Midnight Meme Of The Day! The New York Times Chose Sides Long Ago

The Times Sees An Opening And Drives A Panzer Thru It 

by Noah

A talented filmmaker and musician friend recently posted what you see above after the New York Times made the decision to go after President Biden. Has the current president's mind deteriorated? Yes, it certainly appears that it has but context matters, particularly the historical context. Here's that context in just four steps:

1. Less than 24 hours after the recent debate, The Times published an opinion telling him to step aside.

2.. As Ronald Reagan began his campaign for a second term in 1984, it was clear that he had Alzheimers; nary a peep from the New York Times. They were so bad on the matter that even the nation's comedians alluded to the issue more, much more. Bad taste, on the part of the comedians, perhaps, but, sadly it was left to them to say something when they saw something.

3. 8 years ago, during the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign, The Times led the way in blowing the infamous "But Her Emails" nonsense into a full blown, frenzied controversy that severely damaged her campaign. To this day, "But Her Emails" is an American Neo-Nazi mantra. Way to go New York Times.

4. In the last almost 8 years, since they helped sabotage the Clinton campaign, the New York Times has had more than enough time to call for Trump to step aside. Even in 2015, a reasonably astute observer could watch Trump speak for as little as 3 minutes and deduce that he was insane. That was on top of his continuing to flaunt his racism and the fact that murmurs about his allegiances were out there even before his infamous 2016 "Russia, if you're listening" request. Yep, no "Step aside" editorials from the New York Times.

Whether or not Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton were or are good candidates for the presidency is not the issue here. The issue is that the New York Times, a paper that pretends to have a "Just the facts" approach, likes to push some facts to the side while trying to get us to only focus on others and a clear pattern of their bias has emerged. Is there more I could add to my list here? Sure, lots more, but I'm choosing to be brief and concise. My point is made: The Times has abandoned all pretense of objectivity. People can say that the New York Times did publish articles that would lead one to believe Traitor Trump leaves a lot to be desired but only the bottom line matters: They went after both Biden and Clinton, both times at crucial points in their respective campaigns, but not Reagan or, even worse, far worse, Trump.

Addendum:

Suggested reading from the Philadelphia Inquirer can be found at this link.