Andy Borowitz used to be the humorist for The New Yorker. A joke a day. Then he created his own blog. The following is no joke. I didn’t post it all because I’m not a subscriber. Here is an opener:
When Did the New York Times Fall in Love with Trump?

Photo by David Smooke on Unsplash
Just hours after the first presidential debate of 2024, the New York Times editorial board, citing Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, urged him to quit the race. They issued no such directive to Donald Trump, whose only moments of coherence during the 90-minute contest came in the form of lies.
The Times’s love affair with Trump is reprehensible—but it’s not new. In fact, it goes back decades.
How did this sick romance begin? And how will it end?
The first evidence of the Times’s infatuation with Trump appeared on November 1, 1976: a profile so gushing that he could have written it himself, except for its use of complete sentences.
“He is tall, lean and blond, with dazzling white teeth, and he looks ever so much like Robert Redford,” wrote Judy Klemesrud, who needed either new eyewear or a stint in rehab.
Klemesrud’s journalistic atrocity yields too many howlers to mention, but here’s an especially gobsmacking one: “Mr. Trump, who says he is publicity shy, allowed a reporter to accompany him on what he described as a typical work day.” (What rare access, Judy!)
Amazed that he is to receive an award from a Jewish group, the publicity-shy Trump notes, “I’m not even Jewish, I’m Swedish.” (He’s neither.) The article also states that he was “a student at the Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania, from which he graduated first in his class in 1968.” A 1984 Times story belatedly corrected this whopper: “Although the school refused comment, the commencement program from 1968 does not list him as graduating with honors of any kind.”
That’s right—it took the Times eight years to (partially) correct an article as riddled with falsehoods as Melania’s book. The “paper of record” had already established its lax approach to holding Trump accountable.
Was the Times going easy on Donald because it had discovered what the New York tabloids had already figured out—that Trump stories sold papers?
The Times would surely deny that its pampering of Trump—then and now—has been driven by a thirst for profits. Money, however, clearly motivated one of the darkest chapters in the Times’s codependent relationship with him
I like to criticize the Times because I think its owner and editors pay attention. If too many influencers complain that the Times’ coverage doesn’t tell the whole truth about Trump, that they fail to report his latest outrage (was it his story about Arnold Palmer’s penis or his fake appearance as a worker in a McDonald’s, where the “customers” were carefully selected Trump partisans?)

I sent this letter to the Times yesterday:
Not for publication, due to expletive not being deleted.
To the editors of the Times,
You endorsed Harris. You warned business leaders today in a strong editorial.
So, what’s my beef? You continue to sanewash Trump’s speeches. He spouts some gibberish or makes outright fascist threats, and the Times pulls out the one item that made sense, or translates the gibberish/threats into something that sounds normal. That’s literally insane. Yesterday he talked about Arnold Palmer’s dick. Was it reported accurately in the Times? As if.
The Times must report exactly what he’s said or done at one of his rallies or interviews. No more acting as the fascist gibberish interpreter.
If he wins, your bullshit reporting will have contributed extensively to his victory. Do your jobs. Report what he says and does exactly as he said it or did it. If you truly believe he’s that dangerous, STOP SANEWASHING HIM!
LikeLike
A long shot, I sure hope your comment get published.
NYT has indeed “sane-washed” that dumpster.
LikeLike
Please report back if they show any signs of listening. Not a subscriber.
LikeLike
“Yesterday he talked about Arnold Palmer’s dick. Was it reported accurately in the Times? As if.”
As usually the case, complaints like this are not even true.
Here’s a headline from a Times story yesterday: At a Pennsylvania Rally, Trump Descends to New Levels of Vulgarity
The lede: “Former President Donald J. Trump on Saturday spewed crude and vulgar remarks at a rally in Pennsylvania that included an off-color remark about a famous golfer’s penis size and a coarse insult about Vice President Kamala Harris.”
Also: “With Election Day nearing, Mr. Trump’s advisers billed Saturday’s speech as the start of his efforts to make a closing argument to voters. But the choice to open his rally with a long story about Mr. Palmer — one of the few topics Mr. Trump spoke about at significant length without veering off on tangents — set a curious tone.
As the crowd reacted, Mr. Trump chuckled. Later, he said, “I had to tell you the shower part of it because it’s true. What can I tell you? We want to be honest.”
“This is a guy that was all man,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Palmer, who died in 2016. “This man was strong and tough. And I refuse to say it, but when he took showers with the other pros, they came out of there, they said, ‘Oh, my god, that’s unbelievable.’”
LikeLike
I think the Times is becoming more forthright about Trump’s lies, incoherence, and vulgarity because of criticism that it has been sane washing him. He has now brought “locker room talk” into his public appearances. And this stupid man keeps insulting Kamala’s intellect.
LikeLike
I don’t think they’ve changed much in their approach. I think this is a Rorschach test of sorts.
LikeLike
The Times did have a demonstration in front of their building to protest sanewashing.
NYCPSP wasn’t there. Nor was I.
I think the publisher doesn’t like demonstrations.
LikeLike
I live a few blocks from there. There seems to be a ragtag collection of people protesting more often than there isn’t.
LikeLike
Very often how these complaints take form is (1) there’s a thing that happens, such as Trump referring to Arnold Palmer’s dong; (2) within 10 seconds there is a firestorm of tweets and social media posts about it; (3) within an hour there are blog posts about it, and asking WHy haSnT thE tIMeS rEPOrtEd oN THiS???”; (4) several hours or a day later a Times story discussing the thing goes up,” but by that point you have a bunch of people repeating that the Times is responsible for fascism because they went to the Times to see a story about a dong comment and there wasn’t one on the site. And then when they’re told there is such a story now, they say, aha, but only because of our advocacy!”
It is such a silly discourse.
LikeLike
Diane, thank you for this post.
I don’t understand the questionable motives of people who – every time you post anything critical of the NYT’s terrible Trump reporting – always post to insult the sanity and intelligence of all who have noticed the extreme double standard of how reporters cover Trump and Democrats.
Given the experience and journalistic credentials of those who criticize the NYT’s Trump coverage that you have linked to in your posts, it is truly baffling that someone with virtually no journalism experience to speak of feels entitled to spew insults and nasty personal attacks at them. It’s not just unseemly, it’s that there is something very off about it. An attorney who possibly has some personal connection with the NYT holds himself out as having superior judgement to every media critic or professional journalist who criticizes the NYT’s Trump coverage, so much so that he now feels entitled to offer up his own psychiatric analysis of those who dare to point out how frequently the NYT just doesn’t find the stories that would most hurt Trump “newsworthy”, while the false narratives that hurt Dems are always worth covering ad nauseam. This lawyer has pronounced all who criticize the NYT shockingly soft NEWS coverage of Trump as “deranged”. Because as a non-journalist, he confuses an editorial endorsing Trump with the daily news coverage that normalizes Trump, and this non-journalist deems them the same. It’s not deranged to defend the NYT because of some personal reasons, but it is certainly bordering on deranged to believe that everyone who doesn’t agree with you who has far more expertise than you do must be personally attacked and insulted as the one who is “deranged”. It’s what the anti-vax and anti-science folks do! It’s how the pro-Trump crowd responds to all criticism of Trump – by making personal attacks at those who won’t accept their evidence-free reality. Scary times.
The NYT should have written a huge story about Trump’s completely manufactured fake appearance at a closed McDonald’s – pretending to be serving customers instead of handpicked fans. If a Democrat had staged that kind of fake photo op, THAT would be the NYT story for many days. How can voters trust the president who insulted real workers by staging a fake McDonald’s appearance and pretending to serve customers? But because it’s Trump, the NYT coverage mentions the staged event in passing in a bigger story about whether the appearance was a huge win for Trump or not. (It’s a win, say most people quoted!) And then the NYT runs another “both sides” story highlighting how right wing and “left wing” news covered the appearance – both sides being equally bad, of course.
The problem is that the NYT has ignored literally dozens of times when Trump’s actions should have resulted in a news narrative that Trump is untrustworthy; Trump is unfit. Instead the narrative becomes “Was it a win for Trump?”
But the NYT never misses a chance to reinforce some negative narrative about the Democrat. Today the NYT discovers that the false right wing narrative that “high housing costs is Kamala’s fault” needs to amplified because it just happens to be “newsworthy” 2 weeks before election day.
“As Harris Courts Sun Belt, Housing Costs Stand in Her Way
Shuttered factories and trade deals helped turn working-class Midwesterners against Democrats. Will the high cost of housing do the same in the Sun Belt?”
Why is the NYT equating 2016 economic hardships from “trade deals” (which was a favorite topic to tarnish the Democrat with) with the 2024 housing market??? Why interview low-interest voters who believe the false narratives offered by Republicans to undermine Democrats? The NYT is constantly citing voters who believe false right wing narratives as the reason to write dozens of stories to legitimate right wing narratives, but the NYT ignores voters who (correctly) blame Trump and the Republicans for many of the bad things about their economy and credit the Dems for the good things. Those voters don’t exist in the NYT, only voters who legitimize a false right wing narrative are “newsworthy”.
Why is it impossible for Diane Ravitch to write anything critical of the NYT without a certain person being unable to refrain from insulting everyone who criticizes the NYT’s soft Trump coverage, and diagnosing them as suffering from some psychiatric illness?
I wasn’t going to respond, but this isn’t constructive discussion – it is harmful and unnecessary. It’s a discussion constantly hijacked (with personal attacks) by the same person has similarly attacked critics of the NYT’s anti-public school, anti-teachers union, pro-charter K-12 education reporting.
LikeLike
So much for not making personal comments!
LikeLike
Calling people who disagree with you “deranged” is a personal comment. Pointing out the clear bias and lack of expertise of attorneys who call very qualified critics of problematic NYT Trump coverage “deranged” is not a personal comment. It is a response to an insulting personal comment questioning the sanity of anyone who disagrees with you.
LikeLike
STOP, STOP, STOP.
No more personal responses or insults.
LikeLike
Thank you Diane. I have pretty much stopped coming on this block g anymore because of these ridiculous fights between these two. It’s driving me away.
LikeLike
TOW,
I have threatened to put them both in moderation or publish their emails so they can argue offline.
I won’t tolerate their bickering anymore.
LikeLike
It’s been a couple days since we all collectively cried over the New York Times, so we’re definitely overdue.
It’s so strange that we will never stop participating in this ritual. We have Fox News warping minds 24/7. We have Twitter’s algorithms pushing pro-Trump dreck nonstop into users’ “For You” streams and blatant anti-semitism flourishing all over the platform. Yet the #1 focus of our media complaints must always be the newspaper that endorses Harris, repeatedly calls Trump a threat to democracy, and has a subscriber base that is over 90% Democratic, 95% of whom will vote for Harris. This is TDS (Times Derangement Syndrome) and I believe it is akin to self-flagellation, or complaining about one’s parents, as a psychological phenomenon.
LikeLike
For those who missed it previously, the NY Times endorsement: “The Only Patriotic Choice for President”:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/opinion/editorials/kamala-harris-2024.html?ogrp=ctr&unlocked_article_code=1.T04.E5zI.qVFKn-97fhKe&smid=url-share
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump knows that the more he’s in the news, the less Kamala gets press coverage. CBK
LikeLike
I can’t help but suspect that A. G. Sulzberger, the current chairman and publisher of The New York Times, a member of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, which has controlled the paper since 1896, was a regular client who participated at Jeffery Epstein’s pedophile rape parties in New York City, the Carribean, and that ranch in New Mexico or Arizona. Parties that the convicted rapist, fraud and Felon also attended for a number of years.
That Traitor Trump has the evidence just like Putin has evidence on the Traitor.
LikeLike
I’ve been an online subscriber to the Times for years. In the past few years I have questioned its swing to the right, and not in a good way, especially in its fact checking. Under the guise of “non partisanship”, so much emphasis has been placed on Joe Biden’s health, but barely anything about Trump’s deteriorating mind, as well as his general health. His telling us that he is in perfect health, even though he won’t release his records, when he has been known to lie thousands of times, is just an additional lie.
LikeLike
You are right. The Times ran many articles about Biden’s fitness. Why isn’t the Times now running a daily article about Trump’s fitness?
LikeLike
They are running stories about Trump’s mental fitness. They are not covering his mental fitness as much as they covered Biden’s after the first debate because, unlike with the Democrats, there is no widespread sentiment within the Republican Party that Trump is unfit to run and needs to be replaced with a candidate who is fit to run. This is not complicated.
LikeLike
The Times and other media should run stories every day about Trump’s mental instability, about his contempt for democracy, about his vindictiveness, about his norm-breaking vulgarity.
Not from time to time, but every day.
Trump is not normal. He is in a psychosocial tailspin. His campaign is based entirely on hatred.
LikeLike
The Republicans don’t think Trump’s fitness is an issue – ergo the NYT does not believe it is newsworthy.
I agree with this assessment of how the NYT practices “journalism”. Do Republicans “like” what we NYT reporters write? If they don’t like it, we can’t report it because that means we are biased.
Which is exactly the problem. Journalism that uses “What would Republicans want?” as their measure of “unbiased” journalism aren’t journalists.
And it’s a double standard, of course. Remember that it wasn’t “Democrats” who cared about “her emails” or “her speech where she insulted Trump voters” or “Anthony Weiner’s laptop”. It was Republicans, so the NYT reported it over and over again because the Republicans thought it was news.
It’s not complicated. The reason the NYT does not run 200+ stories about Trump’s ever growing unfitness has everything to do with the fact that the NYT is so afraid of being called “biased” that they bend over backward to sane-wash Trump in 99% of their articles, while they also bend over backward to write entirely negative stories about Democrats to balance the fact that in a both sides story, the “brave” reporter buried some negative truth about Trump.
If the NYT covered Trump the way it covered Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, she who can’t be named, and even Kamala, this election would be a blow out victory for Kamala.
But Trump – one of the most unfit candidates in every way – is presented as a legitimate choice for caring and thoughtful voters who just want this country to be great again. When “even the liberal NYT” says Trump voters are good people who just want this country to be great, that message resonates and does great harm.
The NYT – making it okay to vote for a neo-fascist again. Good people vote for a neo-fascist, and even the liberal NYT says it’s okay and they understand and think those voters are just swell! Even more important than the ones who don’t vote for the neo-fascist!
LikeLike
It may not pan out in Texas. But here are several big newspapers falling WAY OUT OF LOVE with the DJT/Ted Cruz duo. The largest newspaper in Texas endorsed Democrat Rep. Colin Allred for U.S. Senate on Monday 10/21. Dealing another setback to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in an already tight race. The Dallas Morning News criticized Cruz’s lack of support for the bipartisan bills, including the border deal, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Infrastructure and Jobs Act, all of which Allred has supported. “On the items of crucial importance to our country, [Cruz] digs in in the most partisan mode possible, making no room for common ground,” the editorial board wrote. The endorsement also noted that Cruz was one of the first senators to object to certifying the electoral vote on Jan. 6. “His actions were a catalyst for what became one of the worst days in our nation’s history,” the editorial said. The newspaper highlighted Allred’s commitment to bipartisanship and said he “speaks and acts in ways that demonstrate he is willing to treat differences as things we overcome, rather than root in.” Allred has also been endorsed by the Houston Chronicle, San Antonio Express-News and Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
LikeLike
“I HAVE NO COGNITIVE. BEST WORDS. GOOD BRAIN.” —Donald Trump, yesterday
LikeLike
Great point, Bob!
No doubt, he was intending to describe the strengths of his mental acuity, but instead, he demonstrated just how damaged and disjointed his cognitive functioning truly is now. So what he said was actually the opposite of what he thought he was saying. (Out of the mouths of grown-down babes, aka adults with dementia –which would be sad if he wasn’t so determined to regain power and become POTUS again…)
LikeLike
More clever humor from Borowitz today, “Trump Refuses to Admit He Lost Employee of the Month”: https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-refuses-to-admit-he-lost-mcdonalds
Even though it’s well known that tRump loves McDonald’s food, the photo op seems to be his own silly way of being able to say that Kamala Harris is not the only candidate who worked there (even though he claims she never did). Some articles have a picture of him working the fries at McDonald’s, again with no hair covering or gloves –which makes me wonder if he’s ever even walked inside a McDonald’s before to get his own food.
LikeLike
Of course not. Can you imagine him walking into a McDonald’s, waiting in line, placing his order? Nor can I imagine him driving a car to go through the drive-through.
LikeLike
Exactly, like the time when he claimed that people needed IDs to buy groceries, clearly demonstrating he’d never gone grocery shopping before.
LikeLike
Reminiscent of George H.W. Bush. These “man of the people” photo ops can go badly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump doesn’t do any of the chores and routines of ordinary people. We have seen him drive a golf cart but never a car. I doubt he has ever shopped or cooked or cleaned or even gone to the movies. He is not a real person.
LikeLike
And now here comes the tRump McDonald’s merch, a T-shirt with a picture of him working at the drive-through, for $100. (I should have realized he’d turn that into grift for his followers, too): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mcdonalds-merchandise-maga-harris-b2633390.html
LikeLike
The good news today is that The Exonerated Five are coming back to bite tRump with a lawsuit after what he said about them at the debate with Harris last month: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/21/central-park-five-trump-defamation-lawsuit
LikeLike
I hope the Central Park 5 get a trial. They won a lawsuit with NYC. He’s next.
LikeLike
It was a settlement.
LikeLike
If Trump settles with the Exonerated 5 for defaming them, I’ll be very pleased. With all those lawsuits, no wonder he’s peddling so much merch. Now he’s selling a T-shirt of him working at McDonald’s.
LikeLike
Yes, I think they were awarded like $41M. So the important thing for them is not the money so much as their having to keep clearing their names from tRump’s continuing fabrications about what happened when they were just 14 and 15 year old kids of color. I hope they win REALLY BIG this time!
LikeLike
ECE, I hope they win big.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a gift link to a scathing piece from the newspaper that is “in love with Trump.”
LikeLike
Maggie Haberman is #1 in access journalism, with a tinge of nepotism to boot.
Diane, if only Donald Trump were not a real person!
The GOP is propping up their candidate, IMO, because the billionaires know he’s unfit and unable to be president. JD Vance will ascend to the throne after invoking the 25th amendment and Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, artifacts of South Africa’s apartheid regime, will implement Project 2025. We’ll have an oligarchy far more powerful and entrenched than the one currently controlled by Putin.
LikeLike