Living below the local airport’s flight path. The Covid lockdown was just bliss how quiet it was.

Fair enough. Have a good day.

Fact is, Biden won in Georgia in 2020. He’s losing in all the polls in Georgia as of now.

And the article in question focuses on a granular detail that is too specific to give the NYT readership any reasonable understanding as to why that is. If it was the editorial intention to educate people then they should have composed a broader picture with polling of all the main subsections of voters and the relevant catalysts that impact them. But this is not what they are doing. They have picked this granular narrative because it it lends its self to the framing they want.

You can blame the NYT all you want

I would rather you see my opinions as a critical analysis of electoral media than specifically dumping on the NYT. Again, I’m from the UK I mainly read UK news I don’t have a specific axe to grind with US media.

This story is just a symptom of a larger problem.

No disagreement here. However the particular choice of symptom is part of the framing for the newspaper’s agenda.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and act like there isn’t a larger problem

If the NYT want to put out an article about the 'larger problem of disillusionment then maybe a more pertinent analysis would be of Biden’s backing of Isreal. Or Biden’s ageing (are the NYT pro-gerontocracy, probably not).

What has happened is they have scrolled down the list of diminishingly pertinent narratives till they found one that works the negative emotional engagement they do want.

you can enjoy this 2016 rerun.

Electing Trump is good for the far right around the world terrible for everyone else. Electing Biden is disappointing for the US as you could do better, and bad for Palestinians.

I don’t envy your choices.

It’s a problem to call this article “framing”. This article is a “political analysis” story.

All political analysis has a bias to it, intentional or not, framing is inescapable.

It is about the political landscape going into the election.

On the surface the story is about the disillusionment of a small fraction of tiny subsection of the populace of the US. But there are way more electorally significant aspects to the overarching story. So why focus on that particular grain of sand if the intention behind it isn’t to aggregate bad news.

It’s like a reporter writing a story focusing on you getting ticketed for having a faulty brake light but only giving cursory mention that the brake light was working until the cop rear-ended you while they were driving recklessly.

If I were a part of the Democratic Party, this story would be very informative to me

It’s not nothing I’d hope but that ‘very’ is sweating under the load it is carrying.

If you disagree and only want sunshine and rainbows stories, then fine. As I said before, we have to agree to disagree

You have me all wrong there. My intention was only to describe a type of electoral mood manipulation that I felt was represented here. I’m from the UK (I have a limited amount of skin in the game) so my comments are more about a recognition of patterns I observe in election reporting here.

PS. I’m very happy to read investigative reporting that actually lands body blows. I feel that there are more substantive complaints to be made about Biden but the NYT won’t necessarily make them because they align with their own hawkish center-right outlook.

They perceive that the article is bad for Biden so are attacking it. The reason it is bad for Biden is that it takes an albeit true story and frames it in the only possible negative way for him. Now that framing is still true but as far as that story goes it is weak and unnatural. As far as slights go it is a very weak attack. The fear is not that the piece will land a mortal blow but in the aggregate.

This isn’t an easy piece to slap down as it is objectively ‘true’ and the barb is nuanced enough to be missed by a disinterested reader (the target audience for both the article and its rebuttal).

For the sake of mirroring the low-concept appetite of the disinterested reader they wish to reach, they have decided (seems automatic tbh) to go with a low-concept rebuttal. So they spin the story in such a way as to subtract its nuance so that the intent is easier to spot. In effect it is a strawman. Which to an interested reader, such as yourself, is counterproductive as the lie is obvious and unnecessary.

There are most likely more people now with sufficient critical skills than ever before as their existence is predicated on the opportunity for self education. The problem currently is that unbalanced aggregations of personal and corporate wealth are capable of yoking the zeitgeist to their ends so that most untethered minds are functionally insane when it comes to ‘political’ considerations. It may seem like there are less cognisant minds out there but the reality is that they are being drowned out more than ever by cynical manipulation.

As opposed to all the well known stamps that Trump has!?

The NHS adjudges that cat as having flew.

You think the NHS website is going to list a symptom of some illness as feeling unwell?

I’m from the UK too. I’m fairly certain that they mean nausea and throwing up.

•feeling sick and being sick

Nor that the information that they use against you be necessarily true given their accepted monopoly in ‘truth’.

You beauty! I missed the update.

This bias has been known and commented upon in UK political forums for over a decade. This, for instance, is parr for the course.

The show also constantly used rightwing hacks from client media or thinktank spokespeople when filling the non-politician spot. It got to the point that if felt that Kate Andrews had been burnt onto my monitor.

Do you not have otters?

Money is power. Just because that shower have the sense to sit outside of the spotlight of political scrutiny does not mean that they are apolitical nor does it make the influence they cast not strongly American in flavour.

And America too.

This is my go to type of therapy. It’s about re-centering your focus so that your mind stops looping back to the trauma./ Where it becomes problematic is then weaning yourself off the game to healthier pursuits.