Tag: nyt

Correcting the NY Times ACIP Reporting on Vaccine Injury

Seeing Sunday’s NY Times headline titled Confidential Report Calls for Sweeping Changes to Track Covid Vaccine Harms, a reflexive question flashed in the minds of even the most staunch defenders of legacy vaccine policy – Is the NY Times about to dismiss the Covid vaccine injured?

For those who don’t care to read the outlet’s reporting, here are what the author’s chose to add as closing words:

“The basis of supposed Covid vaccine injury syndrome is even less persuasive and thus even less directly relevant to vaccine policy…”

For experienced readers, seeing who the article’s lead author is should have caused pause immediately. When is comes to journalistic integrity, Apoorva Mandavilli is not who comes to mind.

In an October 6, 2021 NYT’s article titled A New Vaccine Strategy for Children: Just One Dose, for Now Mandavilli stated that 900,000 U.S. children have been hospitalized due to Covid. She was forced to correct the glaring error when the real number was found to be slightly more than 63,000.

In 2022 Mandavilli reported on the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation of Pfizer’s Covid shot for kids 5-11-years-old. NY Times initially reports, “Nearly 4,000 children aged 5 to 11 have died from a Covid-related condition called multisystem inflammatory syndrome during the pandemic.”

Mandavilli was again forced to add a correction”

Keep reading

NYT Accidentally Confesses There’s A Left-Wing Judicial Coup Against Trump

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has never been one to show good judgement. When he’s not getting caught conducting “personal business” on a staff Zoom call, he’s accidentally admitting that there’s an ongoing leftist-led judicial coup designed to stymie President Trump’s agenda.

The serial self-pleasurer let the proverbial cat out of the bag in his Monday opinion column for The New York Times. Titled, “The Plan for a Radically Different Supreme Court Is Here,” the article purports to roll out a blueprint for countering conservative appointments of originalist judges to the bench but inadvertently discloses the existence of leftists’ efforts to weaponize the judicial system against Trump.

The admission comes in the piece’s opening paragraphs, in which Toobin discusses the American Constitution Society and its new president, Phil Brest. The ACS has often been described as the less successful and left-wing alternative to the conservative Federalist Society, which has become an influential force in getting originalists appointed to the Supreme Court and other federal judgeships.

Toobin notes how Brest — who worked in the Biden White House’s counsel office — “helped the president nominate and win confirmation of 235 federal judges, which is more than Mr. Trump’s total in his first term.” In the very next sentence, however, the CNN legal analyst let it slip that these judicial appointments have become the left’s primary tool in grinding Trump and his voters’ agenda to a halt.

“Those [Biden] judges — and others appointed by Democratic presidents — have proved that the most effective resistance to Mr. Trump has come not from Democratic politicians but rather from federal judges,” wrote Toobin, who subsequently listed off a series of overreaching orders issued by “these judges, many of them Biden appointees,” against the 47th president.

Toobin goes on to lament how the ACS has not boasted the same level of success as groups like The Federalist Society and has failed to advance an alternative style of judicial interpretation to originalism, which emphasizes the interpretation of the Constitution as written at the time of its adoption. Once again, the CNN legal analyst openly admits that — contrary to the article’s headline — the ACS doesn’t actually have a different philosophy or “plan” in mind, and that the group’s only strategy at the moment is appointing activist judges who will abuse their authority to stonewall Republican presidents.

“For now, under Mr. Brest, the A.C.S. seems headed for an approach that looks like the one that Democratic politicians have so far adopted: aimed more at opposition to Mr. Trump’s record rather than on a specific, alternative vision for the Constitution. In his opening message to the group, Mr. Brest described the A.C.S. as building ‘a bulwark against overreach by the Trump administration and the Roberts court,’” Toobin wrote. “Mr. Brest has pledged that A.C.S. will continue its Biden-era focus on judicial appointments … As for what those judges will stand for — as opposed to what they stand against — Mr. Brest has no clear answer.”

What Toobin’s article encapsulates is the left’s ongoing struggle session about how best to lie to the American people about the kinds of legal minds they want to appoint to the bench and their blatant disregard for proper separation of powers.

The entire reason for the modern originalist movement’s foundation and ultimate success is because of past Supreme Courts’ embrace of living constitutionalism, a style of judicial interpretation in which judges treat the Constitution as a “living” document that magically evolves with the times. It is through this philosophy that judges take it upon themselves to act as legislators and effectively rewrite America’s founding document as they see fit.

Keep reading

New York Times Hit Piece On ICE Facilities’ Medical Care Is Riddled With Falsehoods, DHS Says

Ahit piece in The New York Times claiming the medical care provided at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers is ‘poor’ is riddled with falsehoods, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told The Federalist.

The New York Times on Saturday ran through several claims that several illegal aliens did not receive proper care: Aliens were forced to wait long periods of time to be “lucky enough to see a doctor,” diabetes patients did not receive regular insulin, and detainees faced various other medical care failures.

According to DHS, those claims are totally unfounded.

“These allegations of illegal aliens being denied proper medical care in ICE custody are FALSE. It is both policy and longstanding practice for aliens to receive timely and appropriate medical care from the moment they enter ICE custody,” Dr. Sean Conley, DHS chief medical officer, told The Federalist. “This includes medical, dental, women’s health and mental health services, any needed follow up medical appointments as well as  24-hour emergency care. This is better, more responsive healthcare than many aliens have ever received in their entire lives.”

The New York Times claims that medical staff at Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas “downplayed” the concerns Kheilin Domelis Valero Marcano and Stiven Jose Arrieta Prieto had about the medical condition of their 18-month-old daughter, Amalia Isabella Arrieta-Valero. The Biden administration released the Venezuelan family in 2024 after they entered the country illegally, according to DHS.

Marcano and Prieto claim, apparently through a lawyer, that medical staff delayed until Arrieta-Valero developed a fever that allegedly lasted 19 days and caused her to lose two pounds.

According to DHS, however, after Arrieta-Valero developed a respiratory condition, she “immediately received proper medical care and was admitted to the Methodist Children’s Hospital in San Antonio, Texas for treatment.”

She stayed at the hospital for eight days, and then a pediatrician approved her release. She was brought back to Dilley, where she received further medical monitoring and prescriptions.

Another claim in the hit piece is about Anastasiia Ekimovskaia, a 35-year-old illegal alien from Russia who entered the United States illegally on Oct. 6, 2025, who “reported no medical or mental health” concerns upon arrival at Dilley, DHS said.

The New York Times says DHS staff refused care to Ekimovskaia for hemorrhaging and bleeding “through six sanitary pads.” She was ultimately taken to a hospital, allegedly after “pleading with staff and after they demanded proof.” She showed the pads and was given a prescription that “took weeks to arrive” as “the bleeding continued.”

According to DHS, Ekimovskaia said she had side pain on Nov. 1, and disclosed a “history of kidney stones.” After consulting with the medical staff who “started appropriate treatment” and planned a future visit to revisit the situation, on Nov. 6, she sought care for “menstrual discomfort and heavy bleeding,” DHS said.

After going to Frio Regional Hospital upon referral from Dilley’s medical provider, she was “diagnosed with moderate heavy menstrual bleeding” and referred to an off-site obstetrician-gynecologist and had “multiple follow-up appointments.”

Keep reading

The Heavy Pot Taxes Favored by The New York Times Would Undermine Legalization

The New York Times embraced legalization of recreational marijuana in 2014, two years after Colorado and Washington became the first states to take that step. By that point, most Americans opposed pot prohibition, and that majority has grown since then.

Although the Times does not regret endorsing legalization, its editorial board now says stricter regulation and heavier taxation are necessary to curtail the costs associated with marijuana abuse. Those recommendations elide two inconvenient facts: Cannabis is still federally prohibited, and states are still struggling to replace unauthorized pot peddlers with government-licensed marijuana merchants.

The Times emphasizes that “occasional marijuana use is no more a problem than drinking a glass of wine with dinner or smoking a celebratory cigar.” But while marijuana “is safer than alcohol and tobacco in some ways,” the Times says, “it is not harmless.”

Frequent cannabis consumption has increased substantially in recent years, the Times notes, and roughly one in 10 marijuana users “develops an addiction.” Even nonaddicted cannabis consumers “can still use it too much,” it says, since “people who are frequently stoned can struggle to hold a job or take care of their families.”

The Times also mentions cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, “marijuana-linked paranoia,” and the danger posed by stoned drivers. “Any product that brings both pleasures and problems requires a balancing act,” the Times says, which means “personal freedom” must be curtailed to protect “public health.”

That formulation is inherently paternalistic, since the “public health” burden to which the Times refers is borne mainly by cannabis consumers themselves. And the moral logic of the hefty marijuana taxes that the Times favors is questionable.

Those taxes would add to the difficulties that some heavy consumers face while punishing the occasional use that the paper says is no big deal. Although “adults should have the freedom to use” marijuana, the Times says, they must pay the government for that privilege.

A tax-based “balancing act” also raises practical difficulties. “The first step in a strategy to reduce marijuana abuse should be a federal tax on pot,” the Times says, gliding over the point that Congress cannot impose an excise tax on marijuana products unless it is prepared to legalize them.

The editorial does not explicitly acknowledge the need for that step. To the contrary, it implicitly criticizes President Donald Trump’s decision to reclassify marijuana under federal law, which falls far short of legalization.

Keep reading

New York Times accidentally proves Deep State is a 100% REAL evil supervillain…

Way before people started calling it the “Deep State,” Washington had a built-in system that never changed no matter who won the White House. It is the permanent bureaucracy, entrenched military brass, intelligence chiefs, and federal powers that outlast presidents and shape outcomes.

And according to newly unsealed testimony, Richard Nixon didn’t just believe that machine existed. He walked straight into this buzz saw and was shredded.

The New York Times just published a very interesting piece divulging that while Nixon was drowning in Watergate hell, there was something else happening behind the scenes… something way more explosive and dangerous. It was a wartime espionage operation run by senior military officials inside the Pentagon. This was the actual Deep State running an operation against the President of The United States.

The Joint Chiefs had a mole inside the White House, stealing classified docs and handing them over to senior military commanders.

This is the New York Times admitting that entrenched bureaucratic forces (Deep State) respond aggressively when they feel threatened.

Moorer-Radford exposed a hidden feature of the American political system that endures: When excluded from their spheres of interest, entrenched bureaucratic forces will, almost as a biological reflex, respond aggressively.

Just look at all the people spying. It’s a literal free-for-all.

The NYT piece explains:

Declassified documents and scholarship published since 1974 have established that the F.B.I., under its director, J. Edgar Hoover, spied on Mitchell, the attorney general, and that the C.I.A. detailed its personnel to various units associated with Nixon, including the Watergate burglary team and “components intimately associated with the office of the president,” as the agency admitted in 1975.

Think about this… the Joint Chiefs is spying, the FBI is spying, and the CIA is embedded. And all of this is connected to a sitting US president.

And Nixon knew exactly what was happening, but he decided not to expose it.

Why?

Because blowing it wide open would’ve ripped the military apart smack in the middle of the Cold War.

So Nixon swallowed it.

Watergate became the headline, and the spy operation disappeared into a black hole somewhere, stamped classified, and forgotten.

That was 1971.

Keep reading

David Sacks Exposes New York Times For Shielding Reid Hoffman In Epstein Files

Venture capitalist David Sacks has slammed The New York Times for its glaring failure to scrutinize Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder emerging as the top Silicon Valley figure in the explosive Jeffrey Epstein files.

In a scathing segment on the All-In Podcast, Sacks highlighted how the establishment media targets right-leaning tech moguls while giving a free pass to left-wing donors deeply entangled with Epstein.

“Brad, you speak about the corruption of power centers. I think a major one has to be The New York Times,” Sacks urged.

“The number-one person in the Epstein files from Silicon Valley which is Reid Hoffman mentioned 2,600 times had a multiyear relationship with Epstein and they call each other very good friends. They did deals together,” Sacks explained.

He continued, “Reid stayed at the trifecta which is not just the island but the townhouse and the New Mexico ranch. And if you’re gonna write about Mark Zuckerberg organize that famous dinner how can you not mention that as the root of Epstein’s involvement in Silicon Valley?”

“And yet Reid just gets a mentioned in one sentence of article along with several other people,” Sacks stressed.

He accused the Times of selective outrage, noting “It is crazy. I mean The New York Times clearly has a list people they consider approved targets. They are all right coded people like Elon or Peter Thiel.”

“And they become targets but the people who have donated hundreds millions dollars to the Democrat Party and have paid for dirty tricks against Trump, they basically are spared. Honestly this is just emblematic of the whole institutional rot in a distrust in the country right there,” Sacks explained.

“Part of the cabal, it’s part of the institutions that people are losing faith in, and you know Epstein was a scumbag and the fact of matter is we’re not seeing equal play on both sides,” Sacks further urged.

The remarks come amid fresh revelations from the Justice Department’s massive Epstein document dump, which includes emails showing Hoffman’s ongoing interactions with the convicted sex offender long after his 2008 plea deal.

Newly unsealed emails reveal Hoffman discussing visits to Epstein’s notorious private island, his New Mexico ranch, and his New York apartment. One 2015 message has Epstein boasting about a “wild dinner” with Hoffman, Mark Zuckerberg, and others.

Keep reading

GOP senator excoriates NY Times for bad reporting on Arctic Frost, IDs reporters by name

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday slammed the New York Times over its reporting on whistleblowers, which he claimed intended to discredit real whistleblowers who were shedding light on misconduct.

Grassley said the series of reports, which were done by New York Times reporters Glenn Thrush, Alan Feuer and Adam Goldman, date back to 2023 when Goldman wrote a report that was “designed to undermine my exposure of former FBI agent [Timothy] Thibault’s political conduct.”

“Goldman wrote his article before knowing all the facts,” Grassley claimed during floor remarks. “For one, Thibault was found to have violated the Hatch Act for anti-Trump political conduct at work. Second, Goldman’s article didn’t account for emails I released last year showing Thibault violated the FBI’s rules in opening and advancing Arctic Frost.”

Grassley said another article from last year attempted to dismiss Arctic Frost concerns by stating the FBI “took normal bureaucratic steps and precautions” when looking into the case. 

“Was this supposed to be an opinion piece on behalf of terminated FBI agents or a real news article?” Grassley questioned. “Normal steps weren’t taken.”

The senator admitted that the House and Senate are now receiving oversight documents they requested years ago, but that the production was because of cooperation from the Trump administration.

“To Attorney General [Pam] Bondi and [FBI] Director [Kash] Patel’s credit, they’ve done better in that regard than any of their predecessors,” Grassley said. “Am I fully satisfied? Of course not. But Bondi and Patel deserve credit, and if the Biden administration had done the same, I’d give them credit, too.”

Grassley also slammed the New York Times for its coverage of the Mar-a-Lago raid, accusing the outlet of mischaracterizing his post that the raid was a “miscarriage of justice,” because it did not include his full comment.

The senator additionally claimed the outlet accused his trusted whistleblowers of violating the law by disclosing subpoenas from Jack Smith, which they shared with Congress and not the media. 

Keep reading

How the Public Feels Post-Covid

Some people wonder why I look at the New York Times. It’s because I want to see what narratives the “newspaper of record” is pushing. I read an article about ten years ago by an ex-NYT editor, who said that at the beginning of the year, the editors were given a list of the themes to be followed that year. I think he was making clear that they were told which narratives they were intended to push.

Below, I critique an “Opinion Piece” by a journalist who knows nothing about the subject of pandemic countermeasures, except that it is his job to pan whatever the current administration is doing, especially if it will save taxpayers money and reduce the risks of Gain-of-Function research.

Let’s look at the NYT author first, best known for exaggerating the effects of global warming. No science background. But he did beat up RFK in an August 13 opinion piece—well, that probably trumps a PhD in the subject matter at the NYT.

His book and article on climate change are described as terrifying. And he attempts to terrify us with his straw man argument today. (FYI, a straw man argument misrepresents what the opposer actually said, and argues against the misrepresentation.)

Keep reading

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