Tag: nyt

New York Times Insists ‘No One Knows’ What is Behind ‘Staggering Fall’ in U.S. Murder Rate

The New York Times is dumbfounded as to what could be causing the fall in murder rates across the United States.

The Times was the first to report on the news that the U.S. murder rate had hit a 125-year low after President Donald Trump’s first year back in office.

According to data from the nonpartisan think tank, The Council on Criminal Justice, it is estimated that the homicide rate dropped 21 percent from 2024 to 2025.

“When nationwide data for jurisdictions of all sizes is reported by the FBI later this year, there is a strong possibility that homicides in 2025 will drop to about 4.0 per 100,000 residents,” the organization said.

”That would be the lowest rate ever recorded in law enforcement or public health data going back to 1900, and would mark the largest single-year percentage drop in the homicide rate on record,” they continued.

However, the paper has now claimed that “no one knows for sure” what is causing the massive decline.

While the Times asserted that Trump would try to take credit for the figures because of his tough approach to law and order, it has suggested that the two things are not correlated.

Keep reading

Here’s How The Media Are Lying Right Now: New York Times ‘Analysis’ Edition

There’s a helpful new way to determine whether the dying news media are lying: Simply look for some variation of the phrase, “according to a New York Times analysis.”

The Times itself has repeatedly relied on that little trick to cast blame on the Trump administration in the death of the angry anti-ICE leftist now identified as Renee Nicole Good. She was shot in Minneapolis last week after recklessly flooring it in her SUV in the middle of the street while disrupting a law enforcement operation.

“A New York Times analysis of videos of the shooting contradicts the Trump administration’s account.” (Jan. 7)

“But a Times analysis of video calls into question key aspects of the government’s account.” (Jan. 7)

“But our analysis of bystander footage, filmed from different angles, appears to show the agent was not in the path of the victim’s SUV when he fired three shots at close range.” (Jan. 8)

“[A] Times analysis of footage from three camera angles showed the motorist was driving away from — not toward — a federal officer when he opened fire.” (Jan. 8)

By “a Times analysis,” what the paper means is that a handful of content creators who work there looked at the same videos everyone else saw. There’s no reason to believe their eyes are any better than mine, and what I saw was clear. While officials were posted up in their vehicles, pedestrians were blowing whistles and yelling in protest. Good, the now-deceased woman, had her Honda Pilot parked longways in the center of the street, obstructing traffic. When three officers approached Good and commanded her to exit the vehicle, she threw her car into reverse before shifting forward and slamming the gas pedal, apparently striking one of the agents on his left side. That officer had his weapon drawn for her to see, and when she failed to brake, he fired multiple rounds. The SUV then crashed at high speed into another parked car on the road’s left shoulder.

It doesn’t matter whether Good was trying to avoid arrest or whether she suddenly remembered she forgot to blow out the candles before leaving her house. It doesn’t matter whether she was deliberately turning toward any of the agents or away from them. The fact remains that she broke the law by interfering with law enforcement and that she put the lives of everyone on scene at risk when she chose to hit the gas in her two-ton vehicle.

Keep reading

Once Again, the New York Times Sells Israel’s Genocide in Gaza as Law Enforcement

This is another masterclass from the New York Times in how to sell genocide as law enforcement.

According to today’s headline, “new Israeli rules” mean “suspensions” of aid groups from Gaza – that is, the forced expulsion of 37 humanitarian organizations from Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel.

These aid groups organize most of the field hospitals currently operating in Gaza and set up after Israel destroyed the enclave’s proper hospitals. The groups also run emergency shelters, water and sanitation services, and treatment centers for children with acute malnutrition.

Israel’s “registration rules” are a death sentence for a homeless, destitute Palestinian population left vulnerable to starvation, floods, winter cold and disease by Israel’s two-year destruction of their homeland.

Who is to blame? Apparently groups like Doctors Without Borders, Medical Aid for Palestinians and CARE. Why? Because they are “resisting” Israel’s “rules” to “provide detailed information” on their staff in Gaza – information Israel has used time and again to kill those aid workers.

As Doctors Without Borders point out, “we support one in five hospital beds and one in three births” in Gaza. Israel, it added, was “cutting off life-saving medical assistance for hundreds of thousands of people”.

Another organization affected by the new “rules”, the Norwegian Refugee Council, noted that Israel had killed hundreds of aid workers in the past two years. “For us, it is a safety concern for our staff. And acknowledging who they are – it puts them at risk.”

The New York Times wants you to forget who is the criminal here.

It is Israel that’s illegally occupying Gaza and other Palestinian territories – and has been for decades.

It is Israel that has bombed Gaza into the Stone Age.

It is Israel that has ethnically cleansed Gaza’s people from their lands, driving them into ever smaller concentration camps on those ruins, surrounded by Israel’s “yellow line”.

It is Israel that has starved the people of Gaza for months on end by blocking all aid.

It is Israel that’s killed at least 600 aid workers, 1,700 medical staff and 250 journalists in Gaza over the past two years.

It is Israel that has eradicated all Gaza’s hospitals and health care facilities, leaving its maimed and starved population vulnerable to infection and disease.

And it is Israel now expelling aid organizations vital to keep this homeless, bombed, maimed, starved, orphaned, traumatized population alive.

Criminals don’t get to set the “rules” – because the rules they set will, by definition, serve their criminal agenda.

Israel has not hidden that agenda. It wants to eradicate Gaza and its population. It has destroyed the people of Gaza’s homes and the infrastructure they need to survive – from hospitals and schools to sanitation services. It has blocked aid and food, and is now driving out the emergency aid organizations that served as a sticking plaster to keep this population just barely alive.

Israel’s goal is to make life so desperate, so impossible, that the rest of the world will consent to the expulsion of the Palestinian people from Gaza on “humanitarian” grounds.

The New York Times, like the rest of the media, are using language to persuade you that none of this is happening.

Keep reading

NY Times Editorial Board Member Has Possibly the Dumbest Take of All on Somali Fraud in Minnesota

Mara Gay of the New York Times is a special kind of stupid. Whenever she is brought on to cable news to comment on an issue, you know you’re in for a hot take.

In this case, she was on Morning Joe, offering her opinion on the Somali fraud scandal that is still unfolding in Minnesota.

She suggested that this was the result of the ‘weaponization’ of government, which doesn’t even make any sense.

Transcript via Real Clear Politics:

JONATHAN LEMIRE: And, Mara, this is a story that’s really gained a lot of traction among conservative media members, among MAGA folks online, including members of the Trump administration. Vice President JD Vance was posting about it the other day. There’s a lot we don’t know here just yet, but it does give off at least a sense—and we’ll see where the facts take us—but at least we can safely say this: it seems like Republicans are eager to be talking about something else amid a lot of the bad news surrounding the president right now.

MARA GAY, NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST: Right. Well, sure. These were funds that were meant to help feed hungry people during the COVID pandemic, to help keep people in their homes who were at risk of homelessness. So, first of all, if there is fraud there, that should be fully investigated—no matter where it is, whether it’s in a Democratic-led state or a Republican-led state. Absolutely, it should be investigated.

The question is, why is this a priority in a different kind of way? The politicization of the DOJ and the FBI is undeniable. So whether they are reliable narrators is the big question. This is what happens when you weaponize and politicize federal agencies that are not meant to be politicized.

I think the American people are right to ask the question: can we trust you? And that’s a sad thing to say as an American.

Keep reading

The New York Times ignores an essential part of the Jeffrey Epstein story — Israel

If you want to understand why conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein flourish, then you must read the interminable investigation the New York Times published, purporting to explain how Jeffrey Epstein clawed himself to the pinnacle of the financial/political/social world. “The Untold Story of How Jeffrey Epstein Got Rich” concludes that Epstein was the greatest conman and swindler that ever lived, and charmed the pants off of every powerful man he met. Some of his marks still curse Epstein for fleecing them. But the paradigm of the article is the execs at Bear Stearns back in the 70s who found out that the former math teacher at Dalton School had invented college degrees from “two California universities” but didn’t fire him because they wanted to give a humble kid from the outer boros a second chance. 

“You lied about your education,” [senior exec Michael] Tennenbaum said.

“Yes, I know,” Epstein calmly replied. He had never graduated from college. Tennenbaum recalls being disarmed by the admission. Decades later, he would regard it as an example of Epstein’s ability to manipulate his marks — in this case, him.

“Why did you do it?” Tennenbaum stammered.

Without an impressive degree or two, Epstein said, “I knew nobody would give me a chance.”

This resonated with Tennenbaum.

That’s a great story, and there is great reporting in this article. But the premise of the article is a stupid myth the NYT wants to believe– That Epstein was just the canniest, boldest con man that ever lived, and he left everybody swooning. The talented Mr Ripley. 

It’s a myth not because Epstein was not a bold and crafty con man – no doubt he was. But even a conman can have an ethos. Look at Gatsby, a mobster with romance. Look at Trump’s fascistic populism. And Jeffrey Epstein had an ethos that he played on over and over again as his racket grew; and that ethos was the love of Israel in the rising Jewish meritocratic establishment of the 70s. 

Almost every player in the Times story is a Jewish success story who lobbied for Israel in prestigious circles, from Dershowitz to Larry Summers, Leon Black, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, and Epstein’s most famous associations, Robert Maxwell and Les Wexner.  

Love of Israel was a lead criterion for inclusion in Epstein’s circle. I don’t think Epstein’s “marks” were even fooled by him. They knew he was a conman who played fast and loose. But they also knew that the Israel lobby has a need for charmers who break the rules, so they looked the other way.   

Epstein did numerous chores for Israel that investigative sites have documented and the Times does not touch: he helped Israel broker financial deals with neighbors, he had an Israeli spy living in his house for a time, and he had a close relationship with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak that included business ventures and politics in Israel.

“It’s well past time to ask questions about the billionaire pedophile’s links to Israel,” Jacobin says. 

Keep reading

David Brooks Said ‘Count Me Out’ Of Epstein Story, Then Wound Up In Epstein Photos

A few weeks ago, New York Times columnist David Brooks urged people to move on from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal already.

“The Epstein Story? Count Me Out,” reads the title of his Nov. 21 op-ed. In it, he laments that America’s political class has spent months trying to get a clearer picture of the late convicted sex offender’s ties to President Donald Trump and other powerful people, and what they may have known about Epstein’s child sex trafficking ring.

There are much more pressing issues facing the country, Brooks argued, and the real reason people are so focused on the Epstein scandal is because “the QAnon mentality has taken over America,” a reference to a far-right political conspiracy theory centered on a deep-state cabal of elite liberal pedophiles.

It’s also not fair to lump all wealthy and well-connected people into the category of “the Epstein class,” he argued. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has been using this phrase, something he’s said he picked up from voters who have asked him if he’s on the side of “forgotten Americans” or “the Epstein class.”

“I know a thing or two about the American elite, ahem, and if you’ve read my work, you may be sick of my assaults on the educated elites for being insular, self-indulgent and smug,” Brooks wrote. “But the phrase ‘the Epstein class’ is inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible. Say what you will about our financial, educational, nonprofit and political elites, but they are not mass rapists.”

The longtime New York Times columnist may have wanted to turn away from the Epstein scandal, but it found him on Thursday, when Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released more photos provided by Epstein’s estate ― and Brooks was in them.

He appears in four of these photos, all of which seem to be from the same event. One shows Brooks smiling for the camera, and another shows him seated at a table near Google co-founder Sergey Brin. Two more images show Brooks in the background, apparently holding a glass of wine, and then again, talking to Brin.

Epstein doesn’t appear in any of the pictures with Brooks, but is in two separate photos that seem to be from the same event.

The pictures don’t show Brooks doing anything weird or wrong. He was just hanging out with a group of rich and famous powerful men, one of whom happened to be a registered sex offender who’d pleaded guilty three years earlier to state charges for procurement of minors to engage in prostitution.

Asked for comment about Brooks appearing in the latest Epstein photo dump, The New York Times responded almost immediately.

“As a journalist, David Brooks regularly attends events to speak with noted and important business leaders to inform his columns, which is exactly what happened at this 2011 event. Mr. Brooks had no contact with him before or after this single attendance at a widely-attended dinner,” Danielle Rhoades Ha, senior vice president of communications at The New York Times, told HuffPost in an emailed statement.

Keep reading

N.Y. Times Contributor Who Went on Bigoted Anti-White Tirade Smears Jillian Michaels as ‘White Nationalist’ 

Former Democrat and celebrity fitness trainer Jillian Michaels stunned New York Times contributor Wajahat Ali after he tried to smear her as a “white nationalist.”

During an episode of “Piers Morgan Uncensored,” Ali attacked Michaels for expressing valid concerns about Islamic extremism. Ali suggested her views are outdated, and then he doubled down, calling Michaels a white nationalist.

Ali stated, “Ahmad Al-Ahmad is a 43-year-old Muslim fruit vendor who, unarmed, decided to bumrush one of the terrorists, disarmed him, took the gun while he was being shot at. He was shot twice. I didn’t realize this at first when I saw that amazing video. But then I later saw that he was shot twice. He held off the other shooter, and he saved lives.”

“In Germany, in March, there was a deranged Saudi national who, by the way, became radicalized by AfD and this type of white nationalism, and ended up hating Islam. He rammed a truck in a terrorist attack through a crowd. You know who stopped him? A Pakistani Muslim cab driver in Germany stopped him.,” he continued.

“When there was an attack on Jews in was in France a couple of years ago, there was an African-Black immigrant who protected them.”

“This is the story of an individual who decided to lean into empathy and decency and compassion and squared off against two individuals who were radicalized, we don’t know how, and saw Jews as the target through their dehumanization. There are 1. 7 billion Muslim people on Earth. Gillian’s talking points are from 2001, which is why I yawned.”

“The DeLorean right now is in 2025.”

Michaels cut in, “They’re not at all, actually.”

Ali continued, “Listen, I’ve been in this for a long time, Gillian. I know you’re discovering this. Congratulations. Let me just finish. I let you say a lot of hateful, stupid, reckless things about Muslim and Islam.

“You want to say 1%? That’s 20 million people,” Michael pressed.

“Gillian, you are….”

“You still have 16 dead, Wajahat.”

“You, by your own admission, are a white nationalist. By your own admission, that’s what you are, a white nationalist. You admitted it,” Ali stated. “I saw the clip.”

“You know I’m Arab, right?” Michaels asked. ” I’m Syrian and Lebanese and Turkish.”

“You’re the one who said it. I didn’t say it. That’s why I was shocked,” Ali continued.

“When did I say I was a white nationalist?” Michaels asked. “When was that?”

“You’re not a white nationalist?” Ali pressed.  “Wasn’t there a clip saying you were a white nationalist? When was that? You’re not a white nationalist.”

“No,” Michaels stated emphatically.

“Okay, interesting. Interesting to know. All right,” he replied.

Michaels then pressed Ali, “Where’s the clip that I said it was a white nationalist?”

A stuttering Ali answered, “I’m under the mistaken impression. I thought you were a white nationalist. I’m glad you’re not. But let me just finish. Since 2001…..”

Michaels cut in, “I’m a not a white nationalist. How about a little homework, Wajahat.”

“How about just a little?”

“All right, let’s do homework. Let’s do homework. Since 2001, Piers, since 2001, you and me, we were against the war on terror. We said that the war on terror would be disastrous. We said that the war on terror, America’s response to 19 foreign hijackers bringing down the two towers would cause immense chaos, dissension. What happened? America went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan off of terrible evidence, off of the same type of bullshit that Gillian is saying right now. If even 1% of Muslims, yada, yada, yada. What happened?”

“It’s all fact-based. You want me to cite the resources?” Michaels pressed. “Where would you like me to start? Pew Research, Counter Terrorism Discourse estimates, the European Court of Human Rights…..Are you kidding me?”

A petulant Ali continued….”Gillian, let me finish. Over 1 million Iraqis were killed. Afghans were killed and tortured. And it led to the radicalization of ISIS. It brought nothing but pain and misery in division.  Muslims, Jews, aren’t going anywhere, folks. We’re in this together. And what we have to realize that there are hate mongers who seek to divide us right now, like Gillian, who want to bring up Islamophobia and anti-seminism.”

“Actually, I’m not trying to divide us at all, Wajahat ” Michaels affirmed. “You’re the one actually has tried to divide us.”

Keep reading

NY Times Columnist Claims Trump Lies About Democrats Wanting Healthcare for Illegals – Then Admits it’s Happening

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently appeared on the podcast of New York Times columnist Ezra Klein. During the episode, in addition to saying that he ‘wants to see trans kids’ Newsom talked about providing healthcare for illegal aliens in his state.

Ezra Klein followed up their discussion by tweeting about it, but in his tweet he says two things that completely contradict each other.

He begins by saying that Trump lies about Democrats wanting healthcare for illegals. Then he says triumphantly that Gavin Newsom is actually doing it!

Keep reading

NYT Editorial Board Urges US To Prepare For Future War With China

The New York Times editorial board released a video this week calling for the US to “prepare for the future of war” and urged the Pentagon to take drastic steps to be better prepared for a potential fight with China, a conflict that could quickly turn nuclear.

“US politicians often boast that America has the ‘Strongest and most powerful military in the history of the world’ but behind closed doors, they’re being told a different story,” the editorial board said. “New York Times Opinion has learned that the Pentagon has been delivering a classified, comprehensive overview of US military power called the Overmatch brief. The report shows what could happen if a war were to break out between China and the United States. The results are alarming.”

The video said that a war with China might seem “purely hypothetical,” but claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping ordered the Chinese military to be ready to seize the island of Taiwan by 2027. However, that timeline is based on claims from the CIA and has never been confirmed by Chinese officials. Xi reportedly told President Biden last year that there were “no such plans” to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027.

Keep reading

The New York Times Is Suing the Pentagon. The Case Is Laughable

Just a few days ago, The New York Times filed a sweeping lawsuit accusing the Pentagon of violating the First and Fifth Amendments by updating the rules for Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials. 

The Times frames these rules as an attack on journalism itself. That framing is completely inaccurate. The Department of War implemented a policy aimed at securing one of the most sensitive buildings in the United States, and the policy neither restricts publication nor bars legitimate reporting. 

It simply establishes basic conditions for physical access to the Pentagon. 

Those conditions are lawful, reasonable, and consistent with long-standing principles governing access to nonpublic government facilities.

What the Times avoids acknowledging is that no journalist has a constitutional right to roam the Pentagon on an unescorted basis. Courts have been clear for decades that facilities such as the Pentagon are “nonpublic forums,” allowing the government to impose reasonable access limits that protect security and operational integrity. 

Access can be granted or denied based on compliance with building rules. It cannot be demanded as if the First Amendment guarantees a permanent press badge. 

The new Pentagon policy does not regulate what the Times may print, what sources it may speak with, or what stories it may pursue. It regulates whether a reporter may carry a credential that functions as a secure building pass.

Under the updated system, reporters seeking Pentagon Facilities Alternative Credentials (PFACs) must acknowledge that the Pentagon expects credentialed visitors not to solicit or encourage the unauthorized release of protected information. 

Federal employees already face strict rules governing how classified and controlled unclassified information is handled. The Pentagon’s policy simply reflects that reality: if reporters want special access inside a secure military headquarters, they cannot use that access to induce potential violations of federal disclosure rules. 

That standard does not restrict publication. It applies only to conduct inside a restricted facility and to abuses of the access privilege itself.

The Times argues that prohibiting solicitation of unauthorized disclosures “chills journalism.” 

It does not. 

Keep reading