The New York Times was finally shamed into denouncing Trump.
The Philadelphia Inquirer showed them how to do coverage.
It’s difficult to archive an interactive article like this*, so here’s the gift link with the complete texts,
*perhaps that’s the point.
They couldn’t resist, though:
The Democrats are rightly engaged in their own debate about whether President Biden is the right person to carry the party’s nomination into the election, given widespread concerns among voters about his age-related fitness.
From my morning NYT e-mail:
Somehow he’s able to delivery “detailed, complex answers” but let’s talk in depth about how he flubbed a couple names. Biden quite obviously knows Trump isn’t his VP, and Putin is not the President of Ukraine. I’m not sure that Trump actually knows the difference between Erdogan and Orban.
Somehow he’s able “passionately criticize” important issues, while at the same time not looking “vigorous” enough and speaking too “softly”.
Oh, and in case you all didn’t know it already, he’s 81. Thanks, NY Times!
Jesus H Christ, it’s like short of Biden doing a Willy Wonka somersault to the podium and then proceed to recite the entirety of the Constitution from memory, no matter what he does will never be good enough for these people. I guess even if he did, he would be criticized that his acrobatics weren’t acrobatic enough, and that he recited the Constitution too slowly for their liking that he didn’t put enough oomph into Article VI, he should have rapped Article II, or he should have recited the 27th Amendment in iambic pentameter.
Biden should invite them to an interview at the White House. Make them sit waiting for four hours; then be too busy and ask if they’d like to play with commander.
JFC. I haven’t read this, nor do I have any plans to read it but the title alone give me vibes of the author painting gender-affirming care as “parents bring their kids to their family doctor who listens dismissively to their concerns for 5 minutes, shrugs, sends them on their way a jug of hormones and an appointment in 2 weeks gender-affirming surgery #wokeism”.
Beyond that, who is this person or any of their “evidence” to say if it “works” or not – whether or not it works is up to the recipient and it seems that from people that I know who receive this kind of care, it works pretty fucking well.
The only anecdotal evidence I have to say it didn’t “work” was with a trans-woman at my job that made the choice to de-transition when their treatment introduced some serious medical problems. (And I only knew this because they were very open about their journey.) That’s not even an indictment against gender-affirming care. Sometimes medical treatments have bad outcomes. 
Pamela Paul is an anti-trans fanatic. Almost every column she writes is about the devious deviltry of trans people. Without Pamela Paul, the Onion never would’ve had to publish their “Journalism’s Sacred Duty” article.
Well then I’m especially glad I didn’t read that dreck. Thanks for the link to The Onion article – it’s as astute as ever.
Should’ve included the Wikipedia link: Pamela Paul - Wikipedia
The “Talk” page on her is also helpful: Talk:Pamela Paul - Wikipedia
based on the margins of error, you can make the complete opposite headline and it would still be true
“Donald ■■■■■ is trailing President Biden in Virginia and is only slightly ahead in Pennsylvania”
What in the EVER LOVING FUCK IS THAT GOD DAMN FRAMING…
I’m going to start with the absolutely jaw-dropping news that The New York Times deceptively edited a quote to make it appear that JD Vance opposes a national abortion ban. I don’t know whether to call this a massive fuck-up or malfeasance, but it’s really, really bad.
As I outlined earlier today, the Times claims Vance opposes a federal abortion ban, citing this interview and quoting the vice presidential candidate as saying, “Ohio is going to want to have a different abortion policy from California, from New York, and I think that’s reasonable.”
The full quote, however—which is linked to in the Times piece—clearly shows that Vance supports a national ban:
“I’d like it to be primarily a state issue. Ohio is going to want to have a different abortion policy from California, from New York, and I think that’s reasonable.
I want Ohio to be able to make its own decisions, and I want Ohio’s elected legislators to make those decisions. But I think it’s fine to sort of set some minimum national standard.” (Emphasis mine)
If you need a reminder of what a ‘minimum national standard’ means, here ya go. But let’s be clear: This is not a small muck-up; it is a very big fucking deal. Here’s hoping the Times offers a correction and apology. Regardless, it’s a reminder of how desperately we need independent feminist media and mainstream reporters who have abortion rights expertise. Or, at least, the ability to include a full quote. If you want to see me rant on video, watch me on TikTok.
