One thing that is disturbingly clear at this critical time in America’s story is that the media is not serving the interests of the American people. In the midst of a presidential election that could determine whether the future of the nation will see its democracy preserved, or descends into a populist autocracy, the press is fixated on the horserace to the detriment of the human race.
Click here to Tweet this article
As the election cycle unfolds, the arguments for and against the candidates seems to be an afterthought to the press. Their obsession with President Biden’s age has consumed the attention span of the reporters covering the campaign. Meanwhile, they are downplaying the existential threat that Donald Trump poses to the principles enshrined in the Constitution and even to national security.
SEE THIS: U.S. Intelligence Warns that Russia is Actively Undermining Biden to Boost Putin’s Puppet Trump
As an example of the ideological instability that is infecting the media, the New York Times just published an article by their Editorial Board that declares that “Donald Trump is unfit to lead.” The problem is that this article follows by a mere two weeks one by the same Board that asserted that “To serve his country, President Biden should leave the race.” So which is it? Or does the Times think that both candidates should drop out? And if one or the other doesn’t, then what?
WTF is the New York Times trying to say?
June 28: "To serve his country, President Biden should leave the race."
July 10: "Donald Trump is unfit to lead." pic.twitter.com/b5PfyGnIJO— News Corpse (@NewsCorpse) July 11, 2024
What follows are a couple excerpts from each article…
June 28, To serve his country, President Biden should leave the race:
“President Biden has repeatedly and rightfully described the stakes in this November’s presidential election as nothing less than the future of American democracy.Donald Trump has proved himself to be a significant jeopardy to that democracy — an erratic and self-interested figure unworthy of the public trust. He systematically attempted to undermine the integrity of elections. His supporters have described, publicly, a 2025 agenda that would give him the power to carry out the most extreme of his promises and threats. If he is returned to office, he has vowed to be a different kind of president, unrestrained by the checks on power built into the American political system.” […]
“Mr. Biden has been an admirable president. Under his leadership, the nation has prospered and begun to address a range of long-term challenges, and the wounds ripped open by Mr. Trump have begun to heal. But the greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election.” […]
“If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses.”
July 11, Donald Trump is unfit to lead
“Next week, for the third time in eight years, Donald Trump will be nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for president of the United States. A once great political party now serves the interests of one man, a man as demonstrably unsuited for the office of president as any to run in the long history of the Republic, a man whose values, temperament, ideas and language are directly opposed to so much of what has made this country great.” […]“Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him.”
A fair reading of these articles would lead the reader to the conclusion that the Board regards Trump as a threat to democracy and the welfare of the nation and the world. But why did the Times choose to publish both articles, giving equal weight to the argument that Biden, while preferable, is just as unfit to occupy the office of the president? It’s a serious disservice to the readers and the nation to provide justifications to withhold support from Biden, who the Times believes would save democracy.
The Times could have published just the article criticizing Trump and included their reservations about Biden in a couple of paragraphs near the end. That would have been a better representation of their opinions, without giving ammunition to Trump supporters. After all, the Times is essentially saying that Biden’s faults are mainly political viability, while Trump’s would lead to actual catastrophe.
Furthermore, the Times could have gone into more detail about why Trump is unacceptable as a candidate. They didn’t mention Trump’s 34 felony convictions related to covering up hush money payments to a porn star; his civil liability for defamation and rape; his $354 million judgment for financial fraud; his theft of hundreds of classified documents about which he lied to the FBI; or his inciting a violent insurrection.
These are not times to be timid or to cling to false notions of balance. It’s okay to speculate about whether Biden presents the best opportunity to defeat Trump. It is not okay to place Biden’s comparatively minor deficiencies on the same level as Trump’s sociopathy that ranges from incompetent to traitorous. And the Times knows better. Or at least they used to.
RELATED STORIES:
- Fox News Hack Posts Blatantly Racist Op-Ed Attacking Kamala Harris in Murdoch’s New York Post
- Trump Denies Knowing Anything About the ‘Abysmal’ Project 2025 that He Definitely Knows About
- Trump Whines that the Media Didn’t Praise Him Enough After His Lie-Riddled Debate with Biden
Be sure to visit and follow News Corpse
on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and Threads.And check out my books on Amazon:
Fox Nation vs. Reality:
The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.Thanks so much for your support.