As we head into the second month of a Trump presidency, the New York Times editorial policy continues to adjust to the new reality. NYT, who struggle to call a lie a lie, now must wonder - how to cover a fierce opposition to the Muslim ban, anti-science agenda, and closeness to Russia, all from a man who labeled his opponent a crook and a liar, but whose counsel belittled the emoluments clause.
The Constitution matters, except when we say it doesn't. And, oh, by the way, the press is the opposition party and an enemy of the American people.
As an objective reporter, how do you refer to large groups of people who do not hate Obama (a majority), who favor the continuation of the healthcare law, who would like the intelligence agencies who fear the president is a crook and may be a mole to continue with full investigations? Call them the pro-science crowd? Pro-diversity? Pro-reason? Just call them the rational majority?
No, the NYT must always go with balance, with the appearance of objectivity as if arriving from another planet.
We can not call them Democrats, because they may not be Democrats. So call them "liberals" because they oppose Trump. Now, for the NYT, anyone who opposes Trump is a "liberal"
So, in "With Coverage in Peril and Obama Gone, Health Law's Critics Go Quiet", the NYT states
'As liberals overwhelm congressional town hall-style meetings and deluge the Capitol phone system with pleas to protect the health law, there is no similar clamor for dismantling it, Mr. Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment.'
But does that reporter know these people are all so-called liberals? Are all those individuals coming forward in the town halls to say that 'Obamacare" saved them liberals? Do conservatives with that experience stay mum?
And so it is with "Liberals are Still Angry, But Merrick Garland has Reached Acceptance". Up until this past week, that would have been "Democrats are Still Angry...".
And "Are Liberals Helping Trump?" Talk about blaming the victim.
Look for NYT to continue to balance opposing sides by calling all opposition to Trump "Liberals", in their never-ending search for balance, even when that balance distorts reality and diminishes the numbers, quality, and meaning of that fierce opposition.
Somehow, to the Times, the pathological lying and obfuscation is something to fact check and then move on, which equates to ignoring it and the damaging impact on society.