Posted tagged ‘NY Times’

The Times Tales from the Far Side

December 21, 2016

The Times Tales from the Far Side, Washington Free Beacon, , December 21, 2016

(Please see also Are Europe’s ‘Extreme Right’ Parties Really So Extreme? — DM)

nytInstagram user kaylaaajang

President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet picks plan on moving the country “far to the right,” and not just any far right but the “Israeli far right,” according to the latest reports from the New York Times.

The Grey Lady introduced readers to David Friedman, Trump’s nominee to serve as ambassador to Israel, with the ominous warning that he is a “hard-liner” who could “could end up undercutting the security of Israel and the United States,” as one “left-leaning” expert told the Times on Dec. 15. Friedman was described in the first paragraph as a “bankruptcy lawyer aligned with the Israeli far right.”

“Far right” has become a staple of the New York Times lexicon since Trump’s upset victory over Hillary Clinton. The paper has used the term in connection to Trump 158 times since Election Day, tying him to everything from Europe’s rising nationalist parties to a Klu Klux Klan stabbing and profiles of internet-based white nationalist trolls. The term “far left” was used in connection to President Obama, by contrast, 431 times over the past eight years.

Friedman is not the only Trump cabinet nominee who threatens the balance of American politics. On Dec. 5 the paper stated that Trump’s “Cabinet Picks Portend a Shift Far to the Right.” As evidence of these far right tendencies, the paper cited that many of the president-elect’s nominees “have long records opposing the current administration on social programs, wages, public lands, veterans and the environment.”

The Times pointed to Trump’s Labor Secretary nominee, fast food restaurateur Andrew Puzder, as an example of the shift away from the center. Puzder “has been extremely critical of the Obama administration’s labor policies, including its push for a higher minimum wage and for new overtime rules for workers.”

The Times does not say that the Democratic Party platform’s embrace of a $15 minimum wage—more than double the current rate of $7.25—originated from one of the most liberal wings of the party: union powerhouse Service Employees International Union. On Nov. 22, a federal judge appointed by Obama blocked the new overtime rules because they are “contrary to the statutory text and Congress’s intent” of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The article does not say if the Obama administration’s policies—such as his efforts to “shut down fossil fuel production”—constitute a turn to the “far left.”

Trump’s nominees stand in stark contrast to those of President Obama, who according to the New York Times has never nominated anyone from the far left to a cabinet position or federal court. Dating back to Obama’s Nov. 4, 2008 election victory, the Times has used the word “far left” to describe “nominee” in about 140 instances, according to Lexis Nexis. The use of the term was more likely to help readers navigate photo captions—82 times—than provide context as to a politician or prospective Democratic cabinet member’s political leanings. The Times obituary 0f communist dictator Fidel Castro, for example, employed the phrase just once: “REVOLUTIONARY: Far left, Fidel Castro in 1968.”

The rare appearance of “far left” in the New York Times typically comes in the form of a quote from Republican politicians, rather than a news or headline writer’s copy. The paper’s journalists work hard to provide important context for its readers. When New Jersey Republican Steven Lonegan called now-Sen. Corey Booker “a far left liberal extremist,” Times reporters added that Booker “is frequently criticized in his own party for his moderate views.”

The paper used “far left” twice while covering the nomination of now-Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. When she cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a near party-line vote—Sen. Lindsey Graham was the only Republican to vote for her—the Times reported that “Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, complained of Ms. Kagan’s ‘strong commitment to far left ideological beliefs.’”

Grassley would have known more about Ms. Kagan had he read the June 18, 2010 edition of the New York Times, which featured a 2,500-word profile of her roots titled, “The Kagan Family, Left Leaning and Outspoken.” Readers discovered that she came from a “New York family whose intellectual dynamism and embrace of liberal causes provide a window onto the social milieu and culture that shaped her.” Her father tied himself to a tree once; her brother’s “involvement in radical causes’ [was] an inspiration for her senior thesis on the Socialist movement in New York.”

Far left appears in the article one time: “TOUGH TEACHER: Elena Kagan’s mother, Gloria, far left, with her class at Hunter College Elementary in 1979.”

Kagan now has a more leftwing record on the court than liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to the Washington University School of Law’s Supreme Court Database.

The Stretch Drive (8)

November 3, 2016

The Stretch Drive (8), Power Line, Steven Hayward, November 3, 2016

The ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll today has Hillary moving back into a narrow lead again, but as all of the results right now are within the statistical margin of error, it means the race is essentially tied, and likely to stay that way through next Tuesday. However, most of the new state-by-state polls, which often lag national polls by a few days, show movement in Trump’s direction. Suddenly New Hampshire, Colorado, and Virginia, where Hillary had been comfortably ahead, now show the race close or with Trump in a slight lead (New Hampshire).

At the very least, the many people who said Donald Trump would suffer a McGovern- or Goldwater-level landslide loss have badly misjudged the mood of voters.

Before continuing with election analysis, let’s pause for a moment to take in the feel-good story of the day:

New York Times reports 95.7 percent fall in quarterly profit

The New York Times Co reported a 95.7 fall in quarterly profit, hit by restructuring charges related to headcount reductions.

Net profit attributable to the newspaper publisher fell to $406,000, or break-even per share, in the third quarter, from $9.4 million, or 6 cents per share, a year earlier.

Revenue fell to $363.6 million from $367.4 million.

The company, struggling to transition to digital, said online ad revenues grew 21.5 percent and now account for more than 35 percent of its advertising receipts.

Slim pickings indeed (heh). Coming soon: New York Times headline on the lousy economy.

Scott and Paul have reported on the blockbuster Fox News and Wall Street Journal news stories about the ongoing FBI investigations of the Clintons. What this means is simple: if Hillary wins, she’ll take office under a huge cloud of scandal, a potential indictment, and congressional investigations that may well start up during the lame duck session. If Hillary wins, I expect a new bumper sticker to appear by the following afternoon: “Impeach Clinton: This Time We’ll Do the Job Right!”

This Trump ad is pretty good:

New York Times violates law to publish partial Trump tax return from 90s and speculate about his taxes

October 2, 2016

New York Times violates law to publish partial Trump tax return from 90s and speculate about his taxes, American ThinkerThomas Lifson, October 2, 2016

Trump Derangement Syndrome has led the New York Times to willfully violate federal law in order to speculate about what taxes Donald Trump may or may not have been paying.  In a front-page article, built on crime and conjecture, the Times ends up with very weak beer on Trump, but a convincing case for its own irresponsibility and criminality.

The lede paragraph reveals the astonishing lack of factual reporting and descent into mere speculation, speculation that supports the latest Hillary Clinton attack line on Trump, that he pays “no taxes” (a recapitulation of the Harry Reid lies on the Senate floor about Mitt Romney’s taxes. When confronted with his lies, Reid said, “It worked, didn’t it?”). Presumably, in the eyes of NYT executive editor Dean Baquet, if this speculation succeeds in defeating Trump, his own criminality and descent into speculation is also justified by the results.

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

“Could have” is the operant admission that the Times does not know what it reports.  As Sundance notes:

The anti-Trump political angle is easily identifiable within the extensive article use of: “could have”, “might be”, “may have”, phrases used throughout the woven narrative.  Journalistic “narratives” are rarely based on facts.

Nowhere in its breathless report of non-facts does the Times stop to note that in 1995 Bill Clinton was president and Hillary Clinton was, in her own previous words, “co-president.” They were responsible for the tax laws, along with the Democrat congressional majority 1992-94, and could have changed the tax law.

Callum Borchers of the Washington Post explains the legal jeopardy that could await the Times:

Dean Baquet wasn’t bluffing.

The New York Times executive editor said during a visit to Harvard in September that he would risk jail to publish Donald Trump’s tax returns. He made good on his word Saturday night when the Times published Trump tax documents from 1995, which show the Republican presidential nominee claimed losses of $916 million that year — enough to avoid paying federal income taxes for as many as 18 years afterward.

Federal law makes it illegal to publish an unauthorized tax return:

It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Baquet said during a panel discussion at Harvard that if the Times’ lawyers advised him not to publish Trump tax returns, he would argue that such information is vital to the public interest because the real estate mogul’s “whole campaign is built on his success as a businessman and his wealth.”

This makes it appear that Baquet’s violation of the law was intentional and done for partisan reasons.

Donald Trump is a man known to be capable of resorting to the courts, and his campaign’s statement on the violation of his privacy indicates there may be action coming:

“Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” the statement, which was not attributed to Trump or any staffer by name, continued. “That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes. Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than anyone who has ever run for President and he is the only one that knows how to fix it.”

In a tweet at 7:22 a.m. ET on Sunday, Trump took the same line, and likewise did not deny the report. “I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes,” he wrote.

The media’s Hillary claque is already jumping on board, proclaiming, “Bombshell report on Trump taxes sends GOP nominee reeling,” for example.

In this deeply corrupt age of a weaponized IRS and FBI, there may be no legal recourse for Trump. But I imagine a lawsuit may be in the offing.

Does anyone think that the Times would have risked legal consequences if it was not worried about a possible Trump victory?

Media Launches Baseless Speculation Using Parts of Trump’s Stolen ’95 Tax Returns

October 2, 2016

Media Launches Baseless Speculation Using Parts of Trump’s Stolen ’95 Tax Returns, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, October 2, 2016


This story is a joke. The joke is that the media is desperately scrabbling for material. Out of sheer desperation it’s using 20+ year tax returns to headline stories claiming that Trump paid no taxes.

These stories are based on what? I’ll let the media tell it…

“Trump’s losses in Atlantic City casino projects, a Trump airline and the Plaza Hotel in New York were a staggering $916 million… Under normal Internal Revenue Service rules, those losses can be used to offset any future amount owed, but because the amount of the loss was so high Trump may have continued to avoid any tax liabilities for years… The documents do not constitute proof that Trump has paid no federal tax over such a long stretch, but it lends fuel to questions about his refusal to release his tax returns.”

Translation. We have absolutely no basis for the claims that we’re making them. But we’re not only making them, but headlining them.

Can I just point out that using the same logic, the New York Times has a large building with plenty of space to store the bodies of murdered hoboes. I have no evidence that the New York Times building is full of murdered hoboes. But the fact that it could be used for such a purpose combined with the refusal of the New York Times to let me inspect every inch of it in search of murdered hoboes certainly lends fuel to my wholly invented claim that the building is full of murdered hoboes.

NY Times opinion | Hillary Clinton’s Everywoman Moment

September 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Everywoman Moment, NY Times Editorial Board, September 27, 2016

(Trump has even said that has said women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men. Dear me! Please see also, Hillary’s ‘Body-Shamed’ Beauty Queen Accused of Being Accomplice to Attempted Murder and Threatening Judge. — DM)

The direct confrontation between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton over Mr. Trump’s treatment of women didn’t come until the final moments ofMonday night’s debate. But in many ways, the entire event played out as a big-screen version of what women encounter every day.

There were plenty of aha moments for any woman who is the sole female member of her company’s management team, a female sportscaster, bartender, cop, construction worker, law partner or, yes, a beauty queen. And maybe for the sole female presidential candidate, too.

Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. Trump by double digits among women and minorities. But non-college-educated white women are one of the biggest groups of undecided voters, and her campaign has been wooing them for months, toggling between portraying her as a tough potential commander in chief and a champion of women and girls.

hilltrumpedCredit Damon Winter/The New York Times

On Monday night, those women got to see Mrs. Clinton stand up to that common hazard of working while female: the sexist blowhard, the harasser.

When Mr. Trump began by addressing Mrs. Clinton as “Secretary Clinton,” saying, “yes, is that O.K.?,” Mrs. Clinton laughed off the condescension. But she wasn’t playing along — she was awaiting her moment. After nearly 90 minutes, it came.

Lester Holt, the NBC News anchor who moderated the debate, asked what Mr. Trump meant when he had said in a rally that Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have a “presidential look.”

“She doesn’t have the look,” he said. “She doesn’t have the stamina.”

Mrs. Clinton’s response: “Well, as soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina.”

When Mrs. Clinton finally got to unload what felt like the pent-up frustration of Everywoman, it was powerful. “This is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men,” she said. “And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman ‘Miss Piggy.’ Then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping,’ because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name. Her name is Alicia Machado.”

Mr. Trump blustered, but didn’t deny any of it. Instead, he dug himself in deeper by saying that Rosie O’Donnell, the comedian who was the target of some of those epithets, “deserves it.”

Mr. Trump’s misogyny is unlikely to turn off his core supporters. And his bullying of Mrs. Clinton — as well as his critique of her reversal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his remarks on the effect of globalization on jobs — may play well with white men reeling from technological change, job losses and addiction. Amid this upheaval, some have come to believe that when minorities, immigrants and women make gains, it pushes them further behind.

The debate’s clash over gender was telling for both candidates, and it may have helped establish Mrs. Clinton as a standard-bearer for more than Democrats.