NOAH ROTHMAN: Reporters Congratulate Themselves on Being Shamed into Doing Their Jobs.
New York magazine writer Olivia Nuzzi’s deep dive into the worst-kept secret in American politics may be the most damning entry in this genre. Biden is reported to have “stared blankly” at a “Democratic megadonor and family friend” until he was reminded to say “hello.” “Longtime friends of the Biden family, who spoke to me on the condition of anonymity, were shocked to find that the president did not remember their names,” Nuzzi wrote. One guest at a White House event came away from it appalled by the president’s inability to make it to the end of the reception. “The guest wasn’t sure they could vote for Biden, since the guest was now open to an idea that they had previously dismissed as right-wing propaganda,” the report continued. “The president may not really be the acting president after all.”
This is hard-hitting investigative reporting, and it takes time to develop the sources required to flesh stories like these out. Perhaps it was the debate alone that shook those in Biden’s orbit out of their complacency and made these dispatches possible. But that doesn’t alone suffice to explain the sudden enthusiasm reporters have shown in their effort to chase those sources and their stories down. Nor does it explain the degree to which journalists have declined to paper over the president’s manifest impairment.
In a segment on his CNN program on Tuesday, host Jake Tapper exposed the degree to which even Biden’s efforts to reassure Democrats of his acuity have fallen short by simply reading verbatim transcripts of the president’s extemporaneous remarks. It was an effective tactic, but also one that could have been employed at any point in the president’s term — throughout which, Biden has mused over the “cumalidefasredsulc” benefits of student-debt forgiveness, touted his efforts to repair the country’s “bldhyindclapding,” and summed up his affection for America in a single word: “Asufutimaehaehfutbw.”
Allen and VandeHei’s observation about the press corps’ motives here is undeniably true, but it’s not something of which the press should be proud. The robust display of retrospective journalism to which Americans have been privy these last twelve days is a function of reporters’ professional embarrassment, yes, but also their anger over their own exploitation. An unspoken compact has been broken, and that infidelity must be punished. After all, you cannot be scorned if you never loved in the first place.
And as Ace of Spades notes, keeping the readers in love with the current Democrat president (or at least not letting them know about his cognitive decline in recent years) was part of their business model, until Biden’s pathetic debate performance and equally bad follow-up interviews with George Stephanopoulos and the since-fired AM radio host Andrea Lawful-Sanders have made it impossible to hide the decline:
[Matt Taibbi] points out that the media has changed its “commercial business model.” Previously, he says (a bit naively) that the corporate media attempted to inform a broad audience.
Under Trump, the media became more overtly biased, of course. He says that’s because Trump was a huge draw commercially, even for — especially for — leftwing news outlets. They knew that when they ran segments about Trump, their ratings went up. When they posted about Trump, their clicks went up.
So under no circumstances would they stop making their channels and papers Trump News 24/7. This would benefit Trump, of course — if they reported on him neutrally.
So the new business model they chose would be to continue filling their airwaves and newspapers with almost nothing but Trump, but they would appease their audiences, and their own consciences, by making it unrelentingly negative and biased coverage.
As David Harsanyi wrote yesterday, “If You Were Duped On Biden’s Cognitive Decline, You’re Too Dumb To Be A Journalist,” which is of course true — but Biden’s former stenographers need some excuse to explain to their readers their latest 180 pivot.