Above to the left is Shivani Gonzalez, the Times writer who is allowed to decide the paper’s recommendations of what to watch on television. For tonight, she endorses watching the election coverage on ABA,CBS, NBC and PBS, but not Fox. Huh. Must be a mistake, right? Nah. The 20-something explains on Instagram that she is a volunteer for the Liberal Party of Canada. Her LinkedIn profile says she worked for Yuh-Line Niou, a Democratic New York Assembly member and a candidate of the far-left Working Families Party. In a May 2026 interview Niou said “We have seen government that has become more fascist daily” and said she was running to “fight this fascist regime” and “to tax the rich.” Shivani told her college newspaper that “The politics job allowed me to go back into journalism, understanding the impact of the stories that were being told and how stories can really garner support for legislation. Politics and journalism are really cyclical.”

In this post yesterday, I noted how the Times covered the Hayley Stevens endorsement of Republican Michigan U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rogers while downplaying El-Sayed’s anti-Semitism, noting how the paper was “stooping to new depths in its pimping for the Democratic Party” with its disinformation. The Free Beacon clarified why the coverage was so slanted. The author is Tim Balk, “who in 2015, as the assistant opinion editor of the Daily Northwestern, called Donald Trump a ‘clown’ and declared, ‘In a Republican primary field littered with climate-change deniers, xenophobes and out-of-touch political dinosaurs, Trump might be the worst.'” Another Times article by Balk declared, “in Michigan, Republicans have targeted the Democratic Senate nominee, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, with Islamophobic attacks. President Trump has described Dr. El-Sayed as a ‘vicious, violent jihadist.’”

Here was the part of the Free Beacon report that had me almost ready to put a mob hit out on “A Friend,” who still harasses me via email saying he’s “just trying to help.”

As if all that were not enough, Sunday’s Times book review carried a review of a book by Sequoia venture capitalist Michael Moritz about his Jewish family’s history as refugees from the Nazis. The Times review, by Julian Borger, a journalist from the far-left British Guardian, manages to fault Moritz’s family Holocaust memoir for, of all things, failing to include condemnations of Israel’s war in Gaza.

The Times review reports, “Moritz does not mention considering moving to Israel, never having ‘felt kinship with the odious Israeli settlers and their vile political representatives’ who have ‘plundered’ the lands of the Palestinians.”

Even that denunciation, though, doesn’t go far enough, in the Times reviewer’s view: “A memoir of the Holocaust is under no obligation to assess current events, but Moritz’s book explicitly sets out to find contemporary parallels. It seems important how we, the descendants of the victims and survivors alike, confront the ongoing conflict in Gaza.”

The review concludes, “Moritz says that after the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, he felt ‘emotionally connected with Israel’s fate’ for the first time; he doesn’t linger on the wholesale destruction of Gaza that followed. Given the book’s contemporary framing, I would have liked to learn Moritz’s views of his former company Sequoia Capital’s investments in an Israeli defense industry start-up dedicated to integrating artificial intelligence into military hardware, for instance. The omission feels striking in an otherwise thoughtful work on coming to terms with the long shadow of the Shoah.”

Trying to be fair to an Ethics Villain, the Free Beacon muses that it’s not clear whether the paper’s increasingly obvious partisan bias is due to malice or stupidity, intentional or accidental. “The ‘intentional’ interpretation sees the shift as a deliberate business choice aimed at achieving revenue growth by courting an international far-left audience of paying subscribers,” the article says. “The ‘accidental’ interpretation sees it as a failure of the paper’s publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, and his well-intentioned if imperfect top editors to enforce their old-fashioned standards on the younger and more ideologically motivated staffers who make the day-to-day decisions that shape the news and opinion coverage.”

Why the Times is an “enemy of the people,” an informed public, and a functioning republic is of little import at this point. What matters is that it is.