Or, maybe not.
Is this another example of the NYT's dumb-*** both-siderism?
Maybe!
https://first-draft.com/2020/01/12/they-did-this-on-purpose/
Apr 19, 2024 at 9:42am
Amazing Housecleaning available call! (201) 889-5521
Apr 18, 2024 at 12:40pm
Apr 18, 2024 at 11:17am
Apr 17, 2024 at 6:35pm
Administrative Assistant/REMOTE-Part Time
Apr 17, 2024 at 1:19pm
NPF509 FT Nanny/Family Assistant for Twins (ASAP Flex)
Apr 19, 2024 at 12:38pm
CF582 FT Nanny/Family Assistant for 2 (Late May Start)
Apr 19, 2024 at 12:18pm
SF5001 FT Nanny for 2 (ASAP Start)
Apr 19, 2024 at 12:02pm
Full-Time / Part Time Nanny Needed
Apr 19, 2024 at 11:51am
MF519 PT Nanny for 1 (ASAP Start)
Apr 18, 2024 at 5:23pm
Of course, as long as they're not reporting about the Clinton's, the Times can produce some very valuable material.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/12/us/texas-vs-california-history-textbooks.html