FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
New York Times White House reporter Peter Baker appears to have set out in earnest to write a “balanced” review of Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office. In doing so, he exposed the futility of such an exercise.
Last week, in “A Young Prince Is Reimagining Saudi Arabia. Can He Make His Vision Come True?,” Washington Post foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius (4/20/17) wrote what read like a press release for the Saudi regime. What’s more, he’s written the same article several times before.
The New York Times paints a dire picture of a Trump administration forced to react to the growing and impending doom of North Korea nuclear weapons.
In all of the fawning press coverage of George W. Bush’s paintings of US veterans, one thing has been notably absent: Bush’s Iraqi victims.
Bret Stephens’ hiring highlights the radical asymmetry at work when considering what is and isn’t a fringe opinion. When one goes to the far right, there doesn’t seem to be a line that can’t be crossed, while anything slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton is nonexistent in the staff opinion section at the New York Times.
For the second time in as many years, Thomas Friedman has explicitly advocated that the United States use the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as a proxy force against Iran, Russia, Syria and Hezbollah.
Of the top 100 US newspapers, 47 ran editorials on President Donald Trump’s Syria airstrikes last week: 39 in favor, seven ambiguous and only one opposed to the military attack.
Five major US newspapers—the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Daily News—offered no opinion space to anyone opposed to Donald Trump’s Thursday night airstrikes. By contrast, the five papers ran a total of 18 op-eds, columns or “news analysis” articles (dressed-up opinion pieces) that either praised the strikes or criticized them for not being harsh enough.
FAIR has noted media’s use of vague or passive-voice framing to obfuscate police wrongdoing, but a recent example by Miami CBS affiliate WFOR stood out as an extreme case.
The last opinion column on the topic by a BDS supporter to appear in the New York Times was in January 2014. Since then, the Times has published seven opinion columns that took a clear position on BDS, all of them in opposition.
So long as Trump wasn’t his petulant, incoherent, race-baiting self, it would be considered a victory for the 45th president.
NPR’s institutional compulsion to find “both sides” of every topic ill-equips the radio network to deal with the unique challenge of the Trump administration.
Former British Conservative MP Louise Mensch has become something of a celebrity of late in anti-Trump media. In the past two weeks, Mensch has appeared on MSNBC (3/11/17), the New York Times op-ed page (3/17/17) and HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher (3/24/17) despite the fact that she routinely traffics in the most bizarre and unfounded conspiracy theories.
The New York Times editorial board didn’t take a wave of civilians deaths as a reason to question the wisdom of America’s various “counter-terror,” nation-building and regime-change projects in the Middle East, but instead chose to browbeat Congress into rubber-stamping a war that’s been going on for almost three years.
A key feature of reports on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is the Hypothetical Scary Nuke Map that shows an entirely hypothetical, not-yet-proven-to-have-been-built intercontinental ballistic missile hitting the US mainland.
Reading media reports of a white supremacist hate crime, one would hardly know who was the killer and who the victim.
It was US corporate media, in its post-election rush to smear leftists and libertarian sites as Kremlin stooges, that first stripped the term “fake news” of any objective taxonomical value.
Vox, effectively a Comcast subsidiary, writes a glowing explainer on why Comcast’s $500 million investment is solid and has huge upside, on the same day as the investment.
One does not need to “peer into Donald Trump’s head” to infer he is lying; one simply needs to acknowledge the most baseline standards of reality.
The expectations game was in full play during Trump’s speech to Congress last night: So long as Trump wasn’t his petulant, incoherent, race-baiting self, it would be considered a victory for the 45th president.
