NYT - Actions and Hot Takes
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
jrt_ms1995
Well-Known Member
What black woman are they writing about? I certainly don't see one in the accompanying photo.
My thought was immediately, if that is her "natural" hair, then why are her eyebrows dark?
Thats superciliumist!
NYT Goes Back to 1980 to Smear Republicans
Let’s take a closer look at that New York Times story. It’s the late-in-life “confession” of Ben Barnes, born in 1938, a former Democratic lieutenant governor of Texas and an active Democratic fundraiser ever since.
[clip]
Barnes recalls that in the summer of 1980, he took a trip with John Connally to the Middle East. Connally was the former Democratic governor of Texas, although in the 1970s, he switched parties. Connally served as secretary of the treasury to Republican Richard Nixon, and then, in 1980, he launched a short-lived campaign for the GOP presidential nomination and withdrew from the race in March of that year. A few months later, he and Barnes took that trip to the Middle East, reportedly from July 18 to August 11.
Of course, 1980 was a pivotal year in the Middle East, as it was the year during which the Iranian ayatollahs held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran. That hostage-holding, of course, was a huge international drama and proved to be very damaging to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Understandably, Carter wanted to get the hostages released, and yet they were not let go until just after he left office, in January 1981. Reacting to the Times story, buzzy MSM outlet Axios stated, “If Carter had secured the release of the hostages, he might have won.” Won re-election, that is.
[clip]
Barnes told the Times that he didn’t know it at the outset, but the real purpose of Connally’s Middle East trip was to tell Arab leaders that the Iranians should not make a deal with Carter to let the hostages out before the election.
As Barnes explains, Connally was there “to deliver a blunt message to be passed to Iran: Don’t release the hostages before the election. Mr. Reagan will win and give you a better deal.” That is, Connally was supposedly scheming to hurt Carter’s electoral chances and help Reagan’s. And of course, according to Barnes and the article, Connally was hurting Americans and committing treason, or close to it. Serious charges, if true.
Now we can note some immediate concerns about the truth of Barnes’ tale. Connally was talking to Arabs, not Iranians—and the two ethnicities have often been at war. Moreover, the Arabs he was talking to were Sunni, and the Iranians were Shia—and the two denominations within Islam have also often been in conflict. Indeed, it was around this time that the Sunni Arab regime in Iraq launched an all-out war against the Shia regime of Iran. So, the idea that Connally would be talking to Arab Sunnis about possible American policies and that it would get passed along, in a straight way, to Iranian Shias seems highly implausible.
The newspaper did concede that Barnes has no proof of any his substantive claims, nor any real evidence: “confirming Mr. Barnes’ account is problematic after so much time.” But it was not so problematic as to stop the Times from printing it! On the other hand, Barnes has told others over the years about the purported real purpose of the trip; there was a brief mention of the allegation in a 2015 book by respected historian H.W. Brands, although it drew little attention.
New York Times Tags Tucker Carlson as 'Far Right,' But Don Lemon Is Just 'Fiery'
William Donohue of the Catholic League pointed out the Tuesday New York Times demonstrated an obvious labeling contrast. On page A1 came the headlined "Fox News Ousts Carlson, a Voice Of the Far Right." But on B-1, there was no label in the header "Lemon Out At CNN; He Says He Is ‘Stunned’. "
In the piece by Michael Grynbaum, John Koblin, and Benjamin Mullin, Lemon was only "fiery" and "spiky," not liberal or far-left:
But the Carlson story by Jeremy Peters, Katie Robertson, and Grynbaum began: "Fox News on Monday dismissed Tucker Carlson, its most popular prime-time host, who became one of the most influential voices on the American right in recent years with his blustery, inflammatory monologues on immigrants, Black civil rights activists, vaccines and national identity."
The New York Times Discovers Congressional Ethics
The editorial was prompted by an indictment that was unsealed last Wednesday charging Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) with a variety of offenses relating to the way he financed his 2022 congressional campaign. The freshman congressman has denounced the indictment as a witch hunt and flatly refuses to resign. Consequently, the Times editorial board insists that the only honorable path for Republicans is to join their Democratic colleagues and expel Santos from the House. They claim that, while many members of that body have been ethically challenged, Santos has scaled heights of corruption heretofore unseen on Capitol Hill:
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, it’s hard to read this passage without dissolving into tears of laughter. Santos did “deceive the very voters who brought him to office,” but by this standard, the editors of the Times should demand the expulsion of nearly every Democrat in Congress. At the very least they should demand the expulsion of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who lied to the voters for years about the Russia collusion hoax. Moreover, they should insist on the impeachment of President Biden, who ran for office as a moderate unifier, yet has governed as a far left radical who portrays half of American voters as violent extremists.
The Times belabors Santos’ whoppers about his résumé, yet he can’t hold a candle to Biden when it comes to lying about his background. Biden has lied about his education, bragging that he graduated in the top half of his class at law school when he graduated 76th in a class of 85. He has claimed that he once drove a tractor-trailer for a living, yet another lie. He claimed he was once arrested while protesting for civil rights. That was a particularly egregious whopper considering his well-documented record of opposing desegregation. As NBC News reported in 2019 when Biden was about to launch his third presidential campaign:
The editorial was prompted by an indictment that was unsealed last Wednesday charging Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) with a variety of offenses relating to the way he financed his 2022 congressional campaign. The freshman congressman has denounced the indictment as a witch hunt and flatly refuses to resign. Consequently, the Times editorial board insists that the only honorable path for Republicans is to join their Democratic colleagues and expel Santos from the House. They claim that, while many members of that body have been ethically challenged, Santos has scaled heights of corruption heretofore unseen on Capitol Hill:
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, it’s hard to read this passage without dissolving into tears of laughter. Santos did “deceive the very voters who brought him to office,” but by this standard, the editors of the Times should demand the expulsion of nearly every Democrat in Congress. At the very least they should demand the expulsion of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who lied to the voters for years about the Russia collusion hoax. Moreover, they should insist on the impeachment of President Biden, who ran for office as a moderate unifier, yet has governed as a far left radical who portrays half of American voters as violent extremists.
The Times belabors Santos’ whoppers about his résumé, yet he can’t hold a candle to Biden when it comes to lying about his background. Biden has lied about his education, bragging that he graduated in the top half of his class at law school when he graduated 76th in a class of 85. He has claimed that he once drove a tractor-trailer for a living, yet another lie. He claimed he was once arrested while protesting for civil rights. That was a particularly egregious whopper considering his well-documented record of opposing desegregation. As NBC News reported in 2019 when Biden was about to launch his third presidential campaign:
Ukraine War Fetishist David French Is Now Lecturing You From Kyiv
David French, renowned dork and New York Times columnist, desperately needs everyone to know he is in Ukraine, cheering on more American taxpayer-funded war. But only so long as it means he personally remains safe and gets to continue presenting himself as an important expert on foreign conflict.
[clip]
Take one look at French’s protective eye goggles and neckbeard. If the image doesn’t steel your spine with confidence that he knows the exact right way to navigate deadly conflict, I don’t know what to tell you.
French went on to say he spent the past week in Kyiv — lest you forget that he is literally in Ukraine — so he personally “can attest to the relentlessness of Ukrainian arguments for advanced fighters.” He said that during his travels to Kyiv, where he is, he “had never seen as consistent, disciplined messaging as I experienced here” (in Ukraine).
Folks — what more do you need? French has looked into the eyes of Ukrainians, because he is there in Ukraine, and seen for himself just how important it is that you, the American taxpayer, contribute more. The $100 billion-plus (and counting) isn’t enough. You need to do more. French knows this firsthand because he has been to Ukraine. He even wrote an article from there, which we know because it was datelined, “Kyiv, Ukraine.” This isn’t difficult to understand.
By the way,
In any event, it was actually not much of a surprise to French that Ukrainians would ask for
NYT Faces Heat After Claiming Biden Has 'Striking Stamina' Despite Repeated Senior Moments
The New York Times faces criticism after publishing an article attempting to paint President Joe Biden as a young, vibrant man who never embarrasses himself or the country.
Titled "Inside the Complicated Reality of Being America's Oldest President," reporters Peter Baker, Michael Shear, Katie Rogers, and Zolan Kanno-Youngs fawned over Biden's achievements, describing him as a "fit, sharp" 80-year-old who has "striking stamina."
"The two Joe Bidens coexist in the same octogenarian president: Sharp and wise at critical moments, the product of decades of seasoning, able to rise to the occasion even in the dead of night to confront a dangerous world," the article read.
Despite acknowledging Biden's diminishing cognitive and physical health, the reporters downplayed his repeated public gaffes and instead said the president was just a "quirky" man.
New York Times Fairy Tale: Biden's Justice Department is Independent
One of the eternal astonishments about the liberal media is the shortness of its memory. Assuming, that is, that what they say results from a short memory rather than a convenient memory.
Note well that the central thesis of that Times piece is that the Department of Justice has “independence.”
What a joke.
To refresh the Times, they should read this Washington Post article that mentions the Justice Department - and more - back there on January 31, 2017. January 31, 2017, recall, was a mere eleven days after Donald Trump had been inaugurated as president. The headline:
The Post lovingly front-paged this piece, which said the following:
Got that? Right there on the front page of The Washington Post is the bold admission that the employees of the Department of Justice, not to mention the federal government bureaucracies in general, are going out of their way -out of their way! - to sabotage the Trump presidency. There is zero reference to the Justice Department being “independent” from the president. To the contrary.
So contrast.
On the one hand, there is the Times this last week with its fairy tale claiming the Department of Justice is “independent.” This the same week that, for the first time in American history, the DOJ has just indicted an American president who not so coincidentally happens to be running against the president they work for.
Yet there is no acknowledgement by the Times of what any sentient observer is aware, as amazingly was the Washington Post a handful of days after Donald Trump was inaugurated in 2017. Which is to say the Justice Department that is prosecuting Trump is filled to overflowing with left-wing career bureaucrats who are on record as hating Trump. Who, per the Post in 2017, were going out of their way to resist him when he became president. Contrary to the Times fairy tale, the DOJ is decidedly not “independent.” It is a cesspool of a bureaucracy corrupted by left-wing employees.
But now there’s a problem for the media and their Democrat allies. Having weaponized and defended the Justice Department to try and intimidate and silence Trump, they have launched a growing movement from Republicans to massively reform the federal government, including cutting the DOJ down to size.
New York Times Attacks Gutfeld For Promoting 'Nihilism,' Fox For Threaning Democracy
Flegenheimer and Peters write that, “Though far less dissected than Emmy-nominated counterparts like Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel, Mr. Gutfeld reliably outrates their Trump-dinging monologues and celebrity-guest banter with scatological digressions, cameos from a low-rent presidential impersonator and a booking roster that can count Larry Kudlow as the get of the night.”
Maybe Flegenheimer and Peters should look at liberal comedy more closely, because if they are going to accuse Gutfeld of inappropriate Freudian humor (their piece starts out with Gutfeld telling jokes about statutory rape committed by teachers) then they would see the liberal comedians do the same thing. Samantha Bee was notorious for it, and the current network comedians aren’t exactly immune from it either.
Additionaly, the network hosts don’t just “ding” Trump, they relentlessly attack him—Stephen Colbert won’t even say his name—and other Republicans and not just on policy or gaffes, but personally and have no qualms about calling people racists or Nazis.
Ultimately, Gutfeld’s success poses a challenge for the thesis that conservatives aren’t very good at comedy, as Flegenheimer and Peters write, “After decades of cultural dominance by left-leaning late night — whose hosts ridiculed George W. Bush, riffed with Barack Obama and recoiled at Donald J. Trump — Mr. Gutfeld’s striking inversion is a hard-won victory for the right.”
The authors eventually quote former Red Eye guest Amy Schumer who lamented that Gutfeld “just happens to be a part of this corporation that has utilized social media to end democracy.”
The duo also claim that, “At a minimum, Mr. Gutfeld has positioned himself as perhaps the fullest realization of what today’s Fox is and what tomorrow’s might be, fusing a roguish contrarianism and an instinct for self-promotion with a political media ecosystem constructed to reward both.”
More specifically, they assert that Gutfeld shares a similar sense of humor to Trump, “What Mr. Gutfeld did, in part, was capitalize on a defining talent that he and the former president share: a kind of insult conservatism that can frame any serious argument as a joke and any joke as a serious argument, leaving viewers to suss out the distinction.”
To boost the conservatives-are-bad-at-comedy thesis, Flegenheimer and Peters quote Prof. Nick Marx, who co-wrote a book entitled That’s Not Funny, “a book about right-leaning comedy. He suggested that Mr. Gutfeld’s shtick was the troubling culmination of Fox’s commingling of news and entertainment.”
NYT SCOTUS Scribe Weeps Over Dobbs: Are Justices Sorry for ‘Chaos and Misery’?
Linda Greenhouse was the New York Times’ liberally slanted Supreme Court reporter for 30 years until 2008, and now writes occasional opinion pieces on her lifelong obsession of abortion. She even participated in an abortion rally in 1989 while a journalist covering the Supreme Court, in defiance of journalistic standards of objectivity, which once was something media outlets pretended to care about.
Greenhouse authored a guest essay for Saturday’s Times, audaciously demanding remorse from the conservative justices who authored last summer's Dobbs decision which overturned the fatally flawed Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade: “Is There Any Twinge of Regret Among the Anti-Abortion Justices?” She compared persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses during World War II for not saluting the flag or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance after a controversial Supreme Court decision, to the Dobbs decision:
Note: The report cited by Greenhouse was sponsored by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, which has a clear liberal (giveaway: “Latinx”), pro-abortion slant. Its findings are described as “preliminary” and are taken from anonymous respondents.