Biden’s disastrous debate performance brought to a screeching halt a multi-year campaign from the media to present the president as mentally fit.
Do you really remember how hard the press pushed you not to trust your lyin’ eyes on Biden’s decline?
Start here ⤵️
I suspect most of you remember the allegations from the White House that videos showing Biden behaving erratically were “cheap fakes.”
The media rushed to repeat this claim. Look at the extent @nytimes went to say you didn’t see anything and that Biden was fine.
Perhaps the wildest was @washingtonpost, who gave “Four Pinocchio’s” to videos showing Biden displaying cognitive problems, dismissing them as fakes, “pernicious” efforts “to reinforce an existing stereotype.”
Part of their defense was that Biden “doesn’t dance.”
Really.
Just look at this headline from @AP.
And it only gets worse from there.
Again, your lyin eyes are the problem. Not Biden. Allegedly.
@AP took specific issue with one supposed “fake”: a video where Biden freezes and needs to be led off a stage.
The video looks brutal.
But why would you believe what you can see, rather than Biden’s and Jimmy Kimmel’s comms teams?
@TheWrap blamed Biden’s stutter.
Really. Line highlighted.
@NBCNews lamented how hard all these deceptive “cheap fakes” were for our noble fact checkers.
But this headline was everywhere.
An obviously dubious statement from a White House official was repeated as gospel truth.
Here’s @ABC, @NBCNews, @thedailybeast and @CNN.
Really. I’m not exaggerating. There are even more at my full write up (link is in bio) but here’s another four boxer courtesy of @washingtonpost, @CBSNews, @Salon and @RollingStone
But what you may have forgotten are the ways that this was just the latest attempt from the press to hide the fact that the president might lack the mental wherewithal to execute the duties of his office.
Remember the special counsel report on Biden’s documents?
Back in February, special counsel Robert Hur determined that Biden lacked the mental fortitude to face a jury without seeming like a feeble, affable old man.
The press were incensed. @nytimes threw up the roadblocks, saying we needed more evidence to make a real diagnosis.
@washingtonpost claimed that what had been disclosed about Biden was just like anyone mixing up the names of their children.
Nothing to see here!
It was a popular refrain. Here’s @AP doing the same. Just like mixing up your kids’ names!
How silly! Even the leader of the free world does it!
@CNN assured us that it was nothing to worry about, Biden was fine, especially at his age.
They quoted a comms professor as their authoritative source.
These built off longstanding claims that criticism of Biden’s mental capacity were “ageist.”
Here’s @TIME pushing that claim repeatedly.
And some more from @Forbes, @NPR, @TheView and @Will_Bunch
Perhaps the richest of them all came last year from @nytimes.
Biden was so spry and vigorous that his young staff couldn’t keep up! Everyone was saying so!
It reads like North Korean propaganda.
The debate dashed this narrative that the press had worked so hard to build. Biden has lost even the editorial boards of @nytimes, @BostonGlobe and more.
It’s time, the press laments, to move on. And maybe we should’ve seen this coming.
I don’t think it’s a mystery why this topic wasn’t covered well, @CNN
That isn’t to say that some outlets haven’t maintained the fiction.
Biden had a cold at the debate. That was the problem, they claimed. I won’t let @CBSNews, @axios, and @NBCNews forget.
Or @AP…whatever this is.
It should go without saying, but the media actively working to hide from the American people that the commander and chief is exhibiting signs of serious cognitive decline is an enormous problem.
As I conclude in my newsletter (again, link in bio):
And that the press, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say, pushed this fiction to give one side a leg up in the election?
I think the media’s word for that is “election interference”
I know it’s hard to believe, but there are many more examples of the media covering for Biden’s mental state than what I could fit in this thread.
I know there’s a lot going on but we just had a media conspiracy implode that I think captures something important about the corporate press.
Did you hear about how Trump was allegedly going after John Bolton as retribution for his criticism?
Well…follow along ⤵️
We saw a week straight of media suggestions that Trump was abusing the powers of the state to deal out “retribution” to John Bolton following the news that the FBI (“Trump’s DOJ!” headlines rang out) raided his house.
We were in “unsettling” times, to hear @nytimes tell it.
The *Editorial Board* at @nytimes put out an even more dramatic statement, asking who Trump’s next payback victim after Bolton would be.
A single poll has bootstrapped a media narrative that DC residents are outraged by Trump’s takeover.
I poked around the cross tabs of the poll — of 600 or so of DC’s more comfortable residents — and I think it’s pretty suspect.
How come? Follow along: ⤵️
Let’s start with the poll. The @washingtonpost talked to 604 people, of whom 90% — 90%! — self-described as living in “very good” or “good” neighborhoods.
So, fine. 80% of people who like where they live in DC are upset.
But even beyond that, it’s worth asking whether this poll really captures DC’s opinion.
In the poll, only 31% describe crime as a “serious” or “very serious” problem in DC.
When @washingtonpost asked this same question in May, *50%* said it was a serious problem.
I feel like I’m losing my mind about the Biden autopen pardons.
The former president said he made every decision. His staff says that he didn’t actually make the final call on thousands of them.
We’re supposed to treat this as normal?
I try to unpack. ⤵️
This got new life from a Biden interview w/ @nytimes.
NYT leads by repeating Biden’s claim that he made the calls…burying the admissions that 1) he really didn’t & 2) where he allegedly did, the aids sending details to the autopen weren’t in the room when the call was made…
…instead, they relied on what senior staff had allegedly heard, which was then passed along.
The piece ends with the revelation that Biden’s then-chief of staff gave the final sign off.
Given what the former admin has lied about, why should we trust this reporting of events?
The coverage of the anti-ICE riots in LA is perhaps the clearest example of advocacy “journalism” in Trump’s second term.
Reading the reporting, you would never know the most significant fact: the American people support Trump’s deportations.
Follow along ⤵️
First, the facts about the riots.
You’ve seen the burning cars, looting & clashes between police & protestors.
Demonstrators blocked the freeway, attacked ICE agents, all in an effort to prevent the deportations of illegal aliens. Trump deployed troops to allow ICE to operate.
As @MarkHalperin and @seanspicer discussed, the situation in LA is so tranquil that the mayor has instituted a curfew for the city.
The new book “Original Sin” from Jake Tapper & Alex Thompson recounts the effort to cover up Biden’s cognitive decline ahead of the election. The authors point to many guilty parties.
The one glaring omission? Their colleagues in the corporate press. Follow along ⤵️
There are numerous dramatic reveals. The Biden team considered condoning him to a wheelchair? Maybe in his fog he forgot about the border?
But as I worked on a review for @commonplc, the one thought that I kept coming back to was that you can’t tell this story without the press.
Perhaps no one was more vital to the continued fiction that Biden had it together than the media.
Tapper and Thompson even highlight some of the telling moments.
Biden’s cancer diagnosis is a tragedy I know first-hand.
But our sympathy can’t silence questions about Biden’s cognitive decline, clarified just days ago by the Hur tape.
The media tried to bury the story then. They’re trying again now.
I’ve got the receipts. ⤵️
When the report first came out in 2024, outlets rushed to demean Hur, accusing him of serving as a Republican hatchet man.
Just look at this take from @USATODAY, who assembled sympathetic voices to make the case that Hur “crossed the line.” They found an expert to call it a “disgrace” and then featured the obviously unbiased Eric Holder to lead a section titled “Way too many gratuitous remarks.”
The audio makes clear that Hur, if anything, played down how alarming the claims were.
(If you haven’t listened to the Hur audio yet, you should.)