
Via Scott Lemieux at LGM, I note the following.
It is hard to find a better example of faux objectivity than this. Both sides have a narrative, dontcha know!
But one “narrative” is utter bullshit, while the other is objectively true.
The newspaper job should be to note which is which, not engage in this kind of utter false equivalence.
And the subhead is almost as bad as the headline. Trump brought influencers in as propagandists, pure and simple.
I mean, according to my eyes and other senses, it isn’t raining outside as I type this. That doesn’t depend on the narrator; it is a solid fact.
I do not expect the NYT to be an organ for the anti-Trump opposition, but I do expect it to report on reality, not kowtow to the notion that there are real alternatives to how to view Portland at the moment.
As a reminder, here is what they were looking down on in that photo:









