Tag: nyt

Misinformation Scholarship Exposed As Liberal Activist Grift

A funny thing happened when the NY Times reported a month back that Elon Musk’s exit from DC politics had been facilitated by a group of activists targeting his electric car company after he abandoned Democrats, helped fund Trump’s election, and then ran DOGE.

In short, Musk supports zero Democratic Party politicians and none of their priorities.

Enter Democratic activists who protested against the company run by the party’s main boogey man—protests that sometimes veered into violence and started at the impetus of sociology professor Joan Donovan.

The problem with Times story is what the Times journalist doesn’t tell us, namely the function professor Joan Donovan has served at the New York Times and other legacy news. Labeling Donovan a “sociology professor at Boston University,” skips over this purported academic’s role as a central character in the Time’s fake narrative that America is awash in “disinformation” that can only be fixed by legacy media and professors, like Joan Donovan—a misinformation authority who allegedly publishes objective scholarship with neutral, verified facts and reliable truths.

“Dr. Donovan leads the field in examining internet and technology studies, online extremism, media manipulation, and disinformation campaigns,” explains one news site. “She conducts research, develops methods, and facilitates workshops for journalists, policy makers, technologists, and civil society organizations on how to detect, document, and debunk media manipulation campaigns.”

In reality, the entire arena of disinformation studies has been exposed as a jobs program for liberal activists who dress up in academic garb, to provide quotes to the Times when they run articles claiming anything not published in the New York Times might be disinformation.

Keep reading

Declassified Memos Reveal Comey’s Secret Media Mole Leaked Classified Information to The New York Times to Push For Special Counsel to Investigate Trump in Russia Hoax

Newly declassified memos reveal James Comey’s secret media mole Daniel Richman leaked classified information to The New York Times’s Michael Schmidt to help push for a special counsel in May 2017.

It was previously reported that James Comey penned nine memos stemming from his conversations with President Trump – and then leaked them through his Columbia University law professor ‘friend’ Daniel Richman.

Comey told the Senate Intel Committee in a June 2017 testimony that he asked a ‘friend’ of his to leak contents from memos he kept regarding his conversation with President Trump to the New York Times.

Comey admitted this after Senator Susan Collins asked him why he kept the memos. She then asked if he ever shared any of them outside the DOJ.

Daniel Richman confirmed to the Washington Examiner that he was Comey’s friend at Columbia. He has been referred to in the New York Times as a “longtime confidant and friend of Mr. Comey’s,” and his bio at Columbia’s website lists him as an “adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey.”

Not once did he ever disclose Daniel Richman was one of his personal lawyers or an unpaid employee of the FBI until right before his testimony.

In newly declassified memos, it was revealed that Comey shared classified information with Daniel Richman.

Richman told agents conducting the FBI’s “Arctic Haze” investigation that some of the classified information was all the way up to the SCI level [Sensitive Compartmented Information].

According to Just The News, the Arctic Haze investigation focused on four articles stemming from Richman’s leaks.

“The first was a New York Times article by four reporters — Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Eric Lichtblau — from late April 2017 titled “Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. from Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.” The second was a Washington Post story by Ellen Nakashima from early April 2017 titled “New details emerge about 2014 Russian hack of the State Department: It was ‘hand to hand combat’.”” Just The News reported.

“The third was another Washington Post piece by Karoun Demirjian and Devlin Barrett from late May 2017 titled, “How a Dubious Russian Document Influenced the FBI’s Handling of the Clinton Probe.” The fourth was a Wall Street Journal article by Holman Jenkins Jr. from late May 2017 titled, “The Trump-Russia Story Starts Making Sense.”” Just The News reported.

The leaks ultimately worked. On May 17, 2017, then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller to serve as Special Counsel to investigate the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Keep reading

NYT Op-Ed Pushes “New Definition of Death” So We Can Harvest More Organs

An op-ed in the New York Times is calling for a “new definition of death” so that we can increase the number of available donor organs.

I’m not exaggerating, it’s right there in the headline.

Sometimes you can only look at a headline and wonder.

Of course, redefining words and phrases is nothing new in the Great Reset world. “Case”, “cause of death”, “vaccine”, “terrorist”, “democracy”…all have received updated definitions in just the last few years. Rubberizing language so that words become malleable, with vague or even totally inverted meanings, is par for the course, just as Orwell predicted.

In this case, you take the word dead and “broaden” its definition to include…people who are alive.

Keep reading

NYT Admits Trump’s Tariffs Are Generating ‘Significant’ Federal Income — Already Generated $150 Billion in Revenue

The New York Times has admitted that President Trump’s policy of tariffs is already generating a lot of income for the federal government.

In an article published on Sunday, the Times acknowledged that the federal government may soon become dependent on this revenue because of the ballooning fiscal deficit.

The Times explains:

President Trump’s extensive tariffs have already started to generate a significant amount of money for the federal government, a new source of revenue for a heavily indebted nation that American policymakers may start to rely on.

As part of his quest to reorder the global trading system, Mr. Trump has imposed steep tariffs on America’s trading partners, with the bulk of those set to go into effect on Aug. 7.

Even before the latest tariffs kick in, revenue from taxes collected on imported goods has grown dramatically so far this year.

Customs duties, along with some excise taxes, generated $152 billion through July, roughly double the $78 billion netted over the same time period last fiscal year, according to Treasury data.

Keep reading

Don’t Believe The Lies From NYT Russia Hoaxers About The Durham Annex

New documents shedding light on the Trump-Russia collusion hoax dropped Thursday, and the corporate media are still running cover for the same chicanery they helped launder back in 2016. Especially dishonest is the spin from Russia hoax handmaiden Charlie Savage of The New York Times, who falsely claimed Thursday night that the previously classified annex to the Durham report said something it never actually said.

The 29-page annex is a byproduct of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the decision by Barack Obama’s intelligence agencies to investigate then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016, based in part on a collection of falsehoods commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign known as the Steele dossier. In his report, released in 2023, Durham found the FBI lacked justification for investigating Trump and spying on his campaign.

He also found that the Obama intel agencies had been made aware of intelligence suggesting Hillary Clinton planned “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference” by the Russians. In 2016, the Clinton campaign’s law firm commissioned the Steele dossier, which included salacious lies about Trump and Russia, and shopped it to the FBI, which then launched the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump. In his report, Durham blasted the agencies for falling for allegations of Trump-Russia collusion despite their foreknowledge that it could be a Clinton-engineered hoax.

The annex released Thursday includes Russian intelligence memos obtained by U.S. agencies that evidence Durham’s suspicion that Clinton had approved a plan to smear Trump. The Russians claimed to have obtained several emails from Soros executive Leonard Benardo, one of which said that “HRC [Clinton] approved Julia’s idea about Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections.”

Keep reading

A new ‘dossier’ reveals extensive pro-Israel bias among reporters, editors and executives at the ‘NYTimes’

Normally, New York Times journalists work under a strict code of behavior meant to reduce the appearance of bias in their reports. They are not, for instance, allowed to attend political rallies or demonstrations in their personal capacity. One Times reporter told me years ago that she couldn’t go to a pro-abortion rights march, even though she didn’t cover the issue. These restrictions extend into the Internet Age. Times journalists on social media are supposed to be guarded in their opinions, and they can be cautioned if they overstep.

But the Times’s struggle against even the appearance of bias vanishes when the subject is Israel and the Palestinians. The organization called Writers Against the War on Gaza recently released a “dossier” which listed “high-ranking editors, journalists and executive officers at the Times” who the group alleges have “material and ideological ties to occupation and apartheid.”

Most obvious are Times reporters who have personal or family connections to Israel’s military. The dossier cites Natan Odenheimer, who actually served in the army’s “Maglan” special forces commando unit for almost 4 years. Interestingly, Odenheimer’s own summary of his experience on the Times website completely leaves out this portion of his biography. He tells us: “I’ve reported on Israelis and Palestinians for over a decade, and my work has also taken me to Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and other locations.” But somehow his military experience didn’t make the cut.

Reporter Isabel Kershner’s two sons served in Israel’s military. And in the past, Ethan Bronner’s son was also a soldier. The dossier notes that Bill Keller, then the Times’s executive editor, actually defended that connection, arguing that Bronner’s reporting benefited, because his son’s service “suppl[ied] a measure of sophistication about Israel and its adversaries that someone with no connections would lack.” (For the record, this site has over the years been on top of this story. Here’s the Kershner connection, from more than a decade ago. And Phil Weiss explained how Bronner went to great lengths to try and conceal the link.)

Let’s pause for a thought experiment. Let’s say the Times considered hiring a Palestinian reporter in Jerusalem — who it then turned out had belonged to a militant group in his or her youth. The ensuing firestorm of criticism would instantly sink the appointment. 

Keep reading

“I Can’t Believe The New York Times Thought It Would Get Away With This…”

The irony is thick enough to choke on…

The New York Times, that bastion of so-called journalistic integrity, churned out yet another hit piece on President Donald Trump, painting him as some vengeful tyrant hell-bent on crushing his political foes. 

According to the paper, Trump supposedly views his opponents as downright evil, promising a campaign of retribution that sends shivers down the spines of the elite media class. 

Last week, he denounced a reporter as a “very evil person” for asking a question he did not like. This week, he declared that Democrats are “an evil group of people.” 

“Evil” is a word getting a lot of airtime in the second Trump term. It is not enough anymore to dislike a journalistic inquiry or disagree with an opposing philosophy. Anyone viewed as critical of the president or insufficiently deferential is wicked. The Trump administration’s efforts to achieve its policy goals are not just an exercise in governance but a holy mission against forces of darkness.

The characterization seeds the ground to justify all sorts of actions that would normally be considered extreme or out of bounds. If Mr. Trump’s adversaries are not just rivals but villains, then he can rationalize going further than any president has in modern times. 

This isn’t journalism; it’s selective outrage at its finest. The Times acts like Trump’s tough talk is some unprecedented assault on democracy, conveniently forgetting or willfully ignoring the years of venomous rhetoric that the left spewed against Trump and conservatives everywhere. It has the gall to portray Trump as the villain while pretending that its side hasn’t been fanning the flames of division for nearly a decade. 

If the Times is so concerned about demonizing political enemies, maybe it should look in the mirror, or better yet, revisit one of the most egregious examples from its own camp: from Barack Obama’s spying on Trump to frame him for colluding with Russia to Joe Biden’s lawfare campaign that literally tried to put Trump in prison.

Actions may speak louder than words, but Joe Biden spoke rather loudly during his infamous speech at Independence Hall back in 2022, where he didn’t even hide the fact that he saw his political allies as evil.

Keep reading

‘The Guy’s Brain Is Mush’: Joe Biden’s Quotes in NYT Interview Deemed ‘Unintelligible’

Former President Joe Biden’s (D) ability to process and respond to information is once again being called into question after an interview with the New York Times (NYT).

Biden spoke with the newspaper over the phone on Thursday and was questioned about clemency actions he took as his time in the White House drew to a close, the Times reported on Sunday.

“Mr. Biden did not personally sign the official warrants recording those decisions; rather his White House staff used an autopen device to do so,” the article said.

The newspaper then shared excerpts from the interview.

Regarding allegations from President Trump and others that “Biden was incapacitated and his aides abused the autopen” the former president claimed:

They’re liars. They know it. They know, for certain. I mean, this is — look, what they, they’ve had a pretty good thing going here. They’ve done so badly. They’ve lied so consistently about almost everything they’re doing. The best thing they can do is try to change the focus and focus on something else. And this is a — I think that’s what this is about.

It’s — you know — it’s consistent with Trump’s game plan all along. I mean, if I — I don’t expect you to answer any questions — but if I told you three years ago, we’d have a president doing this, I think you’d look at me in the eye and say, “What, are you crazy?”

About the pre-emptive pardons he bestowed on his own family members, he said, “In terms of my fam — he — go after me through my family. I know how vindictive he is.”

Those quotes are from “excerpts” of the interview published by the Times.

Keep reading

New York Times Readers and Staffers Unable to Handle a Rare Brush with Objective Journalism

The New York Times is experiencing backlash among its staff and readers after it held New York City mayor candidate Zohran Mamdani to account on Thursday for apparently lying on his application to Columbia University by claiming he was black.

Law professor and legal commentator Jonathan Turley wrote about the incident on his website Sunday, detailing the drama unfolding at the paper of record.

“The paper was denounced by its own staff and liberal pundits called for the entire editorial staff to be canned,” Turley wrote. “Why? Because The New York Times actually reported news that was deemed harmful to the Democrats, specifically Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani.”

The Times’ assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust, Patrick Healy, wrote a long thread on the social media site X that stated: “When we hear anything of news value, we try to confirm it through direct sources. Mr. Mamdani confirmed this information in an interview with The Times.”

Healy seemed like a hostage. He rattled off 11 tweets as if he was waving his hands in the air, screaming his defense. Ultimately, he bowed to the mob.

The Times couldn’t have pulled the story. That would’ve been professional suicide. But this step-by-step explainer was the next best thing. This is not a good look for American journalism.

“For liberals, it was an utter nightmare,” Turley continued. “For a party still defined by identity politics, Mamdani’s false claim over his race left many uncertain about how to react. The left has always maintained a high degree of tolerance for false claims by its own leaders, from Sen. Elizabeth Warren claiming to be a native American to Sen. Richard Blumenthal claiming to have served in the Vietnam War.”

Turley also rightly pointed out that many people who patronize the Times are emotionally triggered. The legal scholar highlighted the “anger” felt by the far-left when this happens and compared it to how liberals on college campuses feel when opposing views are offered.

“The fact is that the Mamdani story was obvious news — and confirmed by the candidate himself,” Turley declared. “Mamdani identified as both Asian and African American on his 2009 Columbia University application, according to the New York Times.”

The Times piece stated: “Columbia, like many elite universities, used a race-conscious affirmative action admissions program at the time. Reporting that his race was Black or African American in addition to Asian could have given an advantage to Mr. Mamdani, who was born in Uganda and spent his earliest years there.”

“In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Mamdani, 33, said he did not consider himself either Black or African American, but rather ‘an American who was born in Africa,’” the story continued. “He said his answers on the college application were an attempt to represent his complex background given the limited choices before him, not to gain an upper hand in the admissions process.”

Mamdani cheated the system, and in the end, he didn’t even get accepted to Columbia. For someone who pushes “equality” at all costs, isn’t that significant? Doesn’t it prove he’s a liar, a fraud, and an opportunist?

Keep reading

The NYT’s Flip-Flop On Illegal Alien Gang Takeovers Proves They’re Just Propagandists For Dems

Less than two months before the presidential election, The New York Times’ (NYT) Jonathan Weisman tried to protect Vice President Kamala Harris’ open-border agenda by mocking then-candidate Donald Trump for pointing out that illegal alien gangs had taken over an apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado.

“How the False Story of a Gang ‘Takeover’ in Colorado Reached Trump,” Weisman wrote.

“Caught in the middle are a number of migrants, living in dilapidated apartments that Aurora officials now call squalor, amid ‘criminal elements,’ not widespread gang activity, and unable to find or afford better,” the story read.

If you only read Weisman’s report, you’d have believed the real problem was just an “out-of-state landlord” who didn’t feel like fixing up a few units. As Weisman put it, the landlord “offered a new argument for why it couldn’t repair the buildings: Venezuelan gangs had taken over, and the property managers had been forced to flee.”

Weisman begrudgingly acknowledged the viral video showing Tren de Aragua gang members parading around the complex with weapons drawn but only long enough to couch it by arguing “documentation was scarce.”

But don’t worry, nothing to see here! And what you were seeing from Trump was nearly “fear-mongering, exaggerations, and outright lies …” according to Weisman.

Fast forward ten months, and the NYT’s Ted Conover is spreading those same “outright lies.”

“Democrats Denied This City Had a Gang Problem,” Conover wrote. “The Truth Is Complicated.”

“The presence of young men with guns in the apartment complex, called the Edge at Lowry, was not a rarity,” Conover wrote, detailing gruesome details of the gang violence plaguing the complex. Conover reports what The Times pretended was “false” before: illegal aliens in gangs seen by residents carrying pistols and an assault rifle in the hallways.

Keep reading