The media's circular logic and destructive obsession with Biden's age

Yes, it's fast becoming the 2024 version of the media's obsession with Hillary's emails

The New York Times was, of course, just asking questions.

Why, oh why, do Joe Biden’s age, memory failures and gaffes seem to hurt him so much more than Donald Trump’s age, memory failures and gaffes hurt him?

President Biden takes reporters' questions outside the White House / Getty Images

These questions were being pondered in the most influential real estate in all of media: a front-page news article, above the fold, on Sunday. (Even in this digital age, that print front page, especially on Sunday, packs a punch.)

The sub-headline summarized the issue: “Biden Is Hurt by Flubs More Than Trump Is.”

And the article stated: “While Mr. Biden, 81, has been dogged by doubts and concerns about his advancing years from voters, Mr. Trump, who is 77, has not felt the same blowback.”

“Dogged by,” you say? Who, exactly, is doing the dogging?

Maybe the Times and other major media outlets ought to look in the mirror.

A screen shot of the satirical social-media account, New York Times Pitchbot, which mocks the media’s foibles

CNN, meanwhile, was running this chyron: “Is Biden’s Age Now a Bigger Problem Than Trump’s Indictments?” A panel gave this question every due consideration, and then some.

And then there was the rundown of Times opinion offerings — one piece after another, all in a neat row, about Biden’s age and memory.

A screenshot of the New York Times’s list of its opinion pieces on Sunday

If you didn’t have memory problems of your own, you might be at risk of getting PTSD from recalling a certain front page of the New York Times in 2016 when every story above the fold had to do with the supposed scandal over Hillary Clinton’s email practices. A few days later, she lost the election that nearly everyone in media was sure she would win.

Did that coverage really give us the disaster of Donald Trump’s presidency? Not all by itself, of course, but it mattered. If you want my reasoning, read the chapter of my 2022 book, Newsroom Confidential, titled “But Her Emails…” In it, I name some names and point some fingers from my perspective as the former public editor — or newsroom watchdog — of the paper of record.

As I used to write in those public-editor columns, here’s my take:

Biden’s advanced age is, granted, far from ideal for a president seeking a second term, even the very effective president that he has been. Yes, he’s old; and, never a gifted public speaker, he makes cringe-inducing mistakes. It would be great if he were 20 years younger. His age really is a legitimate concern for many voters.

But for the media to make this the overarching issue of the campaign is nothing short of journalistic malpractice.

That’s especially the case when Trump is poised to take down American democracy, starting on Day One, and when he has been criminally charged 91 times in multiple states, including for trying to overturn the legitimate 2020 election. Also, he’s old and gaffe-prone himself.

Much more alarmingly, this very weekend, Trump was out there threatening to abandon our NATO allies and let Russia “do whatever the hell they want.” Appropriately, that story was leading major news sites by Sunday afternoon, but, in a week, count the news stories and commentary pieces on that versus those involving Biden’s age.

I think we all know the winner.

---

---

Is there no one at these major outlets who is capable of taking a step back and exercising some judgment?

How about a note from New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger to two key people who report to him directly — the opinion editor and the top newsroom editor — that goes something like this: “Katie and Joe, I’m concerned that we’re going overboard with both coverage and commentary about Biden’s age. Let’s keep this in better perspective and tone it down.” Believe me, those two sentences would make a world of difference.

CNN’s top guy, Mark Thompson, could do his version. And so could the decision-makers at the Washington Post and the three major broadcast networks.

Maybe that’s happening right now in glass offices around the nation. The last line of Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises comes to mind: “Yes, isn’t it pretty to think so?”

Alas, self-scrutiny and course correction are not among Big Media’s core strengths. Wagon-circling and self-satisfaction? Better grades there.

And after all, who will cause them to reflect on whether this is a problem? How are they going to hear the voices of the outraged readers and critics? The Times and the Post eliminated the go-between role of ombudsman or public editor within the past dozen years. Do you think these powerful figures are considering social-media criticism or hearing dissent at dinner parties? I doubt it.

What’s more, there are powerful reasons undergirding this coverage.

First, it’s a way of seeming nonpartisan (“see, we’re tough on BOTH candidates”). No journalist or media boss wants to look like part of any campaign apparatus, and the political right is skilled and relentless at charging the mainstream media with being liberal. This coverage allows the decision-makers to shrug it all off: “Everybody’s mad at us, so we must be doing it right.”

Second, this coverage is a way of encouraging a suspenseful horserace as November’s election looms. And that, in turn, keeps the audience coming back for more. That’s a growing business imperative during a tough time in the media industry.

So get ready for more of the same between now and November. It’s going to be a long, ugly slog.

Thanks to all subscribers here. I appreciate you all, and know that many of you share my frustration because you care about American democracy and the role of the press. Paid subscribers can comment below; I read all the comments and will respond to at least some.