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.
Well no it’s not, the “resistance” runs strong throughout the NYT. Today’s unhinged rant unites anti-Christian bigotry and Trump Derangement syndrome:
Why Trump Reigns as King Cyrus – The Christian right doesn’t like the president only for his judges. They like his style.
The month before the 2018 midterms, a thousand theaters screened “The Trump Prophecy,” a film that tells the story of Mark Taylor, a former firefighter who claims that God told him in 2011 that Donald Trump would be elected president.
At a critical moment in the film, just after the actor representing Mr. Taylor collapses in the flashing light of an epiphany, he picks up a Bible and turns to the 45th chapter of the book of Isaiah, which describes the anointment of King Cyrus by God. In the next scene, we hear Mr. Trump being interviewed on “The 700 Club,” a popular Christian television show.
As Lance Wallnau, an evangelical author and speaker who appears in the film, once said, “I believe the 45th president is meant to be an Isaiah 45 Cyrus,” who will “restore the crumbling walls that separate us from cultural collapse.”
Because all religious supporters of President Trump are just like this!
Over the weekend, the New York Times Book Review published a full-length interview with Alice Walker, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Color Purple. The very first question: “What books are on your nightstand?” Walker replied with four, the second of which was:
“And the Truth Shall Set You Free,” by David Icke. In Icke’s books there is the whole of existence, on this planet and several others, to think about. A curious person’s dream come true.
This passed without comment from the New York Times interviewer, and the publication passed it on to the readers without qualification. This is rather remarkable because the book is an unhinged anti-Semitic conspiracy tract written by one of Britain’s most notorious anti-Semites.
How appropriate would it be for a major publicly held American company to hire a person with a history of having publicly made the following statements and many others like them? (In the interest of brevity, I shall list only four.) “The world could get by just fine with zero black people.” “It’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old black men.” “Dumbass f—ing black people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” “Are black people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically only being fit to live underground like groveling bilious goblins?”
This was not the first piece published by the New York Times exploring the Alleged glories of socialism as they relate to women. In August, anthropologist Kristen R. Ghodsee attempted to answer the greatest question of the 20th century, in Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism (oh — you weren’t wondering that?).
I almost feel sorry for Ghodsee: she did what her advisers taught her, traveled to Bulgaria, chatted with some locals, then came back to the States, chatted with some academics, then back to Bulgaria, then wrote her Op-ed. Unfortunately for her, the Twitter predictably exploded
“Happy Birthday, Muhammad,” the New York Times proclaimed happily last Tuesday in a propaganda piece by Haroon Moghul, the author of a book confidently entitled How to Be a Muslim. I’d say it was a new low for the Times if the Gray Lady didn’t keep stooping lower every day.
New York Times columnist and MSNBC contributor Michelle Goldberg has a novel theory about Trump supporters: “Maybe They’re Just Bad People.”
That’s the title of her latest column for the Times, in which Goldberg speculates that the energy spent by liberal political analysts trying to explain why intelligent people would support, or work with, President Donald Trump may be wasted, since the simplest explanation — one that may fit the prejudices of Times readers — is that they are just evil.
The call comes after The New York Times published a report claiming the company had hired an opposition research firm to discredit critics by linking them to Soros, a frequent target of conservatives and anti-Semitic vitriol from the far right.
Facebook slammed a blockbuster New York Times report for “inaccuracies” and cut ties with a GOP-opposition firm after the newspaper painted a scathing portrait of Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, the company’s top leaders.
Mohammed Hanif, the author of this disgraceful op-ed published Friday in the New York Times, is a Pakistani novelist, and so it is perhaps understandable that he may wish to observe Islamic blasphemy laws, but why is the New York Times, which is supposedly a journalistic outlet in a nation that upholds the freedom of speech, validating his doing so?