The core of your thread in one quote:



You have gone completely off the fucking rails if you are peddling a conspiracy that Maggie Haberman withheld knowledge of an attempt to fire Mueller so that she would maintain access to the White House. We are one year within the administration, so if publishing that really would burn the whole bridge down, that's a hell of a bridge to burn 25% of the way in, not even making it in time for the tail end of the Mueller investigation. And furthermore this totally ignores the leaks and leaks and leaks the NYT published liberally (pun unintended) for six to nine months before Reince Priebus locked the whole west wing down tighter than a Catholic school in Rome.



Which is more likely: that urban liberals are actually totally out of their depth when it comes to understanding rural and "average" (white) America so they fell over backwards doing David Attenborough pieces on the topique du an... or that there is white nationalist normalization coming from WITHIN THE NEWSPAPER ("they're comin' outta the goddamn walls!") in order to balance their journalistic integrity with "access"?



What you are describing does exist but this thread is too much. And furthermore, the NYT has always had conservative sympathizers, in both its opinion space (which is SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ITS EDITORIALS) and its reporting (see: the whole fucking Iraq War, also the pro Clinton bias over softie Barrack Obama during 2008). Why else do you think William Saffire was one of their most venerated columnists for years?