NewsBusters has filed plenty of complaints against the snarky, anti-Republican, twisted, Christian-hostile work of the New York Times reporter Liam Stack, but he managed a tough story on the hateful anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions of the left-wing’s new poster boy, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Stack’s Monday edition story, “Stabbings Prompt a Rise in Fears Among Jews and Questions for Mamdani,” went so far as to suggest a link between Mayor’s Mamdani’s inflammatory rhetoric, including threats to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes, and the fear felt by Jewish New Yorkers over a surge in anti-Jewish assaults, including a recent stabbing of two men on the Upper West Side.After years of linking President Trump and boilerplate conservative rhetoric to violent attacks on Asians, Latinos, and Jews, the paper actually applied the same standard to left-wing rhetoric – with far more justification.The story even made the lead of the paper's “N.Y. Today” daily email: “N.Y. Today: Stabbing Stirs Fear Among New York’s Jewish Community and Inflames Debate -- Some politicians said Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s criticism of Israel had created a dangerous environment. He pushed back, condemning the stabbings of two men on the Upper West Side and defending his statements.”Stack began: Moshe Grunhaus was leaving the Jewish Center in Manhattan when he was stabbed in broad daylight on Thursday, rattling a Jewish community already on edge and inflaming the debate about Israel and antisemitism.The man police arrested, Raul Morales, was charged late Friday with two counts of attempted murder as a hate crime. He first stabbed an Asian man, Chok Sung, according to prosecutors, before attacking Mr. Grunhaus, who was wearing a yarmulke. In both attacks, Mr. Morales yelled “Allahu akbar,” a frequently used Islamic religious phrase, according to prosecutors.The assaults deepened the tension between many Jewish leaders and Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a longtime critic of Israel.Pro-Israel groups had been warning for months that Mr. Mamdani’s rhetoric on Israel could worsen antisemitism, as the mayor said repeatedly that the city might enforce an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visited New York.The following sort of accusation is usually reserved for rhetoric from conservatives, but at least this time the paper allowed the possibility that hateful actions like Mamdani's can encourage violence:On Friday, the tensions erupted into the public, as some community leaders and pro-Israel groups made the striking accusation that the mayor’s public comments, including the video, were partly to blame for acts like the stabbing.Stack dug into the details of Jewish fear.Parents fear allowing their children to wear yarmulkes or Stars of David in public, and camp directors are fielding calls from anxious parents asking whether their children will be safe, said Mark Treyger, the chief executive of the Jewish Community Relations Council, and a longtime critic of the mayorHe even addressed Mamdani's video calling for Netanyahu's arrest, in which New York City's mayor, going far behind trash pickups and subway service, called Israeli's prime minister "the architect of a horrific genocide against the Palestinian people."Several Jewish leaders pointed to Mr. Mamdani’s video, in particular, as creating potential danger for Jewish New Yorkers.Stack had the self-control to allow Jews to discuss their fears without mentioning Gaza, or balancing the story with “Islamophobia,” or any other distractions.The attack on Thursday happened on Tisha B’Av, on which observant Jews commemorate the destruction of the Temples in Jerusalem by the ancient Babylonians and Romans, and other tragedies throughout Jewish history.Rabbi Yosie Levine of the Jewish Center said on Friday that the stabbing outside his synagogue on such a mournful holy day made it feel like “the evil we gathered to remember stopped belonging to the past.”“Jewish life in America is starting to feel like Jewish life in Europe,” he said. “Armed guards, bulletproof glass and the constant fear that yesterday’s rhetoric will turn into today’s assault.”

Editor's Note: The Economist has issued repeated copyright claims on its interview with Elon Musk posted by social media accounts on multiple platforms (X.com, YouTube, etc.) to have the full interview taken down. A partial clip has replaced the full interview below.You come at the X trolling king, you better not miss. And unfortunately for The Economist, all of cyberspace saw its editor-in-chief get torn to shreds in a debate battle with the world’s richest man. X.com The Economist editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes tried to box X owner Elon Musk in on a number of issues that she twisted into cudgels against him (DOGE cuts, likeability, Islam, etc.) during a July 23 interview. But Musk just smacked her pious line of questioning down for the leftist drivel that it was over and over again. Arguably the most entertaining part of the interview was when Beddoes sneered to Musk that “people loathe you.” The cheeky Musk just spun it back around on her and her colleagues in the media: “I don't care. The fact that a quarter billion people follow me means a lot more people like me than don't. And I think a lot more people hate you and the media than you realize!” Once Musk flipped the script, it was game over: “Do you realize the media is despised? Do you realize that the favorable view of journalists is like 15 percent? So the shoe is on the other foot. They hate you! They hate you far more than they hate me.” 

MRC Watchdogs churn out breaking news on a daily basis. Don't miss Today's Highlights, where you can keep up with the top MRC content, whether it's the latest study on media bias, a glaring omission from the elitist media, or how the Big Tech companies are serving up the same leftist spin as the media. Top Stories:MRC Special Report Reveals Apple and Google News Blacked Out Over 100 Negative Stories on Leftist CandidateMRC Exposes ABC for Lamenting Trump WHCD Speech While Minimizing April GunmanMRC Highlights Key Media Bias Moments at Rescheduled White House Correspondents' Dinner   MRC Special Report Reveals Apple and Google News Blacked Out Over 100 Negative Stories on Leftist CandidateMRC Free Speech America discovered Big Tech news aggregators completely buried damaging news stories regarding far-left political candidate Abdul El-Sayed.MRC researchers audited daily top 20 story snapshots across major aggregators and found 104 center-right stories and 16 left-wing stories about the candidate were suppressed.The study showed left-leaning news outlets received up to 75 percent of front-page placement on Apple News, Google News, and MSN platforms.Data collected by MRC confirms that tech giant algorithms actively shield left-wing candidates while starving conservative news outlets of digital traffic. MRC Exposes ABC for Lamenting Trump WHCD Speech While Minimizing April GunmanABC network coverage fixated on criticizing former President Donald Trump's past remarks about journalists during the White House Correspondents' Dinner.Network reporters spent significant airtime framing standard political rhetoric as an attack on the press corps while glossing over real safety threats.MRC tracking revealed ABC spent under 30 seconds addressing a violent gunman incident from April while devoting extensive commentary to Trump's speech.The stark contrast in airtime demonstrates how legacy networks prioritize anti-Trump narratives over reporting on actual physical security hazards facing the public. MRC Highlights Key Media Bias Moments at Rescheduled White House Correspondents' DinnerMRC monitored the rescheduled White House Correspondents' Dinner to expose how mainstream journalists self-congratulate while maintaining deep partisan bias.The event featured prominent media figures and comedians directing sharp political attacks toward conservative candidates rather than holding current leaders accountable.MRC analysis showed that over 80 percent of the comedic jabs and speaker commentary targeted right-of-center politicians and conservative media outlets.The annual gathering continues to demonstrate to news consumers that the Washington press corps functions as an echo chamber disconnected from everyday Americans.    

New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker tweeted on X on Saturday that it is time for the White House Correspondents’ Association to “rethink” its annual dinner with the president, after the event with President Donald Trump did not “advance” the cause of reporting “without fear or favor.” As if that motto isn't ridiculous at this point? “Have been a member of the WHCA almost continuously since the 1990s. Our mission is to defend the First Amendment rights of White House correspondents to report on the president without fear or favor. Unfortunately last night did advance that cause,” Baker posted. “Time to rethink the dinner.”He elaborated on that argument on MS NOW with Alex Witt over the weekend, noting the president is suing journalists and issuing subpoenas for their work. That's funny, because his hero President Obama ordered more leak investigations into reporters than all previous presidents combined. But they were celebrating him at White House reporter dinners just the same. Friends and political allies make for warm dinners.On MS NOW, @nytimes chief White House correspondent Peter Baker elaborated on his weekend theme, how Trump has ruined the White House Correspondents Dinner, as he's suing the BBC and other media outlets. Notice Baker just claims it's for coverage "he doesn't like," and doesn't go… pic.twitter.com/Q7oyYGKPaa— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) July 27, 2026 After the first wave of reaction, Baker felt compelled to add another tweet: “To be clear, this is not a new position. The NY Times decided nearly 20 years ago, long before Trump, that we would stop attending, which was our policy under Obama and Biden. (The exception was for reporters if they won a prize to be awarded.) Last night validated that decision.”Conservatives like Stephen “Redsteeze” Miller posted photos of Baker smiling next to President Biden at the dinner. Two years ago, he received the WHCD award for “Excellence in Presidential News Coverage Under Deadline Pressure,” which came with a $2,500 prize.Baker was honored for a story on then-President Joe Biden’s trip to Israel just days after the 10/7 Hamas terrorist attack. It was not without favor. "News analysis" of Democrat presidents reads more like slop from the White House press shop, or as the WHCD put it, a "sensitive assessment": In a way, Mr. Biden flew to Israel on Wednesday to give the whole country a hug, to say how much America grieves with Israel and stands by Israel and has Israel’s back. But with the hug came a whisper in the ear as well, a gentle warning not to give in to the “primal feeling,” not to let overwhelming grief or overpowering anger drive the country to go too far, as he believes America did after Sept. 11, 2001.By contrast, in February, Baker unloaded a 3,000 word hit piece headlined “A Superman, Jedi and Pope -- Trump’s Relentless Bid to Mythologize Himself.” Baker himself wrote a gushy Obama tribute book in 2017 complete with color photographs titled Obama: The Call to History. After Trump's first term, Baker and his wife Susan Glasser wrote a Trump book celebrated as a "scorched-earth" account in 2022 titled The Divider. In 2024, Baker wrote a “news analysis” nudging voters to pick the Democrats with the question “If a Felon Becomes President, Can Anyone Limit His Power?”“The revolutionary hero Patrick Henry knew this day would come,” Baker began. Henry “feared that eventually a criminal might occupy the presidency and use his powers to thwart anyone who sought to hold him accountable.” In Henry’s words, “Away with your president, we will have a king.”Never mind that historians pointed out Henry was inveighing against the Constitution before it was ratified. Baker channeled the Democrat line: “The notion that 34 felonies is not automatically disqualifying and a convicted criminal can be a viable candidate for commander in chief upends two and a half centuries of assumptions about American democracy.”

Amanpour & Co., which airs on PBS and CNN International, invited New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof on to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, and to blame it on Elon Musk. Is this Kristof’s first TV appearance since the summer’s controversy over his indecent hit piece from Israel?Kristof’s recent columns blame tragic situations in impoverished Third World countries on Elon Musk and his cost-cutting initiative DOGE, namely cuts to foreign aid delivered by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). After a Kristof soundbite (“We have another huge crisis, again with mass murder, mass rape, with starvation, and we have the sound of silence”), guest host Bianna Golodryga’s introduction played up “the catastrophic hole left by USAID” to set up Kristof’s later segment with NPR anchor Michel Martin.After Martin introduced us to Kristof’s reporting on USAID, Kristof unleashed some wild stats: Nicholas Kristof, Opinion Columnist, New York Times: I don't think that the American public appreciates, you know, how many children are dying unnecessarily, how many women are dying in childbirth unnecessarily because of these steps that we've taken. You know, USAID was saving one life every 10 seconds until Elon Musk came along, at a cost of 23 cents for every $100 of national income. That seems to me a bargain. Which PR factory is manufacturing statistics like these? As if the United States withdrawing aid is responsible for anything awful that happens anywhere. Kristof told a story about a pregnant woman in Uganda who went into a difficult labor and died for want of diesel fuel for an ambulance. Kristof: ….But Yama died because we didn't think it was worth it to provide fuel for that ambulance. And I would hope that when we think of it in those micro terms, we might feel a little more empathy and a little more compassion.The chain of events that led from USAID cuts to the woman’s death are weak, but his presumption that he knows how American’s tax money should be spent is titanium-strong. As awful as the story is, one rarely heard praise for America for anything from Kristof’s corner of the political spectrum until DOGE attempted actual spending reductions.Martin’s last question to Kristof was the softest possible rendering of his notorious May 11 report, “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians,” in which he alleged without corroboration that Israel soldiers, settlers, and especially prison guards have long committed sexual violence against Palestinian prisoners. The most fantastical charge: Israel prisons train dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners. Martin took Kristof at his word about the scurrilous article. She recontextualized Kristof’s slime to fit with his obnoxious reporting from Sudan and Uganda and lamented such reports “just are not being taken seriously by much of the world.”Michel Martin talks with Nick Kristof on PBS's Amanpour and offers no disputation against his shoddy "dog rape" allegations: "...another piece of reporting that you did this year, an investigation into allegations of sexual violence against Palestinians in Israeli detention...." pic.twitter.com/U9EQH0ybhk— Clay Waters