That’s not at all how he’s framing it. He’s saying that Republicans not liking it make it a problem. Never mind that the rationale for their opposition is transparently bullshit and for the purposes of preventing effective solutions and benefitting politically.
I understand your view of it. This is still just one person’s take in a section intended for a variety of different voices, not the news report. The original post here implied the writer still had some role in newsroom coverage. He does not.
I agree with that, and some do. But most of us here understand the difference, and think the Times is pushing a bogus and lazy both sides are as bad view point on its op ed pages and caused us to cancel our subs.
We're pretty firmly against both-sides framing, but it tends to be in the eye of the beholder. There's a lot of perception/cognitive bias in how people read news. You see the 20 stories that annoy you and you don't see the 50 that are critical of the other side and lay out the scary agenda there
Thank you. I simply do not understand why the reason so many of us are pissed off at the Times is simply not getting through to these editors/publishers.
Also, saying "he lost 24 members of his family" vs "24 members of his family died in bombing from Israel" etc.
Infuriating.
“Brazenly” connotes boldness, daring, fearlessness. It doesn’t connote “lying through his teeth,” “manipulative,” or “delusional.”
It’s beyond bizarre, after all the havoc his lying has resulted in, that you focus on the strategy behind it rather than the truth the lying is intended to obscure.
And to be clear, I had nothing to do with the story. I'm just a reader in this case like you. And look at the screen shot, please. We have said a lot about his lying, yet you breeze right by it.
