Time's Up for The New York Times?

It's Sunday, which means crossword lovers are racing to their front doors to get their hands on The New York Times crossword puzzle. It has been a tradition since 1942, and many a wordsmith finds it challenging and fun; it's long been one of the newspaper's identifying markers. This week, the Gray Lady — as it's often called — celebrated its 175th anniversary. According to publisher A.G. Sulzberger, on Sept. 18, 1851, "the newspaper we know today as The New York Times published its first issue." He also mentioned that it sold for a penny, which many believe is about what it's worth in 2026. That may sound harsh, so let's dig in and see how well America's newspaper of record measures up to its self-imposed standards.

"At The Times,” publisher A.G. Sulzberger wrote, “we believe the job of a newspaper is to seek the truth, to help people understand the world and to hold the powerful to account." Sulzberger posits that this is accomplished by "an ironclad commitment to fairness, accuracy and independence — delivering the news, as our longstanding credo puts it, 'impartially, without fear or favor.'" These are lofty goals and can be reached only so long as the reporting and editorial staff remain impartial.

The Gray Lady has witnessed a big chunk of American history — from the Civil War battlefields to the current military action in Iran. One wonders whether, somewhere in this long period, The Times lost its way. As important as high standards are, it’s also vital that such an influential media empire avoid the lowest forms of journalism. And yet...

The Times has educated Americans on the many ways a news report can lie to the public: It can take a partisan line (check), decide not to report on someone or something (check), slow-walk coverage of a particular story (check), repeat salacious lies (check), and conveniently leave out proper context (check). They have even mastered the art of burying corrections and clarifications.

The New York Times: All the News That's Fit to Print?

The Times has long used the slogan "all the news that's fit to print," but at times it has gone further and printed news that was not fit to print because it was untrue. The nation’s newspaper of record took the position that the FBI’s operation known as Crossfire Hurricane was a legitimate investigation of Donald Trump’s campaign colluding with Russia. But it became clear in Special Counsel John Durham's report that there simply was not enough proof to begin an extensive – and intrusive – investigation. The Times has held on to this view by its fingertips since the DOJ's findings were made public -- insisting its position is correct, despite the investigation concluding an “objective and honest assessment” was not made.

Being wrong is one thing, but maintaining that position in the face of an extensive government report called for a retraction or, at the very least, clarification.

Free with the Daily Briefing

85Essays

Unravel the Constitution

Hamilton, Madison & Jay’s complete case for America, free and searchable in the Publius Reader.

Join Free & Read

Free with the Daily Briefing. Unsubscribe anytime.

Perhaps the Gray Lady's most famous challenge to report the truth came in 2020 when the New York Post discovered Hunter Biden's laptop. This is a perfect example of bias: The NYT determined the best course of action was to sit tight and say next to nothing for fear it might alter the upcoming election. Its published articles didn't say outright that the laptop was a hoax; instead, they stayed skeptical about it before Americans went to the polls, even though a wealth of information was available.

The question is, would the newspaper behave in a similar way if the shoe were on the other foot — that is to say, if Donald Trump Jr.’s laptop were discovered with similar contents?  Now, whether it’s true or not, many believe it would have been splashed on the front page of The Times if that were the case. The Times didn't admit the laptop was authentic until March of 2022.

In short, The New York Times has lost the trust of the conservative segment of the electorate. Even casual observers could tell that America’s newspaper of record was hell-bent on making sure Mr. Trump would lose the presidential contest. Sulzberger said as much in his editorial marking the paper’s anniversary, singling out 47 as the most hostile president in modern history.  

Charlottesville or Bust!

In August of 2017, a “Unite the Right" rally took place in Charlottesville, VA, which became violent as opposing political forces clashed. Three days later, Trump said there are "very fine people on both sides" in reference to removing a Robert E. Lee statue in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In no way was he implying that Nazis "were very fine people." But The Times apparently didn't feel it was necessary to clarify the topic and put that phrase in context.

Now, it could be that only in the 21st century has The Times reached the pinnacle of poor journalism, but somehow, in the words of TV host Gayle King, we may "have to sit with that” a bit.

Someone once said, "I start my day by reading the Bible, and then I pick up The New York Times so that I can see what the opposing side has to say.” The Times’ abject hatred of President Donald Trump has been palpable from the moment he stepped on the political stage. the Gray Lady is permitting its politics to get in the way of its objectivity – never a good idea for a major media entity that wants to be known for its “ironclad commitment to fairness, accuracy, and independence.” Perhaps the Gray Lady is getting too old for the business of journalism and should just stick to things like restaurant reviews and crossword puzzles, where it clearly excels.