that the United States has branded a terrorist organization, has helped ring in the season."

New York Times Wants To Have Credit Card Companies Monitor Sales Of Guns And Ammo.  The New York Times ran an article today [12/24/2018] that opens a new front in the progressive dream of restricting and eventually banning gun ownership.

New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchasers.  The New York Times is pressuring credit card giants to monitor customers' buying habits and blacklist gun purchases.  The Times suggests banks are "unwittingly financing mass shootings" by allowing individuals to use their cards to buy firearms and related accessories.

The New York Times Was Against War In Syria Before It Was For It.  As President Donald Trump announced his decision Wednesday [12/19/2018] to withdraw the nation's 2,000 troops from Syria, a bipartisan cadre of opinion-havers attacked him as recklessly abandoning allies in the region and jeopardizing America's influence over foreign affairs.  One newspaper was particularly harsh:  The [New York] Times.  Quickly after Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced his resignation (in part as a protest against Trump's decision on Syria) Thursday [12/20/2018], America's paper of record quickly produced a scathing editorial, proclaiming "Jim Mattis Was Right."

New York Times Launches Campaign to Convince Public to Pay for Quality Journalism.  The New York Times has launched a branding campaign aimed to convince the public and its readers of the need to pay for quality journalism.  The campaign, called "The Truth Is Worth It," features a series of videos including How to Get Away With Murder in Small-Town India and Puerto Rico Revises Death Toll.  "We're only able to deliver our particular brand of deeply-reported journalism because we make the investment in the people and resources required to do it at the highest quality level," said the paper's chief marketing officer David Rubin in a statement.

Deep State strike back:  Gets gushy NYT puff piece on Obama holdovers at VOA parent.  Well, the Obama holdovers at the U.S. Agency for Global Media, parent organization over U.S. broadcast agencies such as Voice of America, and formerly known as the Broadcast Board of Governors, have struck back.  News got out [...] that the Obama holdouts weren't budging from their cushy six-figure perches, as President Trump attempted to send in some new board members.  Instead of packing up and leaving, as even White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes did, they chose to remain entrenched in positions they were supposed to leave two years ago.  They didn't.  And I don't even see how this could be legal.  They became the Things That Wouldn't Leave, and now they've got some of their press buddies writing for them all about how great they are.

NYT Writer:  Cancel Holiday Office Parties So Women Avoid Sexual HarassmentNew York Times opinion writer Jennifer Weiner told CBS This Morning hosts that holiday office parties are nothing more than another opportunity for women to be sexually harassed.

NY Times Compares Right-Wingers on Social Media to 'Jihadists'.  Many in traditional media want to remove all conservatives from social media.  After all, conservatives are like terrorists from their perspective.  In an editorial written by The New York Times, "right-wing extremism" took center stage.  The piece, headlined "The New Radicalization of the Internet," warned that social media exacerbated the issue of a "body count of fanaticism."  The Times called for government regulation of social media to take down what it called "right-wing extremism."

NY Times Claims 'True Islam Does Not Kill Blasphemers'.  Here is a quick test of whether what Mustafa Akyol says is true or not: let him go to Pakistan, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Somalia, or Sudan, or any other country that implements Islamic law, and tell the Islamic authorities there that true Islam does not kill blasphemers.  Akyol apparently expects us to believe that all the Islamic authorities in all those countries, and all the Islamic scholars who formulated Islamic law from the Qur'an and Sunnah, got Islam all wrong, wrong, wrong, and finally here comes Mustafa at last, with the genuine article.  In reality, if Akyol denied the death penalty for blasphemy in any Sharia state, he could end up being executed for blasphemy himself.

NYT Makes Changes to Election Needle so Readers Won't Get Upset.  The New York Times is changing a voting data graphic that many readers claim led them to falsely believe then-candidate Donald Trump would lose the 2016 presidential election in a landslide.  The NYT is working to avoid triggering panic attacks among people who felt the election needle duped them into believing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would easily win.  The needle supposedly created confusion between real-life election data and flawed predictive polling.

NYT: Right-Wingers Aren't Guilty So No Outrage over NY's Rise in Anti-Semitism.  The New York Times admits no one on the political left cares about New York's rise in anti-Semitism because it cannot be pinned on the political right.  Hate crimes against Jews represent "half of all hate crimes in New York this year," the far-left Times reports.  "To put that figure in context, there have been four times as many crimes motivated by bias against Jews — 142 in all — as there have against blacks," the Times reports.  "Hate crimes against Jews have outnumbered hate crimes targeted at transgender people by a factor of 20."

Are You Being Defined Out Of Existence?  Recently, The New York Times claimed that transgender people could be "defined out of existence" by the Trump administration, due to a government return to the classical definition of biologically-based gender.  Strangely enough, no leftist made any fuss, however, when the Obama administration defined biological gender out of existence in federal Title IX law, an act which violated the identity of 99.9% of the population.  Why is something that is allegedly awful and inhumane to do to a tiny fraction of people suddenly acceptable when it is done to almost everyone?

Media Bias?  What Media Bias?  If you subscribe, as I do, to the digital edition of the New York Times, you'll soon notice that just about every headline or subhed will contain some reference to President Trump.  It almost doesn't matter what the ostensible subject of the article is; the hed must include some aside about "the age of Trump," even if the story is about golf or gardening.  Because, you see, everything is political today.

When Media Foist False Narratives to Sow Social Discord, They Indeed Are the Enemy of the People.  The New York Times had a sycophantically pro-Stalin liar, Walter Duranty, filing Fake News reports from the Soviet Union for more than ten years.  The Times published the lies daily as "news" and made him their Moscow bureau chief for fourteen years.  As a result, the West was lulled, cheated of the truth, made unaware of the evil.  Yes, the Fake News indeed was the enemy of the people.  Likewise, the New York Times — and the other mainstream media who took their lead from them — by and large refused to report on the unfolding Nazi Holocaust [...].  Between 1939 and 1945, the New York Times published more than 23,000 front-page stories.  Of those, 11,500 were about World War II.  Only twenty-six — in six years — were about the Holocaust.  The Times was passively complicit.

While Demanding 'Civility,' NYT Publishes Fan Fiction Depicting Trump's Assassination.  The New York Times published a fictional essay fantasizing about President Trump getting assassinated the same week that explosive devices were sent to prominent political figures across the country.  After explosive devices were sent to prominent Democrats and liberal political figures — Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Brennan, and others — New York Times opinion columnist Charles M. Blow blamed Trump for creating a "toxic environment" that led to these attempted acts of terrorism. [...] Here's some of the rhetorical backdrop being painted by The New York Times.  In a collection of fictional essays published Tuesday, one author fantasized about a Secret Service agent helping the Russians assassinate Trump.

George Soros's Son Has Op-Ed Published In NYT Condemning Political Violence Within An Hour Of Pipe Bomb Story Breaking.  The timing of Alexander Soros's published piece in the New York Times today will do nothing to quell the understandable skepticism of the 'pipe bomb' story that broke across all news agencies earlier today given the article was apparently written and then published within an hour of the events being made public.

NY Times Publishes 'Trump Assassination Porn,' But That's Not The Worst Part.  The New York Times, once almost universally considered the most thorough, reliable, and professional news publication in the U.S., is now publishing "Trump assassination porn" that fantasizes about the Secret Service helping a Russian agent murder Trump.  The worst part:  rather than passively receiving the submission, The New York Times Book Review went out looking for it, actively petitioning spy and crime novelists to produce Trump-Russia-themed stories that were almost guaranteed to indulge Russian conspiracy theories and include some sort of scenario that ends up with a dead President of the United States.  And, of course, when they got one, they were thrilled to push it out to readers.

Media Bias Examples for the Week of 10/15/2018.  [For example,] There was an absurd and offensive ad aimed at African Americans from a small PAC claiming to support Republican Congressman French Hill.  Several reporters posted tweets implying that Hill was somehow responsible for the ad.  Hill even ended up denouncing the ad.  One example of this was the NYT's Maggie Habberman.  Maggie's tweet was spread by countless others in the media.  While she did later post a clarification, she left the original tweet up and it continued to spread.  This is a common theme among journalists on social media: they constantly post false or misleading stories on social media, then correct later to a much smaller audience.

New York Times scrambles to defuse a full-blown staff rebellion.  The New York Times is scrambling to quell a staff rebellion at its metro desk after the section's editor, Cliff Levy, unleashed a blistering email to staffers last week, saying the section had "lost its footing" and was in need of "urgent" change.  The News Guild of New York, which represents the 40-plus journalists in the section, called Levy's memo a "public fragging" by Times management and said his offer of "voluntary" buyouts as the section became more web-focused was "an unexpected threat to our journalism and our jobs."

Opposition Media Flop:  No One Cared About That Massive NYT Story On Trump's Taxes.  [Scroll down]  It's also an insanely long piece loaded with things that average voters just don't care about.  Also, no one likes paying taxes, and taking measures to reduce your tax burden is not illegal. [...] The Times combed through 100,000 pages of documents and conducted scores of interviews — and it was all done for nothing.

Could the bias be any more blatant?
NYT To Host Midterm Voting Event With Sen. Bernie Sanders.  The New York Times is holding a "nonpartisan" event with Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday that will encourage college students to turn out to vote for the 2018 midterm elections.  Sanders, who labels himself a "Democratic Socialist," will speak with NYT national political correspondent Alexander Burns at the University of Maryland.  Other colleges, including the University of South Carolina and Virginia Tech, will host live watch parties of the event across the country.  The event is held in conjunction with Rock The Vote, an organization that bills itself as "nonpartisan."  According to an event description, Sanders will "discuss what's at stake for students, in particular, and to amplify the critical importance of voting — regardless of which candidates you support."

New York Times' dud of a Kavanaugh bombshell co-authored by admitted anti-Kavanaugh partisan.  As if the New York Times' "bombshell" report that Brett Kavanaugh allegedly threw ice at a bar patron during an altercation in 1985 wasn't ridiculous enough already, it turns out one of the story's authors is an outright anti-Kavanaugh partisan.  The Times article, titled "Kavanaugh Was Questioned by Police After Bar Fight in 1985," is part of a larger effort by the press and Democratic lawmakers to establish that the Supreme Court nominee has a history of violent, drunken outbursts.  Also, that he's a liar.  Also, that's he's a serial sexual predator.  Whatever sticks.  "As an undergraduate student at Yale, Brett M. Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a local bar during which he was accused of throwing ice on another patron, according to a police report," reads the article's opening lines.

The utility of privacy.  A scientific article recently cited by the New York Times proves it is possible to create a world without males.  "Life With No Males?  These Termites Show That It's Possible.  A discovery among termite colonies in Japan suggests that males can be discarded from advanced societies in which they once played an active role."  An expert interviewed by the article confidently declared that for termites at least "the future is female".  The implict theme of the doomed male cannot be escaped in the MeToo era.  In case you missed the point white males especially are headed for the boneyard and even science knows it.  Can they be serious?  More serious than you think.

New York Times Hits "Disturbing Trend" Of Seeing Islam As "Not A Religion".  This outstandingly disingenuous article is written by Asma T. Uddin, a Muslim religious liberty lawyer and scholar, who undoubtedly knows very well that when Bennett, McCarthy, Flynn and others say that Islam is a political ideology, they're 100% correct.  And that's the real issue here, not whether or not Islam is a religion.  If Islam is a political ideology, even if it is a religion as well, then that political ideology has to be evaluated in light of its compatibility, or lack thereof, with the U.S. Constitution and the rights and freedoms it guarantees.  Asma Uddin presents her quotes from people saying that Islam is a political ideology as if they were self-evidently false, yet Islam is implemented as a political ideology today in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and elsewhere.  The elements of Islamic law that are political, authoritarian, supremacist, and injurious to the rights of women and others are the focus of anti-sharia laws, not the aspects of sharia that involve Muslim religious practices.

Rod Rosenstein's Resistance.  [Scroll down]  The Times account is based on multiple unnamed sources and draws on memoranda about interactions with Rosenstein, written by the FBI's former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, and other officials.  The Times creates ambiguity about whether its journalists have actually seen these memos.  Times reporters Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt indicate that the chirpy anonymous officials with whom they spoke "were briefed either on the events themselves or on [the] memos" — implying that the journalists are relying on their sources' accounts of the memos.  Yet, the report subsequently adds a quote from McCabe's lawyer, Michael Bromwich, who says his client "has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos."

Twelve points to keep in mind on the NYT's Rosenstein 'wear a wire' and invoke 25th Amendment story.  We are only getting started on figuring out what this really means, but here are twelve points to keep in mind:  [#1] The New York Times is comfortable exposing deep state resistance to Trump.  The idea that members of the federal bureaucracy are deliberately sabotaging and working to oust a duly elected president of the United States has been dismissed as a conspiracy theory by all sorts of mainstream media outlets and purported fact-checkers.  But first with its publication of an anonymously-written op-ed, and now with this story, the Times is eager to admit the resistance and celebrate it, presumably because it thinks the end is nearing for the Trump presidency.  [#2] Memos written by Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page were at least part of the basis for the report.  Given the fact that McCabe has been fired and has been referred by the DOJ's Inspector General for criminal prosecution, there may be self-protection motives in releasing them to the leading journalistic opponent of Trump's presidency.  [#3] Rod Rosenstein's denials are lawyerly and self-contradictory.

NY Times removes key language helpful to Kavanaugh from article about Yale accuser Ramirez.  On Sunday night, September 23, 2018, The New Yorker published an article about accusations by Deborah Ramirez, a former Yale classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  The authors were Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer.  The New Yorker article noted, deep into the article, that Ramirez's accusations were not corroborated by any witnesses with first hand knowledge, and that Ramirez herself had gaps in memory that were cleared up only after 6 days of thinking about it and consulting with lawyers.  The NY Times covered the story, and had language in its September 23 about Ford testifying that was extremely helpful to Kavanaugh's defense.  The language was added in an evening edit.

Rosenstein rips NYT for 'inaccurate' story on Trump recordings.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is challenging a bombshell story in The New York Times alleging that he discussed secretly recording President Trump last year, calling it "inaccurate" and "factually incorrect."  Rosenstein in a statement released by the Justice Department (DOJ) also said that there was "no basis" to invoke the 25th Amendment, after the Times reported that he proposed recruiting various Cabinet officials to take such a step in order to remove Trump from office over his unfitness.

The New York Times issues major correction to Kavanaugh sexual assault story.  It's one thing to misspell a name or get a specific date wrong.  It's another thing entirely to report that a supposed witness to a sexual assault says he remembers it happening when he has said the exact opposite.  For an example of the latter, we turn to the New York Times, which published a report Tuesday titled, "Christine Blasey Ford Wants F.B.I. to Investigate Kavanaugh Before She Testifies."

New York Times Pot Stirrers Tell a Whopper About Lost Immigrant Kids.  The New York Times lied about the same fake news story a second time to stir the pot.  Their intention is to make the administration look bad on immigration.  In an article titled, "U.S. Loses Track of Another 1,500 Migrant Children, Investigators Find," the Times contends the U.S. officials have no clue as to the whereabouts of roughly 1,500 undocumented minors.  It wasn't true the first time they published that story and it's not true this time.

U.S. Loses Track of Another 1,500 Migrant Children, Investigators Find.  Caitlin Oakley, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, offered a response to the findings on Tuesday night.  "As communicated to members of Congress multiple times," she said, "these children are not 'lost.'  Their sponsors — who are usually parents or family members and in all cases have been vetted for criminality and ability to provide for them — simply did not respond or could not be reached when this voluntary call was made."

Let's Blame Every Death on President Trump.  Fake News is a term popularized by President Donald Trump to characterize the mainstream media.  Not all journalists, as the President notes, but the major American media outlets such as CNN, NBC, and the New York Times.  While the media objects to such a characterization, they do little to dispel their new found reputation.  Only last week, the New York Times reinforced their fake news label with the story of UN Ambassador Nikki Haley supposedly ordering expensive curtains for her official residence when in reality the curtains were ordered by the Obama administration.  The fact that it took two years for curtains to be installed after being ordered is an interesting sidelight of government inefficiency.  A small amount of research and fact checking would have kept the egg off the NY Times' faces for publishing a bogus story.  Was this deliberate or incompetence or both?

Egg on Their Faces:  New York Times Retracts False Nikki Haley Smear.  On Thursday [9/13/2018], the New York Times — America's newspaper of record — published a disgusting false smear against U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley.  The original article suggested Haley was responsible for spending $52,701 on curtains for the UN ambassador's house in New York City, when in reality the decision to purchase the curtains was made under former president Barack Obama.  The Times appended a correction at the top of the article, altered the headline, and removed the photo of Nikki Haley.  "Nikki Haley's View of New York Is Priceless.  Her New Curtains? $52,701." the original headline screamed, complete with a featured picture of Haley at the United Nations.  The original version of the article is unavailable, but a screenshot captured by the Washington Post's Aaron Blake revealed that the Times had substantially altered the article after receiving hefty criticism.

Fake News collapses on NYT.  The Obama administration ordered $52,701 worth of curtains for the apartment the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.  To put that in perspective, the West Virginia Legislature impeached the entire state Supreme Court for wasting $32,000 to buy a couch.  So how did the New York Times report this Obama scandal?  "Nikki Haley's View of New York Is Priceless.  Her Curtains?  $52,701."  After Fox News pointed out the headline drapes do not match the rug of facts, the Times demoted the headline to "State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Residence of U.N. Envoy."  Nope, nope, nope.  Nikki Haley did not build this.  Obama did.

New York Times Spreads Fake News About Nikki Haley's $52,701 Curtains.  A New York Times headline attacks UN Ambassador Nikki Haley's extravagant curtains, even though the Obama administration ordered them in 2016.  The fake news headline snarks, "Nikki Haley's View of New York Is Priceless.  Her Curtains? $52,701."  [...] The word "spent" is crucial, however, because after five whole paragraphs describing Haley's "spectacular views" in her leased $58,000 a month "full-floor penthouse, with handsome hardwood floors covering large open spaces stretching nearly 6,000 square feet," the Times at long last reveals the truth:  The Obama administration ordered those $52,701 curtains.  What's more the Obama administration chose the $58,000 per month penthouse.

NYT smears Nikki Haley over Obama's $53,000 UN curtains purchase.  Lacking a catch of late, the New York Times decided to pull a Scott Pruitt on United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, accusing her of being Extravagance Woman, a regular Stateside Imelda, based on a $53,000 purchase of customized and mechanized curtains for her United Nations apartment. [...] Turns out the fancy curtain order was the work of Samantha Power, President Obama's former U.N. ambassador, who, when she wasn't busy unmasking Americans to learn all about what was going on in the Trump campaign (or maybe handing her password out, given the quantity of such unmaskings under her name), was also busy getting the decorating in — status stuff, like self-opening curtains, the better to impress the Harvard and NGO crowds who undoubtedly would come by to visit.  And it was President Obama who approved the purchase.

New York Times Covered Up Google Tape's Most Newsworthy Details.  The New York Times reported on the explosive Google Tape back in March but chose not to informs its readers of virtually all the key details revealed during this company town hall.  On Tuesday [9/11/2018], Breitbart News obtained video of an hour-plus long company meeting at Google that took place shortly after the 2016 presidential election.  You can watch the full video to judge the context of these individual quotes for yourself — but in my view, what you have here is a smoking gun proving the biggest Internet search engine in the world (by far) intends to abuse its corporate power to affect the outcome of elections, to manipulate searches in a way that will result in political outcomes desired by a multinational corporation and Silicon Valley.

The NY Times' "Three Surprising Energy Trends" Editorial:  Surprising Because They Aren't True.  Let's start with electricity prices.  The editorial acknowledges that "electricity prices vary a lot from state to state, for many reasons.  For example, prices in California, which has made reducing emissions a priority, have gone up in recent years.  But they have fallen in New York, which has set similarly ambitious climate targets."  What the Times fails to mention is that the states with the most ambitious renewable generation and climate mandates, including New York, California, and many New England states, have the highest electricity prices in the continental US.  In 2017, for example, the average residential price in New York was over 18 cents per kilowatt-hour, 40 percent higher than the national average, and just slightly below the California average.  And with Governor Cuomo's mandate to develop 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind generation, residential customers in New York can expect to see much higher prices, thanks to lavish subsidies for wind developers.

Yes, the Mainstream Media Is the Enemy.  If we accept that this anonymous source is real, then he (the Times briefly tweeted the writer is a "he") is indeed "part of the resistance" that is "working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [President Trump's] agenda."  That is, he is working to frustrate the agenda which the American people elected the president to duly execute.  This is patent and anti-democratic subversion:  the process by which something, like the executive office, is contradicted or undermined from within.  The words subversive and subversion come from the Latin word, subvertere, which means "overthrow," "destroy," or "cause to topple."  If this anonymous source is real, it then follows that the Times is harboring someone with access to the White House who is working to see the president, at minimum, undermined, and ideally overthrown.

Mr. Anonymous Exposes an Even Deeper State.  The latest salvo in the resistance's efforts to nullify the will of the American electorate is an anonymous New York Times op-ed purportedly penned by a "senior official" in the Trump administration.  This pretend super-patriot declares that Trump faces "a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader. ... The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.  I would know.  I am one of them."  Well, congratulations.  But this sounds far more like a damning admission of an unelected, self-important saboteur than a persuasive indictment of the duly elected president.  And FYI, Trump does fully grasp it.  What do you think he's been shouting about for two years running?

Anonymous NY Times op-ed shows Deep State thugs are working against the will of the American people.  Once dismissed as a conspiracy theory by the biased liberal media, the Deep State is now exposed for all to see.  All Americans should be concerned — particularly the 62 million people who voted for Donald J. Trump for president in 2016.  The people spoke loudly and clearly in November 2016 and they chose President Trump — the ultimate political outsider — to confront the failed Washington status quo and shake it up.  The rise of the dangerous and unaccountable Deep State is a reaction to Trump and his highly successful America First agenda, which could not have been accomplished with business as usual.

Will The New York Times Investigate The New York Times?  So which is it?  Is The New York Times a newspaper — a journalistic outfit?  Or is The New York Times a Deep State co-conspirator against a sitting President of the United States? [...] Whether The Times opinion editors thought this through or not, they have now put their paper and reporting colleagues squarely on the horns of a considerable journalistic dilemma.  The Times opinion side of the paper has every right to both run the article and keep the author's name a secret.  But The Times reporters in turn have a serious obligation to investigate their own paper and get the news of who wrote this piece to a waiting public that has every right in the world to know who, exactly, is inside the government trying to deliberately thwart the duly elected president.

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the New York Times.  The mainstream media is facing a test to their credibility unlike any faced ever before.  Their nonstop, partisan animus against the President is largely unprecedented.  Also, have you noticed how "unprecedented" sounds like "President"? That's the mark of some serious writing skills.  Papers like my employer, and television networks like, well every single one but Fox, have unveiled a weekly set of pseudo-news stories, each positioned to be the straw that broke the camel's back, if the camel's back is Trump's presidency.  Consider a partial list of pseudo-scandals, just off the top of my head.  Each was certain to bring an end to the crazy and evil Drumpf, once and for all. [...]

Anonymous:  Ye Shall Know Him by His Fruits.  The most surprising aspect of the furor surrounding the infamous unsigned New York Times Op-Ed, ostensibly written by a member of the Trump administration, is that anyone believes its author is a senior official.  Assuming this person isn't an employee of the Times, and it is by no means unknown for the Gray Lady's journalists to fabricate quotes and attribute them to anonymous "officials," the author of this hit piece is at most a mid-level staffer.  Indeed, if this character is actually employed in the Trump administration, it is almost certainly at a level of insignificance verging on invisibility.

The Circus of Resistance.  After the latest hysteria dies down, this chapter in the ongoing psychodrama will be revealed for what it is:  a fantasy of a wannabe coup that is not going to happen.  The commentariat's silly claim that the op-ed was "extraordinary" and "newsworthy" is laughable.  There are hundreds of "senior officials" all throughout every presidency, no doubt more so in the outsider Trump's, who are disgruntled.  On any given day, any newspaper could root out a "senior official" to write anonymously anything it wished to fit a preconceived narrative.

Brother-in-Arms.  [Scroll down]  Today I woke up to Anonymous's piece in the Times and learned something else, something I should have known all along.  When the writer is a conservative and castigates the Times' reader-base, they stick to their rules.  When the writer goes after someone the Times openly detests, as it does President Trump, well, that's another story.  The rules quickly go out the window.

The New York Times Belatedly Discovers The Deep State.  The New York Times recently published what it touted as a bombshell anonymous op-ed by a "senior" Trump administration official that trashed President Trump for being among other things "amoral" and showing "little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives:  free minds, free markets and free people."  The op-ed, which we have read and re-read several times, is all about Trump's style, as opposed to the Drain the swampsubstance of his policy accomplishments.  Indeed, it reads like nothing so much as a #NeverTrump manifesto ghostwritten by a NeverTrumper, like Bill Kristol or Jonah Goldberg, rather than a senior White House or administration official with inside knowledge of Trump's decision-making process and the alleged failures thereof.

Democrats Hope for a Richard Nixon Repeat.  Thursday [9/6/2018] came an op-ed in the New York Times by an anonymous "senior official" claiming to be a member of the "resistance... working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his [Trump's] agenda."  A pedestrian piece of prose that revealed nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily in the media, the op-ed nonetheless caused a sensation, but only because Times editors decided to give the disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray his or her president.  The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.

Mr. Anonymous Exposes an Even Deeper State.  The latest salvo in the resistance's efforts to nullify the will of the American electorate is an anonymous New York Times op-ed purportedly penned by a "senior official" in the Trump administration. [...] But this sounds far more like a damning admission of an unelected, self-important saboteur than a persuasive indictment of the duly elected president.

NYT was caught in 2011 calling an anonymous source (who turned out to be an intern) a 'senior official'.  The anonymously written New York Times op-ed purporting to be written by a "senior official in the Trump administration" was artfully written to suggest that the author is Cabinet-level. [...] If and when the identity of the anonymous writer is uncovered, if the person involved turns out to be someone the public has never heard of — a deputy assistant undersecretary in the Department of Interior, for instance, if not an actual intern — the backlash will be intense.

I don't believe NY Times about anonymous White House snitch.  This feels like fiction, the preposterous notion that an unnamed White House official has spilled the beans on Trump "to thwart the president's misguided impulses."  He's been published "anonymously" and, we are told, is part of a resistance movement within the White House to surreptitiously stop the president from ruining the country.  That's the gist of the op-ed topping The New York Times Wednesday [9/5/2018] edition.

A guess at identifying the NYT's infamous anonymous Trump insider.  The New York Times published an anonymous op-ed, purportedly penned by a "senior White House official" in the Trump administration.  Read the missive, and note that there are several clear "tells" in the piece — clues that indicate the motivations and leanings of the author, whoever the coward is.  And I will use that word, as someone with the character and fortitude claimed by the author would never write an anonymous piece, nor would he remain employed within an administration he so clearly despises.

The New York Times Anonymous Op-ed Pushes Electoral Sabotage.  An anonymous op-ed published in The New York Times, penned by "a senior Trump administration official," contends that a cabal of senior staffers have secretly schemed to undermine Donald Trump in an effort to protect the American people.  "I work for the president," claims the purported senior official, "but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."  The problem with the much-discussed op-ed isn't only that it fails to offer a single example of officials actually "thwarting" the Trump agenda or saving the republic from his capriciousness.  It's that it celebrates the idea of nullifying an election.

No, anonymous Trump official, you're not 'part of the resistance.' You're a coward.  A New York Times op-ed allegedly written by a senior Trump administration official has set the internet ablaze.  Its headline:  "I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration."  Its premise:  A group of Trump appointees is working from the inside to stop the president from fulfilling the parts of his agenda they disagree with.  Obviously, the writer and other like-minded higher-ups are not part of the "resistance" that's marching in the streets protesting.

7 points on the anonymous New York Times 'resistance' op-ed.  [#1] It concedes Trump's accomplishments are big.  Early in the piece, the author admits that the Trump administration has had significant success on the issues most important to American voters.  "Many of [the administration's] policies have already made America safer and more prosperous," he writes.  Later, he makes a list:  "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more."  Perhaps the author doesn't see it that way, but peace and prosperity are any president's two most important accomplishments.  Conceding Trump's achievement undercuts the broader theme of the article.

Trump: For National Security Purposes, NYT Must Turn Over 'Gutless' Anonymous Source.  President Trump is demanding, "for national security purposes," that The New York Times reveal the name of the anonymous senior White House official who penned an op-ed describing the internal "resistance" to Trump within the administration.  On Wednesday [9/5/2018], the Times published an op-ed titled, "I Am Part of the Resistance Within the Trump Administration," in which the self-described senior official claims that "many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."

Scabies at New York Times must be reeling with glee.  The anonymous hit job masked as a "service to our readers" — otherwise known as the latest New York Times editorial — is nothing but the work of a White House "saboteur," screamed Drudge Report's top headline in the aftermath of the widely reported op-ed that claims insiders are working within the White House to control — i.e., take down — President Donald Trump.  Good word; fitting word.  Now more than a day into a new news cycle, the anonymously published piece that paints a negative picture of this president is pretty much all anyone's talking about — and that's with a Supreme Court nomination before the Senate for questioning, too.

N.Y. Times Throws Up a Smokescreen for Bruce Ohr.  If this weekend's bombshell story in the New York Times is to be believed, the nation's top law enforcement agency under Barack Obama was not only corrupt, it was really dumb, too.  In an effort to get ahead of the release of Bruce Ohr's private congressional testimony — which undoubtedly will include more stunning details about the depth of his relationship with a paid political operative from another country — and mitigate the damage from Ohr's recently released emails, the Times is already working to cover the Justice Department official's tracks.

No, Betsy DeVos is Not Trying to 'Sneak Guns Into Schools.'  Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is under scrutiny once again, this time for allegedly trying to use federal funds to "sneak guns into schools."  These harsh criticisms mainly come from gun control advocates and educators in response to an August 22 New York Times report that said DeVos was considering using federal funds to purchase weapons for school staff.  Other reports have characterized the Education Secretary as exploiting a "loophole" — a federal grant program that fails to explicitly prohibit the spending of federal dollars on guns.  But this widely-circulated narrative is ignoring key facts.  Using federal money to arm schools was not DeVos's idea.  In reality, the secretary has tried to end the very grant program she's accused of abusing.

Ohr speaks! (Behind closed doors).  You can almost smell the fear in the Get Trump camp that Bruce Ohr might be the thread that could be pulled to unravel the conspiracy of high-ranking officials to spy on the Trump campaign and then, after the election, put into action the "insurance policy" Peter Strzok mentioned to his mistress (and co-worker) Lisa Page in an August 2016 text message, to remove a duly elected president from office.  The New York Times, which serves as a pilot fish for the rest of the media, has been working hard to minimize the damage he might do.  On August 17, as Ohr's name was being introduced to inhabitants of the MSM bubble thanks to a threat by President Trump to remove his security clearance, the Times outright lied about his position in the Department of Justice, calling him a "midlevel" official in the DOJ.  This lie was picked up and repeated in many other articles and was used on cable news reports extensively, thereby falsely branding him as a minor player caught up and persecuted by Trump and anyone else paying attention.

New York Times Called Mccain Racist, Now It Uses Him To Attack Trump.  Every Republican villain will one day live long enough to be a lefty hero.  I can't wait for twenty years from now when the media is fondly remembering Trump while denouncing its latest conservative hate target.  And meanwhile the media is cynically exploiting McCain's death to bash Trump.

The Genocidal Elite, Part III: The Trail of 'White Tears'.  For the New York Times, a paper with a global reach, to normalize such rhetoric by placing someone who spews it on their editorial board at the same time they blacklist people for much tamer statements about other races is cavalier and uninformed at best.  Further, it suggests that our elite are already prepared to make excuses in case of third world style interracial violence against white citizens.

New York Times Deletes Immigration Status Of Mollie Tibbetts's Killer From Headline.  The New York Times opted to delete the immigration status of the man suspected of killing Iowa college student Mollie Tibbetts in an update to a headline about the incident Wednesday [8/22/2018].  According to the Twitter account Editing TheGrayLady, The Times made a number of changes to the headline of its story on Tibbetts's murder before finally falling on "Immigrant Is Charged In Mollie Tibbetts Murder in Iowa, and Trump Seizes on Case."

The Double Standards of Postmodern Justice.  The New York Times recently hired as a writer and board member Sarah Jeong.  The Times knew that in recent years Jeong had posted a series of unapologetically racist anti-white tweets.  She had offered wisdom such as "#CancelWhitePeople" and expressed hatred for males.  Yet when the Times discovered less graphic versions of such tweets from newly hired technology writer Quinn Norton earlier this year, the newspaper immediately fired Norton.  The message of disparate treatment was that what bothers the New York Times is not racism per se, but who is the racist and who are her targets.

The Gray Lady Once Again Sanitizes Radical Islam.  For many years now, the New York Times has sanitized radical Islamic groups, militant Islamic leaders and even Islamic terrorist attacks.  The paper has does this by deliberately omitting critical details that would discredit Islamist groups.  For example, the Times routinely describes the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as either being a civil rights or a Muslim advocacy group.  In reality, CAIR was started as a front for Hamas and continues to serve as one.  But over the course of more than two decades, the Times has never reported on any of the many government documents and official transcripts that prove CAIR's role as a front group for Hamas.

The New York Times has an advice column about how to 'cure' white skin privilege.  Oh, the crazy, crawly things you can find on the 'style' pages of the New York Times where they apparently think no one is looking.  Kid you not, they've got a 'Style' column with some woman writing as 'Whitey' into a Dear Abby-style personal problem-solving column asking a panel of leftists (of color) what she can do about all her 'white-skin privilege.'

NYT Editorial Board's Mara Gay: 'America Was Never Great' Is 'Honest,' Not a 'Gaffe'.  Mara Gay, a member of the far-left New York Times editorial board, believes Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) was being honest when he said America "was never that great."  She also agrees with the sentiment.  During a speech before supporters Wednesday [8/15/2018], Cuomo was very clear about why he does not believe America has ever been great.  After criticizing President Trump's "Make America Great" slogan, Cuomo laid out his reasoning.  "We're not going to make America great again.  It was never that great," he said, as his supporters laughed and gasped.

Why Normal Americans Hate the "Elites".  The [New York] Times was one of several media outlets that, in their eagerness to find ammunition that Senate Democrats might use to torpedo Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination, submitted public records requests to get dirt on his wife, because she happens to work for a public entity as the town manager of Chevy Chase, Maryland. [...] Fortunately, the Times didn't have standing to get a subpoena covering the Kavanaughs' bedroom, or they surely would have used it to acquire "a unique and personalized view into the nominee."  Just like they did when Sonia Sotamayor and Elena Kagan were nominated to the Court.  You remember those Times investigations, don't you?

NY Times deletes 'racist' tweet about black and Latino students and calls it 'poorly phrased'.  The New York Times committed a major faux pas on Saturday that would likely bury a right of center news outlet.  The newspaper tweeted what was seen by many as a racist assertion that black and Latino students rarely excel in math, before deleting it for being "poorly phrased."  Unfortunately for The Times, the internet is forever.

Trump's media opponents are leaping into his trap.  This week, leading wordsmiths at two of the nation's major newspapers openly propounded the need for the media to work together (also known as "conspire") to defeat Donald Trump.  The age of metropolitan dailies pretending to be unbiased sources of news officially is over.  At the New York Times, Thomas Friedman called on the media to defeat Trump in 2020 by targeting specific demographic slices of the electorate.  He thereby moves from columnist to campaign consultant. [...] Friedman wants to play the role of television producer and event manager for the entire media when it covers Trump allies.

New York Times Columnist Can't Figure Out If Racist Tweets Are A Fireable Offense Or Not.  New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, an outspoken NeverTrump activist, effusively praised ABC when it fired Roseanne Barr for a single tweet, but when it comes to a mountain of racist tweets over nine years, he says his new colleague Sarah Jeong deserves a whole lot of grace and a second chance.  What could possibly explain this blatant double standard?

News outlets are paying security guards for their reporters who cover Trump rallies.  TV networks are hiring security guards for reporters in an effort to better protect them during Trump rallies because they believe Trump has turned the media into "a rhetorical punching bag."  "The New York Times takes the safety of our reporters very seriously," New York Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha told Politico, adding that in recent months "we have expanded measures to protect our journalists against the overall backdrop of increased threats and verbal attacks."

Attn Lying Media:  No Reporters Have Been Attacked at Trump Rallies by Trump Supporters.  Reports published Thursday [8/9/2018] state that media companies are hiring security guards to protect reporters at President Trump rallies in the wake of raucous, non-violent protests against CNN's Jim Acosta at recent Trump rallies. [...] What has not been reported in the smear job against Trump supporters by the media is this fact:  No Trump supporter has attacked a reporter at any Trump rally.  This writer covered many Trump rallies in Florida in 2016 and one in 2017 and witnessed no violence against reporters.

Thomas Friedman:  Media should work together to hurt Trump.  Liberal New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said the news media should work together and saturate the public with negative coverage of President Trump in order to erode his popularity among Republican voters.  Friedman said in an op-ed published Wednesday afternoon [8/8/2018] that if the media emphasize Trump's personality instead of news about the strong economy, it may discourage enough GOP voters from continuing to support the president and benefit Democrats.

The Ten Most Hateful Americans and Why they Matter.  [#5] Sarah Jeong is the new darling of the New Times Editorial Board.  Shortly after Jeong's hire, Twitter users unearthed disgusting, highly racist tweets in which she expressed an extreme distaste for white people.  [Examples deleted for brevity, among other things.]  There are scores of tweets just like these including [another example].  But the NYT didn't see that as a reason not to hire her.  What else do you need to know about the NYT?

Gray Lady Dons White Hood.  Jeong's amazingly racist, anti-white Twitter posts, going back to at least July 2014, never were banned, nor was she ever knocked off of Twitter.  Never mind the bigoted bile that she spewed for more than four years: [...] Once all of this went public — even after what her employers call "a thorough vetting process" including "a review of her social media history" — Jeong's new bosses neither sacked nor denounced her.  Instead, the Gray Lady coughed:  "We hired Sarah Jeong because of the exceptional work she has done" and added that they are "confident that she will be an important voice for the editorial board moving forward."  So, rather than cower in shame beneath her desk, as she should, Jeong now stands atop one of the world's highest-profile media platforms, from which she can spout her unfiltered, venomous hate.

NY Times Hires Left-Wing Bigot for Editorial Board.  The New York Times stands by its decision.  You see, said the New York Times in a statement, Jeong was merely being sarcastic.  She was actually mocking the racism of her twitter detractors.  She was, in effect, trolling the trolls.

The Editor says...
This is a very common Democrat tactic:  They will say or do something outrageous, and if there are any objections, follow up a few days later with, "Can't you take a joke?"  Examples abound:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37][37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

The Genocidal Elite, Part I: Who's Afraid of Sarah Jeong?  Rahm Emanuel famously warned against letting a crisis go to waste.  In the case of the New York Times' hiring of Sarah Jeong, he's right.  Make no mistake:  Jeong's hiring is a crisis.  It is a crisis for journalism, a crisis for elite opinion, and a crisis for America above all.  Those who gloat that Jeong's hiring is merely another step toward an awakening for most Americans to the bias of the "fake news" media (which it is), or toward liberals accepting extreme positions that are electorally untenable to appease their extremist "woke" base (which it also is), are comforting themselves with minutiae to avoid the truly unsettling larger impact of this development.  Jeong's hiring is more than a moment of indecent exposure for the New York Times.  It is a moment of indecent exposure for the corporatist Left, represented by former President Barack Obama and composed of his core coalitions:  coalitions that currently control most levers of cultural power in America.

Fake News From The New York Times.  The New York Times breathlessly reports:  "President Admits Focus of Trump Tower Meeting Was Getting Dirt on Clinton."  But in portraying this "admission" as news, the Times is playing fast and loose with the English language.  In the process, it is dishing out fake news.  What Trump acknowledged was that "this was a meeting to get information on an opponent."  In other words, the purpose of holding the meeting, from the Trump team's perspective, was to get negative information about Hillary Clinton.  The focus of the meeting was on what the participants actually talked about.  Thus, the focus and the purpose might be two different things.  In this instance, they appear to have been different.  It isn't news that the purpose of the meeting with the Russian lawyer was to get negative information about Clinton.  This has been the president's position all along.

The soft bigotry of the New York Times.  If l'affaire Jeong has taught us one thing, it's that the people who claim most vociferously to be anti-racist are nothing of the sort.  On the contrary, they're obsessed with race, seeing almost everything through the prism of ethnicity.  They're in favor of categorizing people according to racial criteria.  What they object to is not racial discrimination, but racial discrimination against the wrong groups.  Sarah Jeong is a journalist who was hired by the New York Times last week as an editorial writer.  As has now become traditional, her social media history was pored over (or, as Donald Trump might put it, "poured over").  Some pungent Tweets showed up.  Those that have attracted the most attention are the straightforwardly racist ones — "white people are b---s---," "#CancelWhitePeople," and so on — though, to my mind, her assertion that free speech is a conservative dog whistle is far more alarming in a journalist than any of these.  Anyway, some conservatives began noisily to demand that Jeong be fired, prompting some leftists to leap to her defense on grounds that there can be no such thing as anti-white racism, because racism is all about power and privilege and oppressing minorities.

Sarah Jeong
Sarah Jeong Is A Warning Sign Of Something Wrong With The Left.  The more I think about it, the less I care about Sarah Jeong.  I don't think I'd ever read anything she'd written before this week and having now read a few things I don't think I was missing all that much.  That's not meant as a slam on her ability because I think she's actually a good writer.  But the subject she writes about isn't that interesting to me.  She styles herself an expert on technology, which doesn't mean she can rebuild a V-8 engine or repair a circuit board.  In media parlance, it means she has opinions about social media.  So... whatever.  I don't even care very much about her racist tweets, per se, or even her lame excuse for making them.  What does bother me is the way in which the left collectively responded to her tweets with a big shrug.

Get It Through Your Head That Progressives Hate You.  You can tell that leftists hate you by the way that leftists tell you that they hate you.  Take Sarah Jeong, please — hey, the New York Times was happy to get this bitter creep onboard because of her history of virulent racism.  The Times saw her hate as a plus, not a negative, an asset, not a liability.  You can't draw any other conclusion — if you take her tweets, trade out the word "white" — man, does she ever hate white people — and toss in some other skin hue you'd have a pink-haired millennial David Duke.  And the NYT saw that and said, "Awesome, sign her up!"  You may think you know the deal about her prejudice, but you don't really know the deal, not until you read the full extent of the Ku Klux Korean immigrant's portfolio of bigoted tweetery.  It's not merely ugly, stupid, and immoral — it's downright sociopathic.  Yet the flagship of the floundering fleet that is America's liberal media saw the iceberg and went full speed ahead.

Sarah Jeong:  Even Worse Than We Realized.  Apologies if the previous post on the newest member of the alarmingly powerful New York Times Editorial Board left the impression that Sarah Jeong can be summed up by her volcanic hatred for white people.  There is more to her than that.  From the depths of her profound intellectual sophistication, it doesn't take long to dredge up other hatreds — for example, for the police...

This just in:  The New York Times has no power.
Democratic Strategist Claims Sarah Jeong Tweets Aren't Racist Because Racism Is 'Prejudice Plus Power'.  Over time, the progressive movement has carefully augmented the definition of racism so as to protect individuals who share their political and social beliefs from ever being labeled a racist.  While Merriam-Webster defines racism as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," progressives add to this definition a dynamic of power.  To progressives, an individual or group cannot be racist if they are not in a position of power.  Thus, Sarah Jeong cannot be racist against white people because she is not a dominant player in the American racial landscape.

NYT's embattled Sarah Jeong:  President Trump is 'basically Hitler'.  The New York Times said it vetted her social-media history before Sarah Jeong was hired last week, which means the newspaper was presumably aware of her "Trump is Hitler" tweets.  In addition to firing off anti-white and anti-cop missives, Ms. Jeong, the latest member of the newspaper's editorial board, repeatedly equated Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler on Twitter leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

Rise of the Social Justice Dragon Lady.  Last Wednesday [8/1/2018] The New York Times announced that it had hired 30-year-old Sarah Jeong as their lead technology writer, praising her "verve and erudition" and forgiving the fact that the sourpussed, pan-faced, smug-beyond-all-reason kimchee-nibbler sometimes dyes her hair pink.  Jeong was born in South Korea.  You may have heard of that country, seeing as how around 35,000 mostly white male American soldiers died to save it from communism's grip and to enable ingrates such as Sarah Jeong to come here and yip endlessly about how much she hates white men.

Sarah Jeong: 8 or 9 Racist Tweets?  More Like 800.  Remember how early reports had newly-hired New York Times editorial board member Sarah Jeong only spewing a few racist Tweets, and only in reaction to trolls?  Now Twitter user @nickmon1112 has gone back through her Twitter timeline, and discovered:  Yeah, not so much.

Candace Owens Copies Racist Tweets by Sarah Jeong but Replaces "White" with "Black" and Is Immediately Suspended!  On Saturday [8/4/2018] conservative Candace Owens copied the racist tweets by Sarah Jeong but replaced "white" with "black" and "Jewish."  She was immediately suspended!  This is the far left insanity and racism being pushed by Twitter!

The black card
Candace Owens tells you everything you need to know about playing the black card.  An exclusive card more valuable than any from Visa or American Express?  These cardholders are a very specific group of people, defined by the color of their skin, says Candace Owens, Communications Director for Turning Point USA.

Get Whitey.  When it emerged yesterday [8/2/2018] that the Twitter feed of the New York Times editorial board's latest appointee, Sarah Jeong, crackled with nasty and puerile racial invective, it was generally assumed by many — including her defenders — that she would be let go before the day was over.  Jeong's Twitter remarks were so over-the-top — calling white people "groveling goblins" whose pale skin should force them to live underground, like Morlocks; saying "#CancelWhitePeople"; and exulting in being "cruel" to old white people — that it seemed absurd that the venerable Times editorial board, of all places, would welcome the thumbs that tapped out such jejeune trash.  But it turns out that Jeong is keeping her job, and that the Times knew about her comments when they hired her.

The New York Times Has the Right to Hire Racists.  If we've learned one thing from our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left, it's that all white people are racist.  And if we've learned a second thing from our leftist betters, it's that racism against white people is impossible because white people in America have all the power.  This includes white people with no power over anything whatsoever.  Even the most hopelessly impoverished Appalachian meth-head still has white privilege, and that privilege needs to be checked constantly.  If you don't think so, that just proves you're a racist.  This is why the story of writer Sarah Jeong is so instructive.

A Half Century of Amnesia.  [H]ow can the Democrats build an "excited, diverse coalition" among people who, by definition, don't really have much in common?  The Democratic coalition is always on the verge of flying apart in fratricidal enmity.  At the moment, for example, the media is stoking black rage toward white women, whom The New York Times is repeatedly calling by the racist slur "Becky," for summoning the police when they feel unsafe.  The one thing the Democrats' confederacy of the dissimilar can share is hatred of whites, or, to be precise, cisgender straight white men.  This is why the press keeps pushing endless hate hoaxes.

The New York Times Must Explain Why Its Racial Double Standard Is Good For SocietyThe New York Times announced this week that it had hired Sarah Jeong as a new member of its editorial board.  As is the unfortunate custom in the modern media age, this hiring led to a dissection of Jeong's Twitter history in the hopes of finding something offensive.  It did not take long for offensive things to be discovered.  But in this case the offensive content came with a twist unique to the age of privilege.  What the tweets described — and there were many — was how horrible white people are.  Among her many discriminatory tweets about white people, one showed a graph equating being white with being awful.  The others were no better.  The Times recently fired the writer Quinn Norton within hours of hiring her because of alleged racism, but has decided to stand by Jeong.

NYT's Sarah Jeong Also Sent Anti-Cop, Anti-Men Tweets.  Sarah Jeong, the newest editorial board member of The New York Times, is also responsible for extensive anti-cop and anti-men tweets.  The New York Times stood by Jeong on Thursday [8/2/2018] after the internet surfaced her old racist tweets, however her full Twitter history reveals her ire was not only directed toward white people.  The NYT claimed that Jeong was "imitating" the behavior of people who harassed her online, but this does not explain why she was tweeting "f--- the police" and encouraging people to "kill all men."

Immigration Will Not Make America Great Again.  Although the "progressive left" fetishizes open borders for its own sake, they nevertheless festoon their arguments with economic ornamentation in an attempt to convince fiscally-minded fence-sitters.  Usually, their ploy fails.  But every once in a while a seemingly convincing argument is made.  Ruchir Sharma's piece in the New York Times, entitled "To Be Great Again, America Needs Immigrants," is one such piece.  Not only does Sharma rely on uncontested data, but his logic seems solid.  But looks can be deceiving.  Sharma's argument suffers from two main problems:  Sharma misunderstands how economies grow, and he conflates gross domestic product (GDP) with prosperity.

Hey Media, You Started ItNew York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger says he told Trump his anti-press rhetoric could lead to violence.  But the media's anti-Trump rhetoric already has led to violence:  public officials rat-packed and bullied, Trump supporters harassed, White House spokes-lady Sarah Sanders having to live under guard.  And yet when Sanders pointed this out to Look-At-Me-I'm-Jim Acosta, Acosta stormed out of the room.  [Indeed], if he doesn't want to hear the truth, he could just stay home and watch CNN.

New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface.  The New York Times is standing by its hiring of tech writer Sarah Jeong despite several derogatory tweets of hers aimed at white people, which were recently unearthed on her Twitter account.  "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," Jeong wrote in July 2014 in one of several old messages that have gone viral.  Social media reactions first flared on Wednesday with images of incendiary tweets from an unverified Twitter account that looked to belong to Jeong.  They surfaced shortly after The Times announced she was joining the paper.

The Asian David Duke.  It's ironic to me that at the same time Jim Acosta is wringing his hands over the disdain Americans feel toward so-called "journalists," the New York Times hired and is now defending an Asian "journalist" who deeply despises white Americans.  Poor Jim.  He just can't catch a break.  It's hard to stand on sanctimonious grounds about how virtuous your profession is while those in your profession are defending the Asian David Duke.

The Racism of New York Times Reporter Sarah Jeong.  Racism — hatred of racial groups rather than of individuals for their actions — is pernicious.  Since humans are so group-oriented, racism appears to be tempting, but that means that social norms need to condemn it strongly and consistently.  The most recent, high visible toleration of left wing racism is by the New York Times, which hired Sarah Jeong.  Jeong has a first-rate left-wing resume, but her Twitter feed is filled with outrageously racist tweets, such as "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" and [other stuff].  If these were tweets of a white person or a right winger, the New York Times would never, ever hire that person.  Why would they hire Jeong?

New York Times Hires Left-Wing Writer With Long History Of Racist Tweets.  The New York Times announced Monday it hired left-wing writer Sarah Jeong, who has a long history of racist tweets, to be the lead technology writer for the newspaper's editorial board.  Jeong repeatedly posted racist statements via her Twitter account.  The announcement of Jeong's hiring comes after The New York Times fired its previous brand new hire for the same technology writer position last February because she "retweeted a racial slur."  Far from merely retweeting a single offensive post, Jeong likened an entire race of people to "goblins," compared their conversations to animals urinating, and declared that skin color entirely determined whether an individual was awful or not.

NYT Responds To Racist Writer Controversy:  We Knew About Her Racism, And We Don't Care.  In a statement released Thursday [8/2/2018], The New York Times defended its most recent hire, Sarah Jeong, saying the newspaper of record knew about her history of racist tweets and hired her anyway.  As The Federalist reported this morning, Jeong has repeatedly said disparaging things about white people, such as that they are "only fit to live underground like groveling goblins," among other things, but this did not stop The New York Times from hiring her as the lead technology writer for its editorial board.

Some Racism Is More Equal Than Others.  The New York Times named anti-white racist Sarah Jeong to its editorial board earlier this week.  The new hire's social media history reads like something David Duke might write, if only the reader substitutes "white" for all mentions of his disfavored groups.  Her posts featured the hashtag "#CancelWhitePeople," proclaimed Caucasians "only fit to live underground like groveling goblins," and fantasized of the coming extinction of the race she seeks to erase.  "Oh man," she tweeted, "it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men."

It Wasn't Just a Few Tweets.  In the uproar over Sarah Jeong's hiring by the New York Times, the focus on her history of hateful rhetoric against white people overlooked her many other expressions of hatred — toward males, Christians, and police officers, among others.  While her new employers have apparently accepted Ms. Jeong's disingenuous excuse that she was "engaged in what I thought of at the time as counter-trolling... intended as satire," this cannot explain away her demonstrable habit of deliberately insulting entire groups of people.  It is not true, as she claimed, that she merely "mimicked the language of my harassers."  Consider, for example, Ms. Jeong's oft-expressed contempt for Christians, including her own parents.  She "grew up in a conservative evangelical Christian bubble," but "became an annoying atheist" as a teenager, when she was "trapped in a fundamentalist Christian school."  After attending the University of California-Berkeley and graduating from Harvard Law, Ms. Jeong pronounced herself a member of the "educated left wing elite."  She says she has now "mostly cut myself off from the conservative evangelical community," and condemns Christians who "indoctrinate children" with "reality-denying belief systems."  Ms. Jeong's spiteful denunciation of her parents' faith was not "counter-trolling," nor was it "intended as satire."  These anti-Christian remarks appear to express her sincere beliefs, no different from her many similar expressions of contempt for other groups.

Let's all thank Sarah Jeong for showing us what liberals think of white people.  Anti-white racism is endemic among liberals.  For liberals, it is permissible to show disdain for white people in a way that would be totally, totally unacceptable to show for blacks, Hispanics, or people of other "colors" of the liberal rainbow.  This is clearer than ever now that we have been exposed to the ravings of The New York Times' latest hire, editorial writer Sarah Jeong.  [...] I think Jeong was hired not in spite her racist rants, but rather because of them.  Because I think Jeong says exactly what liberals feel.

New York Times defends double standard in hiring writer with a history of explicit, hateful racism directed at whites.  The New York Times has provoked a firestorm with its hiring of Sarah Jeong as a member of its editorial board, despite apparently having checked her social media history and found explicitly hateful anti-white tweets in abundance.  Following criticism of the hire, a tweet from "Communications," presumably its corporate communications department, headed by Senior Vice President Eileen Murphy, tweeted out a justification that indicated they had reviewed her tweets and other social media messages.

Yes, Anti-White Racism Exists.  Earlier today [8/2/2018], the New York Times announced that it had hired Sarah Jeong to join its editorial board, and — like clockwork — controversial old tweets promptly surfaced.  In them, Jeong expressed some rather interesting views [...]."  For good measure she also compared white people to "groveling goblins" and questioned why they're "genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun."  In a statement, Jeong expressed her regret and explained that she was engaging in "counter-trolling" designed to mimic the language of racists who harassed her online.  The Times is standing by its hire.  Good.  It's time to end termination-by-Twitter and debate bad ideas head-on.

New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface.  The New York Times is standing by its hiring of tech writer Sarah Jeong despite several derogatory tweets of hers aimed at white people, which were recently unearthed on her Twitter account.  "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," Jeong wrote in July 2014 in one of several old messages that have gone viral.  Social media reactions first flared on Wednesday with images of incendiary tweets from an unverified Twitter account that looked to belong to Jeong.  They surfaced shortly after The Times announced she was joining the paper.  The Times issued a statement on Thursday [8/2/2018] declaring that it had reviewed her social media history during the hiring process and was standing by the decision to bring her aboard.

New York Times hypocrites knowingly hire racist writer.  Clearly there's no vetting process at the New York Times, or else management at the newspaper is just foolish enough to think that no one will look at new employees' social media histories.

Trump vs. the New York Times — The truth about media bias and the liberal press.  Media bias has long been a complaint, especially among conservatives.  Reporters and others in the media usually associate with like-minded members of their "tribe" and so either deliberately separate themselves from the majority of the nation in "flyover country," or oppose the values, faith and politics practiced by many.  Generally they only read or watch each other's work.  How do I know?  A columnist for the Times once asked me if I am still writing this column.  I read his but clearly he doesn't read mine, or probably most other conservatives.  Examples of bias, whether in the way stories are covered, or ignored, are legion.  One doesn't have to visit only conservative websites, such as the Media Research Center and its sister publication Newsbusters to find examples.

NY Times Makes Reportedly False Claim About Israel's Founder, Refuses To Offer Retraction.  The New York Times, caught repeating a reportedly false claim from 1987 that Israel's founding prime minister David Ben Gurion wanted Israel to give up land it had conquered in the 1967 Six-Day War, has refused to correct the error even though the 1987 claim was debunked three months ago.  As historian Martin Kramer pointed out on Saturday, in last Monday's edition of the Times, the false claim occurred on page A1 in an article by Max Fisher titled, "Israel, Riding Nationalist Tide, Puts Identity First.  It Isn't Alone."

NYT Publisher Complains to Trump About 'Potential' Violence Against Journalists — Ignores Over 500 Violent Attacks on Trump Supporters.  There have been over 538 violent attacks against Trump supporters since the 2016 election season.  The liberal mainstream media has ignored these violent attacks.  Instead, the liberal fake news media has fomented, encouraged and threatened, and harassed Trump supporters.

Trump manages relations with the media on his terms.  President Trump recently warned thousands of veterans at a convention not to believe the "crap" about him in the media, and his White House last week barred a reporter from a public event as punishment for asking him uncomfortable questions loudly during an Oval Office meeting.  On Sunday, the president engaged in a war of words with the publisher of The New York Times, who said Mr. Trump's portrayal of the press as an enemy of the people is "dangerous and harmful to our country."  "I told the president directly I thought his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous," Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger said of a recent meeting with Mr. Trump.  "I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence."

The Editor says...
Trump's language is inflammatory?  Has the New York Times kept track of the "inflammatory language" being dispensed by Maxine Waters, et al?

How President Trump plays the New York Times.  After Trump's tweet, [A.G.] Sulzberger told the Associated Press, "I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous."  Seriously?  If criticism is dangerous, then the New York Times and the rest put President Trump's life in jeopardy daily.  "I warned that it was putting lives at risk, that it was undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and that it was eroding one of our country's greatest exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press," Sulzberger said.  Notice the difference.  President Trump gave examples of Fake News while Sulzberger was hysterical.

Trump Negotiates, the Press Lies.  [Scroll down]  On Thursday [7/26/2018], European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker agreed to negotiate with no preconditions for zero tariffs and subsidies.  This may not be victory for Trump, but it's certainly a victory for him, the justification of his strategy and a confirmation of his skills.  How did our corrupt and dishonest press report it?  The original headline in the New York Times (a former newspaper) read:  With Surprise Deal, U.S. and E.U. Step Back From Trade War.  Which raises the question:  surprise to whom?  Not to Trump.  He said it was going to happen!  A surprise only to the New York Times, so immersed in its own false narrative that reality takes them off guard.

Captain Ahab Aims Harpoons at Trump's Tweets.  The New York Times reports that special counsel Robert Mueller "is scrutinizing tweets and negative statements from the president about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former FBI director James B. Comey."  The Old Gray Lady did not divulge whether the special counsel also seeks the names of books checked out on the president's library card.  As far as fishing expeditions go, this one evokes one such adventure told 167 years ago — and still checked out of libraries today.  "But shall this crazed old man be tamely suffered to drag a whole ship's company down to doom with him?"

New York Times Targets Kavanaugh's Wife.  I wouldn't have thought my opinion of the New York Times could get any lower, but it just did.  NTK Network reports that the Times, as well as the Associated Press, has requested emails sent or received by Ashley Kavanaugh in her capacity as town manager of Chevy Chase, Maryland: [...] They won't find anything, of course.  But this is what I want to know:  When Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotamayor and Elena Kagan were appointed to the Court, did the Times, or the Associated Press, try to investigate documents sent or received by their family members?

New York Times Runs Profile Of Soros, Never Mentions He Invested $3 Million In The Times.  On Tuesday [7/17/2018], The New York Times ran a profile of George Soros, calling him "a full-time philanthropist, political activist and freelance statesman."  As The Washington Free Beacon writes, "The piece celebrates the virtuous goals of his political spending, works to humanize him, and attempts to discredit critics of some of his controversial moves."  Despite the fact that the positive profile of Soros ran nearly 10,000 words, one small piece of information managed to remain unsaid:  Soros invested $3 million in the Times earlier this year, which had been reported by the Free Beacon's Joe Schoffstall last month.

Jumping the New York Times Invisible Fence.  For generations, Times editors and reporters were sharp, capable, often self-important, usually liberal but honorable and patriotic, Arthur Schlesinger-style.  The news was solid and non-partisan; editorial opinion was clearly defined.  Most of these worthies have moved on, retired, or died.  Beginning with the odious Howell Raines, who took over as executive editor in 2001, their successors embrace message journalism and stealth propaganda.  Their mission is to redeem a nation at fault.  It's a vocation, like the clergy.  Readers participate in the sacred through gestures and incantations.  They praise, give thanks, repent, and damn.  When you hear, "I read it in the Times," announced with religious elation, it's best to say nothing.  The Times is a harsh goddess.  When a threatening idea gets too close, its invisible ideological fence buzzes with warning.  Like obedient dogs, Times readers wear their collars with pride.  The collars keep them safe from the Forbidden Zone.  Crime and the ruination of cities, for example, or Zionism and jihad; immigrants gaming goodwill and guilt; women trying to be men and ending up unhappy or crazy.

Strzok Farce Shows Obstacles to Opening TWA 800 Case.  [Scroll down]  In the case of TWA 800, the [New York] Times has much more at stake.  TWA 800 crashed in the Times' backyard.  Given the paper's power and proximity, the FBI talked almost exclusively to Times reporters.  In the first two months of the investigation, the Times reported the facts as the FBI provided them.  In that those facts did nothing to harm the re-election chances of Bill Clinton in November, the Times saw no reason to challenge them.  The Times' myopia became obvious one month into the investigation, when reporter Andrew Revkin introduced readers to Witness 136, Michael Russell.  Russell told the FBI he was working on a survey vessel a mile offshore when "a white flash in the sky caught his eye."  Of the of the 258 FBI witnesses to a likely missile strike, Russell was the only one the Times ever interviewed.

Democrats Endorse Judicial Tyranny.  Essentially the Democrats who run the NYT are saying that because Congress won't do what they want it to do — that's what they mean by "gridlock" — a group of five rich white lawyers on the Supreme Court should take over the job of running the country.  This is nothing less than a call for revolution and a demand that America become a banana republic ruled not by the people but by a few rich lawyers.  While this openness about their beliefs is new for Democrats, they've been espousing their desire to turn America into an authoritarian state for decades.

Everybody Is Wrong About The Ali Watkins Scoops-For-Sex Scandal.  One of [the NYT's] reporters was found to have been sleeping with someone she covered at her previous newspaper.  The news went public when her ex-boyfriend was arrested for lying to the FBI about his voluminous contacts with reporters.  To further complicate matters, her records had been seized by the Department of Justice during its investigation into the ex-boyfriend.

NY Times Drools Over Possible Democratic Midterm Wins, Targets Individual Republicans Daily.  In case you had any doubts, the New York Times really, really wants Democrats to take control of the House and Senate in November. [...] When the paper isn't hinting that individual Republicans should be run out of Democratic areas, they're celebrating any sign of Democratic strength, no matter how indirect and presumptous.  A story on Sunday ironically rejoiced at the win of a white woman instead of a minority Cuban-American in the Democratic primary for a district that includes the Cuban exile community "Little Havana" interpreting the win broadly to mean conservative anti-Communism is weaking its hold.

Unaccountable Big Media Personified.  As Americans were finalizing their holiday plans on July 3, the New York Times quietly announced that Ali Watkins, the reporter caught up in a federal investigation into illegal leaks of classified information, would be reassigned rather than fired. [...] Get that, all you ambitious J-school students?  Even though Baquet admits his reporter flouted the basic ethical standards of journalism as well as the paper's internal conduct guidelines, she can keep her job.  You can cheat, lie, break the company's rules, embarrass an entire profession and you will still get to work at one of the nation's top newspapers!

No Virgins in the Gray Lady's Whorehouse.  Just when you thought contemporary journalism couldn't sink any lower, along comes Ali Watkins, now 26, a reporter for the New York Times whose rapid rise through reporting's corrupt and partisan ranks includes stints at the Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, and Politico.  Back in February, Ms. Watkins suddenly became the object of official attention when the feds seized her email and phone records as part of an investigation into a prominent Senate staffer, James Wolfe — the former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee and a Democrat, of course.  Then, in June, Wolfe was arrested and charged with lying to the FBI, which was investigating leaks from the committee to select reporters... among whom was Ali Watkins.  It turns out that Watkins had been involved in a sexual relationship with Wolfe for three years, although at the time of Wolfe's arrest she had moved on to greener pastures, including other staffers on the committee.

New York Times Reassigns Reporter Who Had Sexual Relationship With Source.  The New York Times has reassigned reporter Ali Watkins after news emerged last month that she had a sexual relationship with a source while she was at her previous employer BuzzFeed.  "We are troubled by Ali's conduct, particularly while she was employed by other news organizations," said Times executive editor Dean Baquet in an internal memo on Tuesday.  "For a reporter to have an intimate relationship with someone he or she covers is unacceptable.  It violates our written standards and the norms of journalism."

Former editor Jill Abramson rips New York Times coverage.  Jill Abramson, the former New York Times executive editor who was ousted in 2014, blasted the Gray Lady Thursday for what she said was its cluelessness in tracking the upset victory that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pulled off over 10-term incumbent Congressman Joe Crowley.  But her pique quickly escalated beyond the initial tweet when she claimed in a subsequent email to a reporter that the Times was being "narcissistic" for allowing TV cameras inside and needed a "course correction" in part for its coverage of its own young reporter Ali Watkins.  Watkins is at the center of a leak investigation for receiving classified government material from her then-boyfriend, and she was the subject of a lengthy story in the Times last week.

New York Times details conditions of Obama-era family detention center.  The New York Times published a shocking first-hand account of the horrific conditions a mother and her young son faced after immigrating to the United States from El Salvador.  Unfortunately for the mainstream media that continues to portray President Trump as the face of immigration crisis — the asylum seeker's tragic account happened in 2014.  The author of the Op-Ed wrote on the condition of anonymity because of "gang-related threats" her family has faced.  She explained that she wanted to flee the violence of her native El Salvador, so she came to the United States, seeking a new life, during President Barack Obama's second term in the White House.  "Instead, I found myself locked in a family immigration detention center.  It's an experience that I wouldn't wish on anyone," she wrote.

New York Times Coverage of Iran Protests Faulted as 'Shameful,' 'Propaganda'.  Supporters of Israel and of freedom in Iran, along with some prominent journalists, are sharply criticizing The New York Times for the newspaper's tilted coverage of protests in the Islamic Republic.  The director of the Human Security Centre in London, Julie Lenarz, who is a senior fellow at The Israel Project, tweeted a reaction to a New York Times headline that said, "Iranian authorities have clamped down on Tehran after demonstrators across the country ignored calls for calm."  "Wow, NYT blames people protesting for basic rights that situation spiralled out of control.  They are oppressed by a brutal clerical regime," Lenarz wrote.

New York Times pitches its honeytrap reporter Ali Watkins over the side.  The New York Times is doing stories on its own reporter, a perfect instance of meta-reportage, under the pious guise of how the Ali Watkins revelations of sleeping with sources — multiple sources, it turns out — "rattled the Washington media."  Really?  Never seen a news agency do a full investigative piece, full of unsourced gossip, about one of its own reporters and her love life, from all her chatty, unnamed colleagues, as straight news.  It's actually more like high school.

Media's Defense of Ali Watkins Exposes the Swamp.  In an attempt to defend its hiring of Ali Watkins, the young reporter caught having an affair with a now-indicted Senate staffer responsible for protecting some of the country's most delicate secrets, the New York Times needs the reader to believe several incredible things: [...]

New York Times reporter broke the biggest rule in journalism.  On previous occasions, I've written about the blunt way legendary New York Times editor Abe Rosenthal dealt with a conflict of interest.  The story bears repeating after the indictment of a top Senate official over his contacts with reporters, including one from the Times with whom he had a romantic relationship.  The Rosenthal standard on conflicts was shaped by a remarkably similar case decades ago.  Soon after a woman who had covered politics in Philadelphia was hired by the Times, a story from Philly said she had a secret affair with a politician she covered and accepted expensive gifts from him.  Rosenthal asked the woman if the story was true and, when she replied yes, immediately told her to clean out her desk and said she would never again work for the paper.

The New York Times wants to bury a reporting scandal.  Government documents were leaked to the press.  A reporter's communications were seized by the government without her knowing about it.  And a former Senate aide was charged with "lying repeatedly to investigators about his contacts with three reporters."  It sounds like the makings of the next Hollywood production about the news media's war against President Trump.  There's only one problem.  The reporter wasn't just involved with her stories.  She was involved for three years with the man the feds charged.

A Conspiracy Theory About a Conspiracy.  The [New York] Times is unaware of the sublime hypocrisy of accusing the President of the United States of "sowing widespread suspicions about the government" even as it is doing just that.  The paper of broken record specializes in spreading conspiracy theories claiming that President Trump didn't actually win the 2016 election but that "nefarious, hidden forces" made it happen. [...] Before the Democrats used conspiracy theories to delegitimize Trump's electoral victory, they used them to delegitimize Bush's victory. [...] Why don't conspiracy theories ever prosper?  Because if they appear in the New York Times, they aren't conspiracies.  What is the Timesian definition of a conspiracy theory?  Anything favorable to Trump.

Veteran Senate Intelligence Committee staffer, in romantic relationship with NYT reporter, arrested in probe of leaks.  James A. Wolfe, former director of security for the Senate Intelligence Committee, lost everything when he was arrested by the FBI last night.  A review of media reports on the background of the arrest suggests that the lure of romance with a nubile female journalism school student was his undoing.  This is a story with at least two compelling themes:  the apparent betrayal of national security by a veteran Senate staffer and the rise in a mere four years of a comely female reporter in a romantic relationship with Wolfe from unpaid undergraduate intern at McClatchy to the lofty post of New York Times national security correspondent.

Byron York:  Key Claims in December NY Times Trump-Russia-Papadopoulos Story Are False.  On Friday evening [6/1/2018], Fox News's Martha MacCallum interviewed Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York and during that interview's second half, the pair discussed new information which contradicts key contentions about "How the (Trump)-Russia inquiry began" made in a December New York Times story.  That story claimed that the investigation began as a result of a May 2016 "heavy drinking" meeting between low-level Donald Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and Alexander Downer, Australia's top diplomat in Great Britain.  That December 30 Times story, involving six of its journalists, is based entirely on four anonymous "current and former American and foreign officials" who supposedly had "direct knowledge of the Australians' role" (strangely plural, despite the fact that Downer was the only named Australian involved in the story).  It appeared just as the Obama-era FBI and Department of Justice were coming under fire for appearing up to that point to have relied primarily, if not solely, on the unproven allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier as the basis for opening its investigation into alleged Russia-Trump campaign collusion.

Yashar Ali Fabricates Quote to Defend False Report from 'New York Times'.  Over the holiday weekend, Yashar Ali, a writer at New York Magazine and HuffPo, claimed he had a smoking gun recording of a White House background briefing that proved President Trump lied when he refuted something reported in the New York Times.  The only problem is that — in the apparent hope no one would actually listen to his "smoking gun" recording — Ali made it all up.  The storm began Friday when the far-left New York Times published a piece mischaracterizing a background briefing from a "senior White House official."  According to the Times, this senior official told reporters that even if the meeting with North Korea was "reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed."

Democrats and the media are losing the culture war.  The New York Times ran three pieces this week opposing the NFL's new policy requiring players to stand for the national anthem during games, or remain in the locker room if they won't.  The Times' liberal columnist David Leonhardt called the rule "unpatriotic" because it "reject[s] a basic American value."  (Making a statement about your special interest during a short patriotic song, you see, is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.)  The paper's editorial board injected its favorite topic, race, writing that the NFL "capitulated to a president who relishes demonizing black athletes."  And in keeping with the Times' long tradition of publishing conservative voices so long as their opinions are weak, the paper gave space to anti-Trump writer David French to denounce "the conservative mob" for approving of the NFL's policy.  By "conservative mob," French apparently means the large majority of Americans who don't approve of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem.

10 Key Takeaways From The New York Times' Error-Ridden Defense Of FBI Spying On Trump Campaign.  [#3] Still No Evidence of Collusion With Russia:  In paragraph 69 of the lengthy story, The New York Times takes itself to task for burying the lede in its October 31, 2016, story about the FBI not finding any proof of involvement with Russian election meddling.

The Russia-Facebook election 'scandal' is a whole lot of nothing.  Some of the smart editors over at The New York Times recently pulled together an interactive tool to help citizens better understand the depth of Russian infiltration into American institutions during the 2016 election.  "See Which Facebook Ads Russians Targeted to People Like You" the story promises.  And true to its word, readers are now able to pinpoint exactly how social media tricked them into voting for Donald Trump.

If you see something, say something (unless you see black).  There has been a spate of articles recently about white people calling the police against black people who were apparently doing nothing wrong, like sleeping in a common room in Yale, attempting to urinate in Starbucks, shopping at Nordstrom Rack, and playing on a golf course.  The idea behind these articles is that white people are racist. [...] A few points to make about this:  [#1] The liberal media rarely report the whole story about these events.  Specifically, they often exclude key facts, such as the suspicious behavior that made people call the police.  [#2] These stories are cherrypicked.  We see the ones reported where the black people have committed no crimes.  There are never, ever stories of the times black people are arrested for crimes after someone phones in a "suspicious person" report.  What percentage of suspicious persons reports end up being valid?  The [New York] Times doesn't want to know; it just wants more stories of stereotypes.  [#3] Liberals insist that citizens be disarmed because the police will protect them.  Now they are saying citizens shouldn't call the police.

The New York Times Can't Even Keep Its Lies Straight.  The reason The New York Times published its "Crossfire Hurricane" puff-piece yesterday is obvious to those following along.  Tireless investigators like Inspector General Michael Horowitz and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes are hot on the trail of unprecedented criminality by the Obama administration.  Some careful observers have identified multiple conflicts within the Times story, which was an obvious attempt by those implicated in the scandal to leak their way to a positive spin.

NY Times fails to deliver 200K papers because of plant outage.  Hundreds of thousands of New York Times subscribers didn't get their papers Friday morning, with the company blaming a power outage at its printing plant in Queens.  The snafu at the printing facility in College Point affected about 200,000 customers — nearly 40 percent of the Times' circulation nationwide — "across the tri-state area," the company said.  "Delivery in Manhattan and New York City boroughs may be several hours late, with next-day deliveries in some cases" the Grey Lady told confused print subscribers in an e-mail that many of them didn't receive until the afternoon.

New York Times slams AWOL Pompeo, then learns he was rescuing Americans.  As the New York Times was bashing Mike Pompeo for being missing in action while President Trump tore up the Iran nuclear deal, it turned out the secretary of state was busy rescuing three Americans who have been held captive in North Korea.  In an apparent jab at the administration, The Times' headline said, "At a Key Moment, Trump's Top Diplomat Is Again Thousands of Miles Away."  The Times' story noted that "Senior State Department officials were momentarily speechless on Tuesday when asked why Mr. Pompeo did not delay his trip by a day to be in Washington during Mr. Trump's Iran deal announcement."

Why Did The NY Times' Metro Editor Resign Yesterday?  The Times Won't Say.  Yesterday, NY Times metro editor Wendell Jamieson resigned his position at the paper after an "internal investigation" revealed... something.  HuffPost published an email sent out by the Times to its explain the change to their own newsroom.

The New York Times' Hatchet Job On Devin Nunes Is Riddled With Errors.  Jason Zengerle publicly announced his profile of Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., in today's [4/29/2018] New York Times Sunday Magazine with the snarky tweet, "My latest for the @NYTmag on Devin Nunes, who's been propagating, not to mention falling for, conspiracy theories since before the Deep State was even in a gleam in Donald Trump's eye."  It's an accurate summation of the hit he attempted to place on Nunes, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).  The only problem is the case he attempts to make is riddled with errors and full of embarrassing and deliberate material omissions.

New York Times Editorial Board Begs Justice Kennedy Not to Retire.  Remember all those times during the Barack Obama presidency when the New York Times begged Justice Anthony Kennedy to not retire from the Supreme Court?  No?  Well, that's probably because it never happened.  However, now that Donald Trump is president, the Times is begging Kennedy, considered to be a swing vote, to remain on the High Court bench.

The Parallel Universe of the New York Times.  It had long been my opinion that the writers and editors of the New York Times and, by extension, their readers live on a different planet — the planet where a martini costs $20.  But, upon perusal of the Sunday Review section, I see that I was wrong.  They do not live on another planet.  They live in another cosmos — a universe with different physics, different mathematics, different scientific constants, and different laws of nature.

The New York Times Best-Seller List:  My Response to the Times' Response.  [Scroll down]  Of course, in order to assume The New York Times is unbiased when it comes to conservative and religious books, one has to assume The Times is unbiased when reporting on other conservative and religious matters.  And it isn't.  But even if one does believe The Times has no ideological agenda, its best-seller list is still the most inaccurate of all major best-seller lists.  That's why none of The Times' tweets contradicted anything I wrote.  Instead The Times did what progressive institutions and individuals routinely do when differed with:  attacked the individual.

The New York Times Best-Seller List:  Another Reason Americans Don't Trust The Media.  About half the American people do not believe the mainstream media tell the truth.  They believe the media are more interested in promoting their left-wing views than reporting the truth. [...] In order to think it is mere coincidence, you have to believe The New York Times more than reality itself, which about half the country seems to.  While The Times occasionally lists conservative books and, very rarely, religious books, after comparing the list and the BookScan list, the Observer concluded in 2016:  "If you happen to work for The New York Times and have a book out, your book is more likely to stay on the list longer and have a higher ranking than books not written by New York Times employees. ... If you happen to have written a conservative-political-leaning book, you're more likely to be ranked lower and drop off the list faster than those books with a more liberal political slant."  In other words, The New York Times best-seller list is not a best-seller list — which even The New York Times once acknowledged.

American Pravda Wins Pulitzer.  [Scroll down]  The days of the New York Times as a reliable, salient, or sane source of news have passed.  It exists now as an ideological apparatus of the progressive state, shilling for the hard-Left and the bureaucrats who pander to them.  It is least of all doing good work for the public.  A look back at one of their worst propaganda pieces in recent history is instructive, not only on the sad state of the New York Times, but mass media overall.

Possible tie between journalism and reality.  The New York Times bragged that it shared a Pulitzer with the Washington Post "for coverage that unearthed possible ties between Russia and President Trump's inner circle."  By unearthed they mean published Bobby Mueller's leaks designed to coerce innocent men to plea bargain to crimes they did not commit. [...] Giving Pulitzers to partisans for publishing Democratic Party lies sets a new standard for American journalism.

No, Trees Are Not People Too.  For a newspaper that prides itself on its supposed devotion to science and rationality, the New York Times sure does publish a lot of tripe anthropomorphizing plants.  For example, there was that professor who appeared in the Sunday Opinion section arguing that "peas are a who," and that humans should only eat fruit and vegetables from perennials that we harvest "as a gift of vegetal being."  Then there was the Times' science columnist (!!) Natalie Angier claiming the plants "are the ethical autotrophs" because they don't kill to stay alive.  (Well, there are those Venus flytraps, but never mind.)  Now in the Book Review, novelist Barbara Kingsolver seriously asserts in her review of a novel in which trees are characters, that they are people too.

The Media's War On Freedom Of The Press.  In '08, the New York Times published an op-ed by Obama, but rejected McCain's response.  It just published an editorial titled, "Watch Out, Ted Cruz.  Beto is Coming" which appears to have no purpose other than to help Beto O'Rourke raise money from New York Times readers. [...] "In one instance, The Enquirer bought but did not publish a story about an alleged extramarital relationship years earlier with the presidential candidate," the Times sniffs.  It's not unprecedented for a paper to have damaging material about a politician without publishing it.  Just ask the Los Angeles Times about the vault they're keeping Obama's Khalidi tape in.  Or ask the Washington Post about its embargo of the photo of Obama posing with Nation of Islam hate group leader Louis Farrakhan at a CBC event.

NYT Prints Op-Ed Defending Teddy Kennedy For Leaving A Woman To Drown.  On Friday, The New York Times did its level best to defend the bloated corpse of Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA), one of the worst human beings ever to occupy a seat in the Senate, from a recapitulation in film form of the night he left a woman to drown in a shallow river in Chappaquiddick.  The new movie Chappaquiddick ably tells the tale of how Teddy drove a car into the river with Mary Jo Kopechne, then somehow escaped the vehicle and went to sleep, only telling the police about the incident the next day — and how the Kennedy family worked with local authorities to cover up the crime and ensure that Kennedy never served a day in jail.  But in a truly stunning op-ed in The New York Times, Teddy biographer Neil Gabler says that Chappaquiddick is in fact too harsh on Senator Kennedy — who is depicted in the film as confused and remorseful throughout the situation, and a victim of his family's predations as well as his own weakness.

Bigotry of Bigotries; All Is Bigotry.  Anyway Ferguson recently convened a conference at Stanford's Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank.  No one much cared about what was discussed and debated.  For those who believe in diversity uber alles, a conference on history and public policy must be judged by the number of representatives from different oppressed groups. [...] The New York Times was appalled at the lack of diversity.  It blared out the shrill headline... there were no women at the conference.  Which means, to Times readers, that th