Many in the media are trying to claim that the press was merely duped by Biden’s White House about the former president’s cognitive decline.
That simply isn’t true. The media actively took part in the coverup.
Don’t let them forget. I’ve got screenshots. ⤵️
I’ve done a number of threads on this but putting some of the most egregious stuff in one place.
Perhaps the most damming: Two weeks before the debate made Biden’s cognitive decline inescapable, @washingtonpost gave “Four Pinocchio’s” to allegedly edited videos showing Biden clearly displaying cognitive problems, dismissing them as “pernicious” efforts “to reinforce an existing stereotype” while quoting the White House to say the videos were “cheap fakes” — all to defend Biden against criticisms about his age and well-being.
That story came four days after a previous effort from @washingtonpost to write off these videos as Republican efforts to mislead voters: proof, the Post claimed, that “the politics of misinformation and conspiracy theories do not stop at the waters edge.”
To put a point on it: how can anyone claim that parroting the White House’s claims that real videos were “conspiracy theories” anything but an active cover up?
This isn’t about innocent objections. This is partisan hatchetry.
And these efforts go back months before that flurry.
When Special Counsel Hur put out a report revealing Biden’s cognitive issues, the @washingtonpost equated Biden forgetting the year his son died to anyone mixing up a name.
Again: this isn’t journalism. This is evasive PR.
And it wasn’t just the Post. @AP used the same exact framing to pretend the mental undoing of the guy with the nuclear codes was no big deal.
Not to be outdone, @CNN quoted an “assistant professor of communication sciences” to make the point that these slips “do not necessarily indicate a broader problem.”
Again, this isn’t reporting. This is obfuscation aimed at defending a political candidate.
Really. “The experts” said it was nothing to worry about. @NBCNews
We got rabid hand waiving from @nytimes. We needed medical experts to prove the evidence of our lying eyes that Biden was on the decline.
That was true for @nytimes in June, too. The week after the Post’s cheap fakes take, the Times lamented “the distorted, online version” of Biden promoted by conservatives, “a product of often misleading videos that play into and reinforce voters’ longstanding concerns about his age and abilities.”
What if — stay with me here — those concerns were right?
In coverage that would make Stalin blush, @nytimes published a piece back when concerns about Biden’s age were just starting, promoting his remaining “sharp and commanding in private” and his having “exhibited striking stamina” that even his young staff couldn’t match.
Really.
This headline and subhead from @nytimes presented without comment.
Nearly the entire media universe rushed to repeat these same claims — initially a concoction of the White House — to prop up Biden as the election approaches.
Here’s @ABC @NBCNews @CBSNews and @thehill
Some are worth calling out. Obligatory @MSNBC and Joy Reid mention.
This @AP side by side really captures what’s wrong with the corporate press.
And don’t forget, even as Biden was coming unmoored at the debate, the press were still trying to run interference for him.
@axios sent out an emergency tweet: “🚨 Biden has a cold.”
@CBSNews confirmed Biden had a cold. @NBCNews did too. Don’t worry guys. Just a cold! @KellyO
All the while, stories of how bad Biden’s cognitive decline was were waiting for the writing.
As the media was playing defense, White House guests were witnessing “troubling” signs.
@ABC, for surely innocent reasons, reported that fact a month later.
You aren’t imagining it. @TheWrap really did blame this all on Biden’s stutter.
I reported on this media conspiracy in progress back in February 2023 for @FreeBeacon.
So, no. I won’t let the press memoryhole this shameful turn.
Yes, the Biden White House lied about his cognitive decline. But the press played an active role in carrying that lie to the American people, in the lead up to an election.
They can’t walk it back now.
I think that means people of good faith need to keep bringing it up.
I had the chance to host the @AmerCompass Podcast last week, and naturally wanted to do so.
@AmerCompass @MarkHalperin @Holden_Court And as ever, if you’d like to kick me a couple bucks to keep tabs on the media, I’ve got a tip jar. paypal.com/donate/?busine…
@AmerCompass @MarkHalperin @Holden_Court I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: the biggest media story of Biden’s term is how the corporate press took part in the coverup of his cognitive decline, in an effort to support Biden in a presumed election against Trump.
It is beyond shameful. And we can’t forget it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It should go without saying, but the media cultivating this type of baseless hysteria about an admin for partisan reasons is much more of a threat to the underpinnings of our democracy than anything Trump has actually done.
Quick 🧵⤵️
A couple quotes:
“If you think that there’s this thing out there called America, and it’s exceptional, that means you don’t have to do anything” to stop fascism.
What? What does that even mean??
That if you, like millions of Americans!, believe in American exceptionalism…you’re a fascist?
Really?
“The powers that be can do whatever they want to you”
Trump can’t even deport people who have deportation orders against them without a federal judge stepping in.
I’m not sure people realize just how egregious some of NPR’s “journalism” has been. Amid the debate about defunding the network, I wanted to walk down memory lane to revisit some of its worst coverage.
There’s a lot. ⤵️
First, perhaps the most egregious display of activist journalism: their response to the Hunter Biden laptop story of corruption involving a major party candidate on the eve of the election.
Not only did @NPR not cover it, they bragged about refusing to do so.
Insofar as @NPR did cover the Hunter Biden scandal, they actively tried to cover it up.
They applauded Facebook & Twitter strangling the story as part of a push against “misinformation and conspiracy theories.”
The story, of course, turned out to be far from invented.
If you missed Trump’s address to Congress last night, I wouldn’t rely on media stories to explain it.
Rather than report on a speech viewers found “inspiring,” the corporate press played PR for Democrats.
Wanna know why trust in the press is underwater? Look. ⤵️
A @CBSNews poll of viewers found “A large majority of viewers approve” of Trump’s message, overwhelmingly describing it as “inspiring,” rather than “divisive.”
The speech was certainly partisan - and viewers skewed right.
But the press’s own view appears to slant their takes.
What leads me to claim that? Well, just look at how @CBSNews decided to report on the speech.
They tweeted out that “there was a horribly tense feeling,” and it was “filled with drama.”
Why focus on how their reporter felt, rather than viewers?
Having worked on the Hill I get the ubiquity of Politico Pro and its cost.
But I think it takes an enormous suspension of disbelief to call it a conspiracy theory to look askance at the millions of dollars the Biden admin paid the paper that ran this hatchet job on his opponent.
Which, to be clear, is exactly what outlets like @CNN are doing.
@CNN This from @axios seems particularly unreasonable.
It isn’t a “fake theory” to say that Politico is “funded by the government.” It is, to the tune of $8 million. That isn’t in dispute.