A thoughtful piece. Decades ago, not long out of grad school in sociology (where I studied mass media), I worked at the Chronicle of Higher Education, writing about social science research. I ended up let go from there, and a big reason was that I consistently produced stories that didn't conform to what an editor had already decided a piece should say.

I think part of what's been going on at the Times and Post (my "local" paper) is that reporters absorb the kinds of takes and sources that will get them in the good graces of editors. When the editors decide that false equivalence both sides reporting is the preferred model, that's what reporters produce.

I quit my Times sub 3 years ago. I find myself constantly infuriated at so many of the headlines and takes in the Post, but keep subscribing for reporters and columnists like Jennifer Rubin, Alexandra Petri, Sally Jenkins, Dana Milbank, and Monica Hesse. But the comment threads are filled with a lot of valid criticism, and often, more useful information than was gleaned from the article itself. Such as who's behind a particular organization cited as a source, economic data that doesn't conform to the reporter's spin, etc.