To put it another way, not only do they refuse to look through the Overton Window, they’re drawing the curtains closed. This looks a lot like willful blindness with intent.
Just another reason reporters who cover politics shouldn't exist. They are too interested in the game and not the stakes. They theorize endlessly over the strategies and mechanics of the game. Their theories drive their editorial decisions, to the detriment of news consumers and the news ecosystem around elections generally.
2 examples: Harris did well in the 60 Minutes and Fox interviews, but the questions were ghastly. Contrast with Harris' discussion on the podcast about women's issues, or Trump's town hall on Univision where voters asked really good questions about stakes, or Trump's interview with the Bloomberg editor who clearly knows a thing or 2 about economics.
To put it another way, not only do they refuse to look through the Overton Window, they’re drawing the curtains closed. This looks a lot like willful blindness with intent.
Just another reason reporters who cover politics shouldn't exist. They are too interested in the game and not the stakes. They theorize endlessly over the strategies and mechanics of the game. Their theories drive their editorial decisions, to the detriment of news consumers and the news ecosystem around elections generally.
2 examples: Harris did well in the 60 Minutes and Fox interviews, but the questions were ghastly. Contrast with Harris' discussion on the podcast about women's issues, or Trump's town hall on Univision where voters asked really good questions about stakes, or Trump's interview with the Bloomberg editor who clearly knows a thing or 2 about economics.
It sounds like the Times is echoing an old John Cougar Mellencamp album: “Nothing matters, and what if it did?”