Tag Archives: New York Times


Ten days prior to election day, or more significantly, after nearly four years of Obama’s governance, the New Youk Times looks at his record and has this to say.

President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth. He has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless. Mr. Obama has impressive achievements despite the implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans so intent on stopping him

In the Online edition a photograph of Abraham Lincoln appears beside that comment.  Subtle, isn’t it.  Those “sensible budget policies” were so outrageous that not one single Democrat voted for the his Budget Proposals.

In the poisonous atmosphere of this campaign, it may be easy to overlook Mr. Obama’s many important achievements, including carrying out the economic stimulus, saving the auto industry, improving fuel efficiency standards, and making two very fine Supreme Court appointments.

Sadly the day is past when the New York Times editors had a little class and knew enough to call their own candidate President and not Mr.

Mr. Obama prevented another Great Depression. Mr. Obama championed [programs] like the $840 billion stimulus bill. Republicans say it failed, but it created and preserved 2.5 million jobs and prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent. Poverty would have been much worse without the billions spent on Medicaid, food stamps and jobless benefits.

Obama “prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent.”  Isn’t that just dandy.  Give him another four years and he may do twice as well; he may prevent unemployment from reaching 24 percent.

Foreign Affairs. Mr. Obama and his administration have been resolute in attacking Al Qaeda’s leadership.

Mr. Obama deserves credit for his handling of the Arab Spring.

These statements are understandable if the only news the editors read is what’s printed in their own newspaper.

Civil Rights. The extraordinary fact of Mr. Obama’s 2008 election did not usher in a new post-racial era. In fact, the steady undercurrent of racism in national politics is truly disturbing.

Yes, it’s very disturbing.  And as the Times implies, it has worsened over the last four years, yet this is somehow Bush’s fault.  The editors must have struggled over this one to no avail if the best excuse they could come up with was to blame Bush again.

For these and many other reasons, we enthusiastically endorse President Barack Obama for a second term, and express the hope that his victory will be accompanied by a new Congress willing to work for policies that Americans need (emphasis ours).

The endorsement of the Democrat was fully expected.  The Times endorsed Lincoln and he was probably the only Republican endorsement the paper ever made.  Their star correspondent Walter Duranty did give a hearty endorsement of Joseph Stalin but I don’t think Stalin was a Republican and Duranty wasn’t an editor.



Election prospects have recently turned sharply, although not decidedly, against the Democrat. This comes at a critical point in the 2012 election and at a very critical point in the history of our country. At a time like this we look to the nation’s newspaper of record, the paper whose motto is “All The News That’s Fit To Print” to see what they have to report at this critical hour.
The lead headline above the fold is “In a Surprise Move, Pandit Steps Down as Citigroup Chief.” Now I know it is called the New York Times and Citigroup’s headquarters are in New York City but this is a national, even international paper. It is not the local daily nor is it a financial reporter. There is no good news for Obama today so the editors can find nothing more newsworthy than a story about a business leader who lost his job. Heave a sigh and look further for something of world class importance.
The Online issue prominently features a video, also “above the fold.” That must be about the presidential race, no? No. It is about a Congressional race in Iowa. I think I will try the National Enquirer. Do you know if they have an Online edition?


If I believed that what MSNBC broadcasts was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and if I believed the New York Times was honorable in its journalistic ethics then I would absolutely despise Republicans and everything they stand for.  There is very little ethical difference in the fourth estate ethics between outright lies and lies by omission.  The paper is particularly guilty of the latter.  The New York Times does more than claim to be the newspaper of record; it is the newspaper of record.  As such it has a responsibility greater than any other to record all the news and report it accurately.  It has failed this responsibility miserably.

In his final column, Arthur Brisbane, who very recently resigned his post as Public Editor wrote mostly about the papers steady financial demise which he blamed entirely on the rise of new media, namely twitter.  There was nary a word about the effect that content may have had on readership.  Brisbane acknowledged,

The Times’s “believability rating” had dropped drastically among Republicans compared with Democrats, and was an almost-perfect mirror opposite of Fox News’s rating. Can that be good?

Is this statement not bias itself?  Nonetheless, Brisbane is acknowledging that the paper’s perceived integrity trending downward and he does not hesitate to use the word “drastically” while inferring that an integrity rating equivalent to FOX Is bad.  Then Brisbane confirmed what has become very obvious.

Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.

The Times is bias.  Brisbane is jut reporting it.


The New York Times published an Op-Ed piece today written by Ex President Jimmy Carter.  It seems Carter is very concerned about the human rights abuses he sees occurring around the world.  Right up front in the second sentence the former president calls for an end to abuses against American citizens in particular.

In an article that is 753 words long there is only one nation in the world that he censures for having a despicable record on human rights.  You guessed it.  It’s the United States.  There is not one word about China, Syria, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Somalia or any other nation.  In Carter’s eyes, the only bad guy on the planet is the US of A.

Jimmy, why don’t you go back to certifying elections in Venezuela.  We don’t need you here any more.  You have been replaced.


Helene Cooper, White House correspondent for the New York Times refers to Obama’s campaign strategy as the Obama Defensive Offensive.  Do I sense a bit of fed-up attitude coming from yet another liberal quarter?  Ms. Cooper, who is black, doesn’t disagree with the president’s assertion that the Republicans are at fault but she is worried that “runs the danger of making Mr. Obama come across as a crybaby, not to mention opening him up to ridicule from the right.”  The Times’ correspondent is right about one thing.  You can’t win a war by playing defense.

The new tack for the president’s water carriers is “it’s the money”.  Democrats overall have been outdoing Republicans in raising campaign funds for years.  To them, that’s the norm.  Obama raised $745M in 2008, more than twice as much as John McCain.  For some reason Obama’s supporters didn’t say ‘it was the money’ then.

The power of the race card is getting thin.  The blindest grass roots Democrats may not admit it but they can now see the President’s faults.  His opulent life style on the taxpayer’s dollar is one thing that rubs Americans the wrong way.  Another is that he was a no-show in Wisconsin which was the biggest event since passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

One thing he does having going for him is the animosity the Democrats have built up by vilification of Republicans.  The feeling is that it’s better to vote for a disappointing candidate than for the devil.  He was a good community organizer


Let the New York Times increase your knowledge, at least on these 3 things.  Ignore my comments.  I never even went to college.

1. Republicans must be as pleased as Punch with Obama’s economic program.  The President is following economic policies Republicans consider ideal and have always dreamed they could put in place.

What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams. ~ Paul Krugman

And all the time I thought the Republicans were saying cut the strangling over-regulation, stop stifling oil and coal production, stop passing vague laws for your czars to enforce as they see fit, stop threatening to increase the tax burden when things are already slow and stop attacking success.  In other words, just get out of the way.

2. Obama is slashing spending at a rate not seen since the end of the Korean War.

Look first at total government spending — federal, state and local. Adjusted for population growth and inflation, such spending has recently been falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War. ~ Paul Krugman

Mr. Krugman provides this link, Mr. Obama a big spender to a couple of charts that he portends prove his point.  The charts do show a sharp decline in the last 12 months, but the charts are not a picture of spending at all.  They are a convoluted measure of growth rates.  To illustrate – If you spend 100% more this year than last, and then 50% more next year than this, and 30% more on top of that in the third year, then the lines on Krugman’s charts would show a dramatic decline while you were actually spending more and more each year.

3. With Barack Obama as President, U.S. borrowing costs are lower than they ever were before in the history of the country.

Well, U.S. borrowing costs have just hit a record low. ~ Paul Krugman

Wags have often said “You can’t make this stuff up”.  Paul Krugman can.  Perhaps that’s why he won a Nobel Prize.


It is easy for conservatives to fall into a gloom and doom trap.  Patriotism, Christianity and even capitalism are openly and widely ridiculed and rebuked.  We see nations in Europe falling into insolvency brought on by unsustainable spending rates with the United States following suit.  We are a democracy and have chosen a man to lead us who doesn’t believe in us.  Mom, apple pie and the flag are no longer sacrosanct.

Are we really doomed?  Is decline inevitable?  Is the light shining on a hill going out?  Sometimes the signs of hope lie in the signs of failure.

Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations argued that the collective wisdom of large masses of people over time far surpasses the intelligence of a few elites, no matter how astute the few may be.  In a free market society markets follow the collected wisdom of the people.  You buy the car you think is best.  You buy the clothes you like.  You shop at the stores that carry the goods you need at prices that represent fair value to you.  Those who offer real value succeed, those who don’t, fail.

It is no different with the media.  Whether it is time or money you are spending, you spend it where there is value.  The New York Times is failing fast.  The Times is selling assets left and right just to stay afloat.  The newspaper industry is a troubled one but given its history and prestige the Times should not be in the trouble it is.  But their content has become shoddy and biased beyond all reason.  John Hinderaker at the Power Line blog says “The Times is the newspaper equivalent of MSNBC.”  I have had the same thought myself.  MSNBC has but a fraction of the audience of FOX.  The people are free to choose.  As long as a majority see little value in the tripe put out by outlets selling the ideology of the uncompromising left, their failure is a sign of hope.

But I don’t wish them failure.  I wish them wisdom.


The New York Times published this headline on April 15th.

White House Opens Door to Big Donors, and Lobbyists Slip In

Lobbyists “Slip In”?  It takes a certain mindset to write a headline like that.  Is the New York Times saying the Obama administration is so incompetent they can’t stop people from giving them money?  Couldn’t be!  Perhaps then, the point is that the lobbyists are so slick they know how to get money into the President’s campaign coffers without the President knowing it; the money just slipped in.  How do you explain currying favor when the favorer does not know by whom he has been curried?

The best conclusion is that the authors at the Times actually believe the tripe they write – Democrats don’t accept money from lobbyists, at least not knowingly.  Democrats don’t cater to special interests either – nuts!  Is there nothing special about the interests of teachers, truck drivers and automotive workers who are represented by their unions?  Goldman Sachs contributed more to Democratic than to Republican campaigns in 2008.  Do the authors at New York Times not include Wall Street bankers in their list of special interests?  Of course they do.

It would be a good thing if some common sense slipped in at the New York Times.


The World Economic Forum is once again in cession in the posh town of Davos, Switzerland.  Today’s New York Times covers the conference with a story under the headline At Davos, a Big Issue Is the Have-Lots vs. the Have-Not.  The headline is right out of Alinsky, including the hyphens.

Believe it or not, I did not come here today to find fault with the New York Times.  I came to talk about bias; it’s just that taking examples from the Times was the easy way out.  Bias is the most insidious bias when it is subtle.  It is also very effective because from any given source it is usually incessant. Let’s examine this sentence taken from the Davos article.

“[The income gap now is] debated openly in areas where the primacy of laissez-faire capitalism used to be taken for granted and where talk of inequality used to be derided as class warfare.”  (emphasis mine)

Laissez-faire” is from the French where it means ‘let it happen’.  In economics it has come to mean that level of market freedom  which is free-wheeling, devoid of any meaningful regulation, a little bit reckless.  Later in the same sentence we read ‘used to be derided as class warfare’.  Removing the subtleties what we get are the notions that free-wheeling unregulated markets with minimal regulation are  the essence (primacy) of capitalism and that there is general agreement that pitting the poor against the rich is not an act of class warfare (used to deride).  Of course, there is no such agreement.

And what about that word ‘inequality’ in there.  In the context of the broad subject at hand it carries with it the connotation of unfairness.

The phrasing of a sentence in that manner comes easily to a liberally minded journalist and he would disclaim any bias in it.  But you saw it.  Or did you?  I told you it was subtle.


From the New York Times

Gingrich Jousts With Rivals Ahead of Vote


Newt Gingrich turned aside questions about his marital history at the final Republican debate before the South Carolina primary, and then took on Mitt Romney

Turned aside ??  Good heavens and mercy me, Gingrich did not turn it aside; he threw it back in their face!  “and then he took on Romney”? No, New York Times, not quite.  And then he took on the press.  

Gingrich’s remarks were a virtual declaration of war on the media. When Ronald Reagan knocked the press he was polite.  Mild mannered George W. Bush didn’t knock the press.  You might say their styles were appeasement.  Newt’s style is war.

It was not MSNBC that he was attacking.  That network came fully out of the closet some time ago.  It was ABC and all the other left “leaning” media that some people, believe it or not, still think report the news objectively.  Gingrich has given a lot of people reason to pause and think. And that’s a good thing.

Click for video.