One eternal truth of American politics is that despite all its protestations to the contrary, the press plays favorites.
There's no sin in that. Reporters and their editors are human (at least until AI replaces them all, that is). And as humans, they have biases that no amount of self-criticism or correcting can overcome.
What is particularly irritating about the modern press is how many of them refuse to admit they have even a whiff, a hint or a lot of bias. This makes those instances when the veil drops and the biases appear fully rendered for all to see all the more useful.
Consider the wave of indignation that swept the D.C. commentariat when special counsel Robert Hur had the unmitigated cheek to say that Joe Biden may not be as sharp as he used to be (or his handlers want anyone to know).
While furiously pushing back on special counsel reports is a long-time sport in D.C., the Biden pushback was particularly swift, widespread…and utterly shameless.
Consider this item from former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan. In it, Sullivan analyzes the Hur report coverage and finds it eerily similar to the coverage (it is still widely believed) sank Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2016.
Sullivan's post is a textbook lesson in “let's take it easy on our guys” reporting. Sullivan chides the major news organs for giving extensive coverage – in the news and opinion sections – to the uncomfortable, unavoidable, blisteringly obvious issue of Joe Biden's age:
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.
And so on. There is a great deal more at the link, including ritualistic jibes at “both sides” and “horse race” coverage.
Point taken. But to say the press went overboard on a major story – one that polls indicated was a major issue for Democratic and Republicans voters long before the Hur report saw the light of day – is absurd.
If anything, the press was catching up to where voters have been on this issue. And it absolutely includes concerns and the 77-year-old Donald Trump, who has made a career out of mangling the English language and confusing names, places and dates.
We need to have a discussion about the geriatric frontrunners and their mental, physical, and emotional capabilities to hold office. The press has an invaluable role to play in that discussion. Bring on the coverage – flood the zone. And let voters – not editors – decide if age matters.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Trump Must Pay Nearly Half A Billion Dollars Before Appealing New York Ruling
