"How to Follow the News Without Spiraling into Despair" is the headline over a New York Times article advising readers that following the news "can become overwhelming" and that "it's understandable to feel sad, angry and anxious."
It's the timing of these sorts of articles that is always a giveaway of what Times editors are thinking (or of what they think their readers are thinking). With the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, reinforcing the right to bear arms, and issuing a couple of rulings protecting the free exercise of religion, and with polls and projections showing Republicans poised to take control of at least the House of Representatives in November's election, at least some conservatives are not "sad" or in "despair," but happy.
The Times never runs these "how to follow the news without spiraling into despair" sort of articles after Democrats take over Congress or the White House, or after the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, or after developments that make the left happy. It's yet another example of how the New York Times has shifted away from being a paper that simply tells readers the news and is instead taking on a new role, of heavy-handedly instructing readers on what they are supposed to think, or how they are should react, emotionally, to the news.