America’s paper of record refuses to sound the alarm about the threat Trump poses to democracy
If Donald Trump wins the Nov. 5 election, the New York Times will be partly responsible.
As the dominant voice in American journalism, the Times could have fundamentally changed the way Trump has been covered not just by its own journalists but by the political media as a whole. It could have stopped using soft, empty language and false equivalence, and made it crystal clear to the public that if elected Trump would turn America into a racist, authoritarian regime where facts don’t matter.
But rather than call out the dangerous lunacy in plain view, the Times has chosen to engage in tortured euphemisms, passive construction, and poor news judgment.
Here are a few examples of the troubling coverage — or lack thereof:
Meanwhile, the day-to-day coverage treats Trump like a normal candidate, rather than as the wildly dangerous and unhinged felon that he is. Day in and day out, the Times “sanewashes” his dark and unintelligible ramblings. Day in and day out, it treats the divisions about basic facts and democratic rule as just so much partisan squabbling.
Day in and day out, Times reporters use the passive voice to muddle responsibility for heinous acts committed by Republicans, find fault with “both sides,” and create false equivalencies between two parties, only one of which respects facts and the rule of law.
