New York Times Not Biden-Hating Petty Twinks, They Are VRY SRS JOURNALISTS
It's so much stupider than you ever imagined.
Man, every time the New York Times disappoints you, it’s like “HOLD MY BEER, I’LL SHOW YOU DISAPPOINTMENT,” and you’re like “you just did,” and they’re like “I’LL SHOW YOU AGAIN,” and you’re like “I believed you the first time,” and they’re like “I SAID HOLD MY BEER.”
Politico has a report out on what a petty snotnosed little twink the Grey Lady really is about Joe Biden. Literally. “The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House,” it’s called.
The Times comes off like a brat throughout, but they’re like NUH UH, the Biden White House is the real brat! They seem to have amnesia about the previous administration they spent four years sniffing the pantlegs of for access. Or rather, they’re still sniffing those pantlegs and fucking that chicken, like nothing has changed from one administration to the next. Meanwhile, the White House is — shockingly! — perturbed that the Times is like this.
Speaking of access, this is the anecdote that really stands out: The NYT is so bitchy about Joe Biden’s age because he hasn’t sat down with them for an interview, and their asses are sore about that. Wait, did we say their asses? We mean publisher AG Sulzberger’s delicate ass:
[T]he newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that Publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright.
Oh. Good. God.
It gets stupider:
In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency. […]
“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”
The Times is of course hitting the fainting couch with denials over this characterization, WELL I NEVER! and all that tomfoolery.
But Media Matters collected its nerd data and found that, over a five-month time period last year, the Times mentioned Biden’s oldness in 98 articles, and that they are about as shitty as Rupert Murdoch’s Republican mouthpiece Wall Street Journal when it comes to mentioning Biden’s age without also mentioning Donald Trump’s extremely similar age.
(By the way, secret Wonkette sources — a commenter, in the comments — say Biden is going to be at the Wall Street Journal today. We hope he is there to give them five interviews, and then give interviews to Fox News and the Daily Mail, just to really, super duper rub it in.)
And then of course, after Special Counsel Robert Hur slipped MAGA Republicans the tongue with his report on how Joe Biden Is Too Senile To Commit Crimes, the Times came all over itself writing 30 fucking articles in four days about Biden’s age/mental fitness/general oldness.
Politico goes through a bunch of the reasons the Biden White House isn’t in love with the New York Times — because it definitely ain’t just the age thing — specifically citing its ridiculously shitty and credulous reporting on whatever Russian talking points Republicans are serving up about Hunter Biden that day. Going WAAAAAAY back.
Oh, a box of Wonkette receipts on that? Here:
Just unbelievable garbage, and unbelievably poor judgment.
We don’t need to give you 1,000 more links demonstrating what terrible journalistic decisions the NYT makes on a weekly basis, particularly when it comes to how to cover Donald Trump vs. anybody else who might be his current rival. Hit that search bar up top and look for “New York Times” to refresh yourself on this site’s coverage of their awfulness. Here’s a bit of what those search results look like:
And that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of how deranged their reporting about Hillary Clinton was.
Get bored with that? Go play on the New York Times Pitchbot Twitter account.
That account is even making fun of how very NOT MAD the Times is about that Politico article:
Jeezus.
Go read the whole Politico article. It’s just a bunch more stories about the New York Times being extreeeeeeeeeemely New York Timesy and utterly clueless about the proper role of journalists in the American age we live in.
We’ll be over here reading our morning Washington Post.
[Politico]
Evan Hurst on Twitter right here.
@evanjosephhurst on Threads!
I have profiles those other places but I think I forgot how to log on.
If you're shopping on Amazon anyway, this portal gives us a small commission.
Wait, are you saying that principled people should boycott the times for how shitty they are about Biden and democrats, even if it means I miss out on all their reporting on trans people?
LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE FORCING ME TO GIVE UP, WONKETTE!
... and now the NYT are screaming about how they are "independent journalists" and how Biden hates "independent journalism".
No, NYT: You're corporate journalism, and you're not independent at all. I know what "independent journalism" looks like and it is Liz Dye and SER and Radley Balko and Erin Reed. You can shut the fuck up about "independent journalism."
Oh, but before we go -- today, without notice, after this whole thing became a whole thing with the NYT whining about how Biden won't give them an interview, Biden showed up for a surprise live interview on Howard Stern's show.
Mark Jacob described it thusly:
>> "This is the equivalent of putting a bag of dog poop on the New York Times’ doorstep and setting it on fire." <<
Well done, Biden White House. Well done.