Pro-Antifa and pro-Portland mob New York Times reporter Mike Baker’s coverage of the violence by the Oregon anarchists made the front of Wednesday’s print edition: “Chaos Engulfs the Left, the Right and the Moms in the Middle.” Taking the side of the violence-prone radicals of Antifa, Baker forwarded their view that the federal response meant “fears about rising fascism in the United States are justified” seeing as how the months of unrest “[drew] out a complicated mix of grievances, with a wide array of people expressing them using a multitude of tactics to make sure they get heard.”
The Times wants readers to think that everything was going well and more pedestrian than a school board meeting until those evil, violence-seeking federal agents showed up “(click expand”):
Amid the Gordian knot of frustrations and escalations, most everyone seems to agree about one thing: The combative deployment of camouflaged federal agents has only made things worse.
President Trump, in pushing a law-and-order message for his re-election campaign, has embraced a dark vision of Portland as a lawless place filled with “anarchists” who “hate our country.” His administration’s crackdown has brought armed officers from a variety of federal agencies to the streets, including tactical units typically suited for handling drug smuggling. They have been firing tear gas and pulling protesters into unmarked vans.
To the protesters, the president’s unusual deployment of federal power has provided yet more compelling evidence that their fears about rising fascism in the United States are justified.
Naturally, Baker eagerly tried to soften up Antifa's violent image:
In the Portland area, activists aligned with the loosely organized group known as antifa have long denounced police militarization and a punishing criminal justice system, and have clashed with the police in recent years. Some of the activists operating under the antifa umbrella, wearing all black, have embraced anarchist-style tactics, while others have shown up to demonstrate peacefully.
The next day, The Times's lead Portland story by Maggie Haberman, Nick Corasaniti, and Annie Karni played the anti-Trump angle, raising fears Trump would exploit the “law and order” issue (which the paper took care to put in quotes): “Ads Play On Fear As Trump Raises Tension In Cities -- An Effort To Tar Biden -- Standoffs With Federal Agents Fuel Message of ‘Law and Order.’”
Haberman and company fiercely defended Democrats from Trump’s “false narrative” of Democratic-run cities under siege:
As President Trump deploys federal agents to Portland, Ore., and threatens to dispatch more to other cities, his re-election campaign is spending millions of dollars on several ominous television ads that promote fear and dovetail with his political message of “law and order.”
The influx of agents in Portland has led to scenes of confrontations and chaos that Mr. Trump and his White House aides have pointed to as they try to burnish a false narrative about Democratic elected officials allowing dangerous protesters to create widespread bedlam.
The trio of Antifa-loving stenographers made sure to repeatedly defend the violence by brushing off mobs as “largely peaceful” (which means “somewhat violent”), which has been a ridiculously obvious liberal tic the paper has used to excuse the inevitable violence that accompanies left-wing rallies.
The Times has made it perfectly clear in that they see no issue with any of the events that have taken place in Portland, whether it's doxxed and injured law enforcement officials and property destruction. They exist in their homes and newsrooms without having violence visit their front doors.