That editorial because ignores the impact if their advice was followed. DeSantis would probably get the nomination and be a stronger candidate, if only because of age.
I cancelled my own Inquirer subscription about two years ago, partly because of some coverage being too far left for me (and also because I subscribed to too many papers). Journalistic integrity requires that their editorial side pay no attention to political cancellations. Believing that, I did not give them the political reason for my cancellation.
Of course, I am for freedom of the press including freedom to subscribe to papers that are more in line without one’s own POV. The Inquirer is not a bad paper.
The same calculus that applies to a Democrat trying to start a presidential campaign four months before Election Day applies to a Republican. It can’t be done. More so even, because unlike Biden, Trump would not lift a single finger to help a candidate other than himself.
If anything, considering the degree to which he’s wormed his way into control of the RNC, he’d probably insist that they nominate Eric.
I’ve posted the article from Politico shared today by @Exapno_Mapcase at least once before but you must have missed it. Sulzberger has had a stick up his ass about Biden for a long time. The Times has been one of the main news outlets pushing the “Biden is old old old old old” angle.
Now they are saying he should drop out because of one poor debate performance. As others have asked, if they are still a reliable news source, WHERE ARE THE EDITORIALS CALLING FOR THE CONVICTED FELON TRUMP TO DROP OUT?
Where are those editorials? Show me because as a 37 year subscriber I have NEVER seen them act in this manner. Clearly there is an agenda going on with the editor(s).
Telling Trump to drop out only makes sense is you think the replacement would be a fairly good president. That’s one reason why they haven’t AFAIK bothered. The other is that we and they know they have no influence over Trump. So they criticize him instead of advising him what to do.
Or if, you know, their job is to state the truth, which is what we used to expect from newspapers in this country. They should be worried about what’s in the best interest of the nation and its people, which they clearly aren’t doing when they call for what amounts to conceding the election.
It’s not. If they’re going to demand that the incumbent president who has won the party nomination drop out because he had a cold on debate night, then they need to do the same for the convicted felon and rapist.
What the hell does that have to do with the topic?
It’s not about left or right wing lean. It’s about a specific person - there is evidence the Times board has a bias against Biden for reasons that go beyond the journalistic. That may not amount to actually favoring Trump but it certainly indicates disqualifying bias where Biden is concerned, which amounts to almost the same thing.
Then where is the editorial demanding Trump drop out? Where are the dozens of articles questioning his age and mental acuity? The columns complaining that he won’t give them an interview? Why are his wins described in superlatives when Biden’s are described as unimportant and uncertain? Why does Trump demonstrably get more favorable above-the-fold coverage?
I’m not seeing the Editorial Board rah rah-ing for Trump. IMHO, the NYTimes is probably the most balanced and last of the investigative reporting left in the Fourth Estate.
Sheesh, next thing you’re going to call out Jon Stewart for being a raging Maga-head because he also calls out egregious short-comings?!? Pretty weak case, counselor.
The NYT is just angry at Biden for not being the candidate they believe they have the God-given right to appoint.
It’s just the same old purity tests all over again - Radicals hate moderates from their own side for not being “pure” enough. Just as MAGATs hate RINOS more than they hate Democrats, the NYT hates Biden more than it hates Trump.
The NY Times editorial board and columnists are definitely anti-Trump, without question. They may also be anti-Biden, I don’t know.
Their newsroom is aggressively pro-“balance”, so if they have an article about Trump messing something up, they have to have at least one article about Biden’s age or latest gaffe.
This is not their policy. Are you sure it isn’t that stories about Biden’s age get your attention more than stories reflected badly on Trump?
I checked at scholar.google.com to see if someone has addressed your claim in a rigorous way and am coming up short. But if this was true, a Times editor would have to be keeping statistics and assigning stories on that basis, and it would have come out. It has not.
I don’t think it’s an official policy of theirs, but since they’ve long been accused of a left-leaning bias, even in their reporting, it’s my opinion that they overcompensate.
They do the same thing with economic news – record job growth numbers these days are always tempered by “but, underlying statistics have warning signs for Biden” and stuff like that. It’s so common that there’s a pretty funny Twitter parody account, the NYT Pitchbot. Sometimes, he just shows their headlines and says something like “I can’t top this.”
Anyway, that’s my impression of their regular news coverage. Their regular columnists are pretty balanced left, right, and bizarre fantasy land (Friedman), but even their most right-leaning columnists seem pretty anti-Trump (although I don’t know where Douthat is on that).
Then you must be ignoring the articles I have been reading for months constantly bringing up Biden’s age while never mentioning Trump’s age and apparent mental state. The article’s linked upthread from Politico and Heartland Signal layout examples of their bias against Biden. The Politico article goes into detail about Sulzberger’s resentment that Biden has the nerve to refuse to do an interview with them.
I have been a daily reader of the NYT for 37 years and have never seen them go after a President during an election in this way. To deny it isn’t happening requires one to ignore the hit pieces they have published over and over.
Yeah, I canceled mine too. Subscribed to the Wa Post, but their editorials aren’t much better. The “responsible” media need to be devoting at least as much ink to refuting the s**tstorm of lies released by DJT at the debate as they do to how poorly Biden did.