Saw the report on Biden’s doctor and Parkinson’s first on Fox News and couldn’t believe the NYT picked it up. Hugely irresponsible. However, this may all work to Biden’s favor if it draws media attention—finally—away from Trump, and the press does its job by focusing on the realities of a Project 2025. The NYT will emerge from this with egg on their faces. The American public is not stupid, just busy. They’re paying attention now.
Glad you’ve reached the 10,000 mark on readership. Just keep going.
Here is why that doctor regularly visits the White House:
“Prior to the pandemic, and following its end, he has held regular Neurology Clinics at the White House Medical Clinic in support of the thousands of active-duty members assigned in support of White House operations,” adding, “Many military personnel experience neurological issues related to their service, and Dr. Cannard regularly visits the WHMU as part of this General Neurology practice.”
Although NY Times often does some great journalism it is not always trustworthy and can be biased (just ask the Clinton’s about their repeatedly inaccurate Whitewater coverage). It’s long past time people —especially in the media — realize that.
As a cynical democrat who watched the NYT and the mainstream media savage Al Gore, giving us Iraq, and bury Hilary Clinton with HER EMAILS, giving us a million more deaths from Covid, this is just another instance. I can imaging the NYT bosses saying, "Thank god for a bad debate. Otherwise we'd have to continue our campaign based on Biden being 3 years older than Trump."
It was also the NY Times that drove the coverage of the completely bogus Whitewater scandal that came straight from right wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife’s Arkansas Project.
Outstanding column, as always! Yes, the Parkinson's episode was incredibly misleading, even to some of my highly informed friends! It was outrageous.
Also, praise to you. For quite some time, you have hammered on "not the odds, but the stakes' *and* Project 2025 *and* the need to publish 45's imbecilic ramblings. Perhaps the fact-basednews organizations will listen and heed.
Very troubled by the way the media covered Biden's State Dept. press conference. He gave some thoughtful answers on tough foreign policy issues, but of course his verbal mistakes led the coverage. Worse, the coverage of his answers seemed to distort what he said. He was asked why he no longer viewed himself as a "bridge" to younger political leaders, and he essentially said the times had grown far more dangerous, and he felt someone seasoned like him, who knew all the world's leaders personally, should continue the work he was doing. He also said that he was sure a number of Democrats could beat Trump, but again, that he had the ability and the wisdom to forge bipartisan agreements with Congress. Asked about any regrets over Israel-Hamas, he very clearly articulated his frustration with Israel's war cabinet, and also regretted that the U.S. effort to build a pier to help deliver badly needed aid to Gazans hadn't worked as expected. No one is asking the media to ignore his verbal lapses, but that lapse was in the context of a much longer, more thoughtful press conference. And too many media organizations included one lapse that wasn't part of the press conference -- his inadvertent and fast corrected introduction of President Zelenskyy as President Putin. And really, the Post and NYTimes main story both ran with the lazy "5 Takeaways" headline which really trivialized the press conference.
Reporters were able to learn about the doctor visits from WH visitor logs. Trump administration didn't release those logs, so no telling whether or how often the same doctor might have been to the WH during Trump's tenure. This was reported down in the body of the NYT story.
I'm horrified by the number of Americans, celebrities, and corporate media who call for Biden to step down without doing their homework.
1. BIDEN AND HARRIS ARE A PACKAGE DEAL. Voting for one elects the other. Harris is just 59 and the Constitution has provisions for her to replace Joe if he resigns or can't do the job. So explain to me why people behave as though she's invisible? Replacing Joe is absolutely, totally unnecessary because she is RIGHT THERE and she polls better than any of the other - white, mostly male - possibilities. America elected a Black man. Why are people ignoring the near-certainty of a female President? Biden loves America. He isn't in this for ego. He knows he's most likely to win and will step down as soon as he needs to. WE WILL HAVE A PRESIDENT HARRIS, so why is she being treated as though she doesn't exist?
2. No one else can legally use Biden's war chest except Biden/Harris. Any other candidate would start their campaign with just 4 months and no money, since they haven't been fundraising. How would they pay for staff, ad buys, and travel? No money = you lose big-time.
3. Historically --- Bill Cliinton polled at 25% at this same point in a 3-way race and won with over 40% of the vote. Humphrey, who had 8 months to campaign (vs. our 4) lost, and one advisor said that was due to voters being enraged because they had no voice in his selection. I cannot even be rational about my own rage with those who are telling me my primary vote for Biden doesn't count because THEY have decided he can't run. That's not how a democracy works. We voted. We chose Biden. And I insist on my vote being counted.
4. This intraparty division is exactly what Trump has tried to achieve for years. He knows only Biden is centrist enough to unite progressives, independents, and former Republicans into a winning coalition. I've yet to see anyone poll above Biden beyond the margin of error (3%). He's a known quantity who's done the job better than anyone since FDR. Everyone else is unknown, and oppo research would shred them. If you want to win, Biden is the best bet. Plus, he's moving up in the polls and this Never Biden crap is galvanizing the base.
5. If voters and the media took 25% of the energy they're putting into panicking about Biden and destroying his campaign, and put that into electing him - donating, volunteering, talking to friends and family about Project 2025, signing up to work the polls - we would have a Blue Wave in November that would change our nation. We are wasting time and energy instead of making the united, serious effort we need to win.
6. Even at this point, changing candidates would, in some states, trigger lawsuits from the GOP. A court would have to rule, and what if it's a MAGA judge? Would they block the change so we had Biden on some state ballots and someone else on others? And if a Democrat won a state where the ballot was changed, that gives Trump grounds to claim the election was stolen and file more lawsuits. The damage to public trust in our election process would be immense. And I can see, in my mind's eye, months of chaos and hysteria. We might not know who won the election until court ruling after court ruling took place. What would happen in America and the world during those months, maybe a YEAR, of turmoil?
I knew that. I've actually been watching to see if you took a side. :) Sorry! I should've clarified that I'm not angry with you. I was talking about those who call for Biden's head without knowing or caring about the consequences of a switch. I'm especially angry at the cruelty. Joe Biden isn't running out of ego - he loves America, he loves us, and he brought us back from the abyss. And this is how we repay him -- by breaking his heart. You are not one of those doing that, though, and I appreciate that so much and again, should've made it clear.
Great point about the history of elections. I remember well '92, when the media portrayed Clinton as too scandal-tarred and untrustworthy to win (remember the photo negative of him on the cover of TIME?). Four years earlier, H.W. Bush couldn't shake the "wimp" label, was losing badly to the Dukakis in the summer polls, and was savaged for picking Quayle as his VP. He won in a landslide.
Four years ago, Biden was counted out by the same pundits after terrible showings in Iowa and New Hampshire. Four years before that, they said anointed Hillary as Obama's heir.
And we're supposed to believe they've been blessed with divine wisdom this time around?
The idea that Biden is toast because of one bad debate that has had minimal effect (2 points at most) on the polls two months before Labor Day is ludicrous.
Thanks for the stats, Margaret. Sadly, it seems that the NYT and WashPost have gone beyond coverage and have moved into "Dump Biden" campaign mode.
I agree he needs to step down even though he's still clearly a better option of the two (decency over demagoguery). But if he stays and wins, his age and ability will continue to be a daily distraction from the job of running the country.
BTW, congratulations on reaching 10,000! You've got your base! Maybe this is the start of your run for office in 2026 or 2028? :-)
Am I wrong to suspect/hope that the Times’ 5000 word editorial on Trump being unfit for office is an indication that editors and publishers are waking up to the frightening realities of a Trump victory in November and, perhaps, “growing a set.”
Doesn't come close to making up for the knee-jerk editorial calling on Biden to drop out within hours of the debate. One bad night erases four years of steady leadership and accomplishments? Really? Made as much sense as their ridiculous double endorsement of Klobuchar and Warren (who represented different policy wings of the party) in 2020. Sophomoric thinking and decision making. If Biden's too old to run again, that editorial should and could have been written a year ago when there was still time to have an open, democratic, competitive primary process to choose a successor.
Margaret, thank you for pointing out the numerical difference between too few "bad Trump" headlines and the avalanche of "aging Biden" headlines in the *New York Times* after the debate. And you're so right about how Trump messed himself up by giving media outlets a news peg for Project 2025 (thank god).
In that post, I cite one of your columns a decade ago at the *Times* when you were Public Editor: "The Conflict and the Coverage," which took on criticism of the NYT's coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from both sides. I recall being blown away by it at the time, and I still am. I can only look at the NYT's current coverage of the same topic and shake my head (and weep). Headlines really do matter these days, no matter what Joe Kahn says.
In terms of my own thoughts about the election, I think Biden needs to step aside — I've thought this for months, but I'm basically only talking about it in semi-private forums like this one. The repetitive frenzy in social media or public columns does not help make change. Thanks for the serious analysis of media you're doing here.
Agree completely on NYT coverage -- 192 stories in one week is assasination-level. Are they still pouting that he won't give them an interview? That said, the debate, the freeze when everyone around him was dancing, the reports from foreign leaders, the White Houuse shiftiness, all have me thinking Joe has to put country over ego and step down. We can't afford another Trump term, and Biden shouldn't commit an RBG and destroy great accomplishments by hanging on too long.
There is a huge difference between what Biden is doing and RBG. I have no doubt he can make it through the election and beyond. His in depth medical exams, which were released in full — indicate he has no serious health or brain problems although he does have neuropathy and arthritis in his feet. If he has to step aside later — or God forbid dies — Harris is more than capable of replacing him. It would be an extremely smooth transition given how involved she has been in domestic policy and foreign affairs as well as the very experienced, excellent team the administration has in place.
Saw the report on Biden’s doctor and Parkinson’s first on Fox News and couldn’t believe the NYT picked it up. Hugely irresponsible. However, this may all work to Biden’s favor if it draws media attention—finally—away from Trump, and the press does its job by focusing on the realities of a Project 2025. The NYT will emerge from this with egg on their faces. The American public is not stupid, just busy. They’re paying attention now.
Glad you’ve reached the 10,000 mark on readership. Just keep going.
Thanks, Mary!
Here is why that doctor regularly visits the White House:
“Prior to the pandemic, and following its end, he has held regular Neurology Clinics at the White House Medical Clinic in support of the thousands of active-duty members assigned in support of White House operations,” adding, “Many military personnel experience neurological issues related to their service, and Dr. Cannard regularly visits the WHMU as part of this General Neurology practice.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/08/politics/parkinsons-specialist-white-house/index.html#
Although NY Times often does some great journalism it is not always trustworthy and can be biased (just ask the Clinton’s about their repeatedly inaccurate Whitewater coverage). It’s long past time people —especially in the media — realize that.
Here’s a gift link to a new essay by Bernie Sanders. He makes a strong case and some solid points https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/13/opinion/joe-biden-president.html?unlocked_article_code=1.600.MdWT.dMB6AIG4p4Iw&smid=url-share
As a cynical democrat who watched the NYT and the mainstream media savage Al Gore, giving us Iraq, and bury Hilary Clinton with HER EMAILS, giving us a million more deaths from Covid, this is just another instance. I can imaging the NYT bosses saying, "Thank god for a bad debate. Otherwise we'd have to continue our campaign based on Biden being 3 years older than Trump."
It was also the NY Times that drove the coverage of the completely bogus Whitewater scandal that came straight from right wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife’s Arkansas Project.
Outstanding column, as always! Yes, the Parkinson's episode was incredibly misleading, even to some of my highly informed friends! It was outrageous.
Also, praise to you. For quite some time, you have hammered on "not the odds, but the stakes' *and* Project 2025 *and* the need to publish 45's imbecilic ramblings. Perhaps the fact-basednews organizations will listen and heed.
Thank you for your article. I believe that as long as you have corporate media you will never have balanced media.
Keep writing Margaret‼️
Very troubled by the way the media covered Biden's State Dept. press conference. He gave some thoughtful answers on tough foreign policy issues, but of course his verbal mistakes led the coverage. Worse, the coverage of his answers seemed to distort what he said. He was asked why he no longer viewed himself as a "bridge" to younger political leaders, and he essentially said the times had grown far more dangerous, and he felt someone seasoned like him, who knew all the world's leaders personally, should continue the work he was doing. He also said that he was sure a number of Democrats could beat Trump, but again, that he had the ability and the wisdom to forge bipartisan agreements with Congress. Asked about any regrets over Israel-Hamas, he very clearly articulated his frustration with Israel's war cabinet, and also regretted that the U.S. effort to build a pier to help deliver badly needed aid to Gazans hadn't worked as expected. No one is asking the media to ignore his verbal lapses, but that lapse was in the context of a much longer, more thoughtful press conference. And too many media organizations included one lapse that wasn't part of the press conference -- his inadvertent and fast corrected introduction of President Zelenskyy as President Putin. And really, the Post and NYTimes main story both ran with the lazy "5 Takeaways" headline which really trivialized the press conference.
Reporters were able to learn about the doctor visits from WH visitor logs. Trump administration didn't release those logs, so no telling whether or how often the same doctor might have been to the WH during Trump's tenure. This was reported down in the body of the NYT story.
I'm horrified by the number of Americans, celebrities, and corporate media who call for Biden to step down without doing their homework.
1. BIDEN AND HARRIS ARE A PACKAGE DEAL. Voting for one elects the other. Harris is just 59 and the Constitution has provisions for her to replace Joe if he resigns or can't do the job. So explain to me why people behave as though she's invisible? Replacing Joe is absolutely, totally unnecessary because she is RIGHT THERE and she polls better than any of the other - white, mostly male - possibilities. America elected a Black man. Why are people ignoring the near-certainty of a female President? Biden loves America. He isn't in this for ego. He knows he's most likely to win and will step down as soon as he needs to. WE WILL HAVE A PRESIDENT HARRIS, so why is she being treated as though she doesn't exist?
2. No one else can legally use Biden's war chest except Biden/Harris. Any other candidate would start their campaign with just 4 months and no money, since they haven't been fundraising. How would they pay for staff, ad buys, and travel? No money = you lose big-time.
3. Historically --- Bill Cliinton polled at 25% at this same point in a 3-way race and won with over 40% of the vote. Humphrey, who had 8 months to campaign (vs. our 4) lost, and one advisor said that was due to voters being enraged because they had no voice in his selection. I cannot even be rational about my own rage with those who are telling me my primary vote for Biden doesn't count because THEY have decided he can't run. That's not how a democracy works. We voted. We chose Biden. And I insist on my vote being counted.
4. This intraparty division is exactly what Trump has tried to achieve for years. He knows only Biden is centrist enough to unite progressives, independents, and former Republicans into a winning coalition. I've yet to see anyone poll above Biden beyond the margin of error (3%). He's a known quantity who's done the job better than anyone since FDR. Everyone else is unknown, and oppo research would shred them. If you want to win, Biden is the best bet. Plus, he's moving up in the polls and this Never Biden crap is galvanizing the base.
5. If voters and the media took 25% of the energy they're putting into panicking about Biden and destroying his campaign, and put that into electing him - donating, volunteering, talking to friends and family about Project 2025, signing up to work the polls - we would have a Blue Wave in November that would change our nation. We are wasting time and energy instead of making the united, serious effort we need to win.
6. Even at this point, changing candidates would, in some states, trigger lawsuits from the GOP. A court would have to rule, and what if it's a MAGA judge? Would they block the change so we had Biden on some state ballots and someone else on others? And if a Democrat won a state where the ballot was changed, that gives Trump grounds to claim the election was stolen and file more lawsuits. The damage to public trust in our election process would be immense. And I can see, in my mind's eye, months of chaos and hysteria. We might not know who won the election until court ruling after court ruling took place. What would happen in America and the world during those months, maybe a YEAR, of turmoil?
I haven’t expressed a “stay or go” on Biden. I take all your well-made points, Josette.
I knew that. I've actually been watching to see if you took a side. :) Sorry! I should've clarified that I'm not angry with you. I was talking about those who call for Biden's head without knowing or caring about the consequences of a switch. I'm especially angry at the cruelty. Joe Biden isn't running out of ego - he loves America, he loves us, and he brought us back from the abyss. And this is how we repay him -- by breaking his heart. You are not one of those doing that, though, and I appreciate that so much and again, should've made it clear.
I wasn’t taking it personally! Just clarifying.
Great point about the history of elections. I remember well '92, when the media portrayed Clinton as too scandal-tarred and untrustworthy to win (remember the photo negative of him on the cover of TIME?). Four years earlier, H.W. Bush couldn't shake the "wimp" label, was losing badly to the Dukakis in the summer polls, and was savaged for picking Quayle as his VP. He won in a landslide.
Four years ago, Biden was counted out by the same pundits after terrible showings in Iowa and New Hampshire. Four years before that, they said anointed Hillary as Obama's heir.
And we're supposed to believe they've been blessed with divine wisdom this time around?
The idea that Biden is toast because of one bad debate that has had minimal effect (2 points at most) on the polls two months before Labor Day is ludicrous.
Great insights, Craig. Thank you for sharing them! :)
Stay strong, stay safe, and stay sane.
Thanks for the stats, Margaret. Sadly, it seems that the NYT and WashPost have gone beyond coverage and have moved into "Dump Biden" campaign mode.
I agree he needs to step down even though he's still clearly a better option of the two (decency over demagoguery). But if he stays and wins, his age and ability will continue to be a daily distraction from the job of running the country.
BTW, congratulations on reaching 10,000! You've got your base! Maybe this is the start of your run for office in 2026 or 2028? :-)
Ha, no thanks on running for office but appreciate your encouragement!
CNN is also all in on the Dump Biden bandwagon.
This was an excellent commentary. Thank you Margaret.
Am I wrong to suspect/hope that the Times’ 5000 word editorial on Trump being unfit for office is an indication that editors and publishers are waking up to the frightening realities of a Trump victory in November and, perhaps, “growing a set.”
I think there are some very good people on the editorial board, and they clearly prevailed in this case. Change of direction? Let’s stay tuned.
Doesn't come close to making up for the knee-jerk editorial calling on Biden to drop out within hours of the debate. One bad night erases four years of steady leadership and accomplishments? Really? Made as much sense as their ridiculous double endorsement of Klobuchar and Warren (who represented different policy wings of the party) in 2020. Sophomoric thinking and decision making. If Biden's too old to run again, that editorial should and could have been written a year ago when there was still time to have an open, democratic, competitive primary process to choose a successor.
I think they got spooked by the criticism and negative reaction of so many Democrats.
Margaret, thank you for pointing out the numerical difference between too few "bad Trump" headlines and the avalanche of "aging Biden" headlines in the *New York Times* after the debate. And you're so right about how Trump messed himself up by giving media outlets a news peg for Project 2025 (thank god).
In my most recent stack post, I took on the recent interview with NYT executive editor Joe Kahn in the *New Yorker* and why old newsroom (macho) values are not going to get readers to trust reporters these days: https://marthanichols.substack.com/p/is-objectivity-in-the-news-a-fiction
In that post, I cite one of your columns a decade ago at the *Times* when you were Public Editor: "The Conflict and the Coverage," which took on criticism of the NYT's coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from both sides. I recall being blown away by it at the time, and I still am. I can only look at the NYT's current coverage of the same topic and shake my head (and weep). Headlines really do matter these days, no matter what Joe Kahn says.
In terms of my own thoughts about the election, I think Biden needs to step aside — I've thought this for months, but I'm basically only talking about it in semi-private forums like this one. The repetitive frenzy in social media or public columns does not help make change. Thanks for the serious analysis of media you're doing here.
Points all taken, Martha. Thank you.
Yes. The stakes please.
Agree completely on NYT coverage -- 192 stories in one week is assasination-level. Are they still pouting that he won't give them an interview? That said, the debate, the freeze when everyone around him was dancing, the reports from foreign leaders, the White Houuse shiftiness, all have me thinking Joe has to put country over ego and step down. We can't afford another Trump term, and Biden shouldn't commit an RBG and destroy great accomplishments by hanging on too long.
It’s very tricky.
There is a huge difference between what Biden is doing and RBG. I have no doubt he can make it through the election and beyond. His in depth medical exams, which were released in full — indicate he has no serious health or brain problems although he does have neuropathy and arthritis in his feet. If he has to step aside later — or God forbid dies — Harris is more than capable of replacing him. It would be an extremely smooth transition given how involved she has been in domestic policy and foreign affairs as well as the very experienced, excellent team the administration has in place.
It wouldn’t be the *first* time, but close to it, Monica!