The approaching election seems to be tempting the New York Times into partisanship.
Here are three recent examples where the Times seems to have stopped even attempting to appear neutral.
Example No. 1. A Times news article headlined "Justice Dept. Aids Trump's False Narrative on Voting." This almost comically tilted article begins:
In the effort led by President Trump to create a misleading impression of widespread voter fraud, administration and campaign officials have seized on nine mail-in military ballots in a Pennsylvania county that Mr. Trump won by 20 points in 2016.
Federal officials have disclosed that they are investigating whether local elections officials improperly discarded the ballots, at least seven of which were cast for Mr. Trump, they said.
Trump's margin of victory in the county in 2016 is irrelevant. Pennsylvania's electoral votes are allocated on a statewide basis, and the state result is expected to be close. Even in states that aren't expected to be close, throwing nine ballots—or any ballots—in the trash is news. If it were Republican election officials throwing Biden ballots from a minority neighborhood into the trash, you can bet the Times wouldn't be reporting it as "In the effort led by Joe Biden to create a misleading impression of widespread voter suppression, Democrats have seized on nine ballots in a county that Democrats won by 20 points in 2016." For a more neutral, more appropriate headline, check out the way ABC News did it: "Temporary contractor threw Trump mail-in ballots in trash, Pennsylvania county officials say." In other words, just report the news without all the spin or worrying about what impression it might create.
Example No. 2: A Times news article reports: "The president and his Republican allies have tried to cast the Clinton Foundation, a philanthropic organization, as corrupt, accusing Mrs. Clinton of taking steps as secretary of state to support the interests of foundation donors.... The allegations against Mrs. Clinton were advanced in the book 'Clinton Cash,' by Peter Schweizer, a senior editor at large at Breitbart News, the right-wing outlet once controlled by Mr. Trump's former top aide Stephen K. Bannon. The book contained multiple errors, and the foundation has dismissed its allegations."
The Times depicts this as a theory pushed only by "the president and his Republican allies," and is dismissive of Schweizer. Yet the Times itself editorialized in 2015 on the need for the Clinton Foundation to clean up its act: "Donors have included the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Oman and a Canadian government agency reported to be involved in promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. ... it does make it important that Mrs. Clinton, in defending the family's efforts on behalf of the world's needy, reassure the public that the foundation will not become a vehicle for insiders' favoritism, should she run for and win the White House." And a 2015 New York Times page one news article headlined "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal" reported, "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors."
That article went on:
Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book "Clinton Cash." Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation's donors.
For the Times to now claim this was all just a project of "The president and his Republican allies" is nonsense. Back in 2015, the Times took the criticism seriously rather than dismissing it as a partisan smear.
Example No. 3: A Times news article headlined "Republicans' Inquiry Finds No Wrongdoing By Biden in Ukraine." The Times article assured readers, "the result delivered on Wednesday appeared to be little more than a rehashing six weeks before Election Day of unproven allegations that echo an active Russian disinformation campaign and have been pushed by Mr. Trump." Compare that to how the Federalist handled the same story: "Hunter Biden Took $3.5 Million From Ex-Moscow Mayor's Wife." Or the Wall Street Journal editorial "Hunter Biden's Business": "The report makes clear Hunter was profiting off his father's position—in Ukraine, and notably in China. Foreigners knew they were buying influence by association.... Committee documents show Hunter's businesses received millions of dollars from other deals with foreigners during the Obama years. This included a $3.5 million wire transfer in 2014 from Elena Baturina, the widow of the former mayor of Moscow."
Again, imagine if House Democrats put out a report disclosing Trump's children accepting millions from Russians or Chinese. (This is a hypothetical; there are no such payments that I am aware of.) The Times would be all over it, not headlining it "no wrongdoing."
As recently as November 2019, Times executive editor Dean Baquet was publicly professing, "We're not supposed to be leaders of the resistance to Donald Trump." Someone should let the rest of the Times newsroom know.