What’s amazing about @nytimes.com terrible election coverage: 2024 is an insanely rare opportunity. The last 2 POTUSs are up against each other. They have clear records. A nonpartisan, factual compare-&-contrast is right there! Instead it’s “Biden is Old” & “Ignore Trump’s Dementia/Insurrection.”…
To be fair, we can't expect @nytimes.com to spare resources for that when they have all hands on deck investigating Sulzberger's generational kitten torture (& worse), the resulting utter genetic depravity, and how his ancestors lied at Ellis Island to conceal their congenital moral turpitude.
can't help but plug my thread doing exactly what you suggest (I'm a rando doing it in my spare time, and I have an unapologetic preference for Biden between the two of them, but it is factual).
2/ And that basic reportorial beginning spins off so much: great insider stories onworking in the Trump WH. Same for Biden. One could drip out the tell-alls for weeks.
And then there’s the actual reporting to be done what the 2 admin’s choices have meant on the ground for individual Americans…
Remember, they're desperate to expand their readership. There's no actual thought about the impact of their coverage, just naked greed.
Tacking right(er) is their latest effort and it's getting the success it deserves.