Over the weekend, the New York Times once against proved why it's having major financial problems.
Well if Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t like it, you’d better fix it! When liberal media is starting to turn on you, you had better act quickly in order to thwart those efforts Mr. Bloomberg!
Are there any fact checkers at the New York Times? Since they’ve allowed some glaring mistakes by Paul Krugman, I guess the answer is no. But some mistakes are worse than others.
If political success equates with how often you drive The New York Times nuts, the freshly minted junior senator from Texas could be bound for some conservative Rushmore.
Turns out the New York Times is worried about the future of the Republican Party. So concerned, in fact, it has dedicated more than 6,000 words in this week’s magazine to explore, as the title puts it, “Can The Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence?”
The New York Times called the SOTU “making the case for government,” but it was in fact the unveiling of gridlock, the opening of the era of Big Gridlock.
Because the Roman Catholic Church adamantly defends life in the womb, the oldest and most infirm and the institution of marriage, it has legions of foes spread throughout major media. Those critics will surface repeatedly between now and the selection of the new pope to use the occasion to sling their stones. It is a fun time, really, since they know almost nothing of which they speak, and their agenda journalism is of so little consequence unlike the MSM's recent interventions in the presidential election.
Republicans are standing out on the ledge contemplating their next move. They have an air of desperation, having lost an election they believe they should have won.
Most parents hope that their children will grow to adulthood and find and marry a good spouse. But it’s becoming increasingly difficult for young adults to date in ways that lay a solid foundation for a strong marriage.
In Sunday's New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, "More Guns = More Killing." She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.