Staff Reports
The mainstream media, much like a well-trained lapdog, has been eager to protect President Joe Biden from scrutiny regarding his declining health for years. This cycle of neglect began even before Biden was the official Democrat nominee in 2020 and has persisted through numerous debacles, culminating in the chaotic June 2024 debate with Donald Trump, where the media finally found themselves unable to mask Biden’s failings any longer.
While many in the media attempted to play the role of shocked onlookers post-debate, the truth is that they were well aware of his deteriorating condition long before. Veteran pundits, particularly those with a penchant for partisan loyalty like Chuck Todd from NBC, feigned ignorance when it came to the president’s health, presenting a baffled front as if the results of the debate were a total surprise. The reality, as revealed in hindsight, shows that these so-called journalists were privy to the truth about Biden’s fitness and chose to ignore it, likely to aid in a political agenda.
Chris Cillizza apologizes for his coverage of Biden while at CNN: "As a reporter, I have a confession to make: I should have pushed harder earlier for more information about Joe Biden's mental and physical well-being and any signs of decline."@DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/9GWSmUhgEA
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) December 19, 2024
Former CNN editor Chris Cillizza’s recent “confession” on his YouTube channel serves as an emblem of media hypocrisy. Cillizza expressed regret for not asking more probing questions about Biden’s health during his tenure at CNN. He admitted that he felt intimidated by Biden’s team, who pushed back against any inquiry into the president’s mental or physical state, labeling it “age shaming.” This, however, presents a laughable notion—reporters being afraid to do their jobs because someone told them to quit being mean.
The real crux of the matter is that Cillizza, Todd, and their colleagues didn’t engage in serious questioning because they were more focused on protecting their chosen candidate than on serving the public interest. Cillizza’s supposed reckoning feels more like a desperate attempt to clear his conscience after realizing that months if not years of avoidance could have changed the political landscape. Had these journalists actually fulfilled their responsibilities, it’s possible that a more viable Democrat candidate could have emerged or that someone might have had the gall to challenge Biden’s candidacy head-on.
Cillizza’s self-reflection falls flat—he was not simply acting out of fear; he actively participated in the charade. He, like the rest of the mainstream media, was a willing accomplice in the cover-up, ultimately aligning with the Democrats to block inquiries into Biden’s capacity to lead. Their collective silence spoke volumes, and their amusement at the notion of Trump’s challenges to Biden can only be construed as gallows humor at this point.
The American public deserves a press that holds powerful figures accountable, rather than one that seeks to shield them from valid concerns for the sake of political expediency. The media’s failure to dive deeper into Biden’s declining health is not an oversight; it’s a blatant act of complicity to maintain a status quo that favors one political party above another. As the pieces of this narrative unfold, it becomes abundantly clear that the media’s agenda was never about transparency but about ensuring that their preferred candidate limped across the finish line, no matter the cost.
