David Leonhardt of the New York Times recently sent out an email to subscribers introducing himself and asking what we wanted to read, even providing an email address. I replied.

"I've been reading the NYT every morning with my breakfast for years. Up until a couple of weeks ago I was ready to ditch my subscription; disillusioned with all the irresponsible attention given to Trump, sick to death of headlines that exploited the fascination with Trump. A lot of damage has been done, although not, of course, by the NYT alone. The Op-ed section was the only part that interested me, my favorites being Gail Collins and Paul Krugman.

But recently something's changed in the whole of the NYT. I would like to see it and the Op-ed section build on that and take an unabashedly and unitedly unequivocal stand against Donald Trump. If Christian Amanpour has done it, so can you. Any sentence that doesn't take a stand legitimizes Trump.

I want to read about those who protest against his travesties—not just the protesters at rallies, but minorities—with most of the emphasis being on the good work that they are doing to preserve the real American ideals and not on what Trump says or does. I'm sick to death of reading about him. I can't stomach it any more. 

I want to read articles about Hillary Clinton that address her strengths, show the love, compassion and courage, analyze conspiracy theories against her, cover her campaign stops. I want to read about the people who are working and volunteering passionately for her campaign. I want to read about the work Bernie Sanders is doing to support Hillary Clinton. 

I want to see depth in the reporting, understanding of psychology. Because how can you report on people successfully if you don't understand them?

Finally, every time I see Donald Trump legitimized actively or passively I feel depressed and worried. Every time I hear outrage such as that of the CBC PAC members', or I hear Hillary Clinton or those who endorse her speak, my world brightens up immediately. If we only see the dark side, we forget that it's only half the picture, and in doing so we make it the whole picture. 

The liberal media's responsibility is enormous right now. I'd like to see the NYT step up in a way that makes the whole world take notice."

On September 24, the Editorial Board published Hillary Clinton For President, unequivocally supporting her and explaining why. The introductory paragraph was:

"In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)"

On September 25 the Board published Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President, unequivocally condemning him as a candidate. Since then, they haven't played the false equivalency game, they haven't treated Trump as if he was a serious candidate and a decent human being. They've been clear that he's neither. They haven't sat on the fence, pretending that was journalism.

Either I have extraordinary powers of persuasion or I was one of a large crowd in my response to David Leonhardt. The first probably belongs with conspiracy theories insisting that Elvis Presley is still alive, the moon landing was all shot in a film studio, Hillary Clinton is a criminal and the election has been rigged before any voting began. I like the second option better, anyway. It's wonderful to be part of such a large movement that honors coherence, truth, decency, democracy, bringing people together, respect, sanity. A movement backed by all the admirables, and headed by a woman.

3,264 - 19 - 0 - US