Misguided media hides truth of Biden’s decline

Former US president Donald Trump and US President Joe Biden participate in the first debate. Picture: AFP

Parts of the Australian media are as culpable as the Democrat-aligned Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and MSNBC for hiding the truth about US President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline.

As recently as the morning before the June 28 CNN debate between Biden, 81, and his predecessor Donald Trump, 78, this column was told that talk of the President’s mental decline was “misinformation and disinformation” spread by right- wing media.

Few journalists have owned up about four years of “Russiagate” hoax reporting – remember Four Corners’ three-part extravaganza on the so-called “Story of the Century”? The media’s Trump derangement boosted online readership and TV ratings but was never motivated by a search for truth.

Too many journalists believed, wrongly, it was their duty to protect the world from Trump. This highlights not only the fragmentation of modern media but also the destruction, by journalism educators, of the ideas of balance and fairness in reporting.

It also highlights how modern media elites distrust ordinary voters and the very democratic system they claim to be defending. Report Trump’s flaws, sure, but scrutinise Biden’s too.

Even the left-wing Crikey newsletter sees what has been happening. Last week it published Jeff Sparrow, a long- time editor of Overland, one of the last Marxist journals in Australia, accusing the mainstream media of hiding the truth about Biden.

Sparrow referred to a well-researched piece published by The Wall Street Journal which was “based on multiple interviews describing President Biden struggling to make himself heard and pausing for extended periods with his eyes closed”.

That June 5 piece and accompanying podcast inspired media responses denying Biden was in decline.

The Guardian’s June 19 analysis by Rachel Leingang was typical. Headed “Videos of Biden looking lost are a viral political tactic: ‘low-level manipulation’,” the piece was one of many in the past few years trying to dismiss what the public can clearly see.

No doubt that piece was correct to suggest some videos had been unfairly edited to appeal to conservatives watching right-wing media. But footage of Biden physically stumbling, or appearing lost on stage at major domestic and international news events cannot be challenged.

The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, long-time Biden dementia deniers, published a piece by world editor Nick Ralston last Tuesday, quoting Pulitzer Prize-winning Watergate co-author Carl Bernstein, saying people close to Biden had told him his debate performance was not a one-off.

But, as with Russiagate, the truth had been out there long before the debate.

On July 2, former Rolling Stone political writer Matt Taibbi outlined, on his Racket News Substack site, various media descriptions of Biden’s decline since his vice-presidency under Barack Obama.

Former Bill Clinton adviser Dick Morris wrote on May 2, 2019: “Has Biden lost the ability to speak clearly?” Morris listed Biden’s mispronunciations and missteps during a campaign speech. “By themselves these flubs are not disqualifying. But in a 76-year-old they are troubling,” Morris wrote.

Later, when Trump raised questions about Biden’s mental state, many news organisations sought out experts to claim Trump’s mental health was more concerning than Biden’s.

Taibbi wrote: “The real mischief started after Biden was elected. Although The Conversation and a few others ran a story in 2020 about how ‘Faked videos shore up false beliefs about Biden’s mental health’, the idea that concerns about the new President’s mental state were due to cheap fakes really accelerated after the vote.”

The mainstream media kept covering for Biden, yet we know that last February, the Department of Justice decided against releasing audio of interviews with the President over investigations into Biden’s retention of classified documents from his time as vice-president.

The investigation recommended against charges, but special counsel Robert Hur concluded: “Mr Biden’s memory was significantly limited”.

Hur said Biden was twice confused about when his term as vice-president ended, and his “memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate”.

Yet, all year when asked about his mental state, senior figures insisted Biden was “sharp”, “on his game”, “engaged”, “leading really compelling conversations”, and was “fit”.

Taibbi concludes: “Unfortunately, whole networks and newspapers have co-operated, not just in suppressing the truth, but in amplifying the Administration’s counter messaging: about deep fakes, questions about Trump’s own faculties, how Biden manages in meetings”.

Pulitzer Prize winner Glenn Greenwald was damning of the mainstream media’s covering for Biden on the Breaking Points online political program when interviewed by show co-founder Saagar Enjeti last Tuesday.

Greenwald said the first people to raise concerns about Biden were Democrat operators in 2018 and 2019, before the nomination for the 2020 election. This was a main theme of attacks by other Democrats running against Biden, including Cory Booker and Julian Castro.

Greenwald doubted Biden, who has been in politics his whole life, would quit. This could present problems for corporate media that reacted to the debate as if Biden’s performance was a complete shock and he now needed to step down for the good of the country.

Yet, after the debate, even in its lengthy editorial calling on Biden to step down for the good of the country, The New  York Times failed to offer a proper assessment of Biden’s presidency. It did not mention his disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, his fumbled handling of Russian President Vladimir Putin before the invasion of Ukraine, or his prevarications over Israel in Gaza. Nor did it discuss the inflationary effects of Biden’s various spending packages.

While the Times criticised Trump’s debate performance for its lies, the paper did not admit Trump had in fact run strong economic policy as president and had kept Putin and China’s Xi Jinping in check.

While the paper pointed to Biden’s ability to come back from the many personal tragedies of his life, it did not mention his many personal failings, top of which is also a propensity to lie. Remember, he had to withdraw from the 1988 presidential campaign when caught plagiarising former British Labour Leader Neil Kinnock.

Last week, Holman Jenkins wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “In the wake of the debate, the Times reported on Monday, ‘senior Biden officials are making the case privately that switching candidates would be unrealistic, risky and chaotic’.”

“What else are they going to say?” he continued.

“The chicken and egg situation is now fully institutionalised. With the press unable to question the President closely or even observe him, is this Mr Biden talking, or those with a stake in his presidency?”

For a clear-eyed, concise picture of how badly the Washington political media has covered Biden for the past four years, Barton Swaim’s July 3 piece in the WSJ – “Biden’s frailty isn’t breaking news” – is hard to go past.

Swaim sums it up: reporters just need to write what they hear and see.