> Is it so bad when anti-racist, pro-fact views are considered orthodoxy?
No it's good, but pro-fact views are going to be anti-racist by default, if the facts are presented honestly. The problem is that NYT more often than not acts allergic to facts that they don't like, creating stories that bend (often already questionable) studies or accounts to fit what their subscribers want to hear.
> Every publication has to draw the line somewhere of what the acceptable bounds of discourse are.
And they also have to follow those rules themselves. Including not doxxing private citizens for zero public benefit, which the heroes at NYT think is a very noble cause. NYT breaks their own 'rules' all the time.
> Finally, she says "stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences", but seeing that the NYT is the third-most popular newspaper in the country, that would seem to be objectively untrue or else people wouldn't still be buying it.
This is the worst logic to go at this issue with. It being the third most popular newspaper has exactly nothing to do with whether or not it has gotten worse or more narrow in appeal. It can get loads worse and still be one of the most popular newspapers, especially since the problems in media exist through practically all major publications. How many newspaper subscriptions do you think the average person actually has?
That doesn't even get into the various negative effects of the subscription model, and the fact that there is an obvious and undeniable economic incentive to manufacture and publish stories that hit with your subscribers. It's true that it has become the standard income method for these companies, but it's hardly any better than clickbait, if not worse.