As for Biden’s age-related problems being worse, seeing is believing.
If I wanted campaign spin, I could go to the Biden campaign web site, or the Lincoln Project, and get it for free. The job of the New York Times isn’t to report equally on Trump’s lies and Biden’s when Trump lies more, as he does. And their job is not to report equally on a problem that is worse for Biden.
This approach is rendered almost impossible when the GOP gets taken over by an authoritarian who sees the Times as the enemy of the people. But that’s what I’m paying them to try for.
How can you confidently say it’s not the Times policy to subtly play up Biden’s age and other faults and subtly play down the most excruciating faults of Trump?
Doing so would be almost trivially easy for the front page editor who writes the headlines. Which, BYW, people do point out as being so biased that the online headlines have gotten quickly changed to deflect that. What, you think that people read to the last para on every article rather than let their eyes roam over the headlines? Headlines count in the online age.
Obviously, no scholarly studies have been published. No scholar would do so halfway through the campaign year. Nevertheless, the Times’ dominance over the press world means that many eyes are on it. Many of them are walking the line between wanting bias and decrying it, but I think they are making a sound case.
It doesn’t sound like you bothered to read either article linked. If you had you would have seen multiple instances of exactly what we are talking about.
And again, where has the NYT editorial board called for the 32 times convicted felon and rapist Donald Trump to withdraw?
They are fixated on one person’s age and consider that more disqualifying? That’s idiotic. It is irrelevant if that would cause the GOP to take action, it would be the right thing for them to do.
The problem with Trump is not his age nor his mental state. It’s that he is a wannabe dictator with no respect for American laws or institutional norms. And they have written plenty of articles about THAT, as cited above.
They printed an editorial calling for Biden to step aside and not run. Where is their editorial calling for Trump to do the same? Until that happens the editorial board is favoring DJT.
News articles about his legal problems are not the same because they aren’t representing the position of the editors and Sulzberger exclusively. I have not complained once about news articles about Hunter or any other legal problem the Bidens have run into because they publish stories in this vein about both candidates. My issue is with the obvious bias shown by the board and the publisher and the fact stories about Biden being old are far more common than stories about DJT’s obvious mental slippage.
It would be a waste of energy to run such an op-ed. That would be like asking Mount Everest to stop being a mountain, or the Earth to stop being round. If anything, such an op-ed might even further rev up and motivate Trump’s supporters.
There is zero chance Trump would voluntarily withdraw. There is a small, slight chance Biden would voluntarily withdraw. That’s why they ran the op-ed asking Biden to withdraw.
Did you read the editorial? While they made the argument you mention they also said he failed to demonstrate he still possesses the mental acuity needed to do the job. It isn’t exactly as you stated but I see that as raising his age as disqualifying.
Here is a relevant quote:
It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.
Whether it resulted in DJT dropping out is irrelevant. For over 100 years the Times has been considered “the newspaper of record”. As such, is it a waste of time to expect they would hold both parties to the same standards?
For the editorial board to make such a statement about a sitting President while not making an equally forceful statement about the convicted felon and rapist running against him is at best irresponsible and at worst evidence of bias against Biden.
Did you read your own quote? It supports my point, not yours. The worry is about Americans and their perception of Biden leading them to reject him in November.
I happen to disagree with the argument that Biden is too old and shouldn’t be the candidate. I think it’s far too late for that and that at this point we should be rallying behind Biden. But I’m not going to pretend that anyone who is concerned about Biden’s performance is “pro-Trump”.
The Times editorial mentions supposed problems with Biden’s mental acuity, infirmity and his age. These are reasons they say should cause voters to think he will lose and are therefore reason for disqualification.
And I don’t know if the Times editorial board and the publisher I are pro-Trump but it is very clear they are anti-Biden.
I absolutely don’t buy the argument that it’s “too late.” Let’s say that Biden happened to die today. Would the Democratic Party just shrug their shoulders and say “guess the race goes to Trump. It’s too late to do anything!” No. They would nominate another candidate at their convention in August. They can do the same thing if Biden drops out.
If Biden dropped dead, of course they’d scramble to replace him; and most likely they would fail to find a replacement who can win the election, handing Trump the victory.
No Biden fan out there doesn’t wish he were a decade younger. No one on these boards would say that Biden’s debate performance was positive or even neutral.
Maybe there is a kernal of truth that Biden has refused to give an exclusive interview to the NY Times. On the other had, has probably the most responsible journalistic organization left in the US, the NY Times does have a responsibility to the “truth” and “fair reporting” to have an exclusive with Biden and then be able to report that "based on our 1 hour interview with Biden, he is/is up for the job as President. The longer Biden refuses the exclusive interview, which IMHO he should do this week, the appearance of avoiding said interview for “reasons” increases. Only one way to tamp that down, is by doing the interview.
If you go back a few years, Trump had his own miffed “unfair” treatment by the NY Times. And IIRC Trump did sit for an interview.
No matter what, it is a political calculation whether or not one believes that having an exclusive NY Times interview is important. And if a politician decides not to do an interview, then they also have to live with what is overty or coverty the results. And that also can include the readership who may perceive it’s Biden not caring if he’s in the Times or not, or it could be Biden has something that might come across less than stellar. The choice to do the interview is on Biden, as is how that is interpreted by the NY Times or the public.
Seems like a lot of you have a purity test. Times Editorial Board called for Joe to drop out, but haven’t done the same for Trump. Ipso facto, trying to help Trump win or at least shaving the dice. I don’t see it, and gave a buncha links up thread that are highly critical of Trump. And just about every Krugman op-ed, which runs a couple times a week, calls out Trump and/or the Republican party as a bunch of hacks, wanna be dictators, a clear and present danger to the US.
NYT is a news organization. Whether Biden should step down is a relevant news story due to recent events that been discussed extensively all over the place including here. Of course NYT should express their opinion, which for the record is about the best way of beating Pro-Trump. Do we think Straight Dope is anti-trump since their are discussions on Biden stepping down but not Trump? Biden is losing and we have new information that he may not be as capable as he once was.