Free Republic

The New York Times’ former editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal weighed in on the Lincoln Memorial controversy on Facebook January 22. Keep in mind that Rosenthal served nine years as Editorial Page editor and became an op-ed columnist for the Times in 2016. He edited a political book for the Times, released in October. And yet with all that experience, he is incapable of objectively interpreting video evidence right before his eyes, piling on his hateful assumptions about the Covington High school kids because of their MAGA hats, "a clear symbol of white supremacy," while making a historically ridiculous statement...

IT’S WELL KNOWN AMONG THE SMALL WORLD of people who pay attention to such things that the liberal-leaning reporters at The Wall Street Journal resent the conservative-leaning editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. What’s less well known—and about to break into the open, threatening the very fabric of the institution—is how deeply the liberal-leaning reporters at The New York Times resent the liberal-leaning editorial page of The New York Times. The New York Observer has learned over the course of interviews with more than two-dozen current and former Times staffers that the situation has “reached the boiling point” in...

On Monday, the editor of the New York Times Editorial page was compelled to write that the publication has not decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 yet. His pronouncement came two days after the paper attempted to whitewash the Benghazi tragedy by printing a story that alleged that there was no al-Qaeda involvement in the attacks that killed four Americans (contradicting the paper's own reporting), murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens had "little understanding" of the region, and that the terrorists were motivated by an anti-Muhammed YouTube video. On a blog post on the paper's website, Andrew Rosenthal...

TAMPA, Florida | August 29, 2012: To Republicans in the RNC convention hall last night, and surely to the majority of Americans watching at home, regardless of their politics, Ann Romney came across as a warm, kind and caring woman. But the editors of the New York Times occupy a very different universe. In a nasty piece of work this morning, editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal painted an ugly picture of Ann Romney. Using the most violent of metaphors, Rosenthal saw a woman who, of all things, had "slipped a knife into President Obama." More after the jump.

Lyndon Johnson was loathed enough that, in his final year in office, he dared not make a public appearance other than at a military base; it was commonplace for chanting crowds to gather and spray verbal obscenities at LBJÂ’s White House. Jimmy CarterÂ’s presidency was a routine subject of cultural derision, some of it viciously aimed at his pre-teen daughter and his brother. Bill Clinton spawned so much hate that at least some of his adversaries spread strange rumors that he was connected to murder; then there was this thing called impeachment. George W. Bush inflamed some of his enemies...

Andrew Rosenthal has dragged the New York Times’ reputation to a new low. I didn’t think it was possible. Andy pens an inappropriately titled column called The Loyal Opposition. Anyone familiar with the now irrelevant Forth Estate sees the irony of naming a newspaper column The Loyal Opposition, and the side-splitting frivolity for it being under the NYT banner. Most media produces propaganda and the Times has positively made an art of misinformation masking as news. That they pay Andy to mint propaganda is not surprising, though the notion that the Times is loyal or opposes authority makes Three Stooges...

Even as he declared, “There are many things I like and many things I don’t like” about the Obama administration’s first few months in office, the editorial page editor of The New York Times called Barack Obama “the most extraordinary president of my lifetime.” “If nothing else, the Republican Party’s hysterical reaction to everything he does and says is testament to that fact,” said Andrew Rosenthal. Obama was a central topic of Rosenthal’s May 19 talk from the bima of Temple B’nai Abraham in Livingston, where the Montclair resident delivered a broad-ranging address interrupted by frequent laughter. “What is amazing...

Speaking at the annual conference of the Association of National Advertisers, New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal said the paper “aims to ensure opinion and news are kept separate, even as the Internet increasingly blurs the line” (as reported in Advertising Age on October 17). Stop, you’re killing me! The New York Times is to journalistic integrity what Vlad The Impaler was to “can’t-we-all-just-learn-to-get-along?” The public doesn’t share Rosenthal’s perspective. Earlier this year, a Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of The New York Times - making the paper as...

Charles Kaiser: Do you want to talk about your father’s unlikely party affiliation?Andrew Rosenthal: His communism? CK: Yes.AR: That was quite a revelation. My father was a member of the Communist Youth Party, or whatever it was called at the time. CK:This was a letter that you found from your aunt?AR: It was a letter from my aunt Ruth, who I never met, to her husband, George Watt, who was fighting in the Spanish Civil War in the Abraham Lincoln brigade. And they corresponded. She wrote one day that she had gone down to youth headquarters. Because it was “Sonny’s”...

I would defy anyone to label Maureen Dowd by party affiliation or ideology. I've known her and worked closely with her for 20 years and I can't tell you the answer to either one -- Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of The New York Times What would be worse: that when Times editorial page editor Rosenthal claims not to know Maureen Dowd's politics he's not being honest -- or that he is?Today's Times contains a long column by Rosenthal responding to reader questions. Here are annotated highlights in addition to the Dowd rib-tickler: The news report produced by the news...

by Mark Finkelstein October 13, 2006 - 08:13 If you have a look at this NewsBusters item of mine, you'll note it is dated August 14th, 2006. It was, as noted there, the first one written after I "broke down" and subscribed to the New York Times 'Times Select' section that gives access to the work of its in-house columnists. In that historical first item, I wrote that in their pay-per-view columns, Paul Krugman and Lionel Herbert had sounded the nearly-identical theme: that the Bush administration allegedly sees terrorism as something to be "exploited." In the ensuing weeks, I wrote...

There is no end to the soul-searching at The New York Times. Or the committees. The Times, already distracted by a month of scandals and newsroom unrest, was bracing for more of both as two ranking editors formed a second group to improve inhouse communications. Assistant Managing Editors Craig Whitney and Andrew Rosenthal invited staffers to join what they're calling the Communications Working Group. They said it would differ from a powerful committee headed by Assistant Managing Editor Allan Siegal by "concentrating on internal communications" and having no outside consultants. Many at The Times viewed formation of the new group...

6pmLeaked emails add to NY Times' woes Ciar ByrneThursday May 29, 2003The GuardianCan the headlines get any worse for the New York Times? Once a beacon of US broadsheet journalism, the Times has already been rocked by charges of plagiarism, and now its rival the Washington Post has heaped on fresh embarrassment by reporting an unseemly squabble between two senior journalists on the paper.According to leaked emails seen by the Washington Post, the Times' Pulitzer prize-winning Baghdad bureau chief, John Burns, was in high dudgeon when another Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, Judith Miller, filed an interview with Iraqi exile leader Ahmed...