While that could be done, to what point would that be working towards, specifically, that would not be better dealt with in other existing threads? Individual examples are not truly what were in question.
As far as that point goes, that's already been addressed previously and you chose not respond. If you want to go further on that, I would request that you address the previous responses.
With that said, this response is completely wrong-headed if you were attempting to use it to address the point about Trump's coronavirus lies and disinformation. Whether Trump is responsible or not for the coronavirus pandemic is immaterial to how responsible he is for his words and actions in response. Trump spread a LOT of things that he demonstrably knew were false about COVID-19 throughout and plenty more that probably knew was false or untrustworthy. Given his reach and the nature of his following, that had very significant effects. He was probably the
single largest driver of coronavirus misinformation. Going further than that -
38% of disinformation fueled by Trump? Trump constantly outright lying to the American people? That is NOT something that can be reasonably handwaved away with "the pandemic's not Trump's fault!"
If you're to be honest, the problem was far more with Trump and those who were blindly enabling him to act so badly without repercussion or accountability than the press. The press can be said to have acted as they did in fair part because Trump was not being held to account in any more direct way. That's going beyond the corporate angle and the Trump actively working to keep the spotlight on himself even if he had to do it by providing the press with negative stuff, of course.
Both-siderism is a tactic that benefits whichever side is worse. The benefit granted is proportional to how much worse one side is than the other. By trying to reduce the issue in question to the most superficial level "both candidates have lied" and ignoring the massive difference in quantity of, quality of, and harm done by said lies, you're seeking to provide massive benefits to the side that acts worse.
Should be, perhaps, under a particularly naive understanding of how Republican support is rooted.
To borrow an "it would be great if this wasn't as true as it is" bit of humor from Noel Casler - "How come everything the Republican Party stands for involves other people dying?"
Not completely true, of course, but... If Republicans were doing a good job, their governance probably wouldn't be ending up with higher rates of
these things happening?
Because that's what is happening in general in Republican controlled states compared to Democrat governed states.
Broadly speaking, Republicans don't govern particularly well, with the rising MAGA wing of the party being even worse and often making a mockery of governance where they've come into power. The Republican Party gains power with policies that concentrate power and wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people and leverage that for their influence, which has most of those listed things as side effects that society suffers. They gain broader support by other, non-policy based means.
Whether Biden's done a good job or not with the economy, inflation, and the border is something of a red herring. He HAS done a good job with the economy, inflation, and the border! Republicans have also been OPENLY working to sabotage the US when it comes to all three of those things on top of that! Going further than that, if those were to become less effective for Republicans, they'd just try to change the narrative again to something else that they thought they could blame Biden and the Democrats for. Hence, your claim is deeply naive, to be kind.