They can say all they want about how they cover both candidates' flaws with equal professional scrutiny but they transparently believe the Democratic nomination is something they have the power to influence and the Republican nomination is something they don't
It's not just influence, it's about legitimacy. Republican positions, from who's the nominee to policies that ignore problems we do have or try to solve ones we don't, are treated as legitimate. Democratic positions default to scrutiny and only get legitimized if the NYT approves of them.
Thanks for articulating this bc I had the same thought + haven't seen anyone making this point. also it's a head scratcher did any media outlet call for tfg to drop out after the recent NYC verdict- I certainly remember it being a headline about the 34 counts but none calling for tfg to drop out tmk
It reminds me so much of “boys will be boys.” The assumption is that one group just isn’t responsible for their actions.
This is the plain, indefensible, truth. Peter Baker thinks he’s above the fray because he doesn’t vote, but he still thinks he gets to decide who represents democrats?
Journalists, while important to a robust democracy, aren't an official part of its systems and shouldn't feel so entitled to power beyond simple reporting. When did it get like this, and why?
Could replace "power" with "responsibility" there, I think, yeah.