NY Times political coverage

Arthur Brisbane, NYT's public editor, seems to be admitting to leftist bias at the paper. Some conservative websites, like Breitbart, are doubtful there will be any meaningful changes. I agree with that because the NYT and their staff are far-left.

The numerous major scandals at the White House get little or no coverage in the NYT. Giving guns and ammo to Mexican drug cartels -- which resulted in many murders, including a US border patrolman -- gets very few column inches at NYT. Same with a six-layer birth certificate -- which means the certificate is fake. I'm not seeing any coverage about the White House clearing itself of wrongdoing in the Colombian hooker scandal. When's the last time somebody was allowed to decide their own guilt or innocence?

Here's what the father of dead Border Patrol agent Brian Terry said:

"I think they are liars and I would tell them that," said Kent Terry from his home in central Michigan. "What would I say to Eric Holder? They would not be nice words."

I had to get the above quote from Fox News because NY Times is only offering the briefest of coverage on this major scandal.

I think what Brisbane is doing is subterfuge. The paper knows they are far left. Anyone who reads the paper regularly knows that they attack everything that doesn't promote the liberal/socialist/communist view, and vigorously promotes everything that does promote the view. Brisbane is offering a lukewarm admission of being soft on Obama to relieve some of the pressure of critics, but nothing more.

I think one of the clearest examples of the bias is their coverage of Europe's debt crisis, which is labeled a "debt crisis" in most liberal news outlets in the U.S. Meanwhile, the US has a bigger debt crisis than any European country, even Greece, but liberal media here won't label our problems a "debt crisis". Contrarily, they immediately attack any politician who wants a balanced budget. In fact, they attack politicians who want a slight decrease in this wild overspending. They are said to want old people to starve, among other things. Yet, Europe is suffering a debt crisis to the point where the new EU budget rules limit deficit spending to 3%.

Here, where there is no debt crisis, according to the NY Times and other leftist media, 25% to 30% deficit spending is right and correct. Twice Obama lectured Europe that they should be spending more (G20 meetings), and twice they laughed at him, with one European finance official calling Obama's policies "clueless". NYT did not tell their readers about any of this, to my knowledge. Obama's spending is absurd, and the NY Times support of it is absurd.

Here's something from Krugman at the NYT right now:

Just how stupid does Mitt Romney think we are? If you’ve been following his campaign from the beginning, that’s a question you have probably asked many times.

The worst part of the far-left bias of the NY Times is their denials, despite Brisbane's attempts to mitigate the criticism:

I asked Richard Stevenson, the political editor overseeing campaign coverage, about these matters, and he offered a detailed e-mail response, noting that “we take very seriously our responsibility to report without favoritism.”

As we close in on the election this fall we can see for ourselves if there is any "clear-eyed reporting" and any reporting "without favoritism". That would be a sea change.