"[T]ensions between the White House and the [New York] Times... had been bubbling beneath the surface for at least the last five years."

"Biden’s closest aides had come to see the Times as arrogant, intent on setting its own rules and unwilling to give Biden his due. Inside the paper’s D.C. bureau, the punitive response seemed to typify a press operation that was overly sensitive and determined to control coverage of the president.... Although the president’s communications teams bristle at coverage from dozens of outlets, the frustration, and obsession, with the Times is unique, reflecting the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organization catering to an elite audience — and a deep desire for its affirmation of their work. On the other side, the newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that Publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright."

Writes Eli Stokols, in "Inside the NYT-White House Feud" (Politico).

I read the NYT every day and have closely followed presidential campaign news for the last 20 years. I want the NYT to hold to the highest journalistic standards, and — without question — any deviation from that has been in favor of Biden. It's ridiculous for Biden's people to be whining that they don't get enough respect. There might be something to the class-politics angle they're promoting: The Times is "elite" and Biden is if not working class then a man with "with a working-class sense of himself." But it sounds absurd.

The Biden position seems to be that professional news coverage ought to appear to slant toward Biden because Trump is so awful, and the Times is unprofessionally attempting to create the look of balanced coverage. 

Or maybe the position is — as NYT chief White House correspondent Peter Baker puts it — “because of Trump, there’s this new assumption that the New York Times and other media are supposed to put their thumb on the scale and take sides...."

Elisabeth Bumiller, the Times Washington bureau chief, says: “We haven’t been tough enough on Trump? I mean, give me a break. Have they read our coverage?”

The NYT has the better side of this argument. I think it shows how badly situated the Biden people are. They know their guy isn't giving the kind of interviews a presidential candidate owes the public and are desperately relying on a claim that the press is supposed to be helping them overcome the scourge of Donald Trump:

No current White House staffers were willing to speak publicly to voice their complaints, but those willing to talk on background without their names being used told me they viewed the matter as bigger than their or even Biden’s self-interest, expressing aggravation over the Times’ determination to maintain its neutral voice of God approach to an election that, in their view, is a matter of democracy’s survival.

Trump is so bad, apparently, that they are willing and eager to dispense with procedure and professionalism in a chaotic effort to stop him. Tragically, they've made themselves worse than Trump. We need the separation of press and government, and I am grateful to the New York Times for whatever it can do to fortify the professional ethics of journalism.