Is the New York Times neutral on the future of democracy?

And other pointed questions about the nation’s leading newspaper

Does the New York Times care if democracy survives?

I ask this question sincerely, because the Times’ political coverage sometimes makes me wonder.

On most subjects, the Times’ values are transparent. When it publishes a recipe, I know it wants the dish to taste good. But when it’s writing about the MAGA assault on democracy, the Times’ values are not nearly as clear.

The Times seems to make the defense of democracy a lower priority than appearing “balanced” on Democrats vs. Republicans. And it apparently thinks it’s savvy to be cynical. That’s why it depicts right-wing misbehavior as crafty maneuvering, such as describing Ron DeSantis’ attacks on education as “building his brand” and Nikki Haley’s shiftiness on the issues as ”an ability to massage her message to the moment.” 

In this election year, the stakes are enormous for our nation. Donald Trump has deluded millions of Americans into distrusting our election system, and he promises to operate like a dictator if he regains the White House. Yet the New York Times often covers politics as an amusing game. 

That’s why I ask whether promoting democracy is part of the Times’ mission. I wish the answer was obvious. It’s not. 

I have other questions about the Times too:

Why does the Times opinion page amplify liars and extremists? 

I understand why the Times runs essays by conservative thinkers like Bret Stephens. But sometimes the Times goes way beyond that. One example was the “Send in the Troops” essay in which Sen. Tom Cotton called for the military to put down social justice protests in 2020. The Times admitted errors in publishing the piece, and the opinion editor resigned, but it’s unclear that the paper learned much.

A few weeks ago, the Times published an essay by Kellyanne Conway headlined “Who Should Be Trump’s No. 2?” Conway isn’t a “thinker,” she’s a professional liar. She’s so deeply into “alternative facts” that she made up a terrorist attack that she called the Bowling Green Massacre. She claimed in early March 2020 that Covid-19 was "contained,” a notion we now know was dangerously wrong and had no basis in fact when she said it. In platforming Conway, the Times insulted its readers.

Does the Times write bad headlines on purpose?

When the Times publishes hard-hitting stories about right-wing extremism – and it sometimes does that – it often writes cowardly, vague headlines to blunt their impact. The Times editors are using headlines as pillows to suffocate their own truth-telling.

With a recent story about Republican support for Vladimir Putin, the Times wrote this mushy headline: 

When the Times wrote a sharp editorial about Republicans blocking funding to fight AIDS overseas, the headline blamed “politics” instead of Republicans:

When Trump echoed fascist rhetoric by calling his opponents “vermin,” the Times wrote a bizarrely opaque headline:

That headline was so bad that the Times rewrote it, but still couldn’t bring itself to put “vermin” in the headline:

Just to show you what a good headline on the subject looks like, here’s what the Washington Post wrote: 

Why does the Times have insurrection amnesia?

In a newsletter last month, I reported that the last 34 times the New York Times mentioned Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., it failed to note an important background fact: that Norman sent a text to the White House a few days before Joe Biden’s inauguration that called for martial law to be declared to keep Trump in office. Since I wrote that newsletter, the Times has mentioned Norman seven more times without citing his treasonous text, bringing the total to 41.

There’s no good journalistic reason to avoid this detail, which is relevant as an indicator of his motives and credibility. When CNN interviewed Norman last month, it brought up the issue.

Is Peter Baker’s career coup-proof?

The Times’ chief White House correspondent filters everything through an ethic of whether it’s politically smart, not whether it’s good or bad for the world. An example came last week after Trump said he might “encourage” Russia to attack our European allies if he’s not happy with their defense budgets. Baker’s story focused on Trump’s statement as a political misstep rather than a threat to the future of European democracy. 

Baker normalizes Republican misconduct by treating it as political gamesmanship. His stories are so devoid of value judgments that they could survive in any political environment – democracy or dictatorship. I prefer journalists who would be in big trouble if there was a fascist takeover. Baker might do just fine.

Why does the Times trivialize serious subjects?

Last November, the Times’ coverage of Trump’s business fraud civil trial included a Page 1 feature on the Trump family’s fashion choices in court. “Welcome to the new season of Trump family trial style,” the story said, noting that the brand had embraced the color blue. Why does the Times do this? Because it has embraced the journalism fashion of entertainment and “storytelling” at the expense of focusing on vital facts that the public needs to know to protect our democracy.

Is the Times redeemable?

I’d like to think so. The Times is a great newspaper when it’s not a horrible one. In November it published an important story headlined “Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump’s 2025 Immigration Plans.” And everyone should read Nicholas Confessore’s devastating story from late 2022 about the ambitions of Elise Stefanik.

I’m not urging people to boycott the Times. I’m just urging the Times to come out for the preservation of a free country. And on Page 1, if possible.