- Zero reporting/skepticism about the actual facts of the attacks on tankers and other U.S. provocations.
- An "analysis" that makes it seem like "hardliners on both sides" want increased confrontation, even war.
- One passing reference to the fact that a decade ago "Israel was repeatedly talked down from attacking Iran's nuclear facilities." But zero reporting about the Israeli connection today.
- No reporting about the Donald Trump-Sheldon Adelson-John Bolton connection.
The milquetoast editorial that the Times ran yesterday against escalation but approving of sanctions on Iran ("Dialogue between the Trump administration and Iranian government would be wise, though Iran may prove unwilling to talk") didn't even make it into the print edition.
The most remarkable exception to this pattern is the "Readers' Comments" on the NYT editorial. There were 473 of them before the Times closed the discussion, and we could not find a single one that is supportive of war or of U.S. efforts to continue pressure on Iran. So Bret Stephens gets to spur on a war in his Times column, but the paper's readers are universally against the idea. Moreover, they hold the Times responsible and see through the equivocations in the editorial. Several point out that the press was the handmaiden of the Iraq disaster.
Comment: See also: Objective:Health #15 - The Dangers of 5G & WiFi - With Scott Ogrin of Scottie's Tech.Info