Note: What she calls false balance I call false equivalence. 

Liz Spayd, the new public editor at the New York Times said that false equivalence is a way for partisan Hillary Clinton supporters to attack her news organization. She says it's bad thinking. She didn't say much more than that, imho. 

And I strongly disagree. Here's why.

First, false equivalence is the smaller of two issues. The larger issue is that the many scandals of the Trump candidacy are going unreported. The concern is that he will be elected and the scandals will only be investigated after it's too late, after we're committed to four years Trump as president. For example...

He has a special relationship with Russia. What is it based on? And what might this mean for a Trump presidency.  How might it affect our relationships with our allies? We've never, as far as I know, had a president with such a large potential conflict of interest. Or have we? Again something I would expect the NYT to cover in great detail. 

The tax returns. What other conflicts would they uncover? Is there any chance the tax returns will leak?

The voters he attracts. Hillary calls them the basket of deplorables. Who are they? What are we learning about our own country?

The threats to free speech. He's litigious as a private citizen. How will he use the power of the presidency to further limit free speech?

His love of authoritarianism. When he praises Putin he reveals a streak of what some would call fascism. Is it real? How will this affect Americans' lives? 

Conflicts with other Republicans in government. What might Speaker Ryan do, assuming Republicans retain a majority in the House. Senate Majority Leader McConnell? Will there be a purge in the Republican Party? What do your sources say?

His connection with the KKK and other white supremacist groups. He's never denied that they exist, and he has been challenged on this topic. It's fair game.

Trump is like a minor league pitcher in the majors who has a real chance of winning the Cy Young award because the batters he faces refuse to swing at his slow fat pitches. Why? Almost any pitch he throws could be a home run. Why do you take the strikes? What are we supposed to think about the NYT? 

All of this is totally independent of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, which is why false equivalence is a distraction from the core issue: Trump's many problems as a potential President. Spayd is putting the cart before the horse, confusing the cause with the effect. For me, it's not at all partisan. I am voting for Clinton because of the problems with Trump's candidacy as well as my belief that she would make a good President. If it were the other way around, I would vote Republican, as I have many times. 

So the assumption that this is partisan is beneath the NYT. It's insulting, shows disrespect for their readers, and is logically incorrect. And it skirts the issue. Why is the NYT not doing a much more thorough job of vetting Donald Trump as a candidate for President?