Much of my New York Times criticism has moved over to the Algemeiner, a publication that also happens to be honoring my longtime colleague and former partner in the New York Sun, Seth Lipsky, at a benefit in New York on September 15. More details and tickets are here. It looks like it will be fun.

Ads in the print edition of the New York Times that are aimed at people who have trouble walking, reading, or going to the bathroom are the topic of an article I wrote recently for Heat Street. Please check it out by clicking here.

Thomas Friedman has a column on the danger of "menacing" language and "toxic incitement" in politics. He concludes it by calling Donald Trump "a disgusting human being." I agree with Mr. Friedman about the desirability of avoiding toxic incitement and menacing language, but the Times columnist might be a little more persuasive if he could find a way to write about the issue without himself committing the very sins against which he warns.

Mr. Friedman says the thinking that led to Yitzhak Rabin's assassination was: "The man is illegitimate, the man is a threat to the nation, the man is the equivalent of a Nazi war criminal. Well, you know what we do with people like that, don't you? We kill them." He means to warn against Trump's language against Hillary Clinton. But the illegitimate/threat to the nation/Nazi line of criticism is often made against Mr. Trump, in the columns of the Times itself, a fact that seems totally to have escaped Mr. Friedman.

An above-the-fold, front-page column by Jim Rutenberg in the New York Times argues that if a working journalist believes that Donald Trump "cozies up to anti-American dictators," it justifies throwing out usual standards of journalistic objectivity. Funny how this suspension of the usual rules applies to Mr. Trump and Vladimir Putin, but not to Barack Obama and the Castro brothers of Cuba or the ayatollahs of Iran, or, for that matter, to Hillary Clinton and the Russia "reset" button. It's almost as if the usual standards of journalistic objectivity don't apply. No wonder that is what the column is advocating.

For a fine example of media bias in action, see this New York Times article on Donald Trump's fondness for "junk food":

Mr. Trump's presidential campaign is improvised, undisciplined, rushed and self-indulgent.

And so is his diet....

He prefers burgers and meatloaf, Caesar salads and spaghetti, See's Candies and Diet Coke. And he shuns tea, coffee and alcohol.

How is shunning tea, coffee, and alcohol — or for that matter, even choosing to drink Diet Coke rather than the full-calorie version — evidence of being "undisciplined...and self-indulgent"? The Times doesn't say, probably because the Times would find some way to hurl insults at Mr. Trump no matter what he eats or drinks. The underlying reality has no bearing on what the paper writes.

For example, the See's Candies are owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, which also has a large investment in Coca-Cola stock. When Mr. Buffett endorses and campaigns with Hillary Clinton, the Times doesn't describe him as a "junk food" profiteer, or fault her for associating with someone getting rich from self-indulgence.

The Times article refers for comparison's sake to the eating habits of other politicians, including Barack Obama, George W. Bush, John Kerry, and John Kasich. The one politician mysteriously omitted from the article is Bill Clinton, who, like Mr. Trump, was fond of McDonald's and french fries.

The chairman and chief investment officer at Bridgewater Associates, Ray Dalio, has posted a response to a front-page New York Times article that was critical of the firm and its culture. He writes:

we again find ourselves in the position of being left with no choice but to respond to sensationalistic and inaccurate stories, both to make clear what is true and to do our part in fighting against the growing trend of media distortion. To let such significant mischaracterizations of our business stand would be unfair to our hard-working employees and valued clients who understand the reality of our culture and values.

Good for Mr. Dalio for taking advantage of the opportunity the Internet offers to answer articles like this without having to resort to some "letter to the editor" policed by the newspaper that launched the attack. As for "the growing trend of media distortion," unfortunately there's nothing like being on the business end of an example of it to concentrate one's attention on the problem. Surely detailed, real-time responses like Mr. Dalio's are going to be an important part of any solution to that problem; the trick is establishing a distribution method that allows the reply to catch up with the original distortion.

A Times article about a Los Angeles lawyer, John B. Quinn, a founder of the Quinn Emanuel law firm, has the dubious distinction of including two consecutive paragraphs that begin with maddeningly imprecise modifying phrases.

The Times writes:

Born in Virginia, Mr. Quinn's family moved to Connecticut when he was 2, and the proximity to New York made him a museum enthusiast.

The next paragraph begins:

Raised Mormon, the Quinns relocated to Utah when John was 12.

What is this article attempting to communicate? Was Mr. Quinn born in Virginia? Or was his entire family born there?

The same question can be asked of "raised Mormon." Does it apply only to Mr. Quinn? Or to his entire family, including his parents? Is he, or they, still Mormon? The Times doesn't say. Why not write, "The Quinns, who were Mormon, relocated to Utah when John was 12"? The writer seems to be trying to convey that the family moved to Utah because they were Mormons, but she's trapped in a pattern of starting sentences with these introductory phrases, and her editors seem unable to help her out of it.

The first sentence could have been fixed by simply breaking it up: "Mr. Quinn was born in Virginia. His family moved to Connecticut when he was 2, and the proximity to New York made him a museum enthusiast."

There was a day when Times feature writing was so good that it might be included in textbooks as examples of stellar prose. Now it's at the level of clumsiness where it might be included in textbooks as examples of how not to write. Does anyone edit this stuff? If so, are they fluent in English? Or have all the skilled wordsmiths at the Times taken buyouts, their full-time-equivalencies now reallocated to paying in-house millennial social media marketing types or cruise-ship-tour-guides to escort elderly Times Tourists to Iran, Cuba, and other destinations fashionable among the newspaper's hard-left readers? How would Theodore Menline Bernstein, or even Allan M. Siegal, have improved these sentences? Is there anyone employed at the Times today who remembers those men and the care with which they approached language?

Does the Times think its readers are too dumb to notice these sorts of lapses? Or does the newspaper's management calculate, with some justification, that we paying readers have no alternative publication to flee to, no matter how bad Times editing gets?

From a front-page so-called "news article" in Monday's Times:

In May, The New York Times examined Donald J. Trump's plans for his first 100 days, during which he said he would focus on divisive campaign promises like building a border wall with Mexico. By contrast, The Times found in its reporting on plans for Mrs. Clinton's 100 days that she would look to push issues that might be broadly popular, like infrastructure jobs and a breakthrough on immigration.

So Mr. Trump's border wall is "divisive" — not "might be" divisive, just flat-out declaratively divisive — yet Mrs. Clinton's "infrastructure jobs" and "breakthrough on immigration" get the benefit of the doubt on the grounds that they "might be broadly popular." This is in defiance of the evidence. President Obama tried selling "infrastructure jobs" as "stimulus" and got bupkis as far as Republican support. George W. Bush, Senators McCain and Kennedy, and Marco Rubio have all tried for a "breakthrough on immigration" and have all run into the wood-chipper of Republican grassroots abhorrence of "amnesty." These two items, in other words, "might be broadly popular" in the Times newsroom or its Washington Bureau, but in the rest of America, they might be divisive, or unpopular, a fact the Times in this case seems too biased to acknowledge.

The Times article seems to put inordinate amounts of faith in the power of alcohol to overcome ideological and political differences:

Not one to do business over golf or basketball, she would bring back the intimate style of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B. Johnson, negotiating over adult beverages. Picture a steady stream of senators, congressmen and other leaders raising a glass..."To be crystal clear: She has led many battles where you can't compromise on principle," Ms. Tanden added. "But she also loves socializing, loves having people and spouses over, and really loves talking over drinks."..Mrs. Clinton's ability to use alcohol as a political lubricant came up repeatedly when allies and advisers were asked how she might work with Republicans. Her tale about a drinking contest with Senator John McCain of Arizona is now a Washington legend.

It makes one wonder what the Times editors were drinking, and how much, when they moved this story along.

A dispatch from Libya on the front page of the Times includes this sentence: "Nightmares came after the Islamists crucified people accused of crimes at a major traffic junction, then left their bodies to rot."

What happened at the major traffic junction? The crimes? The accusations of the crimes? The crucifixions? All three things?

It's sure difficult to tell from that sentence, which stopped me in my tracks as I was reading. Maybe the Times editors are on summer vacation? Maybe they all took buyouts? Sometimes the lack of clear writing in the Times is as grating as the bias.

The New York Times' favorite source on Iran, former State Department official Thomas Pickering, was getting paid money by Boeing, a fact that the Times failed to disclose to readers even though Boeing had a significant financial stake in the Iran sanctions being lifted. I have a report up at the Algemeiner about this that you can read by clicking here.

A Times news article about Malia Obama's decision to go to Harvard reports that the college is "one of the most expensive, costing more than $60,000 a year for tuition, room, board and other fees."

That's misleading, because that's the retail price. Most people whose parents aren't "rich" qualify for financial aid, which is essentially a discount off that sticker price. If you go to the U.S. government's "net price" calculator, Harvard doesn't even show up on the list of the most expensive 4-year private, non-profit colleges and universities. Because Harvard is so well endowed, it gives better financial aid packages than do a lot of other colleges and universities, at least to prospective students whose parents aren't as rich as President and Mrs. Obama are.

From the perspective of Harvard, at least, misleading news coverage like this is damaging, because the "expensive" reputation and tag scares away families who might otherwise consider applying.

"The New York Times Tries Explaining Its Flawed Crusade Against Yeshivas" is the headline over my article at the Algemeiner. Please check it out there.

From a book review in today's Times, by critic Dwight Garner: "When a writer says something new and real, it can be shocking, like a surprise emission from a bodily orifice."

I think an editor would have done better to just end the sentence after the word "shocking" and save the reader the unpleasant shock of the rest of the sentence. As we've written here previously, the Times approach to editing this particular critic isn't exactly what you'd call a tight leash.

A dispatch in the national section of the Times begins:

Opening a new front in the assault on teacher tenure, a group of parents backed by wealthy philanthropists served notice to defendants on Wednesday in a lawsuit challenging Minnesota's job protections for teachers, as well as the state's rules governing which teachers are laid off as a result of budget cuts.

Isn't "wealthy philanthropists" redundant? If the philanthopists are mired in poverty, tell us so; otherwise, we will agree simply to assume that anyone giving away lots of money is rich to begin with. Especially since the subheadline over that paragraph is "Wealthy foundations back Minnesota Lawsuit." We don't hear anything in the story or the headline about how wealthy the teachers unions are. Nor do we usually hear, at least this prominently, about the wealth of the foundations or philanthropists involved when the legal cases being pressed are those that advance left-of-center, Times-favored (now there's my own redundancy) causes.

From a recent New York Times real estate article: "The reclusive and litigious developer Sheldon Solow, for example, has been party to hundreds of lawsuits, while the closemouthed heirs of Sol Goldman's estate rarely sell any of their vast holdings."

I've written in the past about how:

"Reclusive billionaire" is one of those stereotypes that the Times likes to use even if it isn't accurate.

My authoritative Webster's Second Unabridged dictionary describes reclusive as someone living in reclusion, in "solitary confinement" or "secluded" from the world like a "monk or hermit."

But journalists now use the word to describe any rich person who doesn't drop everything and rush to the phone whenever a reporter calls. Any rich person who is any less receptive to press inquiries than Donald Trump or Senator Charles Schumer is routinely described as "reclusive," even if the person has friends and business colleagues and an active family or social life.

In this case, the Times use of the term in relation to Mr. Solow is strange, as the newspaper carried an interview with him just the other day. Amy Goldman, far from being "closemouthed," as the Times describes her, granted the Times an interview in 2012 for the newspaper's Vows column and in 2002 (here), in 2003 (here), 2004 (here) and 2010 (here) in connection with her work with squash and melons. There was a feature about her and her heirloom vegetables in the Financial Times just the other day. It just doesn't seem to me to be accurate to describe someone who has given five interviews to the New York Times as "closemouthed," yet this seems to be the newspaper's standard tactic for punishing in print anyone who doesn't drop whatever he or she is doing and sprint to the telephone any time that a Times reporter wants a conversation.