NYT slanting coverage against Biden because he hurt their fee-fees

A petulant nepo baby being one of the most influential people in American media is really not great:

In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency. Beyond that, he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, according to a third person familiar with the publisher’s thinking. Sulzberger himself was part of a group from the Times that sat down with Trump, who gave the paper several interviews despite his rantings about its coverage. If Trump could do it, Sulzberger believes, so can Biden.

“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”

Huh, are you telling me that the endless fusillade of five-alarm stories about Biden being two and a half years older than the guy who can’t stay awake for a single 8-hour day isn’t the inevitable result of intense public interest? Next you’ll tell me that the public does not have a high level of inherent interest in compliance with email server management best practices!

One additional point to make here is that interviews with presidents are not, in fact, a particularly important form of accountability. The actual conduct of their administration is vastly more important.