Oh?

Two paragraphs later, however, the Times dropped any pretense of fair and balanced reporting by presenting the institutional voice of people who have very little interest in journalism, or, for that matter, democracy: “In many ways,” quoth the Times, “Tuesday’s election results clear a path for Mrs. Clinton. The lopsided outcome and conservative tilt makes it less likely she would face an insurgent challenger from the left.”

[...]

Chozick evidently couldn’t be bothered to call anyone identified with “the left.” She did mention an additional “silver lining” for the Clinton campaign: the “diminished … likelihood that former Gov. Martin O’Malley, another Democrat, would emerge as a serious primary challenge to Mrs. Clinton.” But, again, it doesn’t appear that Chozick tried to call O’Malley or his “advisers.” Nor, apparently, did she attempt to contact former Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.), or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), both of whom are contemplating challenges to Clinton from this mysterious region that sits to the west when one is facing north. Mysterious because nowhere did the Times define “the left” or what might excite its opposition to Clinton. Our imaginations are allowed to run wild: Is “the left” a terrorist organization? A part of the outfield? Or is it just not worth mentioning?

John R. MacArthur, Harper's.  On the "'Left'?  What 'Left'?" sidelining of, well, what might be called the progressive tendency or anti-conservatism by major media outlets like the New York Times.  With bonus dig at Paul Krugman.