Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

NY Times Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 12, 2016 34 Comments
Apparently the NY Times is reeling from its abysmal, over-the-top, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Trump "news" coverage. Mark Halperin of Bloomberg News and Joe Scarborough noted the bias regarding election results coverage:
MARK HALPERIN: Look at the headline of this story. [Featured Image] Look at the headline of this story. 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. It’s amazing. It’s amazing to me that this is the headline of the New York Times. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Look at this. Look at this. This is staggering. It really is, Mark. I’m glad you brought this up.

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on October 31, 2016 31 Comments
Frank Drebin would be so proud of his namesake . . . It was one of those classic "nothing to see here, move along" moments. On today's Morning Joe, New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, saying that there was no new terrain broached in FBI Director James Comey's letter of this past Friday, claimed "it won't move people away from" voting for Hillary Clinton. Bruni also praised the "incredibly rapid and thorough mobilization of the Clinton campaign and their allies" in getting headlines to mention Comey as much as Clinton, and to question whether the FBI Director did the right thing. Lost on Bruni was the irony that chief among those Clinton campaign "allies" are members of the liberal media who write the headlines. You know: allies such as . . . Frank Bruni.

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on October 24, 2016 13 Comments
Is anyone at the New York Times pro-life? Times reporter Yamiche Alcindor won't say. On today's Hardball, discussion turned to Donald Trump's charge that the media elites are biased against him. Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt posited that 90% of the elite Manhattan/Beltway media will be voting for Hillary and applauding her election. To test Hewitt's theory, Chris Matthews asked Alcindor whether she knew anybody at the Times who was pro-life. She first responded, "I'm not going to answer that question." To his credit, Matthews pressed the question, but Alcindor continued to dodge, eventually saying she hadn't asked any of her co-workers about it. Matthews seemed to conclude that Hewitt's point had been made.

Posted by Mary Chastain on October 13, 2016 130 Comments
At the presidential debate on Sunday night, Anderson Cooper pressed Donald Trump into committing as to whether Trump had done any of the things (groping, etc.) Trump bragged about on the now infamous Access Hollywood tape. Trump said he never did those things, it was just locker room talk. Ben Shapiro saw what was about to happen -- that the following week Trump's statement would be put to the test: https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/785324451592142848 Well, on Wednesday night, within an hour or so of each other, multiple media outlets published separate stories of women accusing Trump of doing the things he bragged about on the tape.

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 01, 2016 17 Comments
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. Jonathan Martin writes:
Ohio, Long a Bellwether, Is Fading on the Electoral Map After decades as one of America’s most reliable political bellwethers, an inevitable presidential battleground that closely mirrored the mood and makeup of the country, Ohio is suddenly fading in importance this year.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 28, 2016 26 Comments
The NY Times has a story on how Breitbart News has become a center of political attention this year, and how its traffic and influence is at an all time high. That was the focus of the article, but there was one paragraph that jumped out at me (emphasis added):
Before Mr. Breitbart died, the site had gained notoriety by championing the Tea Party movement and publicizing an undercover video that led to the closing of Acorn, the community organizing group. It also posted misleading footage of Shirley Sherrod, a black Department of Agriculture official, who was fired for seeming to express resentment toward a white farmer; the White House later apologized.
This is not the first time the NY Times has made this accusation. In a 2014 article about Breitbart News, the Times wrote;
At times Breitbart’s attack-the-enemy approach to journalism has landed the news operations in hot water. In 2010, for example, it was criticized for editing a video to make Shirley Sherrod, a former Agriculture Department official, appear to be making racist remarks about white people. The full video showed that she did not.
Wrong. False. Either ignorant or malicious.

Posted by David Gerstman on June 05, 2016 17 Comments
In a brutal report on the administration's dishonesty regarding the nuclear deal with Iran, CNN's Jake Tapper last week concluded that Americans "have a right to know who lied to us." Tapper walked us through the basics, but let's review. The story began in February 2013, when Fox News reporter James Rosen asked then State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland, "There have been reports that intermittently, and outside of the formal P-5+1 mechanisms the Obama Administration, or members of it, have conducted direct, secret, bilateral talks with Iran. Is that true or false?"

Posted by David Gerstman on May 31, 2016 12 Comments

Singling Out Jews in Yellow

Shortly before the Senate vote on the nuclear deal with Iran was supposed to take place (but was filibustered by Democratic supporters of the deal), The New York Times *helpfully* provided a list letting everyone know which Jewish lawmakers were against the deal, with the names highlighted in yellow.

New york times congressional jew tracker iran deal senate

The New York Times, after the expected (and deserved) outrage, removed the "Religion" column from the list but acknowledged no wrongdoing, "[under] Times standards, the religion or ethnicity of someone in the news can be noted if that fact is relevant and the relevance is clear to readers." Nonetheless due to readers' outrage, it adjusted the list.

Posted by David Gerstman on May 22, 2016 5 Comments
In his testimony last week before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, concerning the grand Iran deal deception described in a recent New York Times article that was carried out by Obama and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, laid out five areas where the White House deceived the American people. First, Doran in his testimony established that even before he became president, Obama had expressed an interest in rapprochement with Iran. He cited former CIA chief and Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, from The New York Times expose on the echo chamber saying that the administration knew that "They’d have gotten “the [expletive] kicked out of them,” if they had been upfront about their intention to engage Iran. Doran summed it up:

Posted by David Gerstman on May 16, 2016 9 Comments
There continues to be fallout from the profile of Obama adviser Ben Rhodes that appeared in Sunday's New York Times magazine last week. Much of discussion of the article has surrounded who demonstrated bad faith, the Obama administration or Samuels. There are two targets of the criticism. In the MSM and left-leaning media the villain is David Samuels for writing a hatchet job on the administration. In the right-leaning media the villain is the administration for lying about the nuclear deal with Iran. But the question of dishonesty or bad faith is less important than the system Samuel described. From the administration's view, the article was, according to Lee Smith, "a victory lap," a boast of how they bested their political opponents and mastered the media. Little attention has been paid to exactly how the "echo chamber" Ben Rhodes boasted about actually worked.

Posted by David Gerstman on May 06, 2016 33 Comments
Perhaps the most famous person on the internet right now is Ben Rhodes, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser. Rhodes is profiled in a The New York Times Magazine cover stroy that rips to shreds both the story line sold to the American public and the notion that we have independent media in the age of Obama. Rhodes' job was to message and ensure that the White House's narrative of the nuclear deal with Iran was the media's. Rhodes, in the profile written by David Samuels, displays no shame about his job; in fact he seems quite pleased with himself.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 29, 2016 98 Comments
Donald Trump launched his campaign popularity with a hard line on immigration, not limited to The Wall. It struck a chord with the electorate, as I noted in a guest column at National Review on July 13, 2015, Trump’s Lesson: Voters Are Furious about Illegal Immigration:
.... something happened on the way to the denunciations and purges [of Trump]. Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco, a sanctuary city. Steinle was killed in broad daylight on a popular pedestrian pier in a business and tourist district, by an illegal immigrant with a long criminal record who had been deported five times and recently was released from custody…. In the wake of the murder of Kate Steinle, many Republican candidates have denounced the sanctuary-cities agenda. There is talk of withholding funding from cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. But who among the Republican candidates has stood side by side with the families who have lost loved ones to illegal-immigrant criminals? Trump did….”
Since then, immigration has continued to be the rocket fuel in Trump's campaign.

Posted by David Gerstman on February 16, 2016 6 Comments
We hear from critics of Israel that Israel needs a two-state solution to be  legitimate. Without a Palestinian state, the argument goes, Israel will rule over millions of resentful Palestinians to whom it will have to deny their basic rights in order to maintain its Jewish nature. Or if Israel enfranchises the Palestinians, they could overwhelm the Jews with their votes and then Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. So the reasoning goes, without a separate Palestinian state, Israel will either cease being Jewish or democratic. But there was already a separation achieved in 1993, with the signing of the Oslo Accords. By the end of 1995 Israel had withdrawn from the major population areas in the West Bank, leaving over 90% of Palestinians under the political control of the Palestinian Authority. In 2005, Israel "disengaged" from Gaza ending the occupation of that territory.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 03, 2016 21 Comments
Pallywood is the Palestinian industry of creating fake images, events and stories to demonize Israel. It is a critical part of the worldwide, decades-long propaganda campaign against Israel. Pallywood is not done only by Palestinians. In fact, some of the most egregious perpetrators are Western anti-Israel leftists who create and spread false or distorted stories about Israel. The NY Times just got Pallywooded. Anti-Israel activists, the identities of whom are not currently known, created a fake Supplement Edition of the Times with fake stories meant to pursue anti-Israel narratives. Parody NY Times anti-Israel Israel General Homepage

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 01, 2016 7 Comments
The NY Times, as most of Western media, always is looking for a "reason" for the current Palestinian wave of terror that is unrelated to Palestinian responsibility. It's always a search for a way to excuse the terror, including the knifings by Palestinian teens of Israelis, particularly targeting Israeli women. A January 19, 2016, NYT article by Steven Erlinger typifies the genre, Anger in a Palestinian Town Feeds a Cycle of Violence
Raed Jaradat was 22, an accounting student from a well-to-do family here, already working part time with his father in his stone quarry and construction business. After Dania Ersheid, 17, was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers who said she had pulled a knife at the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, a version disputed by Palestinians, Mr. Jaradat wrote an angry post on Facebook: “Imagine if this were your sister!”
Stephen Flatow takes apart both the Erlinger article and the genre, Let’s play the ‘blame Israel game’ with The New York Times:

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on January 30, 2016 14 Comments
Although John Kasich has recently surged in New Hampshire to tie for second place in the Granite State with Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush, few believe he has any chance at all of winning the GOP nomination. The New York Times hopes to change that, however, with their endorsement of Kasich today. The NYT writes:

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, though a distinct underdog, is the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race. And Mr. Kasich is no moderate. As governor, he’s gone after public-sector unions, fought to limit abortion rights and opposed same-sex marriage.

Accessibility by WAH