Analysis of "No Kings" coverage: The New York Times and WSJ editors continue to trivialize massive pro-democracy demonstrations. Local outlets continue to shine.
The leadership of The New York Times and WSJ continue to downplay and minimize mass demonstrations while editors of smaller outlets do a better job communicating the growing pro-democracy movement.
Background: Covering the pro-democracy movement — and large national demonstrations — is not partisan. But the same influential media institutions that are failing to accurately describe the constitutional crisis or stand up for American democracy in its existential battle against oligarchy and the fascist MAGA movement are also insufficiently covering the pro-democracy movement. Combined, these media failures are enabling the dismantling of American democracy. We have evaluated front pages after large national demonstrations and apply grades based on a scale ranking editorial decisions. This the fourth in our series.
Key Takeaways
New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today leadership minimized coverage of massive national popular demonstrations mobilizing in support of democracy on 10/18/25 “No Kings”.
Comparing our three prior analyses of 6/14, 4/19 and 4/5 large demonstration coverage - Times and Journal editors continue to minimize their coverage of demonstrations relative to other major news outlets. The Washington Post improved its coverage.
Times and Journal editors made no effort to capture the patriotic pro-democracy energy of No Kings to refute the Trump - MAGA propaganda talking points “hate-America” “paid protestors” that preceded the demonstrations, and sought to undermine the legitimacy of the day of action.
Multiple large city newspapers had substantively worse front page coverage compared to 6/14. In particular the Houston Chronicle and Miami Herald. Only three large city papers received “A'“ grades for both 10/18 and 6/14 coverage: Los Angeles Times, El Diario, San Francisco Chronicle.
Good news: many local newspaper editors did a much better job covering the reality of mass demonstrations. Using large headlines such as “We stand for freedom” “I love my country” “It’s about democracy” “It’s my duty to speak up” “This is what democracy looks like” “Standing up for country” “No thrones, no crowns, no kings” “Your voice is your power” “I can’t stand it anymore” “Calling” No Kings”.
Giving prominent and regular coverage to the pro-democracy movement is *not* partisan and is a duty of a credible Fourth Estate.
We perform analyses of front pages of newspapers after major events to capture a visible timestamp of the editorial priorities (and biases) of news organizations.
This post contains 70 front pages from national, international, large city and local newspapers. We strongly recommend you eventually scroll to the bottom of this post to see the front pages and local headlines *chosen* by local editors and compare to those of NYT, WSJ and USA Today.
Front page coverage of the 10/18 “No Kings” demonstrations was once again often much better at the local level and consistently woefully inadequate at the influential New York Times and nearly non-existent and not deemed “front page-worthy” by editors at Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. We observed that NYT online coverage was minimal for 10/18 and 10/19, particularly relative to the scale of the newsworthiness of the event and the size and resources of their newsgathering operation. (We will be writing a more in-depth analysis of the NYT and WSJ in the future).
METHOD: We applied a 5-point “pro-democracy scoring/grading system” to evaluate the editorial choices for front pages:
1) layout prioritization: (location e.g. above-the-fold) and how much space (2 points)
2) size of headline: (1 point)
3) language of headline: such as “no kings” or “democracy” and/or indications of scale of mobilization (1 point)
4) impact of image/s: legible signs, expressive faces (1 point)
We used the freedomforum.org library to examine the front pages Sunday 10/19/25 and Monday 10/20/25 (after “No Kings 2.0”). Our survey captured outlets that had any coverage of the demonstrations; some outlets do not publish or have coverage on Sunday such as WSJ and San Francisco Chronicle (both evaluated 10/20 as it was their first coverage after 10/18).
NATIONAL OUTLETS
A.G. Sulzberger’s New York Times, Grade: D. Minimal and minimized coverage. Below-the-fold, bland headline with Trump-centric framing “No Kings rallies oppose Trump”, no text on A1. Did not emphasize the pro-democracy goals, size, or scope of the protests. Two ambiguous photos (not of NYC) with text on A23.
6/15/25 Grade: D
Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post, Grade: A. Priority layout, substantial coverage, effective headline, powerful images.
6/15/25 Grade: C
Rupert/Lachlan Murdoch’s WSJ, Grade: D-: One dull sentence of coverage of “No Kings” on the first front page after the event (10/20). Seven million Americans standing up for democracy is not newsworthy to Murdoch’s WSJ team - “Thieves steal jewels at Louvre” is, including large above-the-fold image of the crime scene!
6/16/25 Grade: F
USA Today, Grade: F
6/16/25 Grade: F
Stars and Stripes, Grade: A
6/16/25 Grade: C
Larger City Papers: Some large city local paper editors did an excellent job covering the demonstrations with some getting “A” grades. Receiving “A” on for both 10/18 and 6/14 coverage were LA Times, El Diario, San Francisco Chronicle. Disappointingly, some outlets’ coverage was substantially worse than on 6/14. Editors of the Miami Herald and Houston Chronicle downgraded the quality of their coverage substantially from “A” to “F”, and even the Philadelphia Inquirer received a “D-”.
International Newspapers - front pages with large photos: (sample)
Smaller Local U.S. Outlets: The best coverage overall. Fantastic pro-democracy headlines and images. Some editors used powerful pro-democracy “quote” headlines. Most used close-up images of signs and people communicating the joyful emotions and humanity of these Americans taking to the streets in defense of their country. These images supplement the text on an emotional level the wide angle shots used by national and larger outlets. Importantly this helps to give license and inspiration for people to join future pro-democracy demonstrations. Example headlines: “We stand for freedom” “I love my country” “It’s about democracy” “It’s my duty to speak up” “This is what democracy looks like” “Standing up for country” “No thrones, no crowns, no kings” “Your voice is your power” “I can’t stand it anymore” “Calling” No Kings”.
Local news editors continue to do a better job.
In addition to sounding the alarm that American democracy is under attack, news outlets must also elevate and amplify the individuals, organizations, and movement mobilizing in support of democracy. Not to do so is a Fourth Estate dereliction of duty. Local news outlets and their courageous editors did a much better job covering the significance of the April 5, April 19, June 14 and October 18 days of civic action. They continue to be sentinels and beacons of the reality of what’s happening in America and providing context to their readers.
Additional reading on coverage of the pro-democracy movement:
10/20/2025 ‘Who cares?’ About 7 million people, that’s who. Margaret Sullivan American Crisis blog
6/20/2025 “No Kings” Coverage. Local news outlets continue to outperform the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal on covering the pro-democracy movement. The Media and Democracy Project blog
4/24/2025 How news organizations are (or are not) covering the growing — and vital — pro-democracy movement. The good, the bad and the ugly. The Media and Democracy Project blog
4/7/2025 Local news outlets show the New York Times how to cover the growing pro-democracy movement. The Media and Democracy Project blog
Your pro-democracy actions in support of a better-informed America:
Ask the media oligarch who runs the New York Times why his “paper of record” is apathetic on the rise of fascism and minimizes the pro-democracy movement: Send a letter to A.G. Sulzberger - ask him if he has a red line that could lead him to switch gears at the NYT to meaningfully cover the pro-democracy movement?
Arthur G. Sulzberger
The New York Times Company
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Support local journalism. Local news outlets are doing a better job covering the pro-democracy movement. Match your media diet with your values—support local and independent news outlets, use and share our searchable 50-state local journalism directory https://www.mediaanddemocracyproject.org/journalism-directory
Excellent work MAD! really maddening that NYT is so mealy mouthed these days. small wonder half the country has no idea what's really happening.
Thank you!