Written on February 17, 2017.
Today, section A of The New York Times has 27 pages. Six of those pages (a bit less than 1/4 of the entire section), focus, negatively, on tiny Israel, the Mid-East "Peace" process, and on the hearing for President Trump's nominee for Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman.
However, 27 of 27 pages (100% of the edition) focus, and mainly negatively, on President Trump and his Administration. Front page articles are continued on two or even three subsequent pages; President Trump's words are "fisked," checked for whether they are fact-based or not. The lead editorials--there are two--critique Trump on pg A 26.
Eight page A 26 Letters focus on Trump negatively as well. Finally, page A 27 is completely filled with op-ed pieces (by David Brooks, Linda Greenhouse, Paul Krugman, and Evan McMullin) which also criticize Trump on his dangerously chaotic management, thin-skin, corruption, and enforcement of Obama's immigration policies.
I am not objecting to anyone's right to have their say. I am not even saying that some of the points are not well taken. I am merely pointing out that the Paper of Record is almost unnaturally obsessed with both Israel and with President Donald J. Trump.
Just as this same venue was obsessed, mainly positively, over President Obama (the half-white man who looked all black)--just so, have they now flipped their mirror to the dark side and almost 100% of the time scrutinize, mock, and belittle, our new President and are calling for a Special Prosecutor.
This is how brainwashing is accomplished: You expose people to only one point of view, over and over again and voila! Eventually the readers believe every word. This is why I refer to the NYT as Pravda.
The NYT did cover other stories today, but it allotted them much less space which means much less importance is attributed to, for example, the 70 Sufi Muslim deaths-by-Sunni Muslim terrorism at a Pakistani Sufi shrine for which ISIS claims credit; the 54 Shia Muslim deaths-by-Sunni Muslim terrorism in Baghdad of mainly Shia Muslims, for which ISIS claims credit; the Syrian-Muslim former rebel who killed seven captured Syrian Muslim soldiers, received asylum in Sweden, and who was subsequently tried under international law and received a life sentence--to be served in Sweden.
As usual, Muslim-on-Muslim violence is underplayed. Muslim deaths only matter if they have been inflicted by America or Israel, even in self-defense. The Muslim murder of infidels--of Christians, in the mainly "Judenrein" Arab Middle East, is usually disappeared or minimized.
Such a bias emboldens Muslim terrorism and renders passive Western bystanders. How can this possibly end well?