The latest example of how the New York Times is throwing traditional journalistic objectivity overboard in its effort to defeat President Trump comes toward the end of a long investigative article (the second in a series) about the president's tax returns. The Times writes, "After he announced his candidacy in 2015 with racist comments about Mexicans, NBC, which carried 'The Apprentice,' cut ties with him and he sold his interest in the Miss Universe pageant, another reliable moneymaker."
Here is the actual relevant passage from a transcript of the announcement speech, from the Washington Post: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
You can call that anti-immigrant, or anti-Mexican (though Trump does allow that there are good Mexicans). But to call it "racist" seems to me to be overstating it, at least for a news article that is supposed to not take sides. Hispanics, according to the census bureau's definition, can be of any race. Mexicans are not a race. And Trump's statement distinguishes among Mexicans. Is this the most high-minded way to begin a presidential campaign? No. Does it demonize and scapegoat Mexican immigrants? Yes. Does it play on racist fears about people of color as rapists? Yes.
When the Times describes this sort of rhetoric as "racially charged" or "racially divisive" rather than simply "racist," the left accuses the paper of pulling punches or using euphemisms, of being afraid to call out Trump's racism. The Times appears to have taken that criticism to heart and started openly describing Trump's remarks as racist—just as voting in the 2020 election has begun. What a coincidence.