TODAY’S “NEUTRAL” NEW YORK TIMES

I am looking at today’s edition of the New York Times.  Here is what I find.

–Headline – big print across the entire page – the kind usually reserved for earth-shaking news:

PUTIN LED SCHEME TO AID TRUMP, REPORT SAYS

Under that headline, The Times reports, with a near-gleeful tonality, that the Obama appointees at our intelligence agencies, on their way out the same door as their boss, issued (these are the Times’ own words in the body of the story) “a virtually unheard-of, real-time revelation by the American intelligence agencies that undermined the legitimacy of the president who is about to direct them…”.

–Lead editorial:  titled “Giving Mr. Trump’s Nominees a Pass”, with these two opening paragraphs:

Donald Trump’s transition team and Senate Republicans are determined to railroad several nominees to his cabinet of billionaires and moguls through to confirmation without fully revealing business interests that could disqualify them, say people both inside and outside government who are working on the transition process.

This is unprecedented, potentially illegal, and the clearest sign yet of Mr. Trump’s cavalier attitude toward criminal laws preventing federal officials from profiting from public service.

–Op-Ed page:  Includes Timothy Egan’s column, which has, among other things this passage:

Already, Trump has flirted with treason, flouted conflict-of-interest rules, bullied dissidents and blown off the advice of seasoned public servants.

And Michael J. Morell’s piece, titled “Trump’s Anti-C.I.A. Crusade” which begins with this:

When I wrote in August, 2016, in this newspaper, that Donald J. Trump’s character traits posed a national security threat, I didn’t imagine that  the first manifestation of that dynamic could play out with the very organization where I spent the first 33 years of my career, the Central Intelligence Agency.

And Gail Collins’ piece, titled “Arms And The Trump”, which ties the Fort Lauderdale massacre to incoming President Trump on the grounds that his position regarding gun ownership somehow ties to a jihadist and/or deranged man snapping and opening fire on innocent people.

There you have it, folks.  “Neutrality”, New York Times style.

How do you like it?