As far as I can't tell it doesn't show up online, but the print edition of my Tuesday New York Times included, on page A3, a feature headlined "Here To Help: Vanessa Friedman Answers Your Style Questions." In response to a reader "seeking a hat to wear out on the weekends that would provide sun protection and doesn't scream 'beach,' 'cowgirl,' or 'fedora,'" the Times chief fashion critic, Ms. Friedman, replies in part:
I know the hat you're after exists, this is because after years of using a baseball cap as a fallback (mostly because I live with three children and a husband with a shaved head and thus there are many in our house), I have also been wondering about other options, since that look has been somewhat ruined by MAGA and all its associations.
Probably at this point I should stop being astonished, but I nevertheless do find it astonishing the way the Times has stopped even pretending to consider that its readership might possibly include any of the more than 62 million American who voted for President Trump. There are a number of leaps needed to write and publish a sentence like the one quoted there from the Times. The writer has not merely to be negative about Trump, but she has to be so negative that she'd be reluctant to wear a basic item of clothing just because he wears it. Then the writer has to be so confident that those beliefs are widely held that she feels comfortable enough to share them in public without worrying that she might shatter whatever pretense of objectivity remains at her newspaper.