SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
new york times
Critics Blast 'Clueless' New York Times for Dismissive Coverage of Historic No Kings Protests
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
Mar 29, 2026
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Every Single Participant in NYT Focus Group Preferred Progressive Candidates Over Moderate Ones
"The Democratic Party needs to embrace voices that resonate with people," said one participant
Feb 18, 2026
The New York Times' "America in Focus" series has assembled dozens of focus groups in recent years, often asking supporters of President Donald Trump how they feel about his domestic and foreign policy one year into his second term—but political observers suggested Tuesday that the newspaper's latest focus group should capture the attention of Democratic leaders who have been condemned for capitulating to the president and refusing to embrace and learn from the victories of progressive leaders like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
The newspaper spoke to 13 Democratic and independent voters including retirees from Indiana and Michigan, working people from states such as North Carolina and Nevada, and an unemployed voter from Iowa. The topic of discussion was the participants' frustrations with the Democratic Party as it faces the Trump administration and the president's aggressive deployment of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) across the country.
"Spineless" was one word a participant had for the Democratic Party when asked to describe it. Another said the party appears "paralyzed" while a 46-year-old Latina woman from Nevada said Democrats in Congress are "sellouts and suckers."
Terrill, a 68-year-old retired Indiana resident, agreed that the party leadership has "sold out."
"I just feel we were never being governed," said Terrill. "We’re being looted. The Democratic Party lined their pockets and created—they created this mess."
A number of respondents expressed ire over the decision by eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus to vote with Republicans last November to end a record-breaking government shutdown—without securing any concessions on protecting healthcare for millions of Americans who rely on Affordable Care Act subsidies.
The response from participants "tracks 100% with what I've seen on the streets, from No Kings protests to the resistance against ICE," said commentator Hasan Piker.
Democratic leaders, he added, "are oblivious to the anger" felt by voters. "They’re speaking into an echo chamber of consultants who tell them what they want to hear."
With voters expressing such intense dissatisfaction with the leadership of establishment Democrats, "how on Earth do Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries still manage to cling to their leadership roles?" asked journalist Mehdi Hasan, referring to the Senate and House minority leaders, who both represent New York.
But along with unloading their frustration about the Democrats who continue to back ICE—even as support for the agency craters among voters—and refuse to develop what one voter called "clear, concise messaging" that communicates how the party will fight for working Americans, the participants talked about the political leaders who "excite" them about the future of the party and the country.
Mike, a 33-year-old telecommunications professional in North Carolina, said that Mamdani, a democratic socialist, exemplifies what the party "should be doing more of."
Less than two months into his mayoral term, said Mike, Mamdani has provided voters in New York and across the country with a "clear and concise" message about how he plans to govern and what he plans to prioritize.
Mike drew a comparison to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), an early backer of Mamdani who is continuing the Fighting Oligarchy nationwide tour he began last year, speaking to crowds in both red and blue districts about the need for policies that serve working families rather than billionaire political donors and corporations.
"Bernie has said the same thing since the ’80s," said Mike. "You’ve got to tax the billionaires. You’ve got to tax the upper class. He’s never changed. That’s the messaging. You’ve just got to drill it into them, and Zohran did it. Man, it’s beautiful."
While other respondents expressed some enthusiasm about more moderate leaders like Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, several participants agreed with Mike's comments on Mamdani and one independent voter named Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), another outspoken democratic socialist and a potential 2028 contender, as a leader who "excites" them.
If given a choice between voting for a moderate candidate in an election or a progressive, all 13 participants said they would choose the progressive.
A 29-year-old independent voter named Panth from Arizona said the term moderate reminded him of "people like [former West Virginia Sen.] Joe Manchin, who hold up some of the policies that I would want supported."
"I feel like moderates are happy with the status quo and will basically do what we’ve always done. The system is working for them and they want to keep it the same. I think for a large part of Americans, the system isn’t working, so we need something new," said Panth.
Days after taking office, Mamdani announced that he and Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul had finalized a deal to fund his universal childcare plan for the city. He also announced the launch of "rental ripoff" hearings to hold landlords accountable for abuses, intervened in a major renters' dispute, personally aided with snow removal, and repaved a dangerous bump in the road on the Williamsburg Bridge.
Progressive policymakers "actually do stuff," summarized Panth.
The widespread expression of enthusiasm for progressive candidates came a week after grassroots organizer Analilia Mejía's victory in the Democratic primary in New Jersey's 11th Congressional District, after which Sanders asserted that victories on the left "can be done everywhere.”
As Trump has ramped up his attacks on immigrant communities and First Amendment rights, leaders including Schumer and Jeffries have incensed progressive commentators by backing down on demands to rein in ICE, refusing to clearly condemn the administration's arrest and attempted deportation of pro-Palestinian protesters, and expressing frustration at advocacy groups that have demanded they fight the Trump agenda.
"The Democratic Party needs to embrace voices that resonate with people," said Panth. "When you hear Bernie, he has energy because he really believes in what he’s saying. It’s the same reason Trump resonates with people, because he acknowledges some of the struggles that they’re facing. Sure, he blames the wrong groups, but he at least voices it. The Democratic Party doesn’t do the same."
Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who's now chief of policy and advocacy at the economic justice group Groundwork Collaborative, commented: "Bingo."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Seth Harp Speaks on New York Times Spiking US Foreign Policy Interview With Ross Douthat
"I think the US is only the latest in a very long history of military empires," he told Common Dreams. "This is a perspective to which New York Times readers are rarely exposed."
Feb 09, 2026
Investigative journalist Seth Harp has accused the New York Times of burying his interview with a prominent opinion columnist. He told Common Dreams that the paper is trying to silence his forceful critiques of US foreign policy.
In a post on social media Thursday, Harp blasted Ross Douthat, a conservative opinion columnist for the paper, after learning that a conversation the two had recorded last month had been cut.
“Ross Douthat challenged me to a debate on foreign policy,” Harp wrote. “We recorded a 90-minute segment for his show, Interesting Times, on January 15, 2026. But I defeated him so decisively that he refuses to air the footage. What an absolute coward.”
According to Douthat, the conversation between the two was “pegged to the Delta Force raid in Venezuela,” referring to President Donald Trump’s operation last month, which overthrew the South American nation’s president, Nicolás Maduro.
Though Trump himself has plainly stated that his goal was to forcibly open the nation’s vast oil reserves to be taken over by US corporations, the administration has papered over this nakedly imperialist justification with dubious claims that Maduro was at the helm of a multinational narcotics trafficking ring. Maduro has pleaded not guilty to related charges in US court.
This was where, Douthat said, Harp’s perspective was relevant. His recent Times bestselling book, The Fort Bragg Cartel, examines the long history of the US Army Special Forces’ own history of international drug trafficking, which culminated in a series of unsolved murders at the titular Army installation in North Carolina.
The day after US forces bombed Caracas in the January operation, which is estimated to have killed as many as 83 people—including dozens of civilians—Harp posted a photo of one of the Delta Force commanders who played a key role in the attack. For this, he was subpoenaed by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee, which accused him of “leaking classified intel” and “doxing” the official, even though the information was already publicly available.
According to Harp, the conversation was cordial at first but became prickly when the two began to discuss the recent attack on Venezuela.
"Again and again he tried to box me in with some kind of gotcha," Harp said. "For example, he sprung on me that I'd called Nicolás Maduro the 'rightful' president of Venezuela, and tried to make the discussion about the last election in Venezuela and abuses by the government security forces there."
"I replied that Maduro was the rightful president of Venezuela simply because he became president through Venezuela's own internal political processes, and that the US has no right to dictate to other countries who their leaders should be," he said. "Douthat had no response to that and appeared visibly thrown off balance. It was as if he had never encountered a real anti-imperialist critique of US foreign policy and was only prepared to deal with some weak sauce humanitarian liberal critique, which I'm not about."
Harp said the discussion also encompassed many other foreign policy topics, including “Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, the post-9/11 wars, and American military interventions since 1945 more broadly.”
He added that the pair “also discussed the methods by which these interventions were accomplished, specifically the use of large conventional armies versus special forces and proxies,” and that they “talked a lot about China and Russia, too.”
“I served in the military and have spent my entire adult life thinking and writing about these issues,” said Harp, an Army veteran. “My basic argument was that the United States has been so violent and aggressive since World War II that it has not only destabilized the entire world but also destroyed our own country from the inside, materially and politically.”
“Ross’ basic point of view was that while the US has done terrible things and killed millions of people in recent years, the world is a better place as a result of American hegemony,” Harp continued. “But his grasp on historical facts was so weak that he was unable to make a strong argument.”
“He frequently became confused and contradicted or reversed himself,” Harp explained. “Frustrated at his own befuddlement, he blew up and said: ‘We get it. You think the United States is uniquely evil.’”
Within days of the interview, Harp expressed fears that the Times might decide not to release it. On January 20, five days after his sit-down with Douthat, he wrote to one of his editors.
“I was somewhat surprised that Ross wasn’t better prepared to defend his point of view,” he said, according to a message he made available on social media. “They may decide to spike it; we’ll see.”
About three weeks after the conversation and after weeks of silence from the Times, Harp received a text message from one of the show’s producers, who told him, “We aren’t going to be able to make it work.”
“We were kind of pummeled by the news cycle in the last six weeks and are going to pivot away from this story,” the producer explained in the text message exchange.
“I had canceled a vacation to do the show in studio,” Harp told Common Dreams. “Twice they changed the date on me, so I was kept waiting for two weeks. Then, after they spiked the episode, they didn’t even bother to inform me. I didn’t learn about it until three weeks later, when I reached out to the producer. At that point, I asked for Ross’ email address so that I could speak to him about it directly and in private. The producer refused to put me in touch.”
Harp responded to the message, calling it “unbelievable cowardice on Ross’ part and a giant waste of my time.” He said he was going to “make it known what actually happened: Ross challenged me to a debate on foreign policy, got crushed, and doesn’t have the intellectual or journalistic integrity to air the footage.”
He later posted the text exchange to social media. He told Common Dreams he chose to go public because he “felt deeply offended by [The Times'] complete disrespect for my time and lack of professional courtesy.”
hey @DouthatNYT, release the debate ya coward https://t.co/2eMysOn4nn
— Nathan J Robinson (@NathanJRobinson) February 6, 2026
ross douthat has no time for a foreign policy discussion with seth harp but loads of time for this misogynistic culture war slop… https://t.co/ZIZDqTy8Kc pic.twitter.com/SaCkE3OMkV
— Erin Overbey (@erinoverbey) February 7, 2026
Harp's publication of the messages on social media resulted in a wave of backlash from others in the media, who accused Douthat of cowardice and the Times of burying the interview to protect him from embarrassment.
On Thursday, Douthat issued a response on social media.
Though the debate was recorded less than two weeks after Trump’s raid, he said the interview “had missed the ideal spot in the news cycle” for a conversation about Venezuela. He also said the interview, which he wanted to keep narrowly focused on Harp’s reporting about drug-dealing in the Special Forces, “became unmoored from Mr. Harp’s specific reporting in a way that undermined the first half of our conversation.”
“Interesting Times is a show where I try to give a lot of space to the guest’s perspective while posing challenging questions, creating episodes where the audience gets the best version of an idea or worldview that they might not have understood before,” Douthat continued.
Harp called this justification “hogwash,” pointing out that three of the most recent episodes of his show address such timely issues as the end of Roe v. Wade, questions about public trust after the Covid-19 pandemic, and church attendance statistics among young men.
“Anyone can look at your recent episodes and see that a debate between us on the US military and foreign policy would have been far more timely and relevant to the news cycle than any of them,” Harp wrote.
Douthat, one of the many Times columnists who enthusiastically supported the Bush administration’s War in Iraq more than two decades ago, has often given his platform to unapologetic supporters of US foreign military interventions.
The first interview he published after Trump’s Venezuela operation was a conversation titled “A Defense of US Intervention in Venezuela,” in which he hosted the notorious war hawk Elliott Abrams, who served as special envoy to Venezuela during Trump’s first term.
The neoconservative policy adviser, who’d previously worked for Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. During that time, he championed US support for anti-communist death squads and dictators across Latin America and was later convicted for his participation in the Iran-Contra affair.
Douthat largely agreed with Abrams on the moral justifications for regime change in Venezuela, though he questioned the operation’s effectiveness in bringing about democracy.
Harp said that during their conversation weeks later, he disputed Douthat’s “sarcastic outburst,” accusing him of portraying America as a unique evil.
“I don’t think the US is unique or evil,” he told Common Dreams. “I don’t think in those sorts of religious terms. Rather, I think the US is only the latest in a very long history of military empires, but that its marriage to extractive capitalism makes it exceptionally violent, unstable, and short-lived.”
“This is a perspective to which New York Times readers are rarely exposed,” he went on. “It was an interesting and entertaining discussion all around, and no doubt would have garnered far more views than anything else that Ross has published recently. Sadly, Ross’ ego was a little battered.”
“I had tried to go easy on him as an interlocutor, not pointing out, for example, that I personally fought in the Iraq War while he merely promoted it in the pages of the National Review, even though both of us were of military age in the early 2000s,” he said. “I had kept it all above the belt and never attacked him personally. But I had laid bare the shallowness and inconsistency of his views on foreign policy.”
“Another pundit or host would have had the intellectual and journalistic integrity to publish the interview anyway,” he said. “Not Ross.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular