I know the Times thinks their reporting is "balanced," but describing Trump's actions through euphemism actively obscures the truth. 
Does "aggressive defense" accurately describe Trump's actions in yesterday's press conference? Was the video "campaign-style"? Other reporters called it "propaganda."
This construction implies that Trump's frustration is rooted in at least some legitimate complaint. Is this accurate to the truth?
Meanwhile, these have become truly grotesque. I won't even grab screenshots because it should be avoided. I question the judgment of people who are still green lighting these cutesy dialogues.
The euphemisms are everywhere. "Rift" implies two sides in some kind of balanced dispute. The "rift" is Trump's assertion of unconstitutional power. The states themselves have nothing to do with it. An "power move" suggests something legit about Trump's assertion.
The Times is responsible for amazing journalism that would be impossible for organizations without their resources, but the paper's political coverage and portions of their op-ed page are a betrayal to that reporting.
