Most normal Americans would agree: This year's Democratic candidates are noticeably stranger and more radical than they've been in past elections. The New York Times, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have noticed.For whatever reason—blind partisanship, most likely—the Times's coverage of these uniquely nutty and terrorist-adjacent cranks has been as flattering and credulous as ever. Scandals are downplayed or ignored, sketchy associations shrugged off. The past comments most Americans would consider genuinely insane are dismissed as old news. Business as usual.
It's exactly blind partisanship. Sad to say but even if the New York Times wanted to cover these Democrats with the same scrutiny they apply to the other side, their readership would flee from their shattered echo chamber.
No comments:
Post a Comment