The one thing I’m not sure of is if the NYT is necessarily worse than other publications. There’s the whole deal with fact-checking organizations screwing things up lately.
This is from Politifact, for example:
I remember reading this and my assumption is that they believed that any Times reader would know how insane Trump’s claim was. FWIW, here’s the lead editorial from today:
It strongly endorses Harris, among other things quotes both Cheneys.
Linky?
More op-ed. When the NYT starts running articles on the front page that trump is senile and needs to step down, then they will have become unbiased.
There it’s even worse, as they flat out say “it’s not Trump’s plan” when that is at best a very controversial statement.
Sigh
WaPo cited a CNN (or YouGov) post-debate poll that said most respondents felt Trump had won on the topics of the economy and immigration, which are the main issues with voters. The same group had said that Harris won the debate overall.
It seems like that piece and this NYT piece could explain the disconnect between Harris’s performance and a lack of gain with voters (should that come to pass in the coming days.)
Screw the undecided voters. If you don’t know who you’re going to vote for by now, you’re either willfully ignoring current events or you’re not going to vote no matter what. Every debate we go through this charade of having a panel of “undecided” voters who haughtily declare that the candidates didn’t say enough to sway their vote. Come on, how could you watch one candidate talking sensibly and another throwing feces on the wall and say “well I still need to know more about Harris”? Jesus, all you need to know is that she isn’t batshit crazy.
I kinda agree with the gist of that Times headline. If you were grading on debate points, i think Harris “won”. But no one really wins a presidential debate, what’s important is that sometimes, someone loses a debate. Biden lost his debate. And back 4 years ago, i think Trump lost the debate when he had covid. But i didn’t think either Trump or Harris lost this one, in the sense of discouraging their marginal voters from voting.
I don’t see that headline mentioning the delusion of the Trump voters.
I think a lot of the concern in this thread is pretty overblown, but I did want to share that I just learned what the NYT headline reporting on Hitler’s being named Chancellor was: “Hitler Puts Aside Aim to be Dictator”. 
So, this is just how they roll.
Some time ago, I sorta jokingly said that the NYT will be sorry when/if trump wins and they are all in a concentration camp.
But look at this-
Donald Trump really did not like getting live fact-checked by ABC News during Tuesday night’s debate, so much so he wants the network shut down. … “They ought to take away their license for the way they did that,” said Trump, in a clear threat to ABC News.
Okay, not quite a camp, sure, but definite retaliation threats vs the media.
NYT has endorsed Harris. Says she is « the only patriotic choice for president ».
Linking to Politico article, since the NYT article is paywalled:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30/new-york-times-kamala-harris-endorsement-00181639
Wow, the Pro Trump New York Times is clearly playing the long game here! 5d chess.
I foresee a massive handwave in our future…
Okay, so they endorsed Harris, of course, since 90% of their readers are Democrats- they had to. But I bet they keep sane washing trump, and many articles about “why is Harris refusing to give any interviews?” etc over and over.
This is a gift link to the actual endorsement.
It should be noted they still get in some digs about the fact she hasn’t given them the interview they want.
These are the sorts of questions that, in a normal cycle, presidential candidates should be asked by a national newspaper – because TV personalities will not:
Do I actually want to see Harris and Trump taking questions like this? No, because Trump will give non-answers, and it is hard for a responsible normie candidate to give serious answers without including soundbites that can sound scary out of context. And the candidate whose approach to question of nuclear war is completely irresponsible (blow Iranian cities to smithereens) benefits from a fearful electorate.
BUT – It is newswothy that the norm, where candidates answer tough questions, is slipping away.