In the war on truth, the press can’t be an innocent bystander

Yes, Peter Baker of the New York Times, truth was on trial on Monday, as you wrote in your lede, but your job was not to throw up your hands and wink, it was to shout the truth from the rooftops, and you failed.

Why did the Washington Post and the New York Times race so hard after...

The Washington Post "broke" the story. The New York Times chased it. But was it worth giving sources anonymity in order to dutifully report what was effectively a trial balloon previewing possible spin from Bill Barr's Justice Department? And why was it worth chasing?

New York Times tees up impeachment hearings with epic false equivalence and both-siderism

The paper of record takes a position of neutrality on what is true and what is not as it limbers up to cover the public phase of the impeachment process.

Jonathan Weisman, deputy Washington editor for the New York Times, reveals his own toxic...

Weisman essentially asserted that urban areas -- not just Detroit and Minneapolis, but Atlanta, and Austin -- are not a part of America's geography at all. What's even more telling is that he obviously thought this was non-controversial -- even self-evident.

Biased or Lazy? New York Times Traffics in False Dichotomies About Democrats

The progressive vs. pragmatic, head vs. heart dichotomy is an insidious one. You are presuming an awful lot when you call something “pragmatic”; you are presuming that it will be effective -- indeed more effective than the alternative. Your are also presuming that the candidate calling for less radical change is the pragmatic one, and therefore a safer bet when it comes to electability. But that’s not necessarily pragmatism; that’s caution, or even timidity.