As promised, here is a rundown of the New York Times’  “fiercely neutral” coverage (that’s the paper’s description, not mine) of Donald Trump.

In today’s paper:

-A screaming front page headline about Trump’s firing of acting AG Sally Yates – referring to it as a “crisis”, which is not in the least true.  A replacement was immediately sworn in, and will remain there for a day or two until Trump nominee Jeff Sessions is confirmed (this would have taken place today, but Democrats, in a futile, childish display, managed to move it back to Wednesday).

-The lead editorial, titled “President Bannon?”, which viciously attacks both Trump and Bannon;

-The second editorial, titled “Diplomats Decry Muslim Ban”, which lies by calling President’s three month suspension a “ban”.  It is no such thing;

-The letters column, which features four letters about “Disorder and the Immigration Order” – three of them anti-Trump;

-Two op-ed pieces, by David Leonhardt and David Brooks (the Times’ supposed house “conservative”), both with frontal attacks on Trump.

Think that proves the point?  I don’t blame you at all if you do.  But wait.

From yesterday’s paper:

-Lead article saying that an outcry grows” over Trump’s immigration directive;

-Another front page article, above the fold, titled “How a Rushed Order Ignited Global Confusion”;

-A lead editorial about the temporary suspension of travel to the USA from 7 states, titled “Trashing America’s Ideals and Security”

-An “Editorial Notebook” entry at the bottom of the editorial columns, snidely and negatively comparing Trump to fictional characters;

-The lead part of the letters to the editor section, titled “The Outcry Over Trump’s Refugee Ban”, containing five letters, all negative toward Trump;

-Three additional letters condemning Trump for not releasing his tax returns;

-On the op-ed page, Charles Blow’s latest Trump-bash, titled “No, Trump, Not On Our Watch”.  Not President Trump or Mr. Trump.  Just Trump;

-A commentary by Thomas Nakios attacking Trump’s proposal for a “border adjustment tax”;

-An attack on the three month travel suspension by Zachary Iscol;

-An attack on the Mexican wall by Paul Krugman, titled “Building  a Wall of Ignorance”.

That pretty much leaves today’s paper in the dust, doesn’t it?

Yes, every now and again The Times will no doubt put up something by someone who supports President Trump on one thing or another – virtually always followed by letters to the editors assailing it.  But not yesterday or today.

The closest the Times comes to presenting an alternative view is one article, today, titled, “Flip Side of Outrage:  Some See a Promise Kept”.  And it is not pro-Trump, it just shows people on both sides, pro and con.

Say, isn’t that what “Fiercely Neutral” means?

So how come the other 16 examples above are all to just one – negative – side?

Times?  A response, please?  We’re waiting…..


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *