A misleading headline, an outrageous lie, and a surprising aftermath

Following up on how two major news stories developed after they broke

In this superheated election season, news stories flash and and disappear with lightning speed. Sometimes, it can be eye-opening to follow up — to see what happens in the days following the initial strike. I’ll do that here, regarding two major stories over the past week.

First, a bad headline and its aftermath.

This past Monday, the New York Times sent out a “breaking news” story, the headline of which breathlessly announced that a doctor who specializes in Parkinson’s Disease had made eight visits to the Biden White House in a recent eight-month period.

Most people reading this might reasonably gather that President Biden may have Parkinson’s Disease and is hiding it from the public. The story itself didn’t support that reaction. Many paragraphs down, it dutifully reported that the same doctor (who has a broader specialty) had also visited the Obama White House in 2012 ten times, and has been a regular consultant to the White House medical team for a dozen years.

But as we all know by now, headlines matter. Immensely. We later learned — due partly to a statement released by the White House — that Biden is not being treated for Parkinson’s, and that this doctor also specializes in movement and mobility issues, which Biden does have.

Joe Biden holds news conference at the 2024 NATO Summit on July 11, 2024 after weeks of sometimes misleading coverage regarding his health and ability / Getty Images

But the genie was out of the bottle. Soon after the Times story came out, many other news organizations followed suit. Some echoed the headline almost precisely. Here’s one from ABC News: “Parkinson’s expert visited White House 8 times in 8 months, met with Biden’s doctor.” Then there was another round of coverage — “explainer” stories about why everyone seemed to be connecting Biden and Parkinson’s Disease. Vox’s version was “The controversy over Biden and Parkinson’s Disease, explained.” The upshot: A whole lot of people, already concerned about Biden’s health came away with the notion that he may have, or probably has, a serious degenerative disease.

Given the intensive media focus on Biden’s abilities following last month’s disastrous debate, the Parkinson’s angle didn’t help a candidacy that already was under heavy attack. The media has been out of control on this, as journalist Jennifer Schulze documented. In the week following the debate, the Times alone ran 192 pieces related to Biden’s age. In that same time period, the Times had 92 stories on Donald Trump (and this in a week when the Supreme Court had ruled he has immunity for official acts).

It’s not the news media’s mission, of course, to help anyone’s candidacy, but it is our responsibility to accurately and fairly inform the public. That headline in arguably America’s most influential news organization did the opposite. Although it was technically accurate, I found it unfair, especially when sent out as “breaking news.” It wasn’t.

---

---

Second, an outrageous Trump lie and its aftermath. It began when Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social platform last week that he didn’t know anything about Project 2025, the radical rightwing plan intended as a blueprint for a second Trump term. With provisions for dismantling whole government departments, changing taxes to benefit the richest Americans, deporting millions of immigrants, and installing loyalists at every level, it’s quite a scary document. Trump also claimed he doesn’t know who is behind it — more nonsense, since some of his closest allies are deeply involved.

In this case, what happened next is more encouraging. As an unintended result of Trump’s effort to distance himself from Project 2025, many news organizations have figured out a way to cover the plan.

His denial apparently provided the drama and conflict needed to get the point across. It was what we in journalism call a “news peg” — a timely development on which to hang the coverage. For example, a CBS News “Moneywatch” story: “Project 2025 would overhaul the U.S. tax system. Here’s how it could impact you.” Or NPR’s report: “It seems like Project 2025 is everywhere. But what is it?” CNN reported that 140 former Trump officials are involved in the project, funded by the Heritage Foundation, and there was lots more in almost every news organization.

By the end of this week, a new poll showed that 50 percent of voters were associating Project 2025 with Trump. Not all of this is the result of media coverage. The Biden campaign has also created ads and a website connecting Trump to the radical plan.

In short, “Trump’s efforts to run from Project 2025 are blowing up in his face,” as Greg Sargent of The New Republic noted Friday on Twitter.

Another crazy week lies ahead, with the Republican National Convention beginning in Milwaukee and with President Biden’s fate as the Democratic nominee still under heavy fire.

I’ll be tracking it here and in the Guardian. I want to thank all subscribers here, and to note that American Crisis hit the 10,000 subscriber mark this past week. I’m very grateful to have all of you along for the wild and extremely consequential ride ahead.

To restate this newsletter’s mission: I’m focusing on the relationship between democracy and the media. I want to encourage Jay Rosen’s idea — “not the odds, but the stakes” of the presidential campaign and election. In other words, less on the horserace and more on the consequences.

If you are a paid subscriber, the comments here are open to you. Please let me know how you think the presidential race is developing, and — particularly — if you have changed your mind about Biden’s candidacy and why or why not.