Politico's magazine did a cover story on the New York Times and their feud with the Biden White House, and boy, was it enlightening. Well, maybe not. There wasn't much we didn't already guess, it was just weird to hear them say it out loud.
I find it so puzzling when the people who work there don't understand how much bad faith coverage it took to lose the support of liberal Democrats. After all, the Times was held in high regard for a really long time.
But they've pretty much beaten our expectations out of us. From the piece:
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. Beyond that, he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, according to a third person familiar with the publisher’s thinking. Sulzberger himself was part of a group from the Times that sat down with Trump, who gave the paper several interviews despite his rantings about its coverage. If Trump could do it, Sulzberger believes, so can Biden.
“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.”
And there we have it. When it comes right down to it, the New York Times is nothing more than a Mean Girls burn book. (Sure, Sulzberger graduated from Brown, but it's forever high school at the Times.)
There was no risk to Trump in sitting down for interviews, because the Times doesn't gun for Republicans with the same delight and enthusiasm they reserve for the Blue team.
I give Biden points for understanding that trying to court the Times is a no-win game and deciding to do an end run. Their last minute exoneration of Trump's ties to Russia, what, the week before the 2016 election? Their breathless coverage of the Clinton Cash book, which turned out to be funded by Steve Bannon's foundation? The constant refrain of "But her emails!" That is the payoff.
There's so much more that I've suppressed for my own sanity.
Doug Balloon's New York Times Pitchbot sums it up:
