After Complete Exposure From Biden Debate Debacle, Journalists Continue Burning Down Their Industry

By Brad Slager

It continues to be a fascinating reality that our press industry is facing a reckoning as a result of Joe Biden melting down faster than a DQ Blizzard left on a truck hood in August. The news outlets and journalists continue to grapple with the undeniable evidence that they have been attempting to gaslight the country over Biden’s sliding condition. They seem to believe that denying they have been culpable is the solution.

It’s comedic, the way that reporters and journos – forced to face the Biden reality – have resorted to insisting past positions are not provable. The delusion is strong with this crowd. To start with the stone-turning, we look to Brian Stelter. He has been cropping up in numerous places attempting to repair the industry’s reputation but in the process, he displays the very issues that led to this meltdown.

He penned a lengthy excuse at Vox, and while posturing as if this is a sober analysis, he falls back on the already tired explanation of, “It’s complicated.” I will not even link to the screed, as there is every reason to disregard it as nothing but a desperate spin. Some sampling from his attempt:

The record of how Biden’s health was covered is complicated, just as aging is a complicated process.The national media wasn’t dodging the story: The biggest newspapers in the country published lengthy stories about Biden’s mental fitness. But questions about Biden’s fitness for office were not emphasized as much as they should have been.

Put simply, it is not complicated – at all. The press covered up the story of Biden’s slide, they discounted the evidence that came out, and they castigated those willing to report on that decline. For proof, we need not look anywhere beyond Stelter himself. It was mere days ago that he was part of the chorus of those insisting the video evidence of Biden’s faculty issues was fake and generated by partisan slander:

"The RNC and its avid followers in the conservative media earn Four Pinocchios." https://t.co/TFUMmCzUPC

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 15, 2024

Two Bidens: Some of us are watching long, complete speeches by the president. Others just watching short, out of context clips on social media. Two audiences are seeing two very different reflections. pic.twitter.com/fg8Sle9qpK

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 19, 2024

Here, he offers a deflective lie from “fact”-checker Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, to blame the GOP for the portrayal of Biden’s condition.

What is amusing is how Brian is held up as the paragon of journalism expertise, all while he exhibits the very issues plaguing the industry. At his former stomping ground, CNN, Hada Gold made a wan attempt to reconcile what has happened in her profession. She spoke with many reporters, and they were forced to admit they could have covered the demise better. The main question is, why did they not do so?

Ms. Gold made several observations but it is not always clear that she absorbed or accepted the ramifications. Hada brought up the hotly contested Wall Street Journal piece that managed to detail Biden’s issues, based on testimony from dozens of sources. That article did not generate more exploration and follow-up articles; instead, it was roundly criticized by those in the press, including CNN’s own media guru Oliver Darcy.

Now that the WSJ has been entirely vindicated, there will not be anything approaching admissions and apologies. Darcy, in a dose of convenient timing, has been on vacation in Africa, as his prior commentary on the dastardly coverage of Biden by right-of-center outlets has become blasted into confetti. Gold also mentioned some of the explanations she received when questioning some of those from the White House press corps.

“Several White House reporters told CNN that the coverage of Biden’s age and his mental stamina should have pushed harder. They cited several difficulties in doing so before the debate – from the obvious political motivations of sources who either want to protect Biden’s image or project a certain image, to the blowback from pursuing such reports, especially from the White House and Democrats.”

This is a statement that the facts become secondary to the possible results of reporting on things accurately. They were more concerned with any fallout from their being accurate.

Adding to this avoidance is CNN contributor Jill Filipovic. She attempted to pass off this current condition on the press as a result of being duped by the administration, as she said they “trusted” what they were being told. These are people who supposedly pride themselves on holding the powerful accountable – until those in power deliver their talking points, and threaten to disinvite you from the party circuit unless you oblige.

One of the more strained explanations was from Olivia Nuzzi. She came out with her revisionist tale, and stated that this was all a result of a “Conspiracy of Silence.” But in selling her attempt to blame this on administration obfuscation, she let it slip that she had been hearing details about Biden’s slide as far back as January. So, she was a participant in that same cover-up. When she was pressed about why she never managed to reveal this for half a year, Olivia tried to say her reporting often takes months to build a story. Yet, in revealing fashion, she managed to generate this report on Biden in a matter of days following the debate.

At Semaphore, Ben Smith shared impressions he received from Jill Abramson of the New York Times. Jill does sound somewhat honest about the issues of the press industry regarding this story, but you need to frame her candor with the reality of timing. She began by referencing that WSJ piece and declared that they “did not deliver” (even as they have been shown now to have been completely accurate), and then went on to assess the condition of the press.

Read more