โ“˜ ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—บ ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜ ๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐˜€๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ฏ๐˜† ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐˜€๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ. https://t.co/2CFQ7a3cMP

— The Spectator (@spectator) January 2, 2021

This is the game the MSM has been playing for years.

Take an extreme/unlikely position that has a grain of truth (the NYT headline isnโ€™t wrong) and present it as the norm/default.

This is the BBC/Graun Playbook 101 on Brexit in particular; โ€œcouldsโ€ reported as โ€œwouldsโ€

— Yawn (@yawnymcyawnface) January 2, 2021

Yes, everything in that Spectator paragraph is in the NYT article too. The Spectator must be relying on their readers being to lazy to even bother reading the NYT article for themselves. And judging by the replies in this thread, that's a good call by The Spectator.

— Gavin Deane (@GJDeane) January 3, 2021

The NYT don't understand the first thing about British journalism: protect the Tory government at all costs.

— Ghostface Kafka (36 Chambers) (@TheKafkaDude) January 3, 2021