Great speech. So far so good. 
I know that isn’t what you posted directly, but what you copied, but is a close to a conspiracy theory. A.G. Sulzberger does not dictate story lines. Someone has him mixed up with William Randolph Hearst.
The main story this morning on Biden’s SOTU sounded pretty positive, and the story on Katie Britt’s reply made her out to be too strident for TV, not just in the words, but also in presentation. Might that have been accurate reporting? And might the next time a hard news story mentions Biden sounding old have something to do with, oh, him sometimes sounding old?
Do swing/uncertain voters read daily newspapers anymore? No, but I do, and I don’t want one-sided coverage any more than I want every story to use a pure bothsides approach.
I think that what swing/uncertain voters actually get exposed to is local TV news. Is anyone analyzing how they show Biden? On average – not just a few reports someone remembers because they don’t like them. Given the ownership of a lot of those stations (often Sinclair or Fox), that seems a better place to look for unjustified Biden-bashing than NYT/WashPost/CNN/CBS/NBC/ABC.
This is why it has to be Biden at this point in history. He is the only person IMHO who has the ability to pull the fragments together, if indeed, it can be done at all.
…
But it’s undeniable that Biden gave a stunning speech last night, and it wasn’t just because there was a game on quality to his remarks, the thwapping sound of a gauntlet hitting the ground. It’s because he managed to do that thing he does best, which his aides long ago described to Richard Ben Cramer in What It Takes as “the connect.” Biden’s primary strength has never been formulating policy or grand ideas. It’s been his ability to read a room, to sweep in the energy that’s already there, and to make the most impersonal settings feel deeply intimate, like one-on-one discussions. And last night, in his State of the Union address—generally the dullest and most choreographed of presidential rituals—he did just that.…
This was a reminder that Biden remains, in some sense, a creature of the Senate, a place where once upon a time you spoke with those with whom you disagreed, because alliances across the aisle were necessary in order to pass legislation. Mitch McConnell and the more radicalized Trump caucus changed all that, believing obstruction was a better political strategy, and it wasn’t that hard to do, seeing as they didn’t much believe in government anyway. But Biden still has an element of LBJ in him, believing in persuasion—and sharing, to boot, his wariness and resentment of fancy-pants Ivy League elites.
…
My bold.
This is how it used to be done, and maybe with Mitch out of the way, there is a glimmer of possibility that it can be done again. But it will take someone who knows how. Which means an elder, someone who remembers the days when politics lived up to its definition, namely, “the art of the possible.”
From this Atlantic article (gift link available until March 22). I don’t know if you will be asked to register for a free account in order to read this excellent piece.
I would think the “regular viewers of local TV news” cohort is quite small these days, and skews heavily over 60 years old. Streaming television viewing — combined with online engagement and smart devices — has completely remade the information-gathering landscape.
We not only need to get the Senate on board but also the House. After all, it was the latter who scuttled the border/Ukraine compromise. As I said in another thread, right after that I emailed my junior senator, Sinema, who helped cobble together the compromise and for six years has proudly claimed credit for reaching across the aisle “and getting things done.” I asked how she felt about that strategy now, pointing out when you compromise with an authoritarian you wind up with a republic that’s “only” a little authoritarian.
I never got a reply even though I kept it civil, not using my small turd in the punchbowl analogy.
President Biden…is evil beacuse…he is a politician! Plus he is killing the…AMERICAN DREAM! Plus Biden caused that Mexican to be raped daily…in 2015. In Mexico where she lived. Well, OK, that was fake. But President Biden released millions of murderers into our home land. It’s true that only that one has murdered so far. But they all could! (by Katie Britt)
https://youtu.be/McUO2aPOe-k
Over 60 years old, in the U.S., is a growing cohort and the one most likely to vote.
I do not vouch for the quality of this market research company, and I think a great many lied about their reading a national print newspaper, but I found this:
I think people would be least likely to lie about watching local news since it is not a sign of sophistication. Plus when I go in people’s houses, that’s what’s on 
Rarely for me. Dueling anecdotes, though.
I’m sure the response would’ve been something along the lines of “How DARE you address me, you wretched peasant!”
I guess we’ll never know, thank God.
Yeah, it’s so hard to see how the Times is giving Trump a free pass with this headline:
The Biden-Trump Rerun: A Nation Craving Change Gets More of the Same
It’s wrong at a very basic level, because Trump promises change. Lots of change. His party has a whole list of things to do in order to turn this country into a Theocratic Dictatorship the likes of which we’ve never seen. Therefore, saying Trump is more of the same without mentioning that is giving him and his agenda a free pass. Is that a conspiracy theory? Is that something we’re not allowed to notice?
Biden also promises change. He has, in fact, implemented tons of change, such as the Inflation Reduction Act and wiping clean huge amounts of student loan debt and capping out-of-pocket inhaler costs at $35 a month because Biden’s FTC does its damn job. That’s just off the top of my head, too, don’t take it as comprehensive. Do some actual research, unlike a Times journalist.
What I see as a conspiracy theory is the claim that A. G. Sulzberger dictates individual hard-news story content. I have not seen anyone complain that he dictates headlines.
Traditionally, headlines were poorly worded because they had to fit in a limited slot, with white space at the end of a line discouraged. I don’t know if this still true.
As for as the specific headline, that was a good one. Lots of Americans wished there would be two new nominees this year. I am one of them. It’s too late now, but, last year, I was hoping Biden would drop out, and posted such. And Trump never should have been a presidential candidate, not even once, let alone three times now.
I don’t want to live in the kind of country where the leading newspapers are afraid to make the national leader look bad. That’s a big reason I plan to vote for Joe Biden, whose opponent sees critical newspapers as the enemy of the people.
It’s even worse than that.
2015 was the year that Karla Jacinto Romero testified about the appalling crimes against her in Mexico.
The events themselves happened between 2004 and 2008.
Thanks Joe Biden! (for not making Mexico crime-free when you were a senator under a Republican president)
I agree with the thrust of your overall post. But what the headline really means is
A Nation Craving Change of Presidential Faces Gets More of the Same Two Men
In addition to the Times somehow being a lot more of a shill for trump than one would expect, they’re stuck in the horserace mindset where it’s all about two ordinary competitors in an ordinary competition. The story arc is not about policies, it’s only and entirely about who’s in the lead today and whether the other guy is gaining or fading today.
Which is a pig-ignorant way for responsible media to report on politics, but seems to be what we’re stuck with.
Well, so far so normal in US politics.
It’s the R’s job to make messes, and the D’s job to clean them up despite massive R obstructionism. And then get blamed by the Rs for their failure to clean up and for creating the mess in the first place.
The system is working. /s
Looking at the nytimes.com web front page right now, there are roughly a hundred stories before I see anything about the horse race. The top four stories are about Gaza. The first two headlines with Biden’s name in them are:
“Biden Rebukes Netanyahu Over Civilian Deaths but Reaffirms Support”
And
“Biden’s Armageddon Moment: When Nuclear Detonation Seemed Possible in Ukraine”
Sounds like policy stories to me.
The New York Post is closer to deserving this type of critique, although the phrase “only and entirely” would not be fair even with them.
While we were looking away, Biden picked up enough delegates tonight to secure the Democratic nomination.
I wonder if Trump is annoyed that Joe got to his finish line first.
Biden might have gotten the call earlier in the evening, but they both clinched their nominations with today’s primaries.
@PhillyGuy , I wanted to reply to something you wrote in the Nikki Haley thread, but it was a tangent that Aspenglow shut down. I’ve moved it over here:
When I wrote that, it was two out of nine polls Real Clear Politics used to calculate their poll average. I looked again late yesterday, and noticed that their average is now calculated from 12 polls, three of which have Biden slightly ahead and most of the remaining nine have Trump ahead within the margin of error.
I remember how the Real Clear Politics poll average looked about a month ago when you had brought it up, and how the input polls looked at the time. It’s a small effect, to be sure, but it really seems to me that Biden is gradually pulling closer to Trump in the polling. “Pretty far behind” is necessarily subjective … I’m just not seeing that degree of lead for Trump right now.
EDIT: I’m also noting, looking at Real Clear Politics’ input polls, that Trump’s lead tracks inversely with the number of respondents. His biggest leads in the polls, by percentage, are in the two polls with less than 1,000 respondents. Once the polls get above 1,500 or so, they seem to consistently turn out as statistical dead heats.
My main point was that panicky actions such as dumping Harris would only make it worse.
Biden is pretty far behind Trump, in rolling polling averages, compared to where Joe was four years ago. But just looking at current data, the way genuine campaign experts mostly do, you are correct. I’ve never seen professionals using my four year ago comparison method to say where the race is, so it hopefully is all wrong.
Someone that can do the job well is not too old. Biden is not too old, he has been a far better president than Obama and Clinton (obviously the Republican presidents are not even worth mentioning). Pelosi was also a hell of a speaker. They are old, granted. Too old implies they can’t do the job, and they are two of the best we’ve ever had.