NY Times Fact-Checks Biden's 'False' Claims, but the Downplaying Spin Is Something Else

The New York Times has finally gotten around to a fact check of some of Joe Biden's lies.

But what's funny about it is how much they try to gild the lily and smooth them over, even as they acknowledge they're not true. The fact that they're even going to that trouble suggests to me that they know there's a big problem for Biden, or they wouldn't be trying to address the question. Democrats are desperate at this point because Biden is so unpopular. Part of that is the lies, not just the incompetence and incoherence. People don't believe they can trust a man who lies about even the simplest things to try to pander/deceive people.

Now the NYT only hit on some of the lies; If they were to do them all they'd still be writing and wouldn't be finishing anytime soon. But check out how they describe them. The language is something else:

In President Biden’s telling, he was a teenage civil rights activist, a former trucker, the first in his family to go to college and the nephew of a cannibalism victim.
All of these claims stretch the truth or are downright false. But Mr. Biden persists in telling personal tales with rhetorical flourishes and factual liberty when he works a room or regales an audience. They are a way to connect with voters, emphasize his “middle-class Joe” persona and charm his audience.

No, they're all "downright false." But they're not lies, they're "personal tales with rhetorical flourishes and factual liberty"--and just his way of trying to connect to people and be charming. They even use the term "yarns."

Um, guys? Pandering and lying to people is not charming, it's just lying, particularly when telling them things to identify with them and have them vote for you. That's lying to get their vote.

But the very objective, not at all biased publication then tries to spin how Biden isn't as bad as Trump:

Despite Mr. Biden’s penchant for exaggerating details when recounting episodes from his life, these autobiographical embellishments differ in scale and significance from the stream of lies about a stolen election peddled by his opponent, former President Donald J. Trump.
A White House spokesman, Andrew Bates, said that Mr. Biden had “brought honesty and integrity back to the White House” and that he shared life experiences that had shaped his outlook.

Biden is just "exaggerating details," and they're "autobiographical embellishments." They seem to want to downplay the lies as not significant.

Notice--at no point do they call what Biden does "lying," they never use that word in relation to Biden in the article. But Trump, they characterize as a "stream of lies." They can't even be fully straight about Biden's lies when they're debunking them.

Even when they talk about such as his claim about the appointment to the Naval Academy, even though they say there's no evidence to support the claim, they say it's possible. With the Amtrak conductor Angelo Negri story, they acknowledge that couldn't have happened as Biden claims. They suggest that Biden may have mistaken another conductor for Negri. That's not a great flex when you're suggesting he can't properly identify a man he's claimed to have known for a long time.

While the NY Times talks about Biden's "background" tales, they seem to ignore all the other, manifold lies he tells in other situations as well.

For example, they don't deal with Biden's lies that may have had an effect on an election, such as when he said during the debate that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation. They don't deal with his many lies about his opponent which, again, can have an effect on the election such as claiming that he called Neo Nazis "fine people" or that Trump told people to "inject bleach." They don't deal with Biden's countless lies to the American people, about things like creating jobs which he didn't create, and that inflation was nine percent when he assumed office.

In a recent CNN interview, Biden told 15 lies in 17 minutes. That's a lot of deceiving of the American voters.