The app for independent voices
The New York Times just provided a masterclass in how democracy dies through journalistic malpractice.
Trump gave a speech where he explicitly declared his hatred for political opponents—"I hate them [Democrats]. I really do. I hate them. I cannot stand them because I really believe they hate their country." He repeated conspiracy theories about election fraud. He promised to dismantle federal departments. He used dehumanizing language about immigrants and labeled political opponents as "communists" and enemies of America.
This is textbook authoritarian rhetoric. When leaders of democratic countries express personal hatred for political opposition and question their patriotism, it represents a fundamental breakdown of democratic norms. When they repeat lies about election fraud, they're undermining the legitimacy of democratic processes. When they promise to eliminate government departments and remake institutions in their image, they're announcing authoritarian consolidation.
But how does the Times cover this? As Trump taking "a victory lap" in a "campaign-style speech" where he "celebrated the bill—and himself." They focus on polling numbers and political strategy. They analyze how Trump will "sell" his agenda to the public. They treat explicit hatred of political opponents as so unremarkable it barely merits mention, buried in a story about legislative tactics.
This isn't journalism—it's normalization masquerading as objectivity. The Times is teaching readers that authoritarian rhetoric is just another form of political communication requiring balanced coverage rather than moral clarity. They're training the public to see fascist talking points as conventional disagreements about policy rather than fundamental attacks on democratic governance.
The stakes here aren't abstract. When major media outlets treat authoritarian hate speech as unremarkable political theater, they're actively participating in the erosion of democratic norms. They're making it easier for the next escalation, the next boundary crossing, the next explicit attack on democratic institutions to seem normal rather than alarming.
The New York Times has a choice: they can be journalists documenting the collapse of democratic norms, or they can be collaborators helping to normalize that collapse. Today, Tyler Pager and the New York Times, chose collaboration.