The NYT gets a mixed grade for this headline. Trump didn't “approve the release” of the Epstein files - he only signed a bill calling for their release. Big difference.

But it deserves credit for nailing the critical point: the bill contains a major “loophole” that could keep many documents secret.

However, even for the Sanger story, the New York Times headline writers bury the irony of Trump's embrace of bin Salman.

Could anyone please explain why the Times appears to be deliberately muting the meaning of a shocking and attention-getting story? (4/4)

On the front page of the NYT's print edition, it's all hugs and kisses for bin Salman. While highly informed readers would grasp the irony, the headline buries the main point.

To be fair, the Kashoggi killing is mentioned in the story by Katie Rogers, and in a separate story by David Sanger. (3/4)

The Post's headline also captures the most important point, although a bit less vividly. Top of page one of the print edition, with the story running alongside a large photo. Now let's look at the Times... (2/4)

The Philadelphia Inquirer runs this photo and story on page one of its print edition -- with the headline nailing the key irony of Trump's fawning welcome of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. Nicely done. Let's see how The Washington Post and New York Times did. (1/4)

This horrendous @nytimes.com won't be met with the level of fury from readers that it deserves, because the online version of the story has a headline that is much less offensive. Credit goes to @mediaanddemocracy.bsky.social for catching this.

The Urban Dictionary should add this photo to its definition of “shit eating grin.” Fox and Friends Sunday skips coverage of #NoKings for a puff interview of disgraced but recently pardoned former US congressman George Santos. Santos praises our Dear Leader’s wisdom - and he can’t believe his luck.

This guy at the #NoKings rally in Washington DC knows how to send a message -- i.e., get readers to do a little mental work to figure out the message: even "real guys" think that fighting authoritarianism is so important that they willingly skip the highlight of their week.

Can anyone explain why the New York Times, the supposed “newspaper of record,” would have a policy of burying coverage of protests against Donald Trump? This isn’t the first time.

I canceled our Hulu subscription. @hulu is owned by @Disney. I am disgusted with Bob Iger's decision to fire @JimmyKimmelLive.

No mention of nationwide protests against the Trump administration on the front page of the New York Times on April 20th.

I would expect Pravda to suppress coverage of protests against Putin, not the @nytimes.com to suppress coverage of protests against Trump.

static01.nyt.com/images/2025/...

See Kilmeade’s face as Doocy says re: tariffs: You make sure the whole world knows you are serious, and you will sit by and watch the stock market drop & drop & drop, day after day after day, to get to a better deal, a bigger & better deal. Will it work? I don't know.” ⁦‪⁦‪⁦‪⁦‪@atrupar.com

Thanks to @sethabramson.bsky.social for pointing out how useful Elon Musk‘s Grok can be when it contradicts the official Trump version of reality.

I asked Grok what risks are posed by DOGE’s incursion into systems at SSA and IRS, and its heist of Americans personal data. Grok said: