perfect analogy. NYT can't watch a single day before pumping out a histrionic take. Bonus: it is sure to be ignored by the ostensible target and paraded around by the existential threat we are theoretically facing. For good measure, it might alter the dynamic it purports to be describing.
The wise thinkers of the Times opinion department are handling this like WFAN callers after the Mets bullpen blows two out of three www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/o...
actual result? nothing. the debate barely moved the needle, the coverage didn't move the needle, the Biden campaign hates them more, fueling a cycle of resentment that leads to coverage that is anything but objective.
It might be more like people do realize that what they say alters reality but also feel like if they say things that are patently false or refuse to acknowledge what’s obviously true, it hurts their credibility among people who care about truth (some people are like that!)
Ok but are they actually histrionic or are they still just pissed he never did a big interview with them and punishing him because they're the pettiest most status obsessed strivers on this side of the ocean
I've seen more takes from more people that outside of the terminally online and political, this debate had the lowest audience in cycles and the focus groups were like 'yeah, Trump won but I don't like that he was mean to a frail old man.' and I've concluded I'm a sicko who doesn't know things.
Histrionic? They’re hardly the only ones saying this. The calls are base universal. To call them histrionic feels like you’ve got your head in the sand.
I’m a fucking Democratic precinct captain, I’m all in for Biden and my wife and I had to turn the debate off because we couldn’t watch our candidate because he seemed dead. Call that histrionic while you whistle to the graveyard, but don’t call me an idiot, you buffoon.