The New York Times has an annoying habit of topping its front page with an article labeled "News Analysis."
In reality, it's a badly disguised editorial, often inveighing against their rage target, President Donald Trump.
In 2024, Times White House correspondent Peter Baker wrote a "news analysis" nudging voters to pick the Democrats with the question "If a Felon Becomes President, Can Anyone Limit His Power?" In February, White House correspondent Katie Rogers offered a combative rebuttal to Trump's State of the Union address under the headline "Casting Democrats as Villains, Trump Produces a Spectacle."
The Times thinks no one should ever paint Democrats as villains. They should be considered the best humans in America.
Another Baker "news analysis" after the Oct. 7, 2023 slaughter in Israel oozed, "Mr. Biden flew to Israel on Wednesday to give the whole country a hug."
Topping the Sunday paper on Sept. 13 was a Trump-trashing editorial by White House correspondent Maggie Haberman (maligned as "Maggot Hagerman" on Trump's Truth Social account) and writer-at-large Jim Rutenberg. The headline warned: "A Sweeping Effort To Stifle Free Speech: Trump Deploys Agencies and Lawsuits."
The thesis was plain: Donald Trump should never limit liberal Democrat activist/reporters or criticize them in any way, and should definitely not file defamation suits when they lie about him. They quoted other liberals and leftists and described them as non-ideological "free speech advocates." As in: "Free speech advocates say the president's intent is apparent: to punish, intimidate and silence dissenters."
So, it's somehow "stifling free speech" when you sue ABC after George Stephanopoulos wrongly claimed Trump was "found liable for rape." A stacked jury of New York leftists found him liable for "sexual assault" of E. Jean Carroll, even though she couldn't remember which year the alleged assault occurred.
It's somehow "stifling free speech" to end government funding for PBS and NPR. Nobody consuming PBS and NPR today can notice any difference in the relentless liberal bias of these networks. Their leftist advocacy has not been "stifled" at all. They may have laid off a few Trump haters, but the "public" crusade remains.
It's somehow "stifling free speech" to fire any editors at Stars and Stripes, the government-funded newspaper of the Department of War. Notice a pattern? Liberals expect Republicans to allow liberal activists to push liberal reporting with taxpayer subsidies. Otherwise, "free speech" is stifled.
It's somehow "stifling free speech" for regulatory agencies like the Federal Communications Commission or the Federal Trade Commission to investigate media outlets for potential violations of their missions or business practices.
It's especially funny with the FCC. Disney and ABC are raging against FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, but who exactly is "stifling speech" in this equation? Carr is asking about equal time for candidates in the last days of an election cycle. ABC's "The View" and "Jimmy Kimmel Live" are loaded almost entirely with aggressive leftist speech from hosts and guests, and they have demonstrated a great intolerance for conservative speech on their programs.
To borrow from Times terminology, "punishing, intimidating, and silencing dissenters" is exactly what the Biden administration did with their cock-eyed crusades against conservative speech. Remember the "Disinformation Governance Board"? Intimidating reporters was absolutely a tactic of Team Obama, with their unprecedented aggression in leak investigations of reporters.
New York Times reporter James Risen was put through the wringer under Obama. Risen complained that Obama tried to put him in jail for seven years. But all of that is forgotten now as this partisan newspaper paints Trump as entirely unique in stifling the liberal crusades of the press.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM
Notice: This column is printed with permission. Opinion pieces published by AFN.net are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, AFN.net, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
