Biased and hysterical reporting on AI has become the latest symptom of an institution in decline.
The New York Times’ coverage of artificial intelligence mirrors its broader tendencies: partisan, erroneous, sensationalist, and dangerously misleading.
The tone is apocalyptic, framing AI as an imminent existential threat—akin to the paper’s past characterization of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. Worse still is the wokeness permeating this narrative, a politicization of AI where the survival of the United States hinges on the wisdom and selflessness of the chosen few.
Consumer protection, market competition, economic opportunity, enforcement of existing laws, and the Constitution remain largely unaddressed by the Times.
This pattern signals decline: when the supposed newspaper of record soft-pedals the work of rationalists and effective altruists, the result is propaganda with a corporate veneer.
The Times not only “skews left” but actively champions specific policies, including technology export controls and portrays Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei as an AI safety champion. Such tendencies render the paper a rag with a games section.
Safety becomes the watchword of the Times’ emphasis on control. All other concerns—liberty, opportunity, privacy, and democracy—are deemed irrelevant. But to believe that AI is a doomsday device more destructive than hydrogen bombs and cleaner than neutron bombs, capable of ending humanity not with a bang but a whimper, requires a leap of faith.
Such reasoning stems from rationalists and effective altruists whose views the Times legitimizes.
These perspectives are inherently non-neutral. Yet by prioritizing “safety,” the Times sacrifices liberty at the altar of security, leaving no room for critique.
The Times remains silent on consumer protection, market competition, economic opportunity, legal enforcement, and the Constitution—so too does Anthropic, a deliberate choice.
Together, The New York Times and Anthropic would use export controls to stifle rather than promote competition. They would restrict Nvidia chip sales to China, ignoring that China continues purchasing through intermediaries or gray markets. The policy also fails to account for how such restrictions spur China to subsidize its own chip production—a reality companies like DeepSeek and Huawei have already embraced.
Chatham House similarly warns that hardware export controls alone cannot halt China’s AI advancements. If effective, policymakers would not need to continually rework restrictions: banning specific chips, policing third-country affiliates, responding to smuggling networks—only to authorize new sales anyway. The outcome is not a technological blockade but a prolonged game of whack-a-mole, which incentivizes China’s self-reliance at America’s expense.
Consider the cost of involving the Bureau of Industry and Security in this issue. Like most government agencies, it suffers from dysfunction, low productivity, and poor morale. Perhaps The New York Times should dedicate a series to the agency instead—or better yet, stop printing “AI safety” narratives that mask regulatory overreach and higher costs.
A newspaper committed to rigorous journalism would examine the interests behind such narratives, confront their contradictions, and prioritize workers, consumers, civil liberties, democratic accountability, and America’s capacity to out-innovate rivals.
Instead, The New York Times too frequently amplifies assumptions of powerful leftist institutions and woke agendas it should challenge.
Bernice Harvey is a retired tech entrepreneur with 30 years of experience in the development of online education and early forays into interactive TV. She holds degrees in history and computer science.
