It is a new era in journalism, say the Times editor and publisher, and they will "rededicate" themselves to reporting the world "honestly".
Unless they don't. In an article about Trump's latest 60 Minutes interview they get tangled up in Twitter:
Mr. Trump, in another Twitter post, said The Times had falsely reported that he believed additional nations should acquire nuclear arms.
However, in an interview in March with The Times, Mr. Trump, asked about the North Korean threat to its neighbors, said he thought the United States’ allies might need their own nuclear deterrent.
“If Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us,” he said. Later, he added, “The bottom line is, I think that frankly, as long as North Korea’s there, I think that Japan having a capability is something that maybe is going to happen whether we like it or not.”
Unless "should" is synonymous with "might" I don't see how the Times wins that argument. Or, if there are Trump statements elsewhere that are more conclusive, the Times ought to pursue the truth without fear or favor and run them. But all that is on offer here is progressive fantasy and projection.
Lest you wonder, the offending article is from Nov 11: