There was a time I used to give the New York Times a small amount of credit for occasionally posting a story that seemed to lack the usual media bias, or outright fabrication--what Rush Limbaugh refers to as a "random act of journalism". These days the Times has virtually lost any credibility they had, joining the ranks of other heavily biased and extremist propaganda sites such as The Daily Kos, Raw Story and Media Matters. You could lump a number of columnists at The Huffington Post into this category as well.
Last week it was reported that Eileen Murphy, spokesperson for the NYT, would be leaving Cruz's book, 'A Time For Truth', off their Bestseller list; the reason being an "overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases"; by that, the Times assessed the publisher, HarperCollins, hired thousands of Americans to purchase the book to get it on the list--which is an utterly stupid claim considering this suggests thousands of books were essentially given away. Perhaps some of the 50+ million raised for Cruz's presidential bid was used to replenish HarperCollins' coffers? *sarcasm*
When pressed by Ted Cruz's campaign for the Times to produce evidence, none was forthcoming. That's because there was no evidence, nor had Cruz and Company engaged in any "strategic bulk purchases". That, however, didn't stop extreme-leftist websites like Salon, Daily Kos, and Politicus (billed as real liberal news!) from running with a "story" too good for radicals to pass up. Note the headlines and the wording of the articles. If you're among the low info cognoscenti, or a water carrier of the Left, you'd think Cruz and his publisher had been caught Red handed. However.....
Back in reality, both Amazon and Barnes & Nobles disputed Murphy's claims, citing that no bulk purchases had taken place. The NYT was then pushed for an apology if they couldn't provide proof that the sales had been manipulated--when in actuality, it was THE TIMES who had performed the manipulation. Expectedly, an apology never came.
What did come was 'A Time For Truth' on the Bestsellers List. Not counting its first week in release, it placed in the 7th slot for its second week. In true liberal fashion, Murphy flimsily attempted to save face by claiming the book only rated in 7th place because of a surge in individual purchases brought about by Cruz's public debacle with the paper!
Incidentally, Eileen Murphy continued to stand by her stance that her initial lie was in fact the truth. She was quoted as saying, "The notion that we would manipulate the bestseller list to exclude books for political reasons is simply ludicrous"; further noting that conservative authors such as Glenn Beck (who, aside from eight #1 spots, has had his own issues with the Times Bestseller List) and Bill O'Reilly, both well known political figures, have had their books rank high on the Times list.
It's worth mentioning this isn't the first time the NYT has been involved in questionable practices in regards to the listing of a Conservative work--Dinesh D'Souza had similar problems around the same time in July of 2014.
Now, to delve deeper into the Left's refusal to ever take it on the chin, some left-leaning news sites like The Washington Post (which, for the moment, still has some credibility despite their bias) took some subtle shots at Cruz's book by comparing his first week sales with that of Hillary Clinton's 'Hard Choices'--released June 10th, 2014. At that time, BuzzFeed reported her book sold 85,721 copies its first week of release. Cruz's book was released June 30th, 2015, and amassed 11,853 in sales its first week. In their attempt to downplay the blatant mendacity of the NYT's in regards to Cruz's book the Post left out the fact that Clinton's book was ultimately a massive bomb. Simon & Shuster, the publisher, paid Fraulein Clinton a bloated $14 million to pen a tome that, by its first month, had only managed to sell approximately 161,000 copies--a sad number considering her previous book, for which she was paid 8 million, sold over a million copies.
It's a fair assumption that this sort of unscrupulous activity was done, in whole or in part, because of Cruz's current run for the presidency; and that he isn't a well known commodity in the mainstream.
It's telling that the Left will protect presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, a woman submerged in scandals and insurmountable lies (not to mention being the absolute worst Secretary of State in recent memory); yet they'll gleefully postulate a scandal of their own making to denigrate an opposing presidential contender who, at this point and time, has proven invulnerable to the typical Left-wing attacks. With the Left thus far unable to find a weakness in Cruz's armor, and with seemingly no skeletons in his closet, Ted Cruz continues to show that now is certainly A Time For Truth.