As if The New York Times was ever fair to conservatives anyway, a media columnist says it's difficult for "working journalists" to fairly cover Donald Trump.
In his August 7 column, columnist Jim Rutenberg says normal rules of journalistic objectivity just don't apply when you're covering Donald Trump.
He's unhinged and dangerous, Rutenberg writes, and the coverage needs to be oppositional.
Dan Gainor of Media Research Center says the paper is finally admitting to a bias most mainstream media have against Republicans.
"It's hard to imagine the media could be any more biased this election and yet that's what they're arguing for," Gainor observes.
And while the Times is picking on Trump, Gainor says the fix would have been in on any conservative candidate.
It was in October 2012 that the Times mocked complaints of media bias from then-GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
"This election would look like this if Ted Cruz had won," Gainor says. "They'd be saying that Jeb Bush was a Nazi. They'd be saying that John Kasich was a fascist. This is where the left is right now and this is where the media are right now."
Beyond the newsroom, Gainor says that same type of bias and bullying is happening in the public square as evidenced by protesters trying to shut down political speech.
"When you go and silence your opposition," he complains, "the media encourages it."
So objective journalism is kicked out the door and replaced by a new standard: to be liked.
"History's judgment is the new rational," Gainor says, explaining that journalists are afraid history will be unkind to them if they fail to stop Trump from entering the White House next year.
In fact, Rutenberg and his New York Times column agree with that description.
"It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment," he writes. "To do anything less would be untenable."
The New York Times, meanwhile, reported in May it had loss $14 million in the first quarter of the year.