Newsrooms turned their attention again this week to the never-ending Russia investigation and their storylines on President Trump’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. So it’s as good a time as any to recall the New York Times’ posture on Russia before 2016.

The Times editorial board on Monday listed all the ways Trump is perceived by Democrats and liberals in the news media as working to advance Russian interests, including his “secretive communications with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.” In this case “secretive communications” is short for: Trump had a meeting with Putin, but Trump asked that the American interpreter not share details of the encounter with others. (So “secretive” was the meeting that our top diplomat, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, was present for it.)

But the Times was much more generous in describing what you might otherwise call “secretive communications” with Russia when Barack Obama was president. In 2012, during his re-election campaign, Obama was caught by a hot mic whispering to then-President Dmitry Medvedev that he was potentially willing to roll back missile defense initiatives in Europe, something the Russians wanted very much, but not until the 2012 election, the last chance for voters to hold Obama accountable, was over.

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama told Medvedev, referring to Putin, who would be taking Medvedev’s place in two months. “This is my last election,” Obama continued. “After my election I have more flexibility.”

Unlike Trump’s meeting with Putin, which Tillerson witnessed, Obama’s conversation about his explicit willingness to bow to Russian interests wasn’t supposed to be heard by anyone at all. And yet a Times news story charitably described the exchange as “a private moment of candor.”

Two days after the Times reported on Obama’s hot-mic comments, the paper’s editorial board excoriated and mocked Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for labeling Russia as the U.S.’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.”

“His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics,” the Times said. “Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender.”

In 2012, when it involved criticism for Saint Obama, any talk of the Russian threat and confronting it smacked of “craven politics.” In 2016, on the other hand, we are supposed to be suspicious of everything Putin does and worry that the current president is in his pocket.

The Times on Monday, without irony, criticized Republicans who “quite recently regarded [Russia] as America’s chief rival.” There is no reason for anyone to take the Times seriously — the paper that not only failed to take Russia seriously until it was politically convenient, but actually mocked and derided those who did as "unworthy" to participate in modern politics.