🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

“If Biden’s age merited extensive coverage because his fitness for the job is of interest to voters, then Trump’s visible incoherence, cognitive impairment, inability to cogently discuss the simplest matters & increasingly strange flights of fantasy deserve equivalent treatment.”

Why not, indeed? Maybe WSJ could have reporters ask a bunch of Democratic legislators what they think about Trump's mental decline.

Yep. The media certainty that views of Trump will never change is their excuse not to cover his clear deterioration (or anything else) But Trump is old, and JD Vance is inexperienced and radical; if Trump wins, Vance could become president at any moment. It needs to be an issue

1) Yes, the column by Greg Sargent is very forceful and important. 2) Yes, Mike Barnicle had an important and on-point blast this morning about the incredible, irresponsible, and un-changing "normalization" by main outlets. 3) Yes, Trump's performance last night would lead to

Brilliant. Sobering. Infuriating.

Trump’s deteriorating mental fitness deserves “sustained journalistic scrutiny.”- Greg Sargent makes the point brilliantly via illustration - taking 10 Biden related headlines & switching in Trump’s name underscoring how media has been dropping the ball. newrepublic.com/article/185622…

Wow, media's pro-Trump bias jumps out when Biden Age-style coverage is applied to him. It's not just the emphasis—top headlines, lead stories, analysis, reactions, and opinion pieces indicating it's the most important thing in the world—but also the assumed negativity in tone.

“Real journalistic resources should be put into meaningfully covering it from multiple angles, as often happens with other big national stories of great consequence.” newrepublic.com/article/185622…

Thread. One problem here is that critiques of media coverage of necessity rely on a constant, blow-by-blow singling out of individual offenses/failures: This headline, that front page, etc. It is legit hard to reach sweeping, global conclusions. But the critique is still right!

Great points from Greg Sargent on the big-picture story "unfolding right at the end of all of our noses👉 Given his "serial incoherence, lack of basic curiosity, pathological dishonesty" and "sadistic verbal abuses," could Trump be an effective president? newrepublic.com/article/185622…

The answer of course is that the only party publicly held to any sort of standard is the Democratic Party.

David is so good on this pod episode, which is all about how the Trump scandal at Arlington reveals how MAGA bullying and intimidation toward public servants functions in the Trump/MAGA worldview:

Press can mention Trump's lying or racism or whatever, but they basically *never* build up a context of it being part of a disturbing trend or a greater issue with Trump

Read this. Headlines regarding Biden’s age rewritten to apply to Trump’s obvious mental decline and unfitness.

Coming NYT headline: "In somber, emotional comments, Trump reflects on dangers that gun availability, migrants pose to children"

simply incredible. NYT hed on today's econ speech

This thread (and story) is good, especially this part which rewrites 10 “Biden’s too old headlines” to capture recent questionable utterances by Trump.

"We have a man who is manifestly incapable of being president...it’s much worse than in 2016 because nobody was sure at the time whether it was an act. It’s not an act. The media failure this time is completely inexcusable." digby on "sane-washing" digbysblog.net/2024/09/05/the…

This is a major screwup by Vance, I expect Dems will jump on it and contrast it with Harris: "It doesn't have to be this way"