A front-page New York Times "news analysis" article carries the online headline "Trump's Unparalleled War on a Pillar of Society: Law Enforcement." The promotional language for the story claims "President Trump has raised fears that he is tearing at the credibility of some of the most important institutions in American life to save himself."
This is precisely the sort of thing that erodes the Times' credibility. The Times article claims "The war between the president and the nation's law enforcement apparatus is unlike anything America has seen in modern times....the president has engaged in a scorched-earth assault on the pillars of the criminal justice system in a way that no other occupant of the White House has done."
The Times writes the whole long article with a mention of Nixon but with not any mention of the words "Obama" or "Black Lives Matter." Here for example is a statement from July 2016 from the National Association of Police Organizations:
We are currently in the midst of war on cops. This Administration helped foster the climate that made this war possible. The constant message that America's police need to be reformed, monitored, investigated, prosecuted without any distinction as to the merits and valor of the individual men and women who do this job is beyond tiresome, it is deadly....NAPO has been urging the President and Congress to restore local police officers' ability to have defensive gear such as helmets, shields and bullet resistant vehicles for over a year , but they have refused. In the Executive Order (Executive Order 13688) that prohibits our access to vital surplus military equipment, the Administration acknowledges that this gear fulfills legitimate police needs, and the lack of such gear "can have life-threatening consequences." However, the Administration, worried that some of these items "could significantly undermine community trust," concluded this concern outweighed the concern for police and public safety.
Also, elsewhere on the same Times front page is an article faulting the FBI for being slow to act against the doctor who was molesting Olympic gymnasts. By publishing that article, is the Times waging "war on a pillar of society" or "tearing at the credibility" of an "important institution"? Or is it merely accurately describing flawed behavior?
As I've written here before, one of the most crucial tasks of a news organization in the Trump era is explaining what's unusual and what's not unusual. At a certain point, when the Times keeps claiming things are "unparalleled" when in fact there are plenty of parallels, the newspaper starts to confirm Trump's description of it as inaccurate and biased against him.