They know exactly what they’re doing. Their editors have decided that American democracy is a “partisan issue” and have decided to cover it as such, meaning they won’t “take sides” over it.
Well, yeah, I would agree with that. The author also does a good job of pointing out how that’s bullshit, and gives several examples of ways that the Times is covering the candidates differently, demonstrating their hypocrisy. (They’ve been laundering right wing ideas into mainstream public consciousness for decades now, anyway.)
It is still shocking to see the editor just come out and say, in plain English, that the very concept of democracy is a partisan issue, and that they refuse to weigh in on it.
Good to know it isn’t just brain dead social media users who don’t understand the difference between neutrally reporting on facts and favoring both parties equally.
They know exactly what they’re doing. Their editors have decided that American democracy is a “partisan issue” and have decided to cover it as such, meaning they won’t “take sides” over it.
https://presswatchers.org/2024/05/new-york-times-editor-joe-kahn-says-defending-democracy-is-a-partisan-act-and-he-wont-do-it/
For what it’s worth that is still taking a side
Well, yeah, I would agree with that. The author also does a good job of pointing out how that’s bullshit, and gives several examples of ways that the Times is covering the candidates differently, demonstrating their hypocrisy. (They’ve been laundering right wing ideas into mainstream public consciousness for decades now, anyway.)
It is still shocking to see the editor just come out and say, in plain English, that the very concept of democracy is a partisan issue, and that they refuse to weigh in on it.
Good to know it isn’t just brain dead social media users who don’t understand the difference between neutrally reporting on facts and favoring both parties equally.
That deserves its own post.
Go for it. I’m not sure which forum it belongs in.