To me, it's very disappointing.

 Ann Althouse, former constitutional law professor, has as her tag line, "cruel neutrality."  She claims to look at things dispassionately.  And by-and-large, she does.  She definitely has an academic's view of the world, but it is not a virulently radical view.  She is pretty solidly of the center.  

Her most recent post is "Ask yourself: do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?", an analysis of the content of Joe Biden's speech in Pittsburg.  

Joe Biden went to Pittsburg today, where he read a speech indoors. Here's the video. I can't tell if he has an audience. There's no engagement with any questioners. I don't really know how this is different from speaking from his own home, but it was presented in the press as an important occasion. The NYT says: "Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Monday issued a forceful rebuttal to President Trump’s misleading charges that he would preside over a country wracked by disorder and lawlessness...." I watched the first minute of the video, but it was too tedious. I was distracted by the metal grid behind him.

 So she goes to the text.  To the words.  Her specialty - words, language, structure, logic.

Viewed through those lenses, there is an awful lot of cruel neutrality applied to Biden's easy target speech.

So I'm just going to read the transcript and react to it for you as I read:

In recent days, we’ve had a lot of talk about who’s going where and how I’ve decided to come to Pittsburgh to talk a little bit about what’s going on right now....

So vague. Such a weak beginning. You'd think he'd specify what the talk was. Trump's going to Lake Charles, Louisiana and Kenosha, Wisconsin? If he'd specified, we'd know Trump's decisions were based on the hurricane and the Jacob Blake incident. But there's no reason for choosing Pittsburgh. It's just: Here I am in Pittsburgh, talking a little bit. There's a lack of drive and purpose.

It is pretty distinctly downhill from there.  A pedestrian speech written by a barely able speech-writer, weak on clarity, logic, argument, evidence, or inspiration.   Which she details.

As she proceeds, you realize, at least in this instance, reading with cruel neutrality is tantamount to reading brutally.  That is not a slap at Althouse.  It is a reflection of the quality of speech which she is reading.

She ends with an understatement.

So that's what the NYT called a "forceful rebuttal" to Trump. To me, it's very disappointing.