
Citing anonymous officials, the New York Times reported that "no party [to an] armistice can unilaterally terminate or alter its terms." International law expert Francis Boyle says that's nonsense.
The national media watch group

Citing anonymous officials, the New York Times reported that "no party [to an] armistice can unilaterally terminate or alter its terms." International law expert Francis Boyle says that's nonsense.

The Obama administration has not wanted to explain in any great detail how it justified killing an American citizen in Yemen. But there were apparently plenty of current and former officials willing to explain their case to the New York Times.

It was not altogether surprising to see a headline in the New York Times, "Leader of Vote Count in Kenya Faces U.S. With Tough Choices." The "tough choice" is apparently that the candidate in the lead, Uhuru Kenyatta, has a terrible human rights record.

"On Eve of His Funeral, Debating Chávez’s Legacy" is the headline over William Neuman's piece in the New York Times today. Funny headline, since there was no one in the Times' "debate" who argued that Chávez left much of anything.

CNN.com had an odd piece of analysis of the Italian election results, arguing that austerity "is necessary by any calculation to actually start moving Italy out of the recession." That's not the calculation of Paul Krugman, who for what its worth is a Nobel Prize-winning economist.
Was the big climate march in Washington not hot enough for corporate TV? What does the New York Times have against leftist Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa? And Bob Beckel said something dumb on a Fox News show yet again–a convenient "left-wing" role for a right-wing outlet.

When David Brooks writes that Obama "declines to come up with a proposal" other than raising taxes on the rich, and in reality he has proposed a plan, that merits a correction, right? Maybe. But when you're a New York Times columnist, apparently you get to play by a different rulebook.

Here's a proposal for Social Security that was on the New York Times' op-ed page yesterday (2/20/13): The top third of beneficiaries (by lifetime income) [would] receive no annual cost-of-living adjustment in retirement. The middle third would get half of today’s adjustment, and the bottom third would receive the same annual increase they do now. Such a reform…would reduce Social Security spending by more than a tenth over a decade and fix the program’s long-term financing. This is part of Paul Ryan adviser Yuval Levin's attempt to find "common ground" on the entitlement issue: "Both sides should agree at least [...]
NASA climatologist James Hansen has tried to explain to New York Times columnist Joe Nocera why he's so wrong about the tar sands, but Nocera's account of their argument makes it seem like explaining anything to him would be an uphill battle.
Tom Friedman wrote a column about how government policies are harming the recovery. What we need is some kind of grand bargain to, as the headline puts is, "unparalyze" the economy and spur new growth. What's that mean? Cuts to Social Security and Medicare, along with "tax reform."

The polls showed that Ecuadoreans weren't "apprehensive" about giving Correa another term. So why was the New York Times? Probably because his policies are the kind that institutions like the Times tell us aren't supposed to work.

With the Keystone climate protests in Washington bringing climate change back into the media, we're hearing a lot about how the Keystone pipeline will, at the very least, mean that we'll be getting our oil from a nice country.
This week on FAIR TV: Why is raising the minimum wage considered "divisive"? And a Washington Post pundit gives Obama State of the Union advice: Skip climate change and go big on the deficit. Plus a look at the way the New York Times framed police brutality in a story about Charles Dorner. Remember: If you like what you see, share it on Facebook and Twitter, and subscribe to FAIR's YouTube feed.