The Washington Post shows you can, in the news pages, write truthfully, honestly that Trump is a mortal threat to American democracy. No "both sides" here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-transition-crisis/2020/09/24/068d2286-fe79-11ea-8d05-9beaaa91c71f_story.html">https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...

This story rightfully says the election& #39;s integrity is being threatened and names the culprit: Trump. Such clarity would be unremarkable about, say, the GRU. The difference is most reporting& #39;s taboo against looking biased, which ultimately means the hard truth is expendable.

NYT story, by contrast, is modified both sidesism. It quotes Trump& #39;s baseless opinion ASAP; it outsources IDing the threat to Democrats; it awkwardly casts Republicans as Trump& #39;s foil; it makes it seem like just another day in politics. It is not. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/us/politics/trump-republicans-election-transition.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/2...

The danger of obfuscating Trump& #39;s clear conduct is giving him the camouflage of confusion. Trump creates uncertainty about the election so he can portray himself as restoring order, when in fact that& #39;s just pretext to rig the election in his favor instead of counting every vote.