Astonishing delusions

From "The mainstream media certainly gave Trump harsh and even overtly hostile coverage. But..." by Ann Althouse.  

. . . Writes Jonathan Chait in support of the hard-to-believe thesis "Why the Media Is Worse for Biden Than Trump" (NY Magazine).

Chait's piece seems delusional.  He is not talking about a reality anyone else can recognize.   Althouse recognizes he is making a (bad) argument and suggests a better approach.

If it were my job to write a column supporting that proposition ["Why the Media Is Worse for Biden Than Trump"], I'd take an entirely different tack. I'd say the media always opposed Trump, and he built his political success fighting against his opponents. He was a great counterpuncher, and he got energy from these attacks. Whatever they did to him "proved" they were "fake news," and he used whatever was thrown his way to his advantage. Thus, the media was never bad for him. 

But Biden has been boosted all along by the media, spared criticism, spared even any serious questioning. Coddled for so long, he's now exposed as utterly vulnerable. The media have been so good to him that when there's anything bad, it is very bad for him. So, clearly, the media are worse for Biden than for Trump. Key word: for. 

If the media had treated Biden and Trump equally badly all along, Biden would never have been the Democratic Party candidate in the first place. 

I agree that she has the better argument.