the New York Times has descended into total nihilism; it doesn't give a damn about the truth, only about damaging Democrats and helping Trump. So it presents a video it acknowledges to be misleadingly edited as evidence for its thesis.
Setting the particular topic aside for a second, this is a truly spectacular case of the Times' pathologically incompetent "Where there's fire, there's smoke" theory of writing up high-stakes investigative stories
Donald Trump spent the debate lying, saying racist stuff, refusing to accept the results of the election, and not making much sense at all, but the New York Times has done very little follow-up on any of that. It's just wall-to-wall Biden. They've chosen sides.
That was the hard part, some good ones obviously and I’m sure a good many on staff in general. At the end of the day, it’s petulant AG Sulzberger’s yellow sheet and he deserves the best treatment a dark alley can offer.
Trump lying isn’t news. It’s baked in already.
Biden being so befuddled he proclaims “We finally beat Medicare” to the shock and horror of an entire nation is news.
This is not merely a glib and dumb standard, you are also inconsistently applying it. Joe Biden has been old for years, voters have expressed concern about Joe Biden being old for years.
Your insistence on holding Trump to a lower standard speaks volumes.
Not what I’m claiming. The extent of Biden’s deterioration is what’s new.
If Trump performed like Biden did, I assure you, there would be extensive news about it, since it would mark a change over his garden variety incoherence.
Look I hate what the 5th estate has become too, but I don't think it's that nefarious. I think Biden is collateral damage. Biden won in 2020. Democrats expanded their margins in every swing state. MAGA is a 6 time loser. How many papers will they sell if it's not a horserace?
They are literally saying "the fake image" "created an impression" that is one we're supposed to take seriously. Am I reading this incorrectly? I'm stunned.
You are not. They're trying to report that people get ideas from things they see, whether the things are true or not. But they're doing a really bad reporting job.
This is not an article about public perception of Biden, or where people get ideas. It is an article ostensibly examining the *reality* of Biden's fitness. This anecdote doesn't belong anywhere in it, and certainly not presented in contrast to Biden "appearing on his game" in a press conference.
