Well, it took them a while to get there but the NY Times has finally taken notice that the Steele dossier appears to contain a lot of false and unverifiable garbage
Now, after two years of using the dossier to perpetuate the “collusion” narrative, the New York Times has finally acknowledged what those of us not parroting the collusion delusion have known for years – the dossier was garbage.
Often, progressive and anti-Trump conservative commentators bemoan the state of our civic discourse, saying that the president has degraded American politics through name-calling and personal attacks. Yet when these critics of the president engage in such behavior, it is for a righteous and moral cause. Such was the case this morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” when New York Times writer David Brooks said that that President Trump is the embodiment of evil and not a single host or fellow guest batted an eye.
The author of a New York Times magazine cover story that blasted Israel works for a group that is funded by Qatar, the home base of the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader and anti-Semite Yusuf al Qaradawi.
The revelation exposes a glaring bias in this journalist’s writings.
In his Sunday piece titled, “How the Battle Over Israel and Anti-Semitism Is Fracturing American Politics,” Nathan Thrall pens a scathing indictment of the Democratic Party’s supposed support for Israel, leading with his criticism of Hillary Clinton’s choice of a Jew, Robert Wexler, as her foreign policy expert, versus Bernie Sanders’ choice, James Zogby, an Arab-American.
The executive editor of the New York Times stands behind his paper’s coverage of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between President Trump and Russia.
Dean Baquet told one of his reporters that he had no regrets over the news organization’s extensive Trump-Russia coverage.
“We wrote a lot about Russia, and I have no regrets,” the top editor said. “It’s not our job to determine whether or not there was illegality.”
As a reader of the New York Times, Cockburn has learnt that all American life is a vast ‘project’ of ‘white supremacy’. As is everything else that the Times, in its infallibly provincial wisdom, disapproves of, and wishes to disinvite from the endless Manhattan dinner party towards which the arc of history is forever bending. So the editors of the Times will print any nonsense about Britain — the British live on mutton and oatmeal! — so long as it confirms their prejudices about Brexit.
‘With nothing meaningful to say about our future, we’ve retreated into the falsehoods of the past, painting over the absence of certainty at our core with a whitewash of poisonous nostalgia,’ an English autoflagellator named Sam Byers wrote on Saturday.
The New York Times published an op-ed Friday accusing President Donald Trump and Breitbart News, among others, of having “blood on their hands” in the terror attacks against two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, which killed 50 people.
Wajahat Ali, a “contributing opinion writer” for the Times, has appeared on CNN several times since the massacres in New Zealand, calling the president an “enabler and an ally” of the perpetrators.
Sometimes you wonder whether the New York Times’ editorial page ever reads its own newspaper’s reporting. A dedicated institutional foe of President Trump, the Times scoffs at the need for an executive order to address the dangerous chaos at the border. Then again, it makes a weird kind of sense: the worse things get at the Mexican border the better, because then they can demand even more services for the sick, the halt, the lame, the blind, the drug dealers, the rapists, the drunk drivers and all the other criminals — not just from Mexico but from Central America as well — who are invading our country.
Our boring neighbor is a moral leader of the free world.
The New York Times recently disclosed their “bombshell” report that the FBI had opened an inquiry into whether President Trump is secretly an agent of Russia, working on behalf of the Russian government. But, in reporting this story, did the Times reveal themselves to be part of a different scandal — a scandal involving the deep state, and not President Trump? Andrew Klavan took a hard look at this question on Monday’s edition of “The Andrew Klavan Show.”
“These are sources from the FBI, and from the Democrats, feeding stuff to The New York Times… Why?” he asked. “Why are they doing it? So that The New York Times can spin it to sound like it wasn’t what it was, a deep state coup, essentially.”
Admitting there is no actual evidence for their probe into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” FBI officials instead cited their foreign policy differences with him, his lawful firing of bungling FBI Director James Comey, and alarm that he accurately revealed to the American public that he was told he wasn’t under investigation by the FBI, when they preferred to hide that fact.
Jill Abramson doesn’t mind bias in the New York Times as long as it is her own.
Previews of Jill Abramson’s upcoming book, Merchants of Truth, portray it as a blown whistle on the paper’s incorrigible anti-Trump streak. But is the criticism sincere? Or is she just settling scores with Dean Baquet, an old colleague who bested and replaced her? It appears like the latter, especially since Abramson scrutinizes Baquet for the one moment of journalistic circumspection he did display during 2016: his refusal to let anti-Trump reporters run wild with a Trump-Russia collusion story.
In the Sunday New York Times — the most widely read issue of the week — the lead story was about a young Israeli soldier whose bullet ricocheted off the ground and killed a young Palestinian medic who had admitted to being a human shield and who was videoed throwing a smoke bomb. The next day— in the less well-read Monday issue — the Times reported on the murder and torture committed at the hands Afghan troops affiliated with and trained by the American CIA. The piece opens with the troops shooting and burning an entire family including a three-year-old girl. The number of deaths associated with these units (who at times were mistaken for ISIS) could not be verified but accounts put them at hundreds in one month. Apparently, the Times’s editors believe that the Israeli story, involving one soldier who shot one Palestinian under questionable circumstances, deserves wider coverage than deliberate massacres perpetrated by Afghan troops trained by the CIA
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.
In a soon-to-be published book, “Merchants of Truth,” that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet. And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.”
The hagiographic December 30th account spans a remarkable three and a half full pages of the paper, tracing Rouzan al-Najjar’s personal life and sad end. Yet it manages, in all the words and images (and online videos), not to report the nature of the violence in which she was entangled nor the murderous and implacable hatred of Israel fueling it.