Alex Thompson, a journalist at Axios, snagged an award at the swanky White House Correspondents’ Dinner last month. This event is where members of the press mingle with the folks they report on, usually including the President. Donald Trump was a no-show, and his ongoing threats against the media cast a shadow over the evening. However, Thompson’s award for “aggressive reporting on President Biden’s cognitive decline” briefly shifted the focus back to the media’s relationship with Trump’s predecessor. Thompson highlighted, “Biden’s decline, and how it was covered up by those around him, shows that every White House, regardless of party, is capable of deception.” He admitted, “We—myself included—missed a lot of this story, and some people trust us less because of it. We should have done better.”
In the room, Thompson’s critique received applause, but not everyone agreed. Chuck Todd chimed in a couple of days later on Substack, using language that was a departure from his typically polite demeanor on “Meet the Press” on NBC. He dismissed the notion that the media missed the story as a “manufactured, right-wing premise.” Todd argued that the footage of Biden looking aged and frail was out there because the media “freaking showed it!” Thompson’s speech and Todd’s response reignited a dispute that erupted last summer after Biden’s rocky performance at the first Presidential debate sparked discussions about his mental sharpness and led to him dropping out of the race. The “right-wing premise” Todd mentioned resurfaced, with Trump’s former White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, accusing the “legacy media” of aiding “one of the greatest cover-ups and scandals in American history.”
Thompson and Jake Tapper’s new book, “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” further fueled the debate. The book, excerpted in various publications, accuses Tapper himself of stifling scrutiny of Biden’s health during his time as an anchor for CNN. Tapper acknowledged some validity to the criticism, admitting, “I did cover some of these issues, but not enough.” Reflecting on the situation, he expressed, “Knowing what I know now, obviously, I feel tremendous humility.” The notion of a coordinated media conspiracy appears far-fetched. The media landscape is diverse, and mainstream outlets have had a strained relationship with Biden and his team. If there was a cover-up, it seems ineffective, especially considering that the majority of the public had concerns about Biden’s age well before the debate.
The proposition that journalists unintentionally overlooked the full story of Biden’s decline seems more plausible. This perspective has been put forth by Thompson, Tapper, and numerous other prominent figures in journalism. Ben Smith, an editor, previously noted that the press failed to provide an accurate depiction of Biden’s presidency. The reluctance to dig deeper into Biden’s condition before the debate is a recurring theme. “Original Sin” sheds light on the concerns raised by insiders and aides, suggesting that many were hesitant to speak out until after the election. The book makes a compelling case that the media could have pushed harder to uncover the truth sooner. The discussion around Biden’s age and health is complex, with various factors at play. Ultimately, transparency and accountability are crucial in assessing a leader’s fitness for office.
