Michelle Goldberg had to hit her ad hominem attack computer key to match the anti-Trump venom of the NYT's columnists.  The very title of Goldberg's October 3 column, "An Unfit President Fails Puerto Rico," picked up on Krugman's description of the president.  The column itself opened by claiming to "see the real-world consequences of Donald Trump's flagrant incompetence."  She quickly escalated her ire in the very next paragraph, calling the president one of the country's "worst people as president, a nasty showbiz huckster whose own staffers speak of him as if he were a malevolent toddler."  Note: She called Mr. Trump not one of America's worst presidents, but one of the country's "worst people as president." 

There followed some ten paragraphs in which Ms. Goldberg provided a good example of the anti-Trumpian alternate reality, here citing anti-Trump sources to maliciously deny the Trump administration's efforts for help Puerto Rico recover from the devastating effects of Hurricane Maria.  But then, when it comes to reporting and commenting on President Trump, his administration, and conservatives, the New York Times apparently maintains the illusion that the American people will accepts its intentional distortions as gospel.

Across the Times' October 3 op-ed page, David Brooks continued his campaign of derisive attack on Trump voters, extending his smear of the president as "a bigot" (see above) to his smear that "the Republican Party is becoming a party permanently associated with bigotry."

What next from The New York Times?  A column from a clinical psychiatrist on "the healing effects of pouring out political hate"?

Why take note of the descent of the Times into the noxious pit of hate-spewing political propaganda?  How about this?  All that venomous political propaganda needs to succeed is for the people of good conscience to remain silent.