Is the New York Times Pro-Trump?

I am seeing multiple claims, in other Politics & Elections threads, that the New York Times is pro-Trump. As a near-lifelong subscriber, I find this ludicrous but worth exploration. Here is an Editorial Board article from 2020 to start:

The Case Against Donald Trump

I think they believe they’re on the side of the angels, but they have a huge blind spot created by their ongoing feud with Biden. They need to get their heads out of their asses.

They are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a left wing mouthpiece. By continuously carping about Biden they are handing the RW propaganda people a massive stick with which to beat the Ds.

They are either terminally stupid or terminally complicit in trump’s planned destruction of the USA.

Neither is a good look.

One claim I’ve seen, in Politics & Elections, is that the New York Times helps Trump because he increases their revenue while in office. This is IMHO ridiculous because of their separation between editorial and business sides, as described here. Yea, I do not have proof they follow their own ethical code. So I want to hit it from another angle.

As seen here, it simply is not true that Trump correlates with changes in their annual revenue figures:

Long time NYTimes reader.

My two cents, I don’t see it. NYTimes is about the last real “newspaper” in this country, and whilst leaning more liberal than not, the Times is not a propaganda organization like Faux or any of the Murdoch properties. Times does have at least some opposing views like Bret “Israel can do no wrong” Stephens. And the Times is one of the last media companies that have the funds to conduct investigative reporting, and they’ve done a ton of investigative reporting on Trump.

All media are incentivized to make it a “close” race. Headlines and/or sound bites sell. An article on a poll for a potential close race in Arizona gets emphasized.

If you’re a regular reader, the times have been exceedingly clear overall that Trump is a threat. Cherry picking multiple articles that are balanced or opposing views or just not lock step with the latest Dem party talking points doesn’t offset that for regular subscribers.

Can’t comment on what is visible on the public side of the paywall.

The insider take is that they feel they’re entitled to a big interview with Biden because, well, they’re the Times. When Biden came to New York and talked with Howard Stern - of all people, huffed the Times - they became determined not to give him any slack. In addition, the publisher, A. G. Sulzberger, the scion of the family dynasty, apparently has directed the paper to skew toward business interests.

Not battering Trump constantly and refusing to give Biden favorable press makes it seem like the paper is pro-Trump. Not so, in any explicit way. But not producing blaring headlines against someone their editorial staff and reporters want to stomp all over is infuriating everybody left of Mitch McConnell.

Being anti-Biden is not the same as being pro-Trump. If anything, it’s simply being anti-Trump from a different angle. Nobody on the NYT is arguing that Trump should be elected. They’re arguing that replacing Biden would give the D’s a better chance of beating Trump.

You can disagree with their analysis of Biden, just like someone can argue that Starting Pitcher A is better than Starting Pitcher B, but not once has it been pro-Trump.

Are you under the impression that this beef started with the recent editorial?

I have been saying for ages that I think the New York Times is in the tank for trump. I can’t even remember the number of garbage shit pieces they have put out that make it obvious to me that the decision makers at the times are rich and stupid.

My memory is shit for specifics, but I know I’ve complained about 3 or 4 times here in recent years about one story after another that was really beneath the times of old.

I feel towards them like I do the Current Supreme Court. No respect at all.

Here’s one example of the loaded language the Times uses to describe the candidates;

Their latest editorial board screed against Biden has caused me to cancel my long-standing subscription. Go fuck yourselves, NYT.

I’ve mentioned the entitled attitude of the press corps before and this is exactly what I mean by it. “How DARE he not come when we call him! We’re the highest-selling periodical of 1896! He’s NOTHING without us! We’ll show him!” That’s the attitude they project when they run articles about how he isn’t doing enough press conferences for their liking and so on.

Not apparent to me. He does not make coverage decisions. But of course they don’t keep away from stories some would rather see hidden, as explained here:

Journalistic independence in a time of division

Putting quote marks around words, that were only uttered by the poster, is not a favorite of mine.

It is impossible to see into someone’s heart. But when Tom Friedman wrote that Biden’s debate reduced him to tears, I found it plausible.

As for articles on how few press conferences Reagan and Biden held, how many articles were there for Biden? I am only finding one hard news story, and one Maureen Dowd column. Read the column and tell me it isn’t proven correct by the debate.

Done. It isn’t proven correct by the debate. You will also note that my comment was about the press corps in general, not just the NYT - the Trump admin gave them a skewed perspective that they’re entitled to the president’s time and they’re mad that Biden’s White House isn’t a 24/7 media circus.

There’s quite a bit of Twitter angst over the Times calling for Biden to drop out of the race. “How come they didn’t tell Trump to drop out, huh??!?!?!?”

Simple - the Times has not the slightest influence with Trump or his devotees, and such an editorial would only result in horselaughs. Whatever your feelings about their advising Biden to quit, there’s at least some reason for the editorial board to think their opinions matter.

The Times does dumb things, such as giving Alina Chan a forum to promote her lab leak bullshit and not printing a direct response. But to say that the paper’s pro-Trump is beyond ludicrous.

Because that’s more of a Philly thing.

Are you seriously defending him on the basis of a showy public speech? That’s like basing your opinion of Trump on his last State of the Union. Every person in the audience knew exactly what he would say before he opened his mouth, not because they received an advance copy of the speech, but because every speech of that sort sounds the same.

The big article about the Times’ “petty grievance” came from Politico: The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House.

In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.

Others in that article think the problems is more pervasive:

Aides in the White House press office and on the president’s campaign pointed to two recent examples of articles by the Times that presented Biden and Trump side by side, emphasizing broad similarities and obscuring the proportional differences. One piece by Michael Shear cast both Biden and Trump as restricting the information the public has about their physical health. Another in the paper’s On Politics newsletter by the newly hired Jess Bidgood reacted to Arizona’s reinstatement of a Civil War era law outlawing abortion by framing Biden and Trump as two “imperfect messengers” on the issue, a gross journalistic injustice, campaign officials said, given Trump’s outsized role in appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. …

In February, the campaign blasted the Times and other news organizations for focusing more on the president’s age than Trump’s comment encouraging Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to any NATO country not meeting defense spending benchmarks. “If you read the New York Times this weekend, you might have missed it buried behind five separate opinion pieces about how the president is 81 year old — something that has been true since his birthday in November — and zero on this topic,” Ducklo wrote.

But one could see the signs earlier. Sulzberger fired editor James Bennett over a decision he made. Bennett wrote a long article for The Economist, which of course one can discount as the classic disgruntled employee piece, but contains this prescient statement:

The Times’s problem has metastasised from liberal bias to illiberal bias, from an inclination to favour one side of the national debate to an impulse to shut debate down altogether. All the empathy and humility in the world will not mean much against the pressures of intolerance and tribalism without an invaluable quality that Sulzberger did not emphasise: courage.

I canceled my web subscription, but from their headlines I see on google news, they seem pro Trump and anti Biden.

The Times gets it from both right and left. This issue (proposed op ed by Tom Cotton calling for use of the military against domestic rioters) is the starting event for Bari Weiss’s quitting the Times to start her AFAIK super-successful Free Press substack. From what I read of her, the one sure truth is that she did not get along with some colleagues. Even if she was more tolerant than they were (I have no way to judge), making one incident into a critique of the Times seems to me totally unconvincing.

They still publish op-eds with a wide variety of viewpoints, as they should. Just not ones calling for use of the military against Americans civilians.