Subheader
It’s one of the most concrete examples yet of the fallout from President Biden’s poor debate performance. His rival, Donald J. Trump, said he might announce a running mate during the Republican convention next week.
I checked my Bluesky politics feed which is sorted by likes. This post by Ryan Cooper was the top post and it has a link to the NYT article.
hard to think of better support for Biden's argument that rich elites are behind all this
https://bsky.app/profile/ryanlcooper.com/post/3kx3tfg63ju2v
The thread is filled with liberal whining. It's funny how they ridiculed Bernie for having small donors. It's as if libs - for all their high falutin principles - actually have no principles at all.
hard to think of better support for Biden's argument that rich elites are behind all this
how do you think he got elected in the first place
What is killing me is that even on a superficial level - these sorts of lib arguments make no sense at all. It's insane to think Biden is an actual populist. And nobody wants to back a loser. Why would the rich give a lot money to somebody they thought was going to lose? The rich always want a quid pro quo. They want to back a winner so they can get a sweet return on their investment - erm - I mean donation. This is the simplest fundamental stuff from Capitalism-slash-Democracy 101.
Jesus christ, I hope this is the final nail in the coffin for the democratic party, but they'll probably shuffle along for another decade or two before they collapse fully.
The NYT loves sticking it to Biden. And they do so literally every day. They were mad he didn't grant them an interview or something but this level of vituperation makes no sense at all. It's got to be personal somehow or something. It's weird.
Though The New York Times Company is public, all voting shares are controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger Family Trust.
A. Sulzberger is the chair, his daddy gave him the position
A Politico report detailed that Sulzberger has made a sit-down interview with President Joe Biden a priority for the newspaper, which claims to have interviewed every sitting president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Despite efforts to secure an interview, including appeals from Sulzberger directly to Vice President Kamala Harris, the White House has not allowed the Times the same level of access to the president as it did during the Trump Administration. An anonymous Times journalist told Politico in 2024, "All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day ... It's A.G. [Sulzberger], he's the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn't done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age."
I did also see this
According to anonymous sources within the newspaper's staff, upon taking his position in 2018 Sulzburger "told employees explicitly that his biggest concern was that the paper’s audience saw it as a 'liberal rag...' [his] vision for the paper is to change that perception and court conservative readers."
Maybe some combination of those two factors plus a little trust fund kiddy rage, Saltyberger using the outward reasoning of 'trying to court conservatives' as allowing open season on Joe (because he despises Joe not letting him be granted an interview)?
It is odd
Will be interesting to hear how the dyin with Biden crowd spins this one.
It's one thing to ignore your voters, but when donors start saying enough is enough, you're cooked
aware of parenti ✔ confirmed
