You see the Biden crowd, and they look dull and inert.

Heh. From a blog post by Ann Althouse, "'I Don’t Want an Exciting President'/Joe Biden makes his supporters feel safe, but nominating him is risky.". Forget the political opinions, I think what Althouse is pointing out is the aesthetic disconnect between what the NYT probably wants versus how they are framing their own message.

To make that clearer. The New York Times is an extension of the Democratic National Committee in terms of their news' slant mixed with a disproportionate dose of critical theory progressivism. They have just about exited the hard news business in order to concentrate on the much cheaper business of opinions and disdain. They seemed, early in the election cycle to be strongly backing Kamala Harris with a series of puff ball articles.

However, as the field has become crowded, as Harris failed to ignite much interest and as concern about over-radicalization has come to the fore, the NYT seems to be resigning itself to a Biden pitch with Harris as VP to keep the dream alive.

The opinion piece itself is the sort of dross which is easy to skip since it is content free, predictable, and boringly written.

But if the NYT wants to bolster their preferred candidates, they seem to be doing so in a pretty ham-fisted fashion. Support cannot just be about column inches. The writing and illustration have to carry some of the load. In this instance, the written opinion is unexceptional and the illustrating photos are. . .. Well, let's look at the main one.

We are growing accustomed to the raucous lively Trump rallies, with laughter and cheers and jeers and energy and red, white and blue everywhere. You see the pictures of massive stadiums and the crowd receding into the distant bleachers way up in the sky. People singing, dancing, talking. People comfortable, people formal, people in funny outfits, people with their own homemade signs, people clearly having a good time.

And here is the picture that the NYT used to bolster Biden.

Click to enlarge.

As a vignette without context, it is actually pretty good. Would do well in a university photo display. Love the contrasting sun and shade and all these people, caught out of time and place and with a rich spectrum of expressions and behaviors.

But as a campaign photo it seems almost a deliberate torpedo. The picture is apparently taken with the crowd squinting into the sun. It is a small group of people in, apparently, a small rally. Half a dozen signs but only a couple of which you can see clearly and they are obviously staged signs handed out to the party faithful - uniform, no personally created signs.

I do see a couple of fellows smiling and appearing to enjoy themselves. Everyone else? Squinting. Doubtful expressions. Anger. Glumness. Skepticism. People in their street clothes. People who appear to be wondering why they are there. People in black and white and grey. People staring into their phones.

If it is meant to convey enthusiasm and support, it falls a long way short. If a picture is worth a thousand words, this is a small dissertation against Joe Biden's candidacy. And I am pretty certain that is not the message the NYT intended to convey.

Or maybe they are still holding out for Harris and they are deliberately trying to sabotage Joe's campaign by making it seem dutifully glum and mundane.