A perceptive analysis of why The New York Times struggles with the rise of MAGA authoritarianism

What is wrong with The New York Times? It’s a question that conservatives ask frequently, of course. But, over the years, it’s also become an obsession with liberals and the progressive left, whose more strident voices — frequently heard on Bluesky — claim that the Times is in thrall to Donald Trump in order to sell newspapers, advance a corporate agenda or whatever. You often hear the term “sanewashing” in these circles, referring to a practice of quoting Trump in a way that plays down his hateful rhetoric and deteriorating mental acuity.

Sign up for free email delivery of Media Nation — and become a supporter for just $6 a month.

I’ve often been among those critics. In 2018, I wrote a commentary for GBH News referring to “the Timid Times” and comparing it unfavorably to the then-ascendant Washington Post, which was firing on all cylinders under executive editor Marty Baron. As I wrote: “The picture that emerges is of a news organization often out of sync with its mostly liberal audience and that is way too concerned about what conservatives might say.”

I actually think the Times has gotten better since then. Good thing, too, since the Post is struggling to keep up following massive cuts ordered by its feckless owner, Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos. Weirdly enough, the Post’s coverage of national politics remains tough and independent, even though Bezos has turned the opinion section into a national laughingstock and eviscerated local coverage and sports. But despite the good journalism the Post continues to produce, Bezos has rendered it an increasingly unheard voice in the national conversation.

An exceptionally perceptive take on this dynamic was turned in on Thursday by former Post journalist Perry Bacon. Writing in The New Republic, Bacon eschews the over-the-top criticism voiced by many of the Times’ left-leaning critics and instead portrays the paper as an institution that is simply not suited for the authoritarianism and brutality of the Age of Trump. Ironically, the Times has never been more dominant than it is right now. But Bacon argues that’s part of the problem:

The power of the Times isn’t new. But American politics has changed in fundamental ways. And that makes the American left’s attachment to the Gray Lady more problematic. A liberalism that forcefully confronts authoritarianism, oligarchy, climate change, and the numerous other enormous challenges that we face will almost certainly be one that is less attuned to the views of America’s most influential paper. The Times implicitly and at times explicitly advances a centrist, status quo politics, and that’s exactly what liberals must abandon to save the country.

I would counter that no prominent news organization has done more to hold Trump accountable than the Times. Much of what we know about his cruelty, his lawlessness and his corruption has emerged from reporting by the Times. Its lead Trump whisperer, Maggie Haberman — derided as “Maggot” Haberman by Trump yet reviled by elements of the left as his enabler — has done more to explain this moment than any other journalist. At the same time, though, the paper’s day-to-day political coverage fails to match the verve of its enterprise journalism, often engaging in tepid both-sides-ism. And even tough-minded stories are sometimes done in by flaccid headlines and social-media posts.

I’ve contended since my days at The Boston Phoenix that the mainstream media, eager to avoid being branded as liberal, bend over backwards to prove that they’re not. Media observer Margaret Sullivan, a veteran of both the Times and the Post, has noted that as well. In her 2022 book, “Newsroom Confidential: Lessons (and Worries) from an Ink-Stained Life,” Sullivan goes deep on the Times’ obsession with Hillary Clinton’s emails during the 2016 campaign — a non-scandal that may well have cost Clinton the election. As Sullivan wrote:

Often accused of liberal bias, the Times wanted to show clearly that this was not true, in coverage that implicitly shouted, “Look how tough we are on Hillary Clinton (your next president).” In addition, the news media, including The New York Times, loves to cover politics as a horse race. Since journalists across the board seemed to be convinced that Clinton would win handily, it made for a more exciting horse race if the favorite was loaded with extra weight to slow her down.

In other words, Times editors convinced themselves that they could kick the hell out of Clinton day after day and score points with their conservative critics because everyone knew that Trump wasn’t going to win. Oops. Of course, even if Clinton had won, she would have entered the White House unfairly bruised and battered because of disproportionate reporting by the Times.

Bacon has updated Sullivan’s formulation, writing:

Times leaders describe their approach as being an “independent” news operation. They don’t explicitly state this, but I suspect those leaders are quite aware the paper’s audience is largely Democrats and otherwise left-of-center readers. So the paper is signaling that it’s independent from the Democratic Party. But the coverage of the Times is best described by other words and phrases: nonpartisan, bipartisan, centrist, neutral, a “view from nowhere,” and, at its worst, false equivalence….

The overall product is a factually accurate portrayal of American politics that misses the big story: The Republican Party is a far-right entity at war with democracy; the Democrats are a normal party in a liberal democracy.

The question is whether it matters. Talk to ordinary people, and you’ll find that they overwhelmingly believe the Times’ coverage of Trump is deeply negative. This is true among Trump supporters, who believe the Times is hopelessly biased, as well as left-leaning critics, who feel overwhelmed by story after story after story about Trump’s latest outrages. Members of my own anti-Trump family often tell me that they frequently avoid stories about him.

But Bacon has an answer to whether it matters. It matters, he writes, because the Times is so influential among Democrats and liberals who should be reacting to the moment with alacrity rather than with the calm conviction that somehow we’ll get back to normal. He says:

The mistakes that Democrats have made in fighting the MAGA right have been numerous and deeply costly: believing that Trump won in 2016 largely because of economy anxiety, trusting that Joe Biden’s conciliatory approach would bring politics back to normal, refusing to push Biden to stop fully supporting Israel’s war in Gaza, spending much of last year not fighting hard against Trump’s destruction of federal agencies and radical immigration policies.

In my view, the Times helped lead Democrats to all of those fateful decisions. The paper’s coverage hints that the Republican Party is reasonable and parts of the Democratic Party base are unreasonable. That approach pushes Democrats away from the reality: The MAGA right must be defeated, not negotiated with.

Bacon knows he’s not going to change the Times, and his prescription, which pretty much comes down to “read The Guardian” and a few other left-leaning outlets, isn’t very convincing. But his calm, reasoned analysis about what’s wrong with the Times is persuasive in a way that I hope will reach a lot of folks in the center-left — especially those involved in politics who are helping Democrats shape their message.

And maybe some high-ranking editors at the Times will think about it as well.