The show’s take on Chisholm was fantastic and everyone deserves a lot of credit. I think I disagree with the review a bit, but actually towards the positive, as I felt Aduba’s Chisholm was shown as an intentionally flawed individual. There was a lot to admire in her, but she was as deluded as the others, just in a…

As a sidenote, I think there is a really subtle choice they already did in the first episode and continued here.

Blanchett continues to be magnificent in her role and the episode was absolutely ruthless towards Phyllis. My three favorite scenes were:

Something I really loved about this episode is that while the show clearly despises Phyllis, and rightfully so as man is Blanchett having fun selling her awfulness, it also showed the seeds for why the Women’s Liberation Movement failed. It wasn’t even the abortion or them constantly ignoring Friedan’s attempts to…

While Trump’s power posturing is ridiculous, there is something genuinely funny how fast he wusses out if challenged on it.

Another really neat detail was that the reason Phyllis got the permission from her husband to go to Washington was because the sister was willing to watch over the kids. Yet when Phyllis realizes how she will gain that power she clearly craves, she was willing to demonize women like the sister, despite knowing her…

One of the things I really liked about the show was that, while it was from subtle, they constantly showed the presence of African American workers helping out the Schlafly family while Phyllis kept talking about all the work housewives do and how they should be respected.

Cate Blanchett was so magnificent in this episode. Usually being impressed by acting is a negative as then you are thinking about it, but there the choices just constantly left me in awe. Just the way Blanchett worked Phyllis’s smile and made it tell so much about where she was at that very moment in the scene.

I was trying to figure this out when I saw the name in the review as my initial reaction was honestly bafflement that did I not recognize Lily Tomlin?

While it was probably the clumsiest moment of the episode, that shot of Phyllis’s face dissolving on paper as the women’s right people celebrated about their sure victory was a powerful one. I thought it made a lot of sense to start with Phyllis as she is the destruction that is about to arrive and what makes this…

Damn you, Mind Geek, for managing to make hilarious stuff like this that cause me for a moment forget your negative impact on the industry.

That is what makes this take so frustrating as it is this almost blatant attempt to ignore the actual reporting in the article. It’s kind of similar to what I’ve seen in a couple of other places, and here in that one discussion, about how the headline is too neutral, I guess? And somehow this is done within in the…

This is astonishing. Like I have no words. This is so petty it is ridiculous. 

So I’m genuinely struggling your argument as this feels nit-picky as hell. Could they have done a better job with the edit? Sure, I already admitted that which you kind of just ignored. But to somehow frame this was a drastic mistake feels weird. Especially the example you gave about the Biden campaign using this as…

So considering that this thread started by someone recommending to the Daily episode on the subject, I’m kind of confused as they were quite honest there that they also had to do a through job here considering that it was about the presumed Democratic presidential nominee.

Yeah, sure, the headline present Reade’s case in a more neutral manner which reflects the findings of their investigation. Also I still don’t quite understand your argument? So did they act wrongly in the Blasey Ford case or here? Is the argument they shouldn’t have an ethical and responsible approach to journalism…

This is actually why I found AOC’s interview about Biden so interesting as she clearly has been thinking about why the Progressive wing isn’t winning more despite the seeming popularity of their political ideas. I also don’t think it was a coincidence that when she started listing what Biden did right, the first thing…

But I don’t understand your assumption that they pretend those other accusations don’t exist as they literally reference multiple times in the actual article, even before this. Also, the article is specifically about the accusation of sexual assault against Biden, which does establish the context for what kind of…

...Because they were not able to verify the accusations or establish a pattern of behavior? I don’t know if you read the article, but they did a lot of work tracking down past colleagues and trying to find the complaint and were unable to find anything independent of Reade to support the allegations.

Only if we agree that language and context has no meaning?