Tipsheet

Media Claim: We'd Also Have Shied Away from the Cognitive Decline Story If It Were About Trump, You Know

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  June 02, 2025 12:01 PM

The authors of a bestselling book about the cognitive decline of former President Joe Biden -- and the attempted cover-up thereof -- have been on an intensive media tour over the last few weeks.  They're saying and revealing a number of details and morsels that have garnered quite a lot of attention, a few of which I'll showcase below.  But in their efforts to minimize the complicity of the 'news' media in this scandal, they're trying to convince audiences that journalists didn't carry water for the Democrats on this issue because they're ideologically or politically biased.  Nonsense.  The reality, in my view, is that most journalists carry water for the Democrats on nearly every issue because they're ideologically and politically biased, whether they are willing to acknowledge it or not.  The press isn't just one element of Team Blue; they're essential, serving as the tip of the spear in advancing Democrats' narrative, while attacking Republicans.  Journalists are key laborers in the Left's activist and enforcer caste.  In the relatively rare instances that they criticize or pressure Democrats, they often do so from the party leadership's left.  

That dynamic has been true for many years, long before Joe Biden was president, and it will most assuredly carry on for many years to come.  Which is why assertions like this are simply not remotely credible in the eyes of not just conservatives, but a wider, deservedly media-skeptical public:


If the "health issues" in question were Trump's, the press would have been all over it, and we all know it.  Many of them went Full Zapruder Film on a video of Trump stepping carefully down a slippery ramp -- once -- during his first term.  They wondered if Trump was having trouble sipping water from a glass.  They dabbled in 'Where's Melania?' conspiracy trash.  If senior Trump White House aides were shielding the current president from public appearances, severely restricting his events and exposure, and drastically limiting interactions with members his own administration, the notion that the press would dutifully downplay or ignore that issue, out of sensitivity, or whatever, is outright laughable.  Some were already stirring the 25th Amendment pot about Trump years ago.  

As for Thompson's press-exonerating spinalysis, if this had been Trump, the journey 'groupthink' would have run in the opposite direction, bullying from the White House would have been widely regarded as proof of the allegation, and 'braving' the loss of access, in order to 'speak truth to power' would have spawned a parade of Pulitzers and Emmys. This was about protecting the tribe’s power.  Their tribe's power.  Once again, it's risible that anyone in a Democratic White House would express astonishment that journalists simply regurgitated whatever the Democrats In Charge had told them to.  That's what the 'news' media does, day in and day out.  This was an especially appalling and galling example of that phenomenon, but it's an unsurprising one nonetheless.  This is now their Narrative machine works, habitually and reflexively:


Clear as day, Biden needed to be held by the wrist and guided off stage by Obama. We all saw the Obama interaction because it was captured on film.   This was at the same event where Biden reportedly didn't seem to recognize George Clooney (who apparently kept that to himself until after the entire party finally decided to give up on their giant Biden lie, after his debate catastrophe). The White House shouted "cheap fake" in response, and many media figures instantly adopted this novel term, as if through osmosis.  This is who they are.  Nothing will change if the people belatedly calling out the Democrats' unconstitutional presidency-by-cabal and outrageous campaign of deceit don't honestly grapple with why many journalists were eager, knee-jerk co-captains on this disgraceful voyage.  As I keep saying, the collusion gang doesn't regret what they did.  They regret that it didn't work, in that they were unable to achieve their power-minded desired political outcome:

Recommended

Did You See What Was Featured Prominently As Jamie Raskin Spoke at 'No Kings Day' Rally? Rebecca Downs
You Won't Believe LA Mayor Karen Bass' Father's Day Message Sarah Arnold


I'll leave you with this:


The legacy media cannot and will not avoid running cover for Democrats in the future because they don't want to avoid running cover for Democrats in the future.  In essence, for many, running cover for Democrats (or at least agitating against conservatives and Republicans) is why they exist.  It's the mission.  It's their professional raison d'être.  To change course, they'd have to desire a course correction.  They don't.  They're partially admitting what happened in this embarrassing saga because it was an operational and electoral failure.  They didn't achieve their objective.  But that overall objective -- electoral success for Democrats, and especially power for the ideological Left -- remains very much intact.  Until and unless that incentive and motive structure is fundamentally altered, we'll invariably get more of the same.  And the 'news' media's trust quotient will remain in the sewer.