I do not recall using the words “insisted Biden drop out.” What those who accept mainstream media as an umpire know is: She declined to take no for an answer, and asked again as if never refused in the first place. Comparable New York Times and ABC News links were in my last two posts.
I heard that in real time, too. I think i heard it on NPR or read it in WaPo.
Here
Pelosi opens the door, subtly, to replacing Biden
Paywalled, because you can find this story in lots of places, and I’m running low on gift links.
Biden had announced that he planned to stay in the race.
In a letter to Hill Democrats this week, Biden insisted he is running for reelection
Pelosi then went on national TV, on a show Biden was known to watch, and said
“It’s up to the president to decide if he is going to run. We’re all encouraging him to make that decision, because time is running short,” the California Democrat said. “He is beloved, he is respected, and people want him to make that decision.”
He’d already said he would run. He’d been really clear he wanted to stay in the race. She ignored that, and said “he needs to decide” as if he’d said nothing. That’s was all the news for days. A friend texted, “when you’ve lost Nancy Pelosi’s trust, you are in pretty bad shape.”
This is pretty top-notch parody. Did you see today’s Tom Tomorrow?
This morning’s paper has me close to canceling my subscription, and that makes me sad. The opinion columns are infuriating, and the one that is actually a good discussion has a very anti-Harris sounding title.
Yes, I know opinion pieces aren’t factual reporting, but it’s stuff people read and there’s almost no balancing viewpoint offered. It’s not the NYT I grew up with 
I tried to read that in my NYT app, and couldn’t find it. I’m now updating the app (and many other apps). But that was pretty annoying. I basically couldn’t navigate in the app.
Re the last post, these two opinion articles are similar in that they suggest a strategic pivot for their preferred candidate.
In the case of the article written by National Review editor Rich Lowry, he is suggesting what Trump could do to win. Only a small number of Times opinion articles are truly pro-Trump, but this is one.
The article by Patrick Healy is truly pro-Harris.
It is hard for me to see how one can object to the New York Times publishing either opinion article unless they want my nation’s newspaper of record to be a Democratic Party house organ.
Rich Lowry is a regular columnist for Politico. And the Washington Post has at least one regular pro-Trump columnist, Marc Thiessen. The New York Times has, AFAIK, no regular columnist who is going to vote for Trump. The reason for this is not that Politico, the Washington Post, or the New York Times, is led by people who want Harris to lose. What all of them do want, or should want, is for readers to see how someone could think differently.
The NYT prints a variety of opinion pieces and articles that cover most mainstream positions.
I think Trump often gets held to a lower standard than other people and this is also true of the NYT. Few reporters have commented on Trump’s disjoint non-sequitirs, and some may fear loss of access or being attacked. But for the most part I don’t see the complaints being obvious.
Considering that the Republican party has become nakedly fascist, any news organization that treats them like just another political party is not doing its job.
The executive class has done the math and decided that a Trump presidency will sell more papers and thus Make Line Go Up, which is the only thing they care about.
It’s not complicated. Stop primarily running opinions that either attack Harris or support Trump. Either balance them out, showing some semblance of fairness, or stop posting them and focus on news instead of opinion.
The idea that Biden needed to drop out? That was a very widespread opinion. Yet that was extremely over-represented in the opinion column. So that puts to a lie the idea they just air unpopular opinions to let people know about them.
They also are not balanced, so they can’t say they’re just furthering a national conversation, showing both sides.
All that’s left is that they use these to push opinions. They pick the opinions they want to support.
There’s a reason why pretty much everyone that attacks them or mocks them over their coverage is liberal or further left. It wouldn’t be that way if they were being balanced. It wouldn’t be that way if they weren’t pushing an agenda.
If you disagree, then find me someone on the right like New York Times Pitchbot.
Dozens of front page hit pieces on Biden being senile. And, just how unbiased is Faux news?
How many newspapers can you sell in the concentration camp?
The executive class aren’t gonna be the ones who suffer the consequences of Trump’s fascism. That’s what they have employees for.
They will if they refuse to print only the news trump feels is fit to print.
Which they’ll happily do if Trump actually figures out how to put his maniacal fantasies into practice. It wouldn’t be the first time the wealthy elite in this country conspired against democracy.
They may think that, but one look at Putin’s Russia and that idea goes out the window.
I see what you did there.
I hadn’t! I guess it’s good to be on the same page (for the record—link to the comic), and I see we keyed in on the same examples. My first draft of that post used the bizarre “needs more context” of pointing out that Trump only sometimes saying he wanted an abortion ban, but sometimes refuses to answer the question so I’m also glad I’m not the only one thought it risible. It’s hard to read them as even intending to be taken seriously, or at face value.
The same fact-checker also wants you to know that Biden saying Trump "created the largest debt any president had in four years with his two trillion dollars tax cut for the wealthy” is “misleading,” because while Trump “did rack up more debt than any other in raw dollars—about $7.9 trillion,” you are probably forgetting that, quote, “the debt rose more under President Barack Obama’s eight years than under Mr. Trump’s four years.”
She also does not provide the equivalent figure over those eight years ($9.3 trillion), for reasons I can only—wait. Sorry, let me try again:
Last week, the increasingly gaffe-prone New York Times appeared to confuse the numbers 4 and 8 when fact-checking the Democratic National Convention, raising fresh concerns about the aging paper’s ability to handle the stressful, fast-moving job of covering the nation’s highest office.
That said, on further reflection, I don’t think they themselves expect to be taken seriously on this front, and they are—to some extent—equal opportunity. So it may be that the Times is less “pro-Trump” than they share a common need to say provocative things for attention. The same checker, for instance, assessed Trump saying Kamala Harris “wants to take away your guns” as “false.” See? Look at that, calling out a Trump falsehood!
But what was their explanation? In the NYT’s world, that statement is “false” because her campaign says she no longer supports a federal buy-back program for assault weapons. Irrespective of your opinions on gun control, Harris, or Trump, that rationale crosses the somewhat-dubious line of logic and flirts with open trolling. Or, presumably, another dimension of:
Did you notice the headlines, though? One is “Joy is not a strategy”, basically criticizing Harris. Anyone who doesn’t get past the headlines is going to think it’s a negative article about Harris, that she has no actual policies, strategies, or positions.
The other one is a positive assessment of Trump, that his character is better than Harris’s and he should lean on that to win the election.
Of course, Trump’s character is execrable and the idea that he can win on that is risible (gosh, I’m loving this word-of-the-day calendar). Anyone who thinks Trump’s character is positive in at all is so deep into the cult that they shouldn’t have a place in the NY Times pages anyway.
@DETXL, you really nailed it! I thought for sure you were riffing on the comic.
It was clear as glass… 
Just FYI-
And you know the MAGAs hate all the fact checkers. So that cartoon is bullshit. Unless of course we limit it to the NYT.