It's the "that and" part that is not. There is no evidence that the NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign against Sanders. There isn't even a Challabi-like informant in the Sanders camp trying to make that claim.
There is no evidence that the NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign against Sanders
I'm not a Sanders supporter but you don't need "evidence of collusion" to make that assertion. You just need to take a look at the NYT's own online archive. They waited until the last possible minute before they even began talking about Sanders -- or anyone else -- as a serious primary contender. Meanwhile, coverage of Clinton was almost a daily affair.
Clinton was anointed by the press from the get-go, just as Trump was anointed with billions of dollars' worth of free publicity by the same media outlets. Their preferences were so obvious, in both cases, that the burden of proof belongs to those who claim otherwise.
Of course, the NYT covered Clinton more. She was the Senator of the state the newspaper is located in, she won the popular vote in the 2008 primaries, and she had recently been Secretary of State. She was obviously the frontrunner.
The kind of coverage that the NYT gave Clinton wasn't more favorable than what it gave Sanders, on the other hand. The NYT broke the Clinton email story.
It's the "that and" part that is not. There is no evidence that the NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign against Sanders. There isn't even a Challabi-like informant in the Sanders camp trying to make that claim.