Fact-Checking Criticism Against The New York Times – Jan. 6th Coverage

On Oct. 2, Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed Special Counsel Jack Smith's brief in the indictment against former President Donald Trump for election interference, news that The New York Times covered in both its News and Opinion report. Soon after, Media Matters for America published a misleading report criticizing the coverage from major newspapers, including The Times, for not giving enough attention to the unsealing news as was given to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server in 2016.

The unsealing of new parts of the indictment on Trump, which was so heavily redacted that it didn't reveal a great deal of new information beyond what was already reported, came after months of detailed coverage of the main charges in the indictment, and many more months of coverage related to Jan. 6 and its aftermath. All told, this extensive coverage amounted to more than 2,600 online and print articles, visual investigations, audio and other multimedia journalism discounted by MMFA's report. For comparison, The Times published 300 news and opinion articles about Hillary Clinton's server and emails since 2015. This includes coverage following former FBI director James Comey's letter to Congress in the days leading up to the 2016 election, a breaking news story that evolved in a more compressed time frame.

Furthermore, MMFA's focus on print stories specifically shows a lack of understanding of digital news delivery and the prominence stories receive online. The Times's audience overwhelmingly engages with our digital report, including newsletters, alerts and social media programming, where these stories were given heavy prominence.

Readers can see for themselves here the depth of coverage we have produced on Trump's Jan. 6 case.