I wrote about how this very bad New York Times "analysis" of the Trump indictment legitimizes illegitimate Republican retaliation -- and aids Trump's efforts to incite violence.

Newsletter --> https://findinggravity.substack.com/p/the-new-york-times-is-trying-to-legitimize

A really common way the news media justifies bad Republican behavior is by pretending it is analogous to, and thus in some way justified by, things that it in fact is in no way analogous to.

Indicting a *former* president for *illegal hush money payments* is simply nothing like indicting a *sitting* president over a *policy dispute,* but the New York Times pretends it is.

I suspect Peter Baker would say he's analyzing what Republicans are likely to do. It's labeled "news analysis," after all!

Nonsense. "Here's what Republicans say they will do" is not "analysis." Analysis requires, you know ... analyzing. Will their actions be legitimate? Are they actually analogous? Is there justification for them in Constitution, law, policy, logic, morality or popular sentiment? Etc etc.

Baker does none of this. It's an excuse, and puffery, to call it analysis.