Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

NY Times Tag

I was a guest on NRA TV, with Bill Whittle sitting in for Colion Noir. I'm a big fan of Bill's, and we often post his videos, so it was great to finally speak with him. The appearance arose after NRA noticed my post, NRA VIDEO hits back at NY Times’ pretentious Oscars “Truth” Ad. The TV conversation covered that NRA response and the original NY Times video. We also spoke about the role of legacy media and the challenges it faces.

I didn't watch the Oscars. Why would I want to watch smug people who hate me congratulate themselves on how great they are? I'd rather vomit blood. Maybe that's not a fair analogy. I'd rather crawl on my stomach over hot coals covered with broken glass. Yeah, that's the ticket. I wasn't alone, as viewership hit a 9-year low, just a little more than half the audience in 1998. I was aware, however, that the NY Times planned to run a pretentious ad called "Truth" as a retort to Donald Trumps hits on fake news and, particularly, the NY Times.

The New York Times editorial board entitled their traditional post-inaugural address commentary, "What President Trump Doesn't Get About America."  What it reveals, however, is quite different.  While one can reasonably expect an op-ed to lean in a particular direction and address policy differences, the editorial board's main criticism of President Trump's inauguration speech is centered on his, to their minds, unflattering portrait of America. Seemingly still reeling from "their" loss in November, the board focuses on the parts of Trump's speech that Obama could have easily read in his own first inauguration.  Former president Obama's 2009 inaugural address, however, was met with gushing enthusiasm for his unflattering portrait of America as "in decline" and "in crisis."

I remember traveling to Texas when I was in private practice, meeting a lawyer who was investigating a possible investment fraud case who wanted me to get involved. I'm pretty sure it was in San Antonio. What I remember most about the trip was the lawyer's "truck," or as we say in more refined circles, pickup truck. It was yuge. I don't recall the specifications on it, but I'm guessing it had as many cylinders as could be had, had a full backseat with its own doors, and was yuge (but I repeat myself). Pretty sure I needed a ladder to get into the vehicle, though my memory might be a little hazy on that part. The other things I remember is that while we were driving, it began to hail. Not hail like we have in the Northeast. Hail the size of f-ing golf balls. He quickly headed for a parking area under an apartment building, and we waited it out.

It's been a while since we measured the lack of diversity at major liberal publications. In 2012, I did a photo montage of the NY Times Editorial Board and Masthead in response to an Op-Ed by a U. Penn. professor accusing Republicans of tokenism by appointing Tim Scott to fill the seat vacated by Jim DeMint, I would never be so insulting as to accuse the NY Times of tokenism:
The New York Times today ran a demeaning Op-Ed about Tim Scott, the Republican Congressman from South Carolina who was just appointed to the seat being vacated by Jim DeMint. The Op-Ed was written by U. Penn. Political Science Professor Adolf L. Reed Jr.,  The Puzzle of Black Republicans, and accused Republicans of engaging in tokenism by appointing Scott:

The New York Times public editor Liz Spayd's op-ed contains a lot of harsh truths and realities for those who write for one of the world's most famous newspapers: drop the bias. Her office has received "five times the normal level" of complaints "and the pace has only just recently tapered off." Spayd does not flat out say that, but she portrays it in her eloquent article:
But I hope any chest thumping about the impressive subscriber bump won’t obscure a hard-eyed look at coverage. Because from my conversations with readers, and from the emails that have come into my office, I can tell you there is a searing level of dissatisfaction out there with many aspects of the coverage.

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.

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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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.

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?"
Font Resize
Contrast Mode