At times, a “not guilty” plea may carry more weight than simply admitting guilt. This notion emerged as the media’s inability to address Joe Biden’s declining mental and physical state has come under scrutiny.
Last week, former CNN analyst Chris Cillizza offered a rather thin rationale, suggesting that the inherent partisan bias in political journalism made the press overly trusting of the Biden administration.
However, this explanation feels inadequate and troubling, particularly since some in the media seem to lash out at those raising concerns about Biden’s capabilities.
For one thing, someone who occupies such a powerful position should be held to account, and secondly, trusting Biden to tell the truth appears misguided.
“Research shows that reporters typically vote for Democrats much more than Republicans,” Cillizza noted, reflecting on the industry’s shortcomings regarding the ex-president’s deterioration. “What happened was probably an unconscious bias rather than a conscious one. Reporters covering the White House seemed willing to accept the Biden team’s assurances without much skepticism; they were overly trusting.”
He then made an obvious point: if the president were a Republican, the press would not have so willingly accepted the administration’s reassurances about his mental and physical health.
“They failed to ask enough challenging questions,” he stated, adding that the media’s skepticism was lacking, especially if the officeholder had been Donald Trump.
Cillizza emphasized, “There should have been tougher inquiries directed at Joe Biden and his staff regarding his health. That’s definitely the case.”
This raises concerns about a reporter’s readiness to take the president at his word. Shouldn’t critical thinking be the backbone of journalism? Given Biden’s long history of stretching the truth, it’s alarming to think that a reporter would blindly trust him to relay accurate information.
If anyone rivaled Trump’s notorious dishonesty, it’s Biden, who has a documented history of misrepresentation.
Biden has made countless dubious claims, such as alleging he was arrested in South Africa while seeking to meet Nelson Mandela—something that never happened. He also stated he met with leaders of the Tree of Life Synagogue following a tragic anti-Semitic attack, which is inaccurate. Moreover, he has taken a public stance of having opposed the Iraq War from the outset, a claim that doesn’t hold up. He has repeatedly indicated he participated in civil rights marches and was arrested during them when, in reality, he was not.
His assertions about receiving support from the NAACP or being appointed to the Naval Academy have similarly crumbled under scrutiny.
In the realm of personal anecdotes, he has exaggerated details surrounding his military service, attributing unsubstantiated tales to himself, such as being shot at while in Iraq, which turned out to be false. The list goes on, including misleading statements about his educational background during his initial presidential run.
Biden’s tumultuous narrative even extends to his family life, with claims about the tragic loss of his son Bo being misrepresented, not to mention bizarre and unverifiable tales about his relatives.
One wonders, what other justifications can exist beyond sheer incompetence or ulterior motives for journalists accepting the White House’s narratives about Biden’s health, given the president’s frequent departures from the truth in other areas?
It seems that those who take the president’s words at face value are more akin to stenographers than reporters. Anyone who believes Biden without verification might as well be part of his spokesperson team.
