In 2004 The New York Times sat on a bombshell story about George W. Bush’s warrantless NSA wiretapping until AFTER his reelection. Why? Because the criminal who was exposed in the story (President Bush) asked them not to print the story. The Times eventually published a edited version of the story and an insane excuse for their cowardice:

Before the 2004 election, the [Republican] official said, some NSA personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.

They didn’t want to go to jail. Those “just following orders” as well as those giving the orders.

Published a few months after Bush’s reelection, the story outlined how President Bush was guilty of breaking the law 30 times. At the time, the Democrats lacked subpoena power and the criminals wanted to keep it that way.

After all, if John Kerry had been elected, his Attorney General might investigate those 30 crimes. So the criminals asked The New York Times to help them stay in the White House. And The Times complied. They helped the criminals avoid justice.

Remember this old hypothetical from Three Days of The Condor?

                     HIGGINS
Hey Turner! How do you know they’ll print it?
You can take a walk…but how far if they don’t print it?

                      TURNER
They’ll print it.

                     HIGGINS
How do you know?

Now we know.

They wouldn’t.

The Times would not print it.  

The Times protects the criminals. The Times literally did just that. In 2004. 

Cancel your subscription. They are not on your side.

(Maybe we now even know how far Turner would get on a walk in the woods?)