It’s not just that the Times isn’t covering the Trump administration.
The paper is avoiding covering it.
But what exactly is a “government shutdown” and why are we not getting coverage?
Read More The Times’s unwillingness to cover the Trump presidency is symptomatic of the media’s general disinterest in the presidency.
During the shutdown, the Times’ coverage of the Trump-Russia investigation was so limited that it would have been laughable if it hadn’t been for a tweet from a top reporter, Peter Baker.
On March 17, Baker tweeted that “it is important that the news media cover this important issue and not bury it.”
The Times responded by announcing that the shutdown was the “first sign” of Trump’s administration “baring its teeth.”
The New York Times’ policy is that the paper is only “pushing back” on coverage of an administration by reporting on its actions.
It’s clear that the decision to not cover the shutdown has more to do with its desire to protect Baker and his reporting than it does with the Times’s actual journalism.
It’s not the first time the Times has been accused of covering the shutdown.
Last year, the paper ran a story about the “death” of the newspaper’s Pulitzer Prize-winning Pulitzer Prize for coverage of Russian hacking.
The Times said that “some news outlets have tried to portray our coverage of that hacking as an attack on the press, and that the Pulitzer Committee, a government watchdog, is looking into whether it was.”
But the story was published under the Times name, and the fact that it wasn’t published under its own name suggests that it was a false flag operation designed to protect the paper’s reputation.
The Trump administration has a long history of trying to discredit the press.
In fact, it has attempted to discredit many independent outlets since its election.
It has threatened the First Amendment rights of reporters and has attacked the independence of the news organizations that it nominally runs.
The administration has also sought to suppress the news.
It even tried to block the news from being published in major newspapers in many states.
So the NYT seems to have decided to use its “first signal” status to avoid covering the president and the administration’s actions.
That’s an interesting tactic for a newspaper that’s supposed to be fighting for its readers and for democracy.
If that’s the case, the next logical question is why the Times would not report on the shutdown itself.
If it’s because it doesn’t want to jeopardize its credibility, then why does it even care about the shutdown at all?
It’s easy to dismiss the Times decision to avoid reporting on the Trump shutdown as a sign of a newspaper trying to avoid its obligation to be objective.
That argument is especially true when the Times doesn’t actually publish a news article about the administration.
Instead, it merely publishes the “last word” on what happened, making a decision about its coverage based on the most important facts available.
The Times has long been known as a place that tries to keep the news out of its own hands.
But as the Trump era has unfolded, it seems to be abandoning that commitment.
It seems to think that it can get away with covering the administration through its own newspaper.
But the Times is far from alone.
The Associated Press is also ignoring the shutdowns attempt to suppress information and the government shutdowns attempts to undermine democracy.
The Associated Press has published stories about the Trump and the shutdown and has called out the administration for its efforts to suppress facts and undermine democracy and press freedom.
The AP also has been critical of the White House and its attempt to discredit journalists.
AP’s coverage has not only shown that it’s willing to publish articles that criticize the president, it also has shown that its reporting is grounded in fact.
In the case of the AP, the AP’s unwillingness not to cover coverage of Trump and his administration is the latest sign of how the press is being held back by the Trump White House.
And the Times should be held accountable for not being able to do the same.
Follow Brian Tilly on Twitter at @briancbtilly.