Should The New York Times, which published Trump-killing fan fiction, be held to the same standard it expects of the president?

The New York Times published a fictional essay fantasizing about President Trump getting assassinated the same week that explosive devices were sent to prominent political figures across the country.

After explosive devices were sent to prominent Democrats and liberal political figures — Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Brennan, and others — New York Times opinion columnist Charles M. Blow blamed Trump for creating a “toxic environment” that led to these attempted acts of terrorism.

“Trump doesn’t operate on an intellectual plane, but an emotional one, and the emotions he has learned to manipulate in politics are the darker ones,” Blow wrote, adding a summary of Trump’s speech at a rally for Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in Texas during which the president said Democrats want to “destroy American communities.”

“This is the rhetorical backdrop as we await an investigation and answers about who sent bombs to Democrats and the CNN offices,” Blow wrote.

Here’s some of the rhetorical backdrop being painted by The New York Times. In a collection of fictional essays published Tuesday, one author fantasized about a Secret Service agent helping the Russians assassinate Trump.

The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger. he Makarov misfired. The Secret Service agent at the president’s shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes. The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost. It did not come. He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first. ‘Here,’ the agent said politely. ‘Use mine. …’

Should The New York Times, which published Trump-killing fan fiction, be held to the same standard the it expects of the president? Or do they get to paint a rhetorical backdrop of bloodshed and get to be viewed as blameless for the fractured and hostile environment we all find ourselves in?