The Washington Post shows you can, in the news pages, write truthfully, honestly that Trump is a mortal threat to American democracy. No "both sides" here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-transition-crisis/2020/09/24/068d2286-fe79-11ea-8d05-9beaaa91c71f_story.html

This story rightfully says the election's integrity is being threatened and names the culprit: Trump. Such clarity would be unremarkable about, say, the GRU. The difference is most reporting's taboo against looking biased, which ultimately means the hard truth is expendable.

NYT story, by contrast, is modified both sidesism. It quotes Trump's baseless opinion ASAP; it outsources IDing the threat to Democrats; it awkwardly casts Republicans as Trump's foil; it makes it seem like just another day in politics. It is not. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/us/politics/trump-republicans-election-transition.html

The danger of obfuscating Trump's clear conduct is giving him the camouflage of confusion. Trump creates uncertainty about the election so he can portray himself as restoring order, when in fact that's just pretext to rig the election in his favor instead of counting every vote.