The election of Trump in 2016 was a bit of a disappointment, but so was the response by every liberally-leaning engaged person to throw all their money into New York Times subscriptions thinking they were going to save us. The Times ran an opportunistic ad campaign after the election feeding that idea and people responded by opening their wallets. Maggie Haberman thanks you!
I don't think there's one correct model of journalism. Opinion journalism is fine, ideological journalism fine, crusading issue journalism is fine. It can all be good, including the American "balanced" model of journalism that most mainstream publications/outlets claim they aspire to.
However, one problem (there are a few) with the "balanced" model is it's easy to smuggle in an agenda behind it and claim your critics are just mad you aren't supporting THEIR agenda (over 20 years of hearing this). And Dash Sulzberger, the latest failson in the long line of a failed inbreeding experiment, has clearly - more than his predecessor - embraced agenda journalism, pushing specific issues in a "flood the zone" coverage, with little balance in the coverage or concern for maintaining an illusion of appropriate proportionality.
The problem isn't that the paper is doing that, precisely, the problem is that they're doing that while hiding behind their reputation and claimed model of journalism. I mean, they're just lying to you and to critics daily, implicitly and explicitly, about what they are. That's a problem!
tl;dr fuck that fucking newspaper.
