Madam,
With regards to the article of yours, dated November 19th, titled "One Thing Voters Agree On: Better Campaign Coverage Was Needed", I fear that the wrong lesson will be learned by the New York Times.
You write "They voted for Donald Trump and dont consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim."
Very few people think of themselves as any of these things. Few think of themselves as hating other people in any form, let alone for such things as sexual orientation, skin color or religion. But this does not necessarily mean that they aren't, either covertly or overtly through every day actions, contemptuous of others or malicious through action or inaction. Being British, I have seen the rise of anti-foreign sentiment since Brexit cloaked as "patriotism", whilst those of a different color or religion cower in fear of are made to feel inferior. This has absolutely been the alt-right/fascist right in collusion with the mainstream press's demonisation of "the other".
The role of a newspaper is to educate and inform, as well as to speak for those without a voice. But the point at which that becomes problematic (note: not impossible) is the point at which you ask your readers to "understand" people who voted for a racist, bigoted, sexually assaulting, uneducated rabblerouser as President of the United States, and to not blame them. At no point should a publication of the New York Times stature apologize, minimize or normalize what has occurred with such a dramatic turnout for people who are at best indifferent to minorities and women's right's. Over sixty million people voted for someone who admitted to groping a woman without consent (and more). These voters should not be "understood", they should be shamed and made to feel the gut-wrenching horror of the minorities whose lives will be made many-times worse by their decision. That said, their reasons for voting for Trump as well as their situations undeniably ought to be understood.
The final paragraph of your article includes this line: I hope you guys will give people like us a chance too. Its time to lay down our arms.
The New York Times needs to seriously consider what giving "people like us a chance" will do, not just to the paper's reputation, but to the wider fabric of society. We are living now in a world where two major Western powers - the United States and the United Kingdom - are willingly giving credence to hatred, and justifying the views of racists and bigots under the guise of making America Great (US) and Parliamentary power (UK). I beg the New York Times to not "lay down arms", but fight against the normalisation of views that are abhorrent and backward. Otherwise The New York Times will, at some point in the future, have this to look forward to:
Did Neo-Nazi murder Jo over fear he'd lose council house he grew up in? Terrorist thought property could end up being occupied by an immigrant family - and the MP wouldn't help him. [This was a link to a legit Daily Mail story, but the DM isn't allowed here, so...]
Yours, with respect
