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.



'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.

Update:
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 nytimes.com 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.

Duplicity:
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 akdart.com 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]

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 the whole thing was an exercise in bigotry.  You need not know anything else.

The real reason behind Sessions' special counsel decision.  Newspaper and television headlines are blunt instruments that leave little room for nuance.  Throw in the anti-Trump bias and it's no surprise that nearly all media followed the same simplistic thinking to describe Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision on whether to appoint a second special counsel.  His answer was "no," the chorus declared, case closed.  Par for its partisan course, The New York Times twisted the knife, saying "Sessions Spurns GOP."  Maybe, maybe not.  The truth is that Sessions' decision is far more complex than reports suggest.

Totally Non-Partisan New York Times Helpfully Offers to Rewrite Second Amendment.  It was about self defense against all enemies foreign and domestic.  It was about protecting yourself, your family, your friends, and your property against tyrannical and/or abusive government.  Sure, you will most likely lose.  That's not the point.  You are given the chance to defend yourself.  And, perhaps your comrades come to your aid.  Perhaps a free press, tasked with holding government accountable, would come to your aid.  And, who would decide "responsible"?  That's the part that kills this whole mess.  Perhaps we could rewrite the 1st to no longer include freedom of the press unless they use quill pens and the same type of printing presses and delivery methods (foot and horses) available at the time the Bill of Rights was passed.  Oh, and I wonder if the NY Times has given up its own armed security.

Do 5 Million Americans Really Live in Third World Poverty?  Nobel Prize-winning economist Angus Deaton recently published an op-ed in the New York Times titled "The U.S. Can No Longer Hide from Its Deep Poverty Problem."  Deaton asserted that 5.3 million Americans (or 1.7 percent of the population) live on less than $4 per day and "are as destitute as the world's poorest people. ... [Their] suffering, through material poverty and poor health, is as bad [as] or worse than that of the people in Africa or in Asia."  But measurements of poverty and deep poverty based on income are seriously flawed, because U.S. government income surveys:
  •   omit or severely undercount most of the $1.1 trillion that the government spends on means-tested welfare assistance each year;
  •   omit or undercount off-the-books earnings, which are prevalent in low-income communities;
  •   omit the incomes of cohabiting partners and parents; and
  •   ignore assets acquired in prior periods.
The omission and undercounting of welfare aid is particularly troubling.  For example, in 2016, federal, state, and local governments spent $223 billion on cash, food, and housing benefits for low-income families with children, an amount three times that needed to eliminate all official poverty and ten times that needed to wipe out deep poverty among them.  But the Census Bureau's income surveys counted only $7.6 billion of this spending for purposes of assessing poverty or deep poverty.

New York Times Columnist Warns Of Climate Change While On Company's Global Private Jet Tour.  New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is warning, yet again, about the perils of climate change and the need to be good stewards of the environment.  This time, however, Kristof is not writing from the Manhattan offices of the "old grey lady" because he's in the middle of a New York Times-sponsored around-the-world private jet tour that costs $135,000 per person.  Kristof's column, entitled, "A Parable of Self-Destruction," was written on Easter Island off the coast of South America.  It tells the story of how the island became uninhabited due to deforestation and unsustainable practices by the natives.  "That brings us to climate change, to the chemical processes we are now triggering whose outcomes we cant fully predict," Kristof wrote after recounting what is alleged to have happened to the natives.  "The consequences may be a transformed planet with rising waters and hotter weather, dying coral reefs and more acidic oceans.  We fear for the ocean food chain and worry about feedback loops that will irreversibly accelerate this process, yet still we act like Easter Islanders hacking down their trees."

Collapse of Credibility In Mainstream Press Puts Burden on Readers.  Take, for example, the New York Times news article reporting on President Trump's decision to hire Lawrence Kudlow as chairman of the National Economic Council.  It devoted three paragraphs to a poll that "found support dipping slightly for Mr. Trump's signature tax law:  49 percent of respondents approved of the bill, down from 51 percent in February."  Given that the poll's margin of sampling error was 1.5%, the idea that a two percentage point move either way is newsworthy is questionable.  If the poll had moved two percentage points in the other direction and President Trump tweeted triumphantly about it, you can bet that Times "fact-checkers" would have been all over his case about being statistically illiterate.

The Obama Comfort Doll Isn't the Worst of it.  I'm a day late with this, so you likely have already seen it:  Jill Abramson, former Executive Editor of the New York Times, told the Guardian that she keeps a Barack Obama doll in her purse and calls on it for comfort in the distressing Age of Trump: [...] But the rest of Abramson's column strikes me as more significant.  Why?  Because she makes no pretense of being anything other than a Democratic Party operative.  Writing for the Guardian's far-left audience, she is among friends.  Any pretense of objectivity is gone.

New York Times mocked over reminder why Louis Farrakhan is back in news.  When the paper tweeted a link to its story with the headline asking why Farrakhan was back in the news, Free Beacon reporter Alex Griswold responded, "Because we had to shame you into covering a major story, basically."  Another user replied, "Imagine their headline if the GOP was holding strategy sessions w/David Duke.  The media is purposely not covering this story because they don't want to hurt Democrats midterm chances.  It's obvious and pathetic!"  One reader responded:  "That is easy.  He is a racist religious bigot who is being embraced by people who claimed to be against both those things," and another added, "If other publications had not forced the issue, your silence about this racist and his ties to the Democratic Party would have continued."  "Better is why the racist New York Times doesn't treat liberal racists like Farrakhan the same as it does anyone that opposes open borders as racist?  Racial double standards are racism," one reader fired back.

Ex-Times editor Jill Abramson carries an Obama doll in her purse.  Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson revealed, in an opinion piece this week about the 2020 election, a bizarre superstition.

New York Times issues embarrassing correction after botching story attacking Trump's tax plan.  The New York Times issued an embarrassing correction after a report that attacked President Donald Trump's recently passed tax plan got the numbers about as wrong as could be.  The lengthy Feb. 23 feature, headlined, "Get to Know the New Tax Code While Filling Out This Year's 1040," sought to detail how Trump's tax plan would hurt middle-class families.  A hypothetical couple — christened Sam and Felicity Taxpayer — would see their tax bill rise by nearly $4,000, according to the story.  Then came the correction saying the family would actually see taxes go down.

All the News That's Fit for Our Readers' Sensitivities.  The ejection of a slightly unconventional leftist from the opinion pages is the latest in a series of incidents that might give pause to the [New York] Times's less excitable readers.  You would think [Quinn] Norton's bisexuality, anarchism, pacifism, vegetarianism, and anti-prison activism would place her only slightly to the left of most people who take the Times as their daily meat.  Indeed, her anxiety over ethical food should have been enough to seal the deal all by itself.  But there were blemishes on her leftism, and Times readers quickly discovered them.

The New York Times publishes a politically biased and inaccurate 'fact check' of Trump's gun remarks.  Fact checks by the media ought to be factual.  The New York Times failed to do this with an error-filled piece that incorrectly claims President Trump "peppered his remarks with inaccurate facts about mass shootings and gun policy" Wednesday in a meeting with members of Congress.  I have a bit of a personal stake in this, as President Trump was using arguments that I have been making for many years in my earlier academic research at universities on gun control laws and public safety and in my role as founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.  By any objective standard, truth in labeling would show that the Times article by Linda Qui is not a fact check at all, but simply a political attack on President Trump, with no attempt to understand the arguments he is making.

Guess Who Wrote An Exuberant Op-Ed For the NY Times Celebrating Hillary's Election That Never Ran?  On November 9, 2016, the day after the presidential election, an op-ed celebrating Hillary Clinton's election was supposed to run in The New York Times.  It never made it.  Who was so eager to jump on the Hillary bandwagon to make sure she kept her name in the papers?  Elizabeth Warren.

New York Times Attempts To Provide Cover for McCabe Motive Outlined in Pending IG Report.  The New York Times (Matt Appuzzo & Adam Goldman) published an article yesterday citing a pending DOJ Inspector General Horowitz report that points the finger at former Asst.  FBI Director Andrew McCabe for leaking information to the media.  Citing four people familiar with the IG inquiry, the motive for the New York Times is transparent.  The "small group" of DOJ/FBI officials are trying to head-off the disturbing aspect to the IG outline and spin a false narrative.  However, our earlier research into the text messaging of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, in combination with the leak in question to former Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett, allows us to see through the narrative.

The New York Times makes plans for weekly TV program.  The New York Times has conquered the podcasting world with "The Daily." Now it wants to crack television with a weekly news program.  The Times is seeking an executive producer for the series, according to a job listing.  And The Times is holding talks with streaming services and premium cable channels about a potential distribution deal, according to Sam Dolnick, the assistant managing editor who is overseeing new digital initiatives at the news outlet.

Backfires and Explosions at the New York Times.  Leading the country's most closely observed Opinion page is an unfathomably complex job, largely because of two interrelated factors:  the outrage culture of the Internet in general, and Donald Trump in particular.  For the Times, this conundrum often reduces to the question of how hospitable the op-eds should be to illiberal and sometimes unscientific positions — where do facts end and values begin?

The snookered press at Pyeongchang.  When Kim Jong-un dispatched his crack propaganda team to Pyeongchang (and not P.F. Chang, the Chinese restaurant chain, as reported by NBC News) to cover the Winter Olympics, he couldn't have imagined that the American media in town would have been so easy to con.  It was so easy, in fact, that a girl could do it, and she did.  "If 'diplomatic dance' were an event at the Winter Olympics," CNN reported with gasps of breathless wonder, "Kim Jong-un's younger sister would be favored to win the gold."  "Without a word, and only flashing smiles," observed The New York Times, "Kim Jong-un's sister outflanked Vice President Mike Pence in diplomacy."

The Nunes Memo and the Death of American Journalism.  Charlie Savage is a clever guy.  The New York Times reporter managed to get a full-fledged editorial into the news section of his paper when the controversial Nunes memo was released on Friday.  He did it through a journalistic device that is likely to be more widely used in the future as standards of objectivity and fairness continue to wither: an "annotated" version of the original document.

Keep calm and Comey on.  CNN, USA Today, the Daily Caller, Judicial Watch and other outlets brought a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FBI to obtain copies of the memos former FBI Director James Comey wrote to document his conversations with President Trump.  Comey, you may recall, strategically leaked a memo or two to his friend Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School, under orders to leak the contents to the New York Times.  When President Trump fired Comey, Comey sought the appointment of Special Counsel to remove Trump from office.  And not just any Special Counsel — Comey desired the appointment of his friend Robert Mueller.  Richman followed orders.  He called the Times.  He read parts of one or more of the memos to the Times.  The Times published a page-one story by Michael Schmidt with Comey's account.  The appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel ensued.

From Publishing the Pentagon Papers to Suppressing the Nunes Memo.  In the New York Times, retrospectives on the Pentagon Papers will often appear, invariably portraying government officials as self-interested crooks or boobs and concluding with a windy quote or two from Hugo Black about the supreme importance of publication.  Don't let "national security" or other stated government interests trump the people's right to know about government misdeeds — that's the upshot of these pieces.  But that's the argument the Times is using against the Nunes memo.  It quotes very piously and uncritically the "grave concerns" of FBI officials who argue "not to publish."

Leftists Now Believe the New York Times Is a "White Supremacist," "Nazi" Paper.  On Saturday [1/27/2018], Ross Douthat published a column for the New York Times arguing that White House Senior Policy Advisor Stephen Miller should be included in negotiations about immigration policy because he represents the opinions of tens of millions of Americans.  Somewhat predictably, the Times's liberal readership was none too pleased by the idea that proponents of increased restrictions on legal immigration would be given a seat at the table alongside proponents of amnesty, and many took to Twitter to express their displeasure.  Some more unhinged commenters labeled the Times a "white supremacist paper," while others were content with simply suggesting that Douthat is a racist.

New York Times Gets the Facts Wrong on Land Mines.  According to the Times, 8,605 people were injured or killed in 2016 by land mines and "other booby-trap explosives."  Well, 8,605 is the ICBL's headline figure, no doubt about that.  But were all those people actually injured or killed by land mines?  Absolutely not.  If you turn to page 57 of the ICBL's report, you'll find that only 732 people were injured or killed by an anti-personnel land mine, another 495 by an anti-vehicle mine, and another 538 by an "unspecified" mine.  That's 1,765 people, not 8,605.  The Times says that casualties to land mines are rising.  But the ICBL's report says that in 2015, 2,002 people were injured or killed by these kinds of mines.  So casualties are actually down by 237, not up.

How Do Liberals Flunk Science?  Let Us Count the Ways.  Last year, The New York Times went as far as to blame evangelicals for our "post-truth society."  The New York Times lamenting a "post-truth society" is like Satan complaining about sin.  Few organizations or individuals in the history of humanity have waged a more enthusiastic war on the truth than has "the newspaper of record."

NY Times:  It's So Cold Because You Drove A Fossil Fueled Vehicle.  That, and your use of a hair dryer, ice maker in the fridge, the fridge itself, air conditioning and heating, washing and drying your clothes with machines, wearing clothes that you didn't make yourself or buy from local manufacture, eating meat, not growing your own veggies, owning a gun, and so much more.

Will the Persian Renaissance Return Now That Obama's Gone?  Way back when I worked as a columnist for The New York Sun, (2007) I kept getting a call from a mysterious man who insisted on meeting me in person.  He told me I was referred by a writer who writes for the New York Times and that he wanted to give me an important story.  I checked out the writer who confirmed that she felt the Sun would be a better fit — in other words, this was not something the Times would be interested in but she thought it was worth exploring.  Actually the truth was the NY Times wasn't interested in any story that deviated from its liberal mantra.

As the Dossier Scandal Looms, the New York Times Struggles to Save Its Collusion Tale.  [Scroll down]  What's going on here?  Well, it turns out the Page angle and thus the collusion narrative itself is beset by an Obama-administration scandal:  Slowly but surely, it has emerged that the Justice Department and FBI very likely targeted Page because of the Steele dossier, a Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed disguised as intelligence reporting.  Increasingly, it appears that the Bureau failed to verify Steele's allegations before the DOJ used some of them to bolster an application for a spying warrant from the FISA court (i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court).

NYT Publishes Report 'Debunking' FBI Use Of Dossier, Gets Immediately Shredded For Fake News.  [Scroll down]  Perhaps the most embarassing part for the New York Times isn't that they appear to have published yet another massive case of Fake News — but that it took six of their 'best and brightest' to cobble it together.

NeverTrumps Renamed:  AlwaysDemocrats.  Former Cabinet secretary in the Reagan administration Bill Bennett believes that Donald Trump is more conservative than Ronald Reagan and that his Cabinet selections are, too.  That's quite the endorsement from someone who was part of the Reagan revolution — not some conservative pundit saying this, but a true Reaganite.  One NeverTrump speaking out is Bret Stephens, one of the token "conservative" columnists at the New York Times.  He's not to be confused with the other "conservative," David Brooks, who predicted great things of the Obama presidency based on the crease in Obama's pants.

The Times Diversion.  In collusion news today, the New York Times has devoted six reporters to producing the "news" that the previously obscure Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos lies at the heart of the putative case. [...] I think the story is ludicrous on its face.  The Times has served as a prime purveyor of the Trump/Russia hysteria.  Yet reality has deflated it.  Now the Times returns to pump it up.  The names have changed, but the song remains the same.

Transparent DOJ and FBI Desperation:  New York Times Attempts "Trump Operation" Justification.  Immediately following confirmation by Senator Lindsey Graham about the origin of the 2016 FBI Counterintelligence Operation against candidate Donald Trump, The New York Times, via Clinton's favorite voice Maggie Haberman, pushes out an article attempting to cloud, obfuscate and justify the joint FBI and DOJ surveillance operation against Trump. [...] The timing, content and presentation of the disinformation is transparent in the intended motive.  More and more people are recognizing the FBI application to the FISA court was based on political information, the Steele Dossier, assembled by political operatives and used by political operatives within the DOJ National Security Division and FBI Counterintelligence Division.

WikiLeaks Drops Proof That NYTimes Colluded With Hillary Clinton.  After the New York Times on Saturday [12/30/2017] published a story headlined "Republican Attacks on Mueller and F.B.I. Open New Rift in G.O.P.," WikiLeaks couldn't stand it anymore.  In a late-night post on Twitter, WikiLeaks revealed that a Times reporter used to feed State Department email updates of the stories the paper would be publishing DAYS before the stories appeared.  At the time, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State.

Lefty media has lots of love for terrorists.  C'mon down, Akayed Ullah, the New York Port Authority bus terminal suicide bomber from Bangladesh, this month's "diversity lottery" terrorist.  In the underground corridor linking the bus station to Times Square, the devout Muslim walked by any number of ads and billboards for assorted infidel products, until he got to where he wanted to detonate his homemade pipe bomb full of nails.  He set it off in front of a Christmas poster.  Needless to say, The New York Times has been swooning over this nice young man.  The undocumented immigrant got the traditional front-page sob story last week.  He was a good boy, a very good boy.  He had recently returned to the Third World hellhole from which he came.  It was a "lonely trip."

How not to save a dying shopping mall.  Only the writers and many of the readers of The New York Times, who know nothing about running a real-world business, would think selling Indian popcorn and Amish fly-swatters is a viable recovery strategy for a large retail establishment.

NY Times:  Utterly Anonymous People Claim Trump Freaked Out About Immigrants.  Back in 2016, the NY Times mad a big change to their use of anonymous sources policies.  They have to be bigly approved by high ranking editors for things where the primary news element is based on anonymous sources.  I guess Dean Baquet, Matt Purdy, and Phil Corbett are rather busy, because it seems that everything is based on anonymous sources, which gives readers absolutely no ability to verify the veracity of the story. [...] In fact, there is not one named person from that meeting who can back up any of these assertions.  There is no one who can provide verification.  This is about as shoddy of journalism as it can get.  But, this is the era of Trump Derangement Syndrome, where everything is meant to be Trump Is Bad, the reverse of what they did during Obama's years.

New York Times Column Says Trump Is About To Stage A Coup.  A New York Times contributor cranked the President Donald Trump-hysteria-meter to 11 on Thursday when he wrote the president "and his allies seem on the verge of staging a coup against independent institutions and the rule of law."  In the column "The Real Coup Plot Is Trump's," New York Times contributor and Harvard University lecturer Yascha Mounk warns readers about the upcoming assault on American democracy that the president is plotting.  Fox News host Jesse Watters recently claimed that in the midst of all the alleged bias within the FBI, that "we have a coup on our hands in America."  Mounk doesn't cite any evidence that Trump is preparing to fire special counsel Robert Mueller — the president, after all, has said repeatedly that he doesn't intend to.

Glenn Thrush, Suspended Times Reporter, to Resume Work but Won't Cover White House.  The New York Times said on Wednesday that Glenn Thrush, one of the paper's most prominent political reporters, would remain suspended until late January and then be removed from the team covering the White House after he faced allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior.  The decision came a month after the website Vox published a report that contained allegations from four female journalists of inappropriate behavior by Mr. Thrush.  After learning Vox planned to run its article, which was published on Nov. 20, The Times began an investigation into Mr. Thrush's conduct.  The inquiry was led by Charlotte Behrendt, a lawyer in the Times newsroom, and involved interviews with more than 30 people in New York and Washington, both inside and outside The Times, according to a person briefed on the process.  Ms. Behrendt compiled a report with her findings that was reviewed by Dean Baquet, the executive editor, and a group of top editors.

5 times New York Times writer Charles Blow belittled black Trump supporters.  New York Times columnist Charles Blow has a long history of criticizing Republicans, but he has been particularly hostile toward other blacks who have supported President Trump and those who work in his administration.  Here are 5 times Blow belittled and lashed out at Trump supporters who are black: [...]

The Death Of Science Journalism.  [Scroll down]  Consider the New York Times.  Journalist Danny Hakim regularly lies about GMOs and glyphosate, while others "teach the controversy."  Still other journalists, like Eric Lipton, smear the integrity of scientists, if they are thought to be pro-industry.  Op-ed writer Nicholas Kristof goes on chemophobic diatribes about scary chemicals.  The NYT has touted the (non-existent) benefits of acupuncture.  Writers Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman promote thoroughly unscientific organic food, while the NYT's publisher's wife sits on the board of Whole Foods.  The paper then has the audacity to accuse actual scientists of conflicts of interest.  Here's the truly terrifying part:  Those are just the transgressions of the New York Times.  Name nearly any other media outlet, and an equally long list could be produced.

NYT Op-Ed:  Maybe Franken Shouldn't Have Resigned.  Activist Zephyr Teachout, who ran for governor in 2014 and Congress in 2016 — she lost both times — is troubled by Sen. Al Franken's (D-MN) resignation.  Mind you, the Minnesota Democrat has not packed up his bags and left.  He said he would resign in the near future.  It was one of the most soporific and non-introspective resignation speeches — and it wasn't just conservatives who noted this.  Some journalists noted that Franken never apologized for his actions.  True.  He also called his accusers liars, which is also true.  The man didn't want to go, possibly because he thought his party affiliation could save him, as it did with William Jefferson Clinton.

How Much Does the 'New York Times' Hate Donald Trump?  The Times, the Washington Post and other media enterprises have now devolved into fully partisan propaganda outlets.  They're out, proud and unafraid — and they're coming after everyone who disagrees with them by smearing their opponents as "racist."

NY Times Reports Obama Only Told 18 Falsehoods During Entire Presidency.  A recent New York Times analysis claims that over his eight years in office, former President Barack Obama only told 18 distinct lies.  The Times set out to compare the trustworthiness of Obama compared to President Donald Trump.  "In his first 10 months in office, [Trump] has told 103 separate untruths, many of them repeatedly.  Obama told 18 over his entire eight-year tenure," the piece reads.  On the list are some of Obama's most well-known whoppers, including "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan," and that he "didn't set a red line" on Syria's use of chemical weapons.  By contrast, fact-checker Politifact ruled that over the course of his presidency, Obama made 43 "false" statements and 48 "mostly false" statements.  Politifact also identified 7 "pants on fire" statements, which are falsehoods that are "not accurate and make a ridiculous claim."

I Hate The New York Times.  My hometown paper drives me crazy.  I read The New York Times because it often has good coverage.  The newspaper pays to send reporters to dangerous places all around the world.  This weekend, the Times Magazine did a surprisingly fair profile of Sean Hannity, although they chose photos that make him look evil.  But mostly I read the Times because my neighbors read it, and I need to understand what they think.  Sadly, many think dumb things because most every day the Times runs deceitful, biased stories and headlines that mislead.  Opinion columns have license to do that, but these days, Times' smears extend to "news" stories.

New York Times forced to heavily amend another supposed K.T. McFarland 'scoop'.  The New York Times got ahead of itself again with yet another supposedly hot scoop involving former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland, the Russians and the 2016 presidential election.  The story, now titled "McFarland's Testimony About Russia Contacts Is Questioned," reported originally that an email sent by the former Trump transition official indicated she lied to Congress this summer when she was questioned about disgraced Gen. Michael Flynn's communications with the Russians.  The article has been heavily amended since publication so that it is now mostly innuendo.  The initial references to the emails have been removed, and the story now leans mostly on Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who only questions whether McFarland was forthright in her testimony.

N.Y. Times Scales Back Free Articles to Get More Subscribers.  The New York Times, seeking to amass more paid subscriptions in an era of non-stop, must-read headlines, is halving the number of articles available for free each month.  Starting Friday [12/1/2017], most non-subscribers will only be able to read five articles rather than 10 before they're asked to start paying.  It's the first change to the paywall in five years.  A basic Times subscription, with unlimited access to the website and all news apps, is $15 every four weeks.

The New York Times Lobbies for the Democratic Party.  I'm not easily shocked these days, but what the New York Times did today was stunning.  It lobbied against the Republican tax bill via Twitter.

NYT Opinion Page Encourages Readers to Call Senators to Defeat Tax Bill.  On Wednesday [11/29/2017], The New York Times editorial board and Twitter account arguably crossed a line into becoming a grassroots advocacy group, encouraging and providing both readers and Twitter followers with phone numbers to call select Republican Senators in order to defeat the Republican tax plan.  This decision reeks of hypocrisy, considering the newspaper's fervent opposition to the Citizens United case, which my colleague Clay Waters has written about here and here.  Newspaper editorial boards state their support or opposition for legislation or policies on a daily basis, but launching a campaign to call U.S. Senators?  That's a far different matter.

Arresting Illegal Aliens At Courthouses Undermines Democracy Or Something.  The New York Times gives César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a tenured associate professor of law at the University of Denver, who is big into protecting people who are unlawfully present in the United States, a platform to fear-monger. [...] Personally, I'm more concerned with safeguarding our law enforcement folks over the feelings of illegal aliens.  There is a much lower chance that an illegal will be armed at a courthouse, versus getting them out in the streets, their homes, where they work, etc.

Progressives Whine about Obamacare Premiums.  It's wrong, of course, to revel in the misfortune of others.  I nonetheless laughed aloud when I read what the editors of the New York Times imagine is a heart-rending tale of several Obamacare supporters who, having ignored years of conservative warnings about the inevitability of premium increases under Obamacare, now lament the financial difficulties they face due to the high cost of health coverage.  It would be easier to feel sympathy for these people if they admitted they were wrong about the "Affordable Care Act."  But progressives don't do that.  Instead, they blame President Trump and the GOP.  The author of the piece takes us to that vortex of progressive virtue, Charlottesville, Virginia, and attempts to tug on our heart strings with the stories of people like Sara Stovall.

How to tell if the Washington Post has it right on Roy Moore.  One might assume that libel law would provide an incentive for the paper to get it right, especially when potential damages to a public figure are astronomical.  One would be wrong.  The courts have held, as in the case of Sarah Palin, that a news outlet is not liable for libel unless it is not only wrong, but guilty of "actual malice," which means that it published despite having substantial reasons to believe the story false.  Sloppy journalism, failure to investigate thoroughly, and the inherent improbability of a story are insufficient for a plaintiff to win.  In the Palin case, the district judge found for the New York Times even though an editor had taken a draft that was factually correct and, without investigation, converted it into something both erroneous and libelous.

NY Times Offers Well Thought Out Plan That Soaks Everyone.  [Scroll down]  Suddenly, the Democrats at the NY Times are worried about debt.  They never seem to wonder if perhaps Los Federales should spend less, and, get this, spend wisely.  Don't spend $500 on hammers (which tend to get lost quite a bit) when you can get a really good one for less than a $100 on a Craftsman or Stanley with lifetime guarantees.  Don't spend money on fish on treadmill studies.  Don't pay $2 million for a road that should cost $100,000 for real.  And so forth.  Regardless, would this work?  The point of the GOP plan is to attempt to keep companies in the United States, so that the money stays here.  And the jobs stay here.

The Red York Times.  Since this is back-to-school season, it's the perfect time to teach your children about faux journalism at the Fishwrap of Record.  As the publication's pretentious own new slogan asserts, "The truth is more important than ever."  While the Times hyperventilates about the dangers of President Trump's "art of fabrication" and "Russian collusion," this is the same organization whose famed correspondent in Russia, Walter Duranty, won a Pulitzer Prize for spreading fake news denying Joseph Stalin's Ukrainian genocide.  An estimated 10 million men, women and children starved in the Stalin-engineered silent massacre between 1932-1933, also known as the Holodomor.  Stalin had implemented his "Five Year Plan" of agricultural collectivization — confiscating land and livestock, evicting farmers, and imposing impossible grain production quotas.  At the peak of the famine, about 30,000 Ukrainian citizens a day were dying.  Untold numbers resorted to cannibalism.  But you wouldn't know it if you perused all the phony ground reports filed by Duranty at the time.

Endless Accusations Cloud the Truth.  [Scroll down]  I blame feminists and the media for this cloud of confusion, mostly because I hate feminists and the media, but also because they do bear some of the blame.  For instance, the New York Times, a former newspaper, now has a tip line where you can complain about something sexual someone famous did to you back in the day. How is that not going to lead to abuse? Liars will flock to it.  And if someone calls up and complains about Barack Obama, and someone else calls up and complains about Rush Limbaugh — which one do you think the Times will follow up on?

New York Times' coverage of Mueller is peak liberal bias.  A friend likens The New York Times to a 1960s adolescent who refuses to grow up.  In a perpetual state of outrage, it is a newspaper of college snowflakes who embrace all forms of diversity except thought.  It sees its liberal politics not as a point of view, but as received wisdom that cannot be legitimately disputed.  The fixation on conformity reached a new low last week when the paper rolled out a coordinated attack on those of us who believe special counsel Robert Mueller ought to resign.  I say coordinated because the newsroom and the opinion page produced similar pieces on the same day, showing again how Executive Editor Dean Baquet has erased the barrier between news and opinion and turned every page into an opinion page.

NY Times Promotes Antifa-Communist Coup Effort Against Trump for Nov. 4.  The New York Times, of course, knows — even if many of its readers do not — that Refuse Fascism is a front group founded and run by the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a violent Marxist-Leninist group that idolizes China's Communist mass-murderer Mao Zedong.  Which makes the Refuse Fascism appeal to "humanity" doubly ludicrous and doubly offensive. [...] Why is the New York Times helping a known communist group — one with both a long history of violence as well as recent involvement in riots, sedition, and other criminal acts — promote havoc and the overthrow of a validly elected president of the United States?  It's no secret that the New York Times has been pro-communist for over a century.  From covering up Stalin's genocide of millions of Ukrainians to helping make Fidel Castro the dictator of Cuba, to glorifying Mao Zedong, to romanticizing communist Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers — and much, much more, the Times has been foremost among media organizations promoting communism worldwide.

All the news that's fit to overthrow the Republic.  Ask yourself:  during the prior administration, would the [New York] Times have printed an ad by an extremist group on the right calling for protesters to "end the nightmare" and proclaiming that "the Obama-Biden regime must go"?  And if it had printed such an ad, what do you think would have happened next?  By the way, just who exactly sees Trump's agenda to make America safe, strong, prosperous, and great again as a nightmare?  Isn't this what everyone wants?  On second thought, perhaps it's a nightmare to people who want America to be unsafe, weak, poor, and in the tank — i.e., people who hate this country and want to take it down.  And the ad isn't just about Trump.  It reads:  "The Trump/Pence regime must go!"  Wait a minute.  This isn't a third-world country where we have a dictatorship and can oust it only by force.  If and when people are unhappy with our leaders, we vote them out of office.

More Fake News From the New York Times.  The New York Times had two veteran reporters working overtime on Friday night after the representative of a respected conservative publication testified before the House Intelligence Committee.  Literally.  The piece by Kenneth P. Vogel and Maggie Haberman was posted at 7:32 pm on Friday night [10/27/2017].  It's brief and breathless.  And embarrassingly dishonest.  The Times is practiced to deceive.  It contorts language and chronology to present information in a way so as to not inform, to misinform.

New York Times Reporters Shocked That Hillary's People Lied To Them About Russia Dossier.  It's kind of funny to watch members of the liberal media coming to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton lied to them and everyone else.  They actually thought she was some kind of honest upstanding person of great integrity just because she's a Democrat.  Now they're learning the truth.

NYT Reporter:  Clinton Campaign Lawyer Lied To Me About Dossier Funding.  On the heels of an explosive report alleging that the Hillary Clinton campaign helped pay for that infamous Trump-Russia dossier [...] two New York Times reporters have publicly accused Clinton's campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, of lying to them about funding the research.  The report published by the The Washington Post on Tuesday [10/24/2017] revealed that Elias' law firm hired opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Reporter Produces Witnesses to Back Up Claim New York Times Killed 2004 Weinstein Exposé.  TheWrap's Sharon Waxman has found witnesses to back up her claim that the left-wing New York Times killed a 2004 story that exposed producer Harvey Weinstein's alleged sexual predations.  Just hours after the Weinstein scandal went nuclear earlier this month, Waxman revealed that way back in 2004, while working as a reporter for the Times, she nailed down a story about how Fabrizio Lombardo, the head of Miramax in London, had zero film experience and that his real job was to procure women for Weinstein.

NYT Editor Caught On Tape Admitting Attempting To Sway Voters Against Trump.  We all know The New York Times is so biased against the right that coming to the paper's defense is next to impossible nowadays, but thanks to a new video from Project Veritas we now have a bonfire to go with all that black smoke billowing from the publication.  Undercover Veritas cameras caught NYT Senior Staff Editor Desiree Shoe expressing her disdain for not only President Donald Trump but Vice-President Mike Pence, mostly because he's religious.  During the sting, Shoe admitted to sensationalizing the front page in order to convince people not to vote for Trump and Pence during the 2016 election.

We've found the worst take on the Harvey Weinstein scandal.  Behold:  New York Times opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg, who wrote this week, "The movie business is corrupt, depraved and iniquitous — and still morally superior to the Republican Party under Trump."  Impressive.  She identified a bad thing, and then identified a second bad thing so as to mitigate the sins of the first.  We didn't think we'd see someone from the Times downplay the Hollywood scandal this soon, yet here we are.

'New York Times' Despairs of Iowa's Turn to the Right.  Until the Democrats understand the deep and abiding contempt in which most of the country holds their political principles, they will keep hemorrhaging seats in Congress and the state houses.

James O'Keefe video has New York Times management reeling.  Hats off to James O'Keefe and Project Veritas for another video that is rocking a major progressive institution to its foundations.  This time, it is not Planned Parenthood executives selling baby body parts, but rather Nicholas Dudich, an unhinged editor at the New York Times (the video labels it "American Pravda") boasting about his ability to get biased coverage published.

New York Times Memo:  Reporters Must Have 'Neutrality and Fairness' on Social Media.  The New York Times on Friday [10/13/2017] released new social media guidelines for its reporters, requiring them to avoid any actions that would lead to perceptions of bias or otherwise damage the paper's reputation.  The new guidelines apply to all social media platforms, public and private, and include stipulations about political objectivity, sharing stories in a one-sided manner, joining partisan groups, and more.  The memo states that it only adds further detail to the policy that reporters do not damage the paper's credibility.  "If our journalists are perceived as biased or if they engage in editorializing on social media, that can undercut the credibility of the entire newsroom," the memo reads.

NYT 'journalist' brags about leftist bias in O'Keefe video.  James O'Keefe's Project Veritas has released a new video exposing the blatant liberal bias at the New York Times, the first part in a new series.  Caught on hidden camera, New York Times audience strategy editor Nick Dudich makes several startling admissions, including his previous work for both the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama presidential campaigns and his pretense at objectivity.  He says he works for the Times because he's not objective.  Dudich claims to be an important figure at the paper.  He told the undercover Veritas journalist that "my voice is on ... my imprint is on every video we do."  When asked about being a neutral, objective journalist at the Times, Dudich explicitly states, "No, I'm not, that's why I'm here."  His admission seems to violate the journalistic code of ethics the Times claims to uphold.

James O'Keefe Busts James Comey's Purported 'Godson,' Video Editor at New York Times.  James O'Keefe's Project Veritas has released another mainstream media exposé — this time, showing a former Democratic campaign operative who helps edit the New York Times' video content on social media platforms and apparently pretended to be James Comey's godson.

Harvey Weinstein is not the nastiest thing going on in Hollywood.  As more (and more) revelations come out about slimeball and (alleged) serial rapist Harvey Weinstein, there is a more sinister conspiracy still hidden in the Hollywood hills:  pedophilia.  It seems that, for a decade and more, courage was in short supply in Hollywood, as dozens (maybe hundreds) of people knew of Harvey's predilections (for starlets) and did absolutely nothing.  It has now been reported that as far back as 2004, the N.Y. Times was aware of at least some of the extent of Harvey Weinstein's sexual abuse and, one suspects for political reasons, decided to spike a story that would have exposed and possibly put a stop to his deviancy.  How many women were sexually assaulted or even raped between 2004 and today?  It's been reported that Matt Damon and Russell Crowe were part of a group that pressured the Times not to report on these salacious activities.  Are they, in part, culpable for subsequent assaults?  How about all of the dozens of Miramax employees and others who sent young women to Harvey to be exploited and abused?  Sadly, Harvey Weinstein's act isn't the darkest in Hollywood's repertoire — at least that we know of.  As has been reported, the women Harvey sexually abused were adults.  But did Harvey rape or sexually abuse any minors?

Hillary's election would have shelved Weinstein story.  Amanda Carpenter threw cold water on the media feeding frenzy over the revelation that for decades Harvey Weinstein preyed on women in Hollywood.  She pointed out that if we elected Hillary president, he would be home free.  The New York Times would have protected him just as it did in 2004 when Sharon Waxman tried to break the news.  But Trump is president, and Weinstein is expendable.  So the Times dusted off a 13-year-old story and poof, he is gone.  Hooray for the Times, right?  Well, except for the part where he continued to victimize women for 13 years.

NYT Editor Claims To Be Former Antifa Member, Brags About Anti-Trump Bias.  A new undercover video shows New York Times audience strategy editor Nick Dudich bragging about his anti-Trump bias and his history as a former antifa member.  Conservative activist group Project Veritas released the video on Tuesday, showing Dudich joking about being objective, before saying:  "No, I'm not.  That's why I'm here."  Dudich emphasized his influence within the Times newsroom, saying that his "imprint is on every video we do."  The editor also claimed to be a former antifa member who frequently assaulted alleged neo-Nazis.  "Yeah, I used to be an antifa punk once upon a time," Dudich says, referring to the militant far-left movement that has repeatedly attacked conservatives and Trump supporters.

The New York Times says...
Repeal the Second Amendment.  Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it's worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones.  Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn't outlawed in Britain or Australia.  But it doesn't need a blanket Constitutional protection, either.

NYT Falsely Reports Trump Admin Blocked Puerto Ricans From Using Food Stamps for Hot Meals.  The New York Times falsely reported earlier this week that the Trump administration was blocking food stamp recipients in hurricane-stricken Puerto Rico from using the federal subsistence to eat hot meals.  On Tuesday [10/3/2017], the Times reported Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló complained, "the federal government had denied a request to allow hurricane victims in Puerto Rico who use food stamps to redeem them at fast-food restaurants and other places that serve prepared hot meals."  "He [Rosselló] said he was pursuing the issue with federal officials and was hoping the waiver would come soon," the Times reported.  But after the piece had already been up for 24 hours, it was updated to admit the claim was inaccurate.

No, Mr. Krugman, There is Not a Cholera Outbreak in Puerto Rico.  Yesterday [9/30/2-17], liberal pundit and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman incorrectly tweeted that cholera, a deadly bacterial disease caused by unsanitary water, had resurfaced in Puerto Rico. [...] Then moments later, he corrected himself with a follow up tweet. [...] You will notice his fake news has amassed thousands of retweets and favorites, while his correction has not.

The New York Times Has a Communism Fetish.  Communism had some good parts, and the New York Times is on it.  Pegged to the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, the nation's paper of record is running a series called Red Century, revisiting the "history and legacy of Communism."  That's actually a pretty good idea:  It's certainly worth analyzing and commemorating a murderous ideology that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people over the course of the 20th century.  Many of the pieces are interesting and rigorous.  Yet, in some of them, there's a strange attempt to rehabilitate various aspects of Communism.  Here's the tell:  The pieces pay lip service to the Communists' depravity, before repairing to a "for all its flaws" or "to be sure" construction.  It's as if the Times is attempting to rehabilitate the posthumous reputation of its staffer Walter Duranty, who infamously denied Stalin's starvation of the Ukrainians when he served as the paper's Moscow bureau chief in the 1930s.

'The New York Times' Is Working Overtime to Rehab Communism and Socialism in 2017.  The New York Times has long been known for having a fondness for all things politically left, but the Grey Lady has developed a real soft spot for communist and/or socialist nostalgia this year.  The paper has been running a series called Red Century, which doesn't so much just look at the history of communism as give apologists a very large platform to extol its virtues.

New York Times Employees Walk Out As Layoffs Loom.  The only thing better than watching the New York Times meltdown inside and out as they are now is for them to go completely belly up.  A bunch of overpaid, privileged hacks staged a walk out of the New York Times to show "solidarity" with each other as more big layoff at the failed left wing propaganda newspaper loom.  If you want to have a discussion about "White privilege" then this is it.

NYT Pesticide Exposé Only Exposes Foolish Reporting.  Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency rejected a petition from two environmental activist groups to ban the longtime, widely-used pesticide chlorpyrifos.  Last week, the New York Times published an ostensible exposé on that decision by reporter Eric Lipton, but despite a lot of dark hints, the story exposes nothing new or noteworthy about the Trump Administration's decision.  The Environmental Protection Agency decision, announced by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt last March, was wise, as I detail [elsewhere].  Nonetheless, Lipton maintains that emails the Times obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request show that the Trump EPA consulted with "the farm industry" in making this decision, as if that's a shocking revelation.

John Bolton Reveals 'One-Sided' Questions NYT Reporter Sent Him for North Korea Story.  Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton on Friday [9/8/2017] published a set of questions he described as biased and "one-sided" that a New York Times reporter sent him after he indicated that he supports using military force against North Korea. [...] Bolton published the email's contents in an article for National Review, writing that the questions were "utterly one-sided, simplistic, incorporate factually incorrect assertions, and signal that the story is all but written."

NYT Accepts Full-Page Anti-Trump Ad from Venezuelan Despots.  Ben Kew at Breitbart reported The New York Times ran an full-page advertisement on Wednesday paid for by Venezuela's socialist regime, claiming President Donald Trump seeks to "manufacture a political crisis" in the country.  Venezuela's economy is a basket case, with dramatic shortages that led to protests and violence.  The United Nations reported "mounting levels of repression of political dissent by national security forces" and increasing persecution of the socialist government's opponents.  Trump didn't "manufacture" that.  The Times is publishing fake news as an ad.

Inconvenient energy fact:  It takes 79 solar workers to produce same amount of electric power as one coal worker.  In an April 25 New York Times article ("Today's Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal") reporter Nadja Popovich wrote that "Last year, the solar industry employed many more Americans [373,807] than coal [160,119], while wind power topped 100,000 jobs."  Those energy employment figures are based on a Department of Energy report released earlier this year that provides the most complete analysis available of employment in the energy economy.  But simply reporting rather enthusiastically (see the NYT headline again) that the solar industry employs lots of Americans, more than twice as many as the number of coal miners and utility workers at electric power plants using coal, is only telling a small part of the story.

NY Times needs to come clean on wiretap headline.  The Justice Department announced this week that there was no evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped, as President Trump alleged.  OK, that almost settles the issue.  I'm still waiting for the New York Times — the self-proclaimed "paper of record" — to explain its Jan. 20 front page story that had the headline "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides."  Times reporters were already embarrassed when former FBI director James Comey testified before Congress that one of the paper's major stories was dead wrong.

NY Times Knocks Down Hurricane Irma Is Climate Change Stories.  An early shot from the NY Times, which somehow made it through Climate Justice Warrior editorial review.  Of course, we'll be sure to see many stories from the NY Times in future days blaming 'climate change' for Irma, because that's what they do[.]

Regnery's New York Times shot heard 'round the publishing world.  Regnery, the nation's premier publisher of conservative books, has cut ties with The New York Times over long-simmering allegations the newspaper took a decided left-leaning slant in picking which books to feature on its best-seller lists. [...] Going forward, Regnery will rely on Publishers Weekly lists to determine best-seller status, and will no longer allow authors to self-identify with The New York Times list, or distribute bonuses based on the newspaper's determinations.

NYT refuses to call a Democrat on trial a Democrat.  Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey will stand trial for bribery, and the New York Times feels obligated to cover the courtroom drama.  But the Times childishly refuses to call Democrat Menendez a Democrat.

Judge hands media a license to lie.  Libel law is dead in America.  You can falsely claim with impunity that a woman incited a mass murder.

Not So Fast, Why Palin Could Win on Appeal Against The New York Times.  Two reasons Palin may win on appeal.  First, the Judge appears to contradict himself on a critical issue of law.  Second, the Judge appears to engage in weighing the evidence, rather than interpreting the evidence in every means favorable to Palin, often denying her the benefit of the doubt while repeatedly extending it to The New York Times, the behemoth newspaper who could do a lot more damage to a judge's reputation than public figure Palin. (Fair, or unfair, more than a few counsel believe the New York Times enjoys an unfair advantage in its backyard because of its power to publicize adverse information about the judges in its backyard.  The courts protect the press taking on the powerful, but:  Who really is the "powerful":  Palin or the Times?)  The Judge, a rightly well respected intellectual jurist with a pragmatic streak, gets several big items correct:  some legal commentators and Times' defenders thought a slightly vague opinion statement about someone else's intent and mental state was sufficiently a statement of "opinion" immune from defamation liability.  The Judge corrects that quickly and conclusively:  the statements made by the Times were statements that a jury could factually find false, and are subject to defamation liability, regardless of their relative vagueness, their comments on another's state of mind, and their statements constituting opinion statements in an editorial.

Judge Dismisses Sarah Palin's Lawsuit Against New York Times.  A federal judge has dismissed Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against The New York Times for publishing an editorial linking her to the shooting of former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords.  In an opinion filed in the U.S. District Court of Southern New York on Tuesday [8/29/2017], Judge Jed Rakoff said that while The Times did not defame Palin because the newspaper "very rapidly corrected" the inaccurate parts of the editorial, which was published in response to a left-wing activist shooting Republican members of Congress during a baseball practice for the annual Congressional baseball game.  In the original version of the piece, The Times asserted that Jared Loughner was motivated to shoot up a Giffords political event in Tucson because of a political ad published by a political action committee supporting Palin.

The Red York Times — First In Fake News.  Since this is back-to-school season, it's the perfect time to teach your children about faux journalism at the Fishwrap of Record.  As the publication's pretentious own new slogan asserts, "The truth is more important than ever."  While the Times hyperventilates about the dangers of President Trump's "art of fabrication" and "Russian collusion," this is the same organization whose famed correspondent in Russia, Walter Duranty, won a Pulitzer Prize for spreading fake news denying Joseph Stalin's Ukrainian genocide.  An estimated 10 million men, women and children starved in the Stalin-engineered silent massacre between 1932-1933, also known as the Holodomor.

Journalist aghast at Times libel defense.  James Freeman of the Wall Street Journal wrote, "Is the New York Times botching its legal defense against Sarah Palin's libel claim?"  Seems plausible.  From what little I know of newspapers and their lawyers, I would say the legal defense matches in competence the effort that went into publishing an editorial that tried to deflect attention to Sarah Palin after a Democratic Party activist gunning down a Republican congressman in cold blood.  Had the editorial played it straight, the incident would have been over and liberals would have patted themselves on the back for denouncing their own violence.

It's time to chill the "free press".  Allowing Sarah Palin to continue her libel lawsuit against the New York Times "would chill expression by journalists who want to draw connections and inferences," Noah Feldman wrote in a column for Bloomberg News.  That is an excellent idea, because increasingly people in the press show a constant, malicious, and reckless disregard for the truth.  In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner killed a federal judge and five others, and severely wounded Democratic Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.  Democratic Party operatives spread the lie that a map targeting Giffords in the last election inspired the carnage.  However, Loughner did not vote in that election.  He is psychotic.  But the press keeps spreading this lie.

Communism:  Viagra for the New York Times.  A fascinating piece appeared on August 19 in the New York Times, a timeless organ of outrageousness that never ceases to amaze with its ideological asininity.  I'm tempted to say that this piece is beyond the pale even for the Times, but that bar long ago was set unsurpassably high.  Still, this piece is another stunner, one that deserves attention if only to appreciate the depths of the left's ideological perversity.  But beyond that, it merits our attention so we can know what leftists are up to in their mis-education of children in government schools and their unconscionably expensive universities.

NY Times Finally Admits That Islamic Terrorists Are Islamic.  Now that Mr. Obama isn't in office making pronouncements that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslims, despite the Islamic terrorists stating they are Muslims, the Times is free to call Islamic terrorists Islamic[.]

New York Times Applauds Far-Left Violence.  The mere existence of supporters of President Trump is violent, so it is OK to attack them with baseball bats.  The Times reporters show no sign of disagreeing with this "reasoning."

New York Times Totally Rewrites Charlottesville Story to Protect Gov. Terry McAuliffe.  Thanks to NewsDiffs, we have a permanent record of the Gray Hag's tireless efforts to censor the news in order to protect the leaders of the Progressive-Communist movement.

Scientists call out New York Times for incorrect claim about climate report.  Scientists appear to have debunked The New York Times' claim it was leaked a secret, gloomy climate change report which it published amid fears President Trump would suppress it.  On Monday [8/7/2017], The New York Times published a story saying there are concerns that the Trump administration could suppress what's known as the National Climate Assessment, a project of the U.S. Global Change Research Program.  The story, titled "Scientists fear Trump will dismiss blunt climate report," said the draft report "has not yet been made public" but "a copy of it was obtained by The New York Times."

Yes, We're Also Allowed to Talk About Left-Wing Violence.  The New York Times is out with a story today [8/15/2017] addressing the firestorm over President Trump's initial, vague condemnation of "many sides" in Charlotte, exploring the angle of conservative frustration over media double standards on political violence.  Since I'm cited in the article, I thought I'd clarify a few things.

At the Times, self-parody strikes deep.  In today's [8/8/2017] New York Times Matthew Rosenberg seeks to disparage and undermine DCIA Mike Pompeo.  Rosenberg's article runs on page one under the headline "Trump's Man in the C.I.A. Adds a Political Tone." [...] [The article] purports to present Pompeo's "mixed reception" at the CIA without a single quote to this effect from inside the agency.  It brings in the Koch brothers.  It notes that Pompeo has gone so far as to praise the president.  This must not stand!

Deep State Teams with Fake News:  Email Evidence Proves New York Times Soliciting Anti-Trump Bureaucracy Leakers.  Emails from a reporter for the New York Times to government employees obtained exclusively by Breitbart News demonstrate that the newspaper's employees are not just on the receiving end of leaks, but are actually soliciting government employees to become leakers.  What's more, the emails demonstrate the Times colluded with the president of government union to encourage and solicit these leaks — something that may become highly problematic for both institutions.

Scientists Debunk New York Times Story on Trump Climate Report.  Scientists are pushing back on the The New York Times for a story claiming the Trump Administration could suppress a climate change report.  The report, titled "Scientists fear Trump will dismiss blunt climate report," said the draft of the National Climate Assessment, a project of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, "has not yet been made public" but "a copy of it was obtained by The New York Times."  Except, scientists who worked on the report say the version that was obtained and posted in full by the New York Times has actually been online and available to the public for months.

The scoop that wasn't.  In this case, reporter Lisa Friedman buys into the Sky-Us-Falling scenario despite more than four decades of predictions of gloom and doom proving false.  Billions of people have not died of famine due to overpopulation or global cooling or global warming.  The world population has more than doubled over the last 50 years (now topping 7.5 billion) and people are healthier, more prosperous, and freer than ever before.  Predictions also proved wrong that we would be overwhelmed by actual pollution (not this fairy tale about carbon dioxide, which is a nutrient for plants).  The air is so clear in Poca, West Virginia, that you hardly notice the large coal-fired power plant across the river.

New York Times guilty of large screw-up on climate-change story.  That correction, which sits at the foot of the story, dutifully straightens out the record.  Yet given the magnitude of the screw-up, it should sit atop the story, surrounded by red flashing lights and perhaps an audio track to instruct readers:  Warning:  This story once peddled a faulty and damaging premise.  That premise suggests that the Trump administration is stifling a damaging draft report — part of the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment — with dire warnings about climate change.

Palin wins a battle in her war with the New York Times.  I'm not alone is recognizing how devastating her lawsuit is.  She has good lawyers (the team that destroyed Gawker Media), a good case, and all the time in the world.  Lawyer John Hinderaker at Power Line is boasting about his prescience in the case.  He knows the law.  I know editorial writing.  Did it for 27 years.  The writer decided to deflect the very serious political assassination attempt on a group of Republican congressmen by a Democratic Party activist — one of the many resistance marchers that have hung around Washington since the inauguration.  So the writer tried moral equivalence — repeating a provable lie about Sarah Palin that was debunked six years ago.  Palin read the editorial.  She lawyered up.  She sued.

You Heard It Here First:  NY Times Editors Deny Reading Their Own Newspaper.  Sarah Palin has sued the New York Times for defamation, on account of a Times editorial that falsely claimed there was a "clear" and "direct" causal connection between Palin's PAC's "targeting" of Gabrielle Giffords' district and Jared Loughner's murder of six people in Tucson.  The paper now calls its smear of Palin an "honest mistake."  I wrote here that Palin has a strong case, despite the extraordinary burden of proof imposed on public figures who sue for defamation.  This is true, in part, because the Times's own reporting debunked the idea that Palin had anything to do with Laughlin's murders (which was a crazy idea in the first place).

Judge orders writer of NY Times' Palin editorial to testify.  A federal judge on Thursday [8/10/2017] ordered the writer of an editorial in The New York Times that mentioned former vice presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to testify next week so he can decide whether her defamation lawsuit can proceed.

Does The New York Times Even Have Editors?  On September 30, the New York Times published a long article about Donald Trump's wife Melania in its Fashion and Style section.  The article said little of substance — Mrs. Trump is a nice lady, apparently — but it resulted in an epic sequence of five corrections: [...]

All the Speculation That's Fit to Print.  Over the weekend, the New York Times published a story on Republicans who supposedly are angling for their party's 2020 presidential nomination:  "Republican Shadow Campaign for 2020 Takes Shape as Trump Doubts Grow."  The story was, of course, part of the paper's daily war on President Trump.  Its purpose was to cause "doubts" about President Trump's being the GOP nominee in 2020 to "grow."  The Times article contains no actual news.

Trump's Unintended Consequences:  Driving the Media Insane.  After Trump won, the NYT's fearless leader, Arthur Sulzberger, actually wrote an apology to his readers, admitting how the Times had willfully broken the public trust, how it willfully ignored what Trump was saying, and how it had tried (and failed) to warp the public mind against him.  He promised that his staffers would return to accurately reporting the news and regain the public trust by being real journalists[.]  But they didn't, and neither did the rest of the leftist media.  Yes, they all went wild during the campaign trying to live up to the standard set by the Times.  It was embarrassingly biased coverage, filled with outrage, angst, and virtue-signaling.  But that was nothing compared to their reporting since the election.

NY Times story on affirmative action 'inaccurate,' DOJ says.  The Justice Department is pushing back on a New York Times article that claimed officials were reshuffling resources in its civil rights division to go after colleges' affirmative action policies.  The story ignited a firestorm after it was published, with civil rights groups and Obama-era education officials quickly condemning the DOJ for what they perceived as an "assault on affirmative action."  Late Wednesday, DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores issued a statement calling the press reports "inaccurate."  "This Department of Justice has not received or issued any directive, memorandum, initiative, or policy related to university admissions in general," she added.  "The Department of Justice is committed to protecting all Americans from all forms of illegal race-based discriminations."

Judge blocks Palin lawyers from questioning NYT reporters in defamation suit.  A Manhattan federal judge has suspended discovery in a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times filed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), who is accusing the paper of writing an erroneous editorial that connected her to the shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) that left six people dead.  In suspending discovery, Judge Jed Rakoff prevents Palin's lawyers for now from questioning 23 New York Times reporters in an effort to prove the paper is biased against her.  Rakoff said he'll rule by the end of the month whether Palin's suit against the Times can proceed.

Palin lawyers blocked from grilling reporters in defamation suit.  A Manhattan federal court judge will decide by the end of this month whether to dismiss a defamation lawsuit Sarah Palin filed against the New York Times for accusing the former Alaska governor of inciting gun violence.  In the meantime, Judge Jed Rakoff suspended discovery, blocking Palin's lawyers from grilling two dozen Times reporters to prove the Gray Lady is biased against her.

Their "normal" is unconstitutional.  Sally Yates — one of the hundreds of Marxists Democrats appointed to the Obama regime — wrote in the New York Times about President Trump not being normal.  Good.  That is why we elected him.  Normal politics have created a Frankengovernment that feeds off our freedom and liberty.

Foggy Bottom Begins Self-Draining as "Desperate" Career Diplomats Quit.  A pearl-clutching op-ed in the New York Times declares the hurt sensibilities within the State Department are leading to multiple people quitting.  Specifically citing the different managerial strategy of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and the priorities of the entire Dept. of State mission being reset, the career bureaucrats are dropping like flies hitting the T-Rex zapper.  The entire Op-Ed reads like viewing an increasingly bright orb powered by the salty tears of globalists as they fret over the losses like the DoS directorate of global youth disability rights, and shrinkage within the department of international Geo-genitic gender advocacy.

Media Find It Newsworthy that a Top U.S. Commander Would Follow Orders from President TrumpThe New York Times and other news media outlets find it newsworthy that a top U.S. military commander, when asked a far-fetched hypothetical question about a nuclear strike on China, replied that he would comply with an order on the matter if it came from President Donald Trump.

Report: Sarah Palin to Subpoena NYT Editors & Reporters, Demand 'Every Internal Communication' About Her Since 2011.  Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's lawyers will reportedly subpoena nearly two dozen New York Times reporters, editors, and employees and ask the Times to produce "every internal communication it has had about her since 2011" for her defamation lawsuit.  According to a New York Post report, based on court documents released on Wednesday, the Times' lawyers whined that Palin's legal team intends to subpoena "twenty-three non-party current and former Times reporters, editors and other employees" in addition to demanding the internal communications.

Palin goes for the jugular in defamation lawsuit against the New York Times.  A nightmare is unfolding for the New York Times that could well be devastating for the collapsing credibility and mindshare of the entire progressive media.  In a court filing by defense counsel for the New York Times, the scope of the discovery being sought by Palin's legal team was revealed.  If the court allows, the story it could tell might well be all too revealing. [...] If litigation proceeds, and some of these electronic conversations about Palin come out in court, the mindset revealed therein could be extremely embarrassing, to say the least.

Palin to subpoena two dozen reporters in defamation suit.  Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin plans to subpoena close to two dozen New York Times reporters, editors and other workers as part of her defamation lawsuit against the newspaper, it was revealed in court documents Wednesday.  In a motion arguing that the case be dismissed, lawyers for the New York Times complained that Palin's legal team has served notice that she plans to subpoena "twenty-three non-party current and former Times reporters, editors and other employees — most of whom had nothing to do with the editorial at issue."  The subpoenas are part of Palin's effort to obtain "documents that might reveal, among other things, their 'negative feelings' toward her," the Times told the judge.  Palin's legal team also intends to ask the paper to produce "every internal communication it has had about her since 2011," they said.

New York Times Endorses Authoritarian Concept That Free Speech Is Violence.  An absurd and alarming notion has become prevalent among militant campus snowflakes that would spell an end to freedom of speech if widely implemented.  They say that being exposed to thoughts they don't like is equivalent to physical violence.  Of course, most thoughts are offensive to someone, so this only applies to thoughts deemed offensive to those at the top of the P.C. caste system, i.e., those known in leftist theology as the "marginalized":  blacks, Muslims, illegal aliens, sexual deviants — in short, anyone cultural Marxists can play off against the core population.  This notion of speech as violence is now going mainstream — if the "Paper of Record" can still be regarded as mainstream.

Alan Dershowitz:  New York Times ignoring me because 'I don't have the right point of view'.  Alan Dershowitz recently tried to publish an opinion piece in The New York Times arguing that President Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., likely did not break the law by meeting last year with a Russian lawyer who said she had compromising information on Hillary Clinton.  But Dershowitz told the Washington Examiner over the phone on Monday [7/17/2017] that the Times had "no response" to his submission.

NY Times Editorial Board Is Upset That Trump Is A Climate Change Loner.  What changes has the NY Times made?  Over all these years of reading the primary talking points organization of the Democrats I've yet to see one article or opinion piece stating that the Times has made changes to reduce their own carbon footprint, especially in regards to the vast amounts of fossil fuels to distribute its dead tree editions.

NY Times Calls Catholic Abstinence 'Controversial'.  Not having sex — for reasons of faith, health, marital status, or just plain self-control — is something New York Times writers have never considered.  Or, rather, they've considered it and decided it's a bit odd. [...] The disdain for the women's decision seeps from every paragraph, but don't liberals believe that women should be able to decide what happens to and with their own bodies? [...] Also, if the NYT is suddenly concerned about sexual satisfaction, why won't they speak out against "female genital mutilation" practiced by Islamic butchers in an effort to steal the pleasure of sex from women?

The media's mass hysteria over 'collusion' is out of control.  Hysteria among the media and Trump opponents over the prospect of "collusion" between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin may have hit its crescendo this week.  That's right:  The wailing from the media and their allies about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with some "Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer" (whatever that means) may be the last gasp of this faux scandal.  Good riddance.  Predictably, the New York Times started the ball rolling with front-page coverage, going so far as to argue, "The accounts of the meeting represent the first public indication that at least some in the campaign were willing to accept Russian help."  As if this were some breakthrough moment.  The Times followed up with a headline yesterday [7/10/2017] that the meeting request and subject matter discussed in the prior story were transmitted to Trump Jr. via an email. [...] The Times is so desperate to move the story that the meeting's arrangement over email is being made into Page 1 news.

Lawyers for Sarah Palin and New York Times Appear Before Federal Judge.  Lawyers representing former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) appeared in federal court in Manhattan on Friday [7/7/2017] for an initial hearing in Palin's lawsuit against the New York Times for defamation, following the Times' editorial accusing the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee of inciting violence.

The New York Times Is In Trouble.  [Scroll down]  Ms. Palin can make a strong argument that the Times editorialists knew that their smear was a lie, based on reporting done by the Times itself. (The editorialists' defense likely will have to be that they don't read their own newspaper.)  But at a minimum, it seems that the Times editorial was published with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.  It was a product of sheer hatred toward Palin.

Bet on Palin:  Why Her Libel Suit Against the New York Times Has Merit.  The smart money should be on Palin.  Indeed, a sensible Times management would settle quickly, but this raises the question of how sensible the Times is, and of Palin's objectives.  The price could be steep, in money and in the abjectivity of a confession of error.

NY Times Quietly Corrects Massive Lie About Russia Story.  We often roll our eyes whenever a new deceit perpetrated by mainstream media is revealed, but the truth is, media bias is a real problem in our society and it needs to be addressed.  On Thursday evening [6/29/2017] The New York Times very quietly buried a correction admitting the "seventeen intelligence agencies" that allegedly asserted Russia hacked the presidential election, may not be based in fact after all.

Is Immigration to the U.S. an Entitlement?  For the past six months, the debate about immigration has centered on the campaign to derail President Trump's temporary travel ban.  But now that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed it to go forward, at least in part, the discussion has started to shift.  Critics are backing away from the contention that it's biased to impose greater scrutiny on immigrants or refugees from countries where terrorism is rampant.  The new arguments, stripped of their anti-Trump resistance rhetoric, are not so much about whether the administration is prejudiced against Muslims but whether people living in foreign countries have a right to come to the United States regardless of any other consideration.  The notion that entry to the United States is not a privilege granted by the government but an entitlement is the underlying premise of two New York Times articles published the day after the Supreme Court ruling.

Can Palin Win Libel Suit Against New York Times?  You Betcha.  While Palin is assuredly the underdog against a media behemoth like the statuesque Grey Lady of news backed by billionaire owners, especially as a conservative Alaskan suing in the Grey Lady's personal backyard in the notoriously left-leaning federal courts of New York City where no judge or jury has ruled against them "since the 60's" according to their own correspondents, the legal odds are not so neatly or nearly stacked against Palin.  A common misapprehension reported in the press claims "opinion" statements are "immune" from suit, with even prominent law professors and lawyers so attesting.  That reflects pre-1990's law.  The Supreme Court in 1990 made clear that opinion, too, can be libel.  As the Supreme Court held, there is no wholesale exemption of libel law for "opinion."

New York Times newsroom walks out after editors, reporters send letters decrying direction of paper.  Editors and reporters in the New York Times Co. newsroom can no longer keep quiet about their growing frustrations regarding the direction of the paper.  After a pair of letters sent to Executive Editor Dean Baquet and Managing Editor Joseph Kahn by Times reporters and copy editors, the New York Times editorial staff walk out of the newsroom on Thursday [6/29/2017] as a demonstration of solidarity as management threatens jobs.  In the copy editors' letter to Baquet and Kahn, they say they feel betrayed and disrespected in the newsroom, and ask that management reconsider staffing cuts that are expected as the paper plans to restructure.

Rebellion at the NYTimes:  Newsroom to Walk Out After "Decrying Direction of Paper".  Exhausted and demoralized after repeated buyouts and cutbacks in the newsroom, it seems the downtrodden journalists at the New York Times have finally had enough:  In a pair of letters delivered to executive editor Dean Baquet and managing editor Joseph Kahn, the News Guild of New York said the New York Times editorial staff will leave the newsroom on Thursday [6/29/2017] as a demonstration of solidarity as management threatens jobs, according to MarketWatch.

Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation.  Sarah Palin is suing The New York Times for defamation, according to documents filed in federal court Tuesday [6/27/2017] that were obtained by The Daily Caller.  The lawsuit has to do with an editorial the NYT ran on June 14 that falsely smeared Palin as inciting the 2011 shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords by a mentally ill man.  There is no evidence to support the NYT's implication that Palin played a role in inciting the Giffords shooting.

Sarah Palin sues NY Times for tying political ad to mass shooting.  Former Governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is suing the New York Times for defamation over a recent editorial tying one of her political action committee ads to a 2011 mass shooting that severely wounded Arizona Democrat Gabby Giffords and killed six people, including a 9-year-old girl, The [New York] Post has learned.  The Manhattan federal court lawsuit, filed Tuesday by lawyers Kenneth Turkel, Shane Vogt and S. Preston Ricardo, accuses the Gray Lady of having "violated the law and its own policies" when it accused her — in a "fabricated story" — of inciting the 2011 attack by Jared Lee Loughner.  Palin, who emerged on the national political scene as running mate to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, is seeking damages in an amount to be determined by a jury at trial.

New York Times bloodbath could include reporter jobs.  Reporters at the New York Times could soon be "vulnerable" to the ax.  If the ongoing round of voluntary buyouts being offered to editing staff does not get enough takers, the Gray Lady could begin another round, NYT Executive Editor Dean Baquet recently warned his top department editors.  "Up until now, the company had not indicated that layoffs would happen if targeted numbers weren't achieved," Grant Glickson, president of the NewsGuild, told Media Ink.  As part of the NYT's ongoing restructuring of its editing ranks, 109 copy editors have had their jobs eliminated.  There are estimated to be about 50 new jobs available in the restructured editing operation that the Times envisions for its digital- and video-oriented future.

New York Times assails right wing over political violence before running correction.  Just when a debate erupts over the role of media and mendacity in the shooting of a Republican congressman, the New York Times revives a discredited theory about the six-year-old shooting of a Democratic congresswoman.  This was so egregious and embarrassing that the Times editorial page was compelled yesterday to run a correction.  And worse than that, it was utterly tone-deaf in the wake of the shooting of Steve Scalise and four others, with the Republican whip still in critical condition.

NYT Uses GOP Shooting To Falsely Attack Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory.  The New York Times used the attempted assassination of dozens of Republican congressmen by a left-wing Bernie Sanders supporter to attack former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin with a baseless conspiracy theory blaming Palin for inciting mentally ill Jared Loughner to shoot Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords in 2011.

New York Times publishes despicable lies to soften its own culpability for left wing violence.  What's a newspaper to do when it ostentatiously refuses to cut funding for a high-profile play in Central Park depicting an obvious President Trump-themed Julius Caesar being assassinated, and then a left-wing extremist attempts to assassinate a group of GOP congressmen?  The answer is obvious:  lie!

New York Times Hits a New Low.  If the Times had any decency they'd retract the whole editorial.  But I wonder if the Times editorial page hasn't just decided to give up trying to be serious at all, and is now joining the trolling brigades.

Gay Muslim still blames Trump for "racism" after Pulse nightclub shooting.  While most college graduates are settling in for the summer and basking in their recent accomplishments with family and friends, one newly-minted graduate is blaming President Trump for anti-Muslim sentiment one year following the terrorist attack in Pulse nightclub in Orlando.  In a New York Times opinion piece, "A night of terror, a year of racism," Adam Manno — a gay American man whose father is from Pakistan — says Trump's language is scaring American Muslims because it supposedly fosters Islamophobia among the general population.

The New York Times needs to save whatever dignity it has left.  What else did the New York Times get wrong?  The paper's already damaged reputation took a big hit last week when former FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress that the Times screwed up in a key story that tried to make the case that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians during the election.  In the front page piece that ran on Feb. 15, the Times said that "phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials."  Five Times reporters contributed to the article, which — if true — would have been pretty [bad].  And so it became a focal point of last week's hearing.  The only problem was that the Times article was wrong.  And — despite the Times' effort to downplay and ignore its massive goof — Comey, in no uncertain terms, said it was "not true."

'Gray Lady' Loses Her Mind:  NYT Claims Trump Is Helping Terrorists.  The New York Times, the once-respected newspaper of record, posted a shockingly distasteful, dishonest, and ironically self-defeating editorial Monday titled "Shunning Gun Control, Helping Terrorists."  In the piece, The Times editorial board claimed President Trump's desire to defend the Second Amendment and skepticism of the Left's proposed anti-gun measures help radical Islamic terrorists.  The Times noted a pro-Second Amendment tweet of Trump's, written following the latest Islamic terrorist attack in the United Kingdom.  "Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now?" he tweeted at the time.  "That's because they used knives and a truck!"

New York Times Targets Breitbart for Reporting Truth.  The New York Times ran a story on Saturday implicating Breitbart News in what it claimed was a misleading effort to state that former FBI Director James Comey had testified under oath that he had not been pressured to stop an investigation.  The Times' Jeremy W. Peters — normally one of its more credible journalists — reported that a tweet by Jack Posobiec led Breitbart News and other conservative outlets to conclude — falsely, in its view — that Comey had exonerated President Donald Trump of wrongdoing, under oath.

The Media Is Now Leaking Classified Info Just Because They Feel Like It.  This morning, The New York Times brought us another breathtaking exposé of classified national security information that is really important for the public to know because... um, well, because they just kind of felt like it.  The story is about a contractor for an international shipping company who was captured and held hostage by rebels in Yemen before being released last year.  Without the man's permission or cooperation, The New York Times gives details of his capture and imprisonment, his name, his age, his exact job description with the shipping company, and the location where his wife and children lived at the time (none of which I will repeat here). [...] The whole report is inexplicable, and you get the sense that the reporters just wanted to tell a splashy, thriller-like story.  Except that there's a larger pattern:  it has become acceptable to open the floodgates of classified information because Trump.

Media Bias In Action:  NY Times Makes Obama The Victim Of His Incompetence.  The concern here is we are a culture that demands a ton of information, and we want it fast.  Twitter, Facebook, Apple News, news alerts and email alerts keep us up to date on every bit of news we want from sports to politics.  Unfortunately, an environment also exists wherein people are happy to read a headline and not read an article.

Media Bias In Action:  NY Times Makes Obama The Victim Of His Incompetence.  President Obama went on to use executive power in an unprecedented fashion.  He didn't just do it, Obama bragged about it.  "If Congress won't act, I will" and "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone" were familiar refrains the president used to announce he was going to use executive power to get his way.  One of the ways President Obama tried to get around the separation of powers had to do with his signature legislation, The Affordable Care Act.  The law allowed for payments to be made directly to insurers to cover out-of-pocket costs and deductibles for low-income consumers.  Congress did not appropriate the funds.  The Obama administration decided to make the payments anyway.

The Anti-Trump Tide Recedes.  The tide is going out and the whole collusion nonsense (which Tom Friedman of the New York Times said was as serious as the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks) is now down to dark murmurings about the president's son-in-law speaking after the election with the Russian ambassador.  Jared Kushner has let it be known that the ambassador called him and that he will be happy to testify under oath to any appropriate congressional committee whenever he is asked. [...] Neither the president nor his son-in-law evince the slightest concern about the strength of their constitutional and legal positions, and the rather besieged air of the first hundred days White House has faded as the rabid nature of the Schumers and Schiffs has also abated.

The New York Times Just Outed The CIA's Top Iran Spy.  In an article published Friday, The New York Times outed the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) top spy overseeing the organization's efforts in Iran.  The paper justified its outing of the undercover CIA spy and his role within the agency by saying it was necessary since the agent is "leading an important new administration initiative against Iran."  Yes.  That really happened.  In an article entitled "C.I.A. Names New Iran Chief in a Sign of Trump's Hard Line," the newspaper of record revealed that Michael D'Andrea, who previously led the hunt for Osama bin Laden, will now be in charge of the agency's operations in Iran.

New York Times Internal Watchdog Position Eliminated.  The New York Times' public editor, Elizabeth Spayd, is leaving Friday [6/1/2017] and her position, one created to strengthen the paper's focus on accountability following a plagiarism scandal, will be eliminated.  Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. wrote in a memo to staff on Wednesday that "our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be."  The memo came shortly after the Huffington Post first reported the Times' decision to eliminate the public editor role.

WSJ Slams Trump in Blistering Editorial.  This isn't the first time that the Journal took off the gloves and went at Trump.  Though they often go out of their way to give the President the benefit of the doubt, they also recently published a scathing editorial titled "Loose Lips Sink Presidencies" highlighting that "the portrait of an inexperienced, impulsive chief who might spill secrets to an overseas foe is one to which Mr. Trump has too often contributed."  The only conclusion that can be drawn, the editorial says, is that Donald Trump is incapable of self-discipline and actually enjoys the chaos.

New York Times Unleashes Onslaught of Five Op-Eds Hostile to Israel.  Any single one of these op-eds, taken alone, would be totally outrageous and indefensible. The onslaught of all five of them, in six weeks, constitutes an outbreak of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hostility at the Times on a level with the Jewish cemetery desecrations and bomb threat calls against Jewish institutions that the Times blamed on President Donald Trump and treated as front-page news a few months back.

New York Times Can't Figure Out 'What Led Salman Abedi to Bomb the Manchester Arena'.  In an attempt to build up its already "we'll never really know why they did it" file relating to Islamist radicals taking innocent lives, three reporters at The New York Times composed a 1,900-word report Saturday evening [5/27/2017] (for Sunday's print edition) about Manchester bomber Salman Abedi's family background.

NYT's Jonathan Martin Steals Photo From Another Journalist, Lies About Where He Got ItThe New York Times has been holding up the torch for truth in the age of fake news and alternative facts — but one of its political reporters, Jonathan Martin, has no qualms in weaving a few alternative facts of his own.  After he lifted a photograph from another journalist and presented it without attribution, Martin doubled down on his lie and claimed he had no idea it was the other journalist's photo.

In Wake Of Manchester Bombing, NY Times Calls For Respecting Hardcore Islamists.  This is a dance we've seen time and time again.  A person who practices extremist Islam, referred to as an Islamist, attacks in the name of their religion, and the Leftist apologists immediately go into a mode of "let's not be mean to Muslims or talk about the root causes and we all need to be respectful and diverse", even though the Islamists offer no respect and are happy to kill those who aren't Islamists, including other Muslims.

The CIA and the MSM: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know.  [#27] In late 1966 the New York Times began an inquiry on the numerous questions surrounding President Kennedy's assassination that were not satisfactorily dealt with by the Warren Commission.  "It was never completed," author Jerry Policoff observes, "nor would the New York Times ever again question the findings of the Warren Commission."  When the story was being developed the lead reporter at the Times' Houston bureau "said that he and others came up with 'a lot of unanswered questions' that the Times didn't bother to pursue.

NYT's Comey Memo Story Doesn't Pass Smell TestThe New York Times reported on Tuesday that President Trump allegedly asked former FBI Director James Comey to shut down the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.  The source of the allegation is a memorandum, revealed by an anonymous source, allegedly prepared by Comey regarding a meeting in the Oval Office the day after Flynn was forced to resign for misleading the Vice-President.  While the headline is sensational, The New York Times's report is self-contradictory at times, conflicts with statements made on-the-record and under oath, overhypes the substance of the memorandum, and is irreconcilable with other information in the public record.

The Comey Memo:  The Allegation Is Serious, and There Is No Good Outcome.  Either there is now compelling evidence that the president committed a serious abuse of power, or the nation's leading press outlets are dupes for a vindictive, misleading story.  Either outcome violates the public trust in vital American institutions.  Either outcome results in a degree of political chaos.  If the memo is real and as damaging as the [New York] Times claims, the chaos is likely greater, but don't underestimate the cultural and political damage if our nation's most prestigious press outlets run a story of this magnitude based on a malicious fiction.

New York Times publisher sends personal appeal to those who canceled over Bret Stephens.  New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. is making a personal appeal to subscribers who canceled because the paper hired Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist who has questioned some of the science behind the theory of climate change and the dangers it poses.  In an email sent Friday afternoon [5/12/2017] and obtained by POLITICO, Sulzberger addresses subscribers who specifically mentioned the hiring of Stephens as a reason that they ended their subscriptions. [...] "No subject is more vital," Sulzberger said.

Sulzberger's Apology.  At Politico, Hadas Gold reports that New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. is making a personal appeal to subscribers who canceled because Bret Stephens transgressed some tenet of the religion of "climate change" (f/k/a "global warming") in his debut as a Times columnist.

NYT tries to torpedo purchase of TV stations by conservatives.  The Sinclair group, which owns 173 television stations, is in the process of acquiring 42 more, and the New York Times doesn't like that.  It has run a hit piece claiming Sinclair's local stations produce politically biased news — conservative news, that is — therefore making Sinclair unfit to own more of them.

The news media are losing their search for truth.  When you pick up a great newspaper like the New York Times, it is sometimes shocking how openly partisan the coverage tends to be.  For example, when President Donald Trump unveiled his new tax plan, the headline was not about the proposal per se, but rather how it would serve the wealthy.  This may indeed be the case, but such an approach would traditionally be the role of the editorial pages — not the Page 1 headline writers.

What Caused Venezuela's Collapse Is No Mystery — Except To Economically Illiterate Journalists.  When the New York Times wrote about Venezuela's ongoing collapse a year ago, it described how the country was suffering "painful shortages ... even of basic foods," and how "electricity and water are being rationed, and huge areas of the country have spent months with little of either."  Here is how the Times explained the reason for Venezuela's dire situation:  "The growing economic crisis (was) fueled by low prices for oil, the country's main export; a drought that has crippled Venezuela's ability to generate hydroelectric power; and a long decline in manufacturing and agricultural production." There's no mention — not one — of the fact that Hugo Chávez tried to turn Venezuela into a socialist paradise, policies that his successor Nicolás Maduro has continued.  The Times' coverage is par for the course.

The NY Times Again Pushes Phony Trend of Hate Crimes in Trump's America.  The New York Times is rather desperately still trying to make the idea of a recent, election-related surge in hate crimes stick, even after so many infamous "hate crimes" have been exposed as hoaxes in the Trump era.  The latest, from reporter Audra D.S. Burch, made the front of the National section of Monday's [5/1/2017] Times, [...]

The Times' Postcard for Communism.  Lots of fairly ordinary Americans considered themselves Communists.  The Communist Party did fight for civil rights and free speech in America.  The individual lawyers and activists behind those efforts were no doubt often sincere.  But what's left out of this telling is that they were cleared to do this sort of thing by the party bosses for the propaganda value.  If you think Stalin and his apparatchiks gave a whit about civil rights or free speech in America, or anywhere else, you're ignorant or a fool.

New York Times:  When Communism Inspired Americans.  It's inconceivable that the New York Times or any paper would run a glowing piece titled, "When Nazis Inspired Americans". [...] But the New York Times will run "When Communism Inspired Americans".  It will run it because while Communism didn't inspire Americans, it did inspire the left to try and turn America into a totalitarian state.  It still does.  This is the dirty little secret that leaks out of the left.  When the media runs these evocative nostalgic pieces about Communism, it's the equivalent of a pedophile sharing snapshots of summer camp.  It's the disgusting secret of truly vile people leaking out.

NYT Op-Ed:  Communism Gave Americans 'Sense of One's Own Humanity'.  In anticipation of May Day, the international communist holiday, the New York Times published an opinion piece celebrating the American communists of the twentieth century, arguing that communism — an ideology that has killed 100 million people — gave Americans a "sense of one's own humanity."  The column, titled, "When Communism Inspired Americans," lionizes communism as a religion with a "founding myth" that helped the "educated middle class" feel relevant in national politics.  The author, Vivian Gornick, quotes her mother expressing gratitude for communists and crediting them with America's thriving republic.

NYT Tiptoes Around Feelings Of People Who Mutilate Little Girls.  Worried the term "female genital mutilation" might sharpen the divide between those who oppose brutally cutting away a little girl's genitalia to deprive her of sexual pleasure and those who practice the "rite," one New York Times editor instead refers to the ritual as "genital cutting."  "There's a gulf between the Western (and some African) advocates who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite, and I felt the language used widened that chasm," NYT science and health editor Celia Dugger explained Friday [4/21/2017].  She also said the widely used term (FGM) is "culturally loaded" in the explanation, which came as a result of inquiries from The Daily Caller News Foundation regarding a reporter's decision to use the term "cutting" in a recent story about a doctor in Michigan.

NYT Fails To Disclose Terrorism Conviction Of Op-Ed Contributor.  The New York Times has given precious space on its op-ed page to a Palestinian man leading a hunger strike in an Israeli prison.  But the essay, from Marwan Barghouti, leaves out one crucial fact:  he is in prison because he was convicted of killing five Israelis in terrorist attacks more than a decade ago.  A footnote to the op-ed describes Barghouti only as "a Palestinian leader and parliamentarian," omitting any reference to his 2004 terrorism conviction.  In the piece, Barghouti, a leader in Fatah, a Palestinian political party, decries what he says is Israel's unjust judicial system and inhumane conditions in Hadaram Prison, where he currently resides.

The New York Times Wipes Blood Off The Hands Of Arch Terrorist Marwan Barghouti.  Last week, the New York Times hired Bret Stephens, former Wall Street Journal columnist and editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, in a move that many saw as perhaps heralding in a period of more balanced reporting from the paper commonly known as the New York Slimes.  But any elation over his appointment has been dampened after the Times went really low, even by their own low standards:  publishing an editorial by arch terrorist Marwan Barghouti and describing him as a "Palestinian leader and parliamentarian" — without any reference to his murderous legacy — at the bottom of the piece.

Republican wins.  NYT declares victory for Democrats.  From the Washington Examiner:  "Republican Kansas State Treasurer Ron Estes defeated Democrat James Thompson and Libertarian Chris Rockhold Tuesday night [4/11/2017] to keep the state's 4th congressional district in GOP hands."  Republican Estes 52.5%, Democrat Thompson 45.7%.  A 6.8-point win.  Ho-hum.  But Nate Cohn of the New York Times — who gave Hillary an 85% chance of winning on Election Day — sees this as a victory for the Democratic Party.

NRA vs.  NYT.  Get out the popcorn: the nation's largest and most effective civil rights organization has declared war on the New York Times.  The Times is running an ad campaign portraying itself as a purveyor of truth, a claim that is met with hollow laughter by those who are familiar with the paper's sordid history.  Into the breach steps National Rifle Association commentator Dana Loesch, who — unlike anyone who writes about guns for the Times — knows a great deal about firearms.

Cernovich Explains How He Learned About Susan Rice.  Ever since Mike Cernovich dropped the bombshell report over the weekend outing Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, as the person behind the unmasking of the identity of various members of Trump's team who were 'incidentally' surveilled during the 2016 campaign, a report which was subsequently confirmed by Eli Lake of Bloomberg earlier this morning, everyone has been wondering who within the Trump White House or the intelligence community supplied him with such a massive scoop.  But, as it turns out, Cernovich didn't need a 'deep throat' within the NSA or CIA for his blockbuster scoop, all he needed was some well-placed sources inside of a couple of America's corrupt mainstream media outlets.  As Cernovich explains below, his sources for the Susan Rice story were actually folks working at Bloomberg and the New York Times who revealed that both Eli Lake (Bloomberg) and Maggie Haberman (NYT) were sitting on the Susan Rice story in order to protect the Obama administration.

The New York Times' ongoing dishonesty only helps Trump.  Six months ago, I canceled my subscription to the New York Times because I felt the paper had become ethically challenged in its coverage of the presidential election.  And, it turns out, I was right.

NYT Eats Crow After Trump Tax Return Proves Major Story Wrong.  The White House released President Trump's tax return from 2005 on Tuesday [3/14/2017], which showed that he paid $38 million on $150 million in income.  This disproves the premise of a major New York Times story in the lead-up to the November election.

Opposition Party In Action:  NYT columnist Nick Kristof asks IRS to leak Trump's tax return.  Of course, the Gray Lady is pretty selective when it comes to reporting leaked documents — not to mention simply reporting news.  When the "Hide the Decline" Climategate scandal involving the University of East Anglia climate research center broke in 2009, then-Timesman Andrew Revkin, who wrote their "Dot Earth" enviro-blog, sniffed, "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."

The New York Times Told Us Trump Was Wiretapped in January.  There is far, far more substance to what Trump is alleging than the entire thing that the Democrats and the media are alleging.  There is no evidence that the Russians had anything to do with the outcome of our election, none, and there won't be any, because the Russians didn't.  But there's all kinds of evidence, circumstantial and suspicious and common sense that this is what the Obama administration did.  We've got countless examples of them wiretapping.  We've got their "house organ" admitting that wiretap data was used in the inquiry of Trump aides.  But one of the names on this story, one of the reporters is named Michael S. Schmidt.

Devastating Proof of Media Bias:  New York Times Airbrushes Away Democrat's Embarrassing False Claim Without a Trace.  Jay Caruso noted that Senator Claire McCaskill had claimed early today never to have met with a Russian ambassador:  [Tweet]  Then undeniable documentary and photographic evidence emerged that she had.  I bet she wishes she could just airbrush that initial tweet from history — like it never happened.  Kinda like the New York Times did today with her claim.  They reported it — and then, when they figured out it was wrong, they simply vanished it.

FISA Is Not Law-Enforcement — It's Not Interference with Justice Department Independence for White House to Ask for FISA Information.  In my earlier post, I explained that the Obama camp is disingenuously responding to revelations that, during the presidential campaign, the Obama administration conducted an investigation, including wiretapping, against Trump associates and perhaps Donald Trump himself.  As I elaborated, one avenue of response is to conflate the Justice Department's two missions — law-enforcement and national security.  We can see this strategy playing out in the New York Times coverage of the controversy.

The New York Times Rewrites History To Tarnish Trump Speech.  In a curtain raiser for President Trump's address to Congress this week, the New York Times tried to compare Trump's bumpy start to President Obama's supposedly "impressive" one.  But in doing so, the Times wildly distorts what actually happened in Obama's first month in office.

New York Times Op-Ed Writer Criticized Trump for Using Teleprompter during Speech.  New York Times op-ed writer Andrew Rosenthal was not a fan of the use of a teleprompter by President Donald Trump during his speech to Congress.  Did he forget that President Barack Obama used teleprompters during his presidency and major speeches?

Times presents 'news' that's just propaganda for Bam.  Consider a Page One "news" story in Monday's [2/27/2017] New York Times.  The headline, "Widespread Cuts in Trump Budget Bypass Military," suggests news about the president's spending plans.  But the piece never says much about them — because it gets lost recalling the glories of President Barack Obama to rebut Trump's claim that he inherited a "mess."  The article gushes, for instance, about how Obama, after a similar few weeks in office, had practically saved the world:  "The country was losing 700,000 jobs a month, and the global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse" until Obama raced to the rescue.

How illegal immigrant advocates demonize Trump and terrify people.  The New York Times describes 11 million people — those who are living in the country illegally — as sleepless with anxiety, waiting for the "fists pounding on the door, the agents in black, the van ride, the cell."  Who has thrown such fear into this community?  How about the Left, aided and abetted by the liberal media, which has purposefully distorted President Trump's immigration policies, characterizing them erroneously as a radical departure from past practices?  In a feverish blast to donors sent out yesterday [2/22/2017], the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee claims that "Donald Trump plans to add thousands of immigration agents and begin deporting "almost all" undocumented immigrants."  That is, excuse the expression, fake news.  Trump is doing no such thing.

NY Times Publishes Screed By Illegal Alien Who Vows To Not Leave.  [Scroll down]  We see from the KDVR article that she arrived illegally in 1997 with her husband and a 6 year old.  Since she is 45 now, that means she was not a child at the time she intentionally broke our immigration law.  At one point she was charged with not having a license or insurance and for having an expired license plate.  Those charges were dropped.  She put a made up Social Security number on a document she was planning to use for a job application.  She pled guilty to attempted possession of a forged instrument.  La Immigra became involved at that point.  She was given the opportunity to voluntarily self-deport.  She finally did leave, then came back, paying someone to smuggle her across the border, for which she was almost immediately caught be the Border Patrol, making her an alien absconder.

The Day the New York Times Lost All Credibility.  [Scroll down]  If one had to pick a day when the Times lost all credibility with Sanders and other independent journalists, it would be September 21, 1996.  On that day, the Times' Matthew Purdy told of how the St. Louis police used the TWA 800 plane to train a bomb-sniffing dog six weeks before the crash.  The trainer placed explosives throughout the plane and encouraged the dog to find them.  One law enforcement official told Purdy the explosives were kept in tightly wrapped packages but conceded, "Testing can leave traces behind."  The following day, September 22, the Times published what would prove to be the investigation's obituary.  "Can you imagine what a defense lawyer would do to us?" one investigator told reporter Don Van Natta.  "This pretty much knocks out the traces, unless we get something much more concrete."

More about TWA 800.

NYT Asks Chelsea Clinton About Her Favorite Books After Her Book Flops.  The New York Times published an interview Thursday with Chelsea Clinton about her favorite books, just days after her own book opened to terrible sales in its first week.  Clinton's book, Governing Global Health:  Who Runs the World and Why?, which she co-authored with Devi Sridhar, came in 17,748th place in sales during its first week out, according to the Best Sellers Rank.  The interview took place for the New York Times' "By the Book" feature, for which the paper talks with leading authors.  The feature does not explain why Clinton was included as an author given her short career as a writer.

New York Times in Full Panic Mode Over Reports Trump May Designate Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization.  The New York Times this week continued its month-long campaign against designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization amid reports the Trump administration is debating the possibility of issuing an executive order making such a designation.  Declaring the Brotherhood a terrorist organization would add the U.S. to the growing list of nations to do so, including Muslim countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More about Planned Parenthood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More about The Islamic terrorist attack in Garland, Texas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taxpayer-Funded Millionaire Fails to Comprehend the World.  Millionaire and public intellectual Paul Krugman