The Times may not be perfect, but it remains staunchly independent in an era of bent knees

Donald Trump’s second stint in the White House has been fraught with peril for independent journalism. I couldn’t possibly list the threats emanating from the regime without omitting many others, but you know what’s been happening:

This post was originally published as part of last week’s Supporters Newsletter. To receive this newsletter every Thursday, join my Patreon for just $6 a month.

Outrageous legal settlements agreed to by the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News. The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel. The arrests of reporters Don Lemon and Georgia Fort while they were covering a protest. Threats against broadcast licenses by FCC chair Brendan Carr. The pending Trump-greased acquisition of CNN by billionaires David Ellison and his father, Larry, for whom wrecking CBS wasn’t enough. The Trump-friendly direction taken by The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times opinion sections at the behest of their billionaire owners. An illegal raid on a Washington Post reporter’s home.

A few important news organizations have remained staunchly independent. ProPublica. NPR, despite defunding by the federal government. The Wall Street Journal, even though its owners, the Murdoch family, are also responsible for the toxic stream of right-wing disinformation that gushes forth from Fox News. Above all, there’s The New York Times, a publicly traded company that remains under the control of the Sulzberger family, which purchased it in 1896.

The Times is indispensable, reporting on all manner of Trumpian depredations, exposing the U.S. role in bombing an Iranian girls’ school that claimed some 175 lives and, just this week, revealing that the late longtime labor hero Cesar Chavez raped young girls and women. The Times is not perfect; its gullible coverage during the run-up to the war in Iraq remains a source of institutional shame, and I don’t think the Times was nearly as tough on Trump as it should have been during his first term, as I wrote in 2018.

But the times, and the Times, have changed. Its coverage of the U.S.-Israel bombing campaign against Iran has been deeply skeptical, and the paper kicks the hell out of the Trump regime every hour of the day in both its news and opinion sections. I still see plenty of complaining from the social media left about the Times, but mainly that amounts to quibbles over headlines and social media posts.

Earlier this week the Times’ assistant managing editor for news, Michael Slackman, visited Northeastern and engaged in a public conversation with the director of our School of Journalism, Jonathan Kaufman. A former foreign correspondent who was nearly gunned down by helicopter fire in Bahrain, Slackman struck me as a sober, dedicated journalist, exactly the sort of person you’d want in charge of the Times’ daily report. As they say, he came across as someone who takes his work seriously but not himself. By the way, he is a 1984 Northeastern alumnus.

The Times’ approach has resonated. Its paid circulation of nearly 13 million, almost all of that digital, is by far the largest in the organization’s history. Of course, it’s not just news — the Times has succeeded by offering a range of ancillary products such as games, recipes and consumer advice. But a lot of people are engaging with the journalism every day. The newsroom is up to 2,300 journalists — again, by far the most in the outlet’s history, and that’s not counting the opinion section or affiliated publications. Publisher AG Sulzberger put it this way in a recent message:

This type of original, independent, deeply reported journalism is in retreat. But Americans depend on it today as much as any time in our nation’s 250 years. They need trustworthy sources of truth, understanding, accountability. The free press exists to empower our fellow citizens, strengthening their ability to steer our nation. That is a profoundly optimistic idea, one everyone in this room should hold tight to.

Please don’t take this as a fan letter to the Times. It may be skeptical of power, but it could be more skeptical still. Its coverage of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been sniffy and dwells on his perceived negatives. Its “all voices” approach to covering transgender issues sometimes elevates bad-faith actors who shouldn’t be heard from. The opinion section could use a refresh. I mean, why shouldn’t columnists return to the newsroom once they’ve run out of things to say? That problem isn’t unique to the Times, but the Times is uniquely positioned to do something about it.

Still, I don’t know where we would be without the Times.