Media turns against Biden?

 Elizabeth Stauffer:

Legacy media have been moving away from the practice of journalism for years, and once Donald Trump arrived on the scene, they abandoned it altogether. The media collectively embraced activism, and the New York Times has led the way.

The extraordinary power of the New York Times to not only influence events but to shape them cannot be denied. Without question, the apex predator in the media world today, it can set any narrative, no matter the facts. And when the Democratic Party has a message to get out, they turn to the Gray Lady to do their bidding.

Last month, the New York Times published an article titled “Should Biden Run in 2024? Democratic Whispers of ‘No’ Start to Rise.” The widely read piece wasn’t simply the random musings of a couple of writers who consider President Joe Biden too old to serve. It was a nuclear bomb, one that allowed Democratic legislators, aides, and voters finally to say out loud what most of the country knows to be true: Biden is an awful president.

The New York Times editors read the polls the same way Democratic Party leaders do. They understand Biden’s tumbling approval ratings are a liability to his party that will likely cost them this November. So it’s difficult to see the publication’s recent article as anything but a deliberate, strategic decision — the opening salvo in the campaign to oust Biden from office.

Suddenly, it is OK to say the president is too old for the job. It’s now fine to not only point out his regular verbal gaffes but to also suggest that they may be indicative of cognitive decline. Of course, they’d never put it like that — not yet, at least. Instead, citing many “Democratic lawmakers and party officials,” they described Biden as “an anchor that should be cut loose in 2024.”

Predictably, the rest of the liberal media has jumped on board, and, one month later, a full court press to replace the president is in place. The attacks have increased in frequency and tone — especially at the New York Times. On Monday, a New York Times writer compared watching Biden to “seeing someone wobble on a tightrope.”

Last Saturday, another New York Times columnist wrote , “At 79, Biden is testing the boundaries of age and the presidency.” Summing up the sentiment of “more than a dozen current and former senior officials and advisers,” the article said, “But they acknowledged Mr. Biden looks older than just a few years ago, a political liability that cannot be solved by traditional White House stratagems like staff shake-ups or new communications plans. His energy level, while impressive for a man of his age, is not what it was, and some aides quietly watch out for him. He often shuffles when he walks, and aides worry he will trip on a wire. He stumbles over words during public events, and they hold their breath to see if he makes it to the end without a gaffe.”

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 shouldn’t mistake the New York Times's recent admission to that point as anything but political opportunism. It’s not Biden’s age that’s the problem — it’s his political unpopularity. If his approval ratings were higher and his agenda more successful, these articles would not have been written, and a Biden reelection campaign would likely go unchallenged.
...

He is hard to watch these days and I never wanted him elected in the first place.  He is actually worse than I expected.

See, also:

 Biden's 'selfishness' gaffe latest in long line after teleprompter blunder

He actually meant to say the selflessness of the US troops in the Middle East. The teleprompter is not enough when the speaker has become a mental cripple.