LLegacy media has been straying from the practice of journalism for years, and once Donald Trump arrived on the scene, they abandoned it altogether. The media has collectively embraced activism, and New York Times paved the way.

The extraordinary power of New York Times not only influencing events but also shaping them is undeniable. Undoubtedly the apex predator in the world of media today, he can define any narrative, regardless of the facts. And when the Democratic Party has a message to deliver, it turns to the Gray Lady to make its offer.

Last month the New York Times published an article
“Should Biden run in 2024? Democratic whispers of “no” are beginning to mount. The widely read article wasn’t just the random musings of a few writers who consider President Joe Biden too old to serve. It was a nuke, a bomb that allowed Democratic lawmakers, aides and voters to finally say out loud what most of the country knows to be true: Biden is an awful president.

The New York Times editors read polls the same way Democratic Party leaders do. They understand that Biden’s plummeting approval ratings are a handicap for his party that will likely cost them in November. So it’s hard to see the publication’s recent story as anything more than a deliberate, strategic move — the opening salvo in the campaign to oust Biden from office.

So, it’s normal to say that the president is too old for the job. It is now normal not only to point out his regular verbal gaffes, but also to suggest that they may indicate cognitive decline. Of course, they would never have said it like that – not yet, at least. Instead, citing numerous “Democratic lawmakers and party officials,” they described Biden as “an anchor who should be loosened in 2024.”

Predictably, the rest of the liberal media have jumped on board, and a month later, a full court press to replace the president is in place. Attacks have increased in frequency and tone, especially in the New York Times. Monday, a New York Times writer
watching Biden “see someone teetering on a tightrope.”

Last Saturday, another New York Times journalist
, “At 79, Biden is testing the limits of age and the presidency.” Summarizing the sentiment of “more than a dozen current and former senior officials and advisers,” the article read: “But they acknowledged Mr. Biden looked older than he did just a few years ago, a political responsibility that cannot be resolved by the traditional White House. stratagems such as personnel changes or new communication plans. His energy level, while impressive for a man of his age, is no longer what it used to be, and some assistants watch over him discreetly. He often walks shuffling, and aides fear he may trip over a wire. He stumbles over the words at public events, and they hold their breath to see if he gets to the end without a blunder.

While it may be obvious to those of us who have been paying attention that Biden is not up to the task of the presidency, we should not confuse the from the New York Times recent admission at this point as anything other than political expediency. It’s not Biden’s age that’s the problem, it’s his political unpopularity. If his approval ratings were higher and his program more successful, these articles would not have been written and a Biden re-election campaign would likely go unchallenged.

But that is not the reality for Democrats today. In November, they are looking at a red wave that could give Republicans control of the House and Senate. In other words, Biden is already a lame duck – and the liberal media is finally starting to treat him as such.

This is far from the first time that the media, in particular the New York Times, engaged in militant reporting of a kind intended to benefit the Democratic cause. It happily ran with the Russian collusion hoax despite the obvious contradictions and errors strewn throughout. In her wildest dreams, Hillary Clinton could not have imagined how far her disinformation campaign against then-candidate Trump would go. With the full support of the New York TimesChristopher Steele’s collection of lies about his opponent would dominate the national news cycle for three years and cripple his presidency in inquiry after inquiry.

The New York Times also helped define the divisive narrative of “systemic racism”. In fact, the adoption of racism as a priority topic in American discourse was a premeditated decision by the from the New York Times publishers. And it happened long before people heard of George Floyd.

The occasion was a “crisis worker town hall” held by then-editor Dean Baquet in August 2019. At the time, Trump had just delivered a widely hailed speech about two mass shootings that had took place almost simultaneously in El Paso, Texas. , and Dayton, Ohio.

The title in the New York Times read, “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM.” Following heavy criticism from the left for their positive interpretation of the speech, they changed the title to “ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS”.

Baquet opened the meeting with a discussion of the “significant missteps” they had committed in handling the “crisis”. Then he pivoted. “We built our newsroom to cover a story (referring to the Trump-Russia collusion story), and we did it really well,” Baquet said.
. “Now we need to regroup and shift resources and focus to tackle a different story.”

The story that would make the news for the next two years, he said, would be race.

Baquet scored two goals. The first was to portray Trump as a racist. The second was to reshape American history and put slavery at the center of the story. The result was the ahistorical 1619 Project, which made its way into public school curricula across the country.

As absurd as Baquet may have seemed at the time, the New York Times has, to a large extent, achieved both of these objectives. He will likely succeed in killing any chance of another Biden campaign as well.

While the latter objective may be beneficial to conservatives, we must consider: when a newspaper may decide that a president’s term has expired, legitimize a political candidate’s false opposition research to the point of undermining a presidency , and dictating which topic will dominate the news over the next two years, it has too much power. It left the media field and became a political organization. And, without a doubt, all of his activism points in one direction: the Democratic Party.

Elizabeth Stauffer is a contract writer at the western review. His articles have been published on many conservative websites, including StatusredNewsmax, the Federalistbongino.com, Hot airMSN and RealClearPolicies. Follow Elisabeth on
or LinkedIn.