This first appeared in my “Cornerstone of Democracy” newsletter.

The publisher of the New York Times posted an essay, warning of a war on the press if Trump re-takes the White House. A.G. Sulzberger is the latest member of his family (which holds controlling shares in the company) to be in charge there. In his piece, he gave a vivid description of how Hungary’s prime minister (read: dictator), Viktor Orban, has taken control of the media through a series of moves that all but destroyed freedom of the press there. Trump and his apparatchiks, said Sulzberger, were likely planning the same kind of moves.

Then came the disclaimer that undermined everything else he wrote – and showed once again what a feckless, timid organization he leads.

As someone who strongly believes in the foundational importance of journalistic independence, I have no interest in wading into politics. I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection. It is beyond shortsighted to give up journalistic independence out of fear that it might later be taken away. At The Times, we are committed to following the facts and presenting a full, fair and accurate picture of November’s election and the candidates and issues shaping it. Our democratic model asks different institutions to play different roles; this is ours.

At the same time, as the steward of one of the country’s leading news organizations, I feel compelled to speak out about threats to the free press, as my predecessors and I have done to leaders of both parties. I am doing so here, in the pages of an esteemed competitor, because I believe the risk is shared by our entire profession, as well as all who depend on it. In highlighting this campaign, I am not advising people how to vote. There are countless issues on the ballot that are closer to voters’ hearts than protections for my broadly unpopular profession. But the weakening of a free and independent press matters, whatever your party or politics. The flow of trustworthy news and information is critical to a free, secure and prosperous nation. This is why defense of the free press has been a point of rare bipartisan consensus throughout the nation’s history. As President Ronald Reagan put it: “There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong, and independent press to our continued success in what the Founding Fathers called our ‘noble experiment’ in self-government.”

Press critics are already tearing this apart, and rightly so. Sulzberger is simply lying when he claims the Times has been “following the facts and presenting a full, fair and accurate picture of November’s election and the candidates and issues shaping it.” No major journalism organization has done more in the past few years to normalize Trump – who has vowed to be a dictator, for god’s sake – and extremism. Its political coverage has been disgracefully shabby and shallow, with some noteworthy exceptions, for decades. If the Times maintained its “journalistic independence” by relentlessly doing its job, that would be a huge improvement.

It wouldn’t be nearly enough, however.

Sulzberger can’t wrap his privileged mind around something that feels obvious to me, but which is plainly a non-starter in the highest ranks of American media. When one candidate and party are out to kill democracy, journalism will automatically be on the hit list if they take power. The first, most existential threat is not to journalism. It is to democracy.

Which is why I’ve begged journalists to be activists for democracy. Some already are, but sadly, most are unwilling to connect these dots. At any rate, the Times is definitely not going to do it. At the Times, activism is reserved for mounting an all-hands-on-deck campaign pushing the incumbent president out of the race.

Sulzberger is engaging in a liberal New Yorker’s fantasy when he imagines that his news organization would survive in any useful way if right-wing extremists take over our government. He and his team may have studied Hungary and other “authoritarian” states’ destruction of the press, but they have plainly not learned much.

They will learn this, though, if the worst happens this fall: When fascists take over, journalists have two choices. They can collaborate with the regime. Or they can join the resistance.