@jerry Rumor is it's all because he hasn't given them an exclusive and is focusing more on interviews with places where he can influence undecided voters.
I don't think it's so much whether they like or dislike any given candidate. Their editorial board and executives really like money, and they think that they're able to generate clicks and revenue while appearing "fair" by publishing controversial, unchecked garbage from quasi-bloggers with unqualified opinions instead of actual expertise, along with free content provided by nakedly partisan political operatives.
Of course, they'll be among the first up against the wall when the fascists take power, given the usual way corrupt authoritarian regimes treat journalists. But they can't see beyond the desperation of this quarter's revenue for that to really sink in, and they probably figure they're metaphorically dead if they don't churn out the click/revenue-generating bullshit anyway.
Plus, most of our major news outlets are either directly owned by oligarchs like Murdoch and Bezos, or indirectly by the wealthy investor class as in the NYT's case, and they've got a certain... perspective they want to push.
@jerry I’ve seen a whole lot of toots on that subject this week. Seems to be a concerted effort to get people to abandon the times and steer them towards ProPublica or another alternative.