So, Why Has The Press Suddenly Turned On Biden?

Whether it's thought to be a cynical betrayal or a belated acknowledgement of the obvious, there's been a general recognition that the legacy media -- more or less except for MSNBC -- has turned against Biden in its news coverage and often editorially called for Joe to "step aside", although without explaining precisely what that should imply. Piers Morgan sums it up at the New York Post:

The US mainstream media are currently gorging on President Biden’s cognitive decline like ravenous hyenas on the freshly slain carcass of a decrepit old buffalo.

In fact, since his train-wreck debate debacle, the nation’s predominantly liberal-skewed, Democrat-defending journalists have competed with each other as to who can sound the most faux shocked, horrified, appalled, and furrowed-brow-uncomprehending about the physical and mental state of their president.

But why? I think if Rush Limbaugh were still around, he'd give the same reason he gave at the end of his life as Trump left the White House at the end of his first term: ratings. Whatever the media thought of Trump, they got ratings when they covered him, and they lost those ratings when he was out of the news. For instance:

CNN has seen ratings plummet since former President Donald Trump left the White House, according to a Fox News report on Nielsen Media Research data.

The network averaged 2.5 million primetime viewers between the day after the election— November 4, 2020 — and Inauguration Day on January 20, 2021, Fox News reported.

Since President Joe Biden was sworn in, however, those numbers have dropped dramatically. An average of 1.6 million viewers tuned in during primetime hours between January 21 and March 15, Fox News said. That's a downturn of 36% since Biden took office.

So why did CNN, of all networks, host the first debate? As homicide detectives say, there's no such thing as a coincidence. Why did ABC hold the interview with George Stephanopoulos? Again, no coincidence. Biden supporters nevertheless accuse the media of stirring up the controversy over Biden's cognitive decline instead of blandly outlining Joe's steady hand, decency, and years of experience. Well, why aren't they?

Part of the problem is simple -- if it bleeds, it leads. The commander in chief is sick, but if that's not bad enough, the White House is covering it up. But that doesn't seem to be the full explanation. Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge quotes extensively from the Editor at Large for the Wall Street Journal, Gerry Baker, in an opinion piece there behind a paywall:

the fiction of Mr. Biden’s competence … suggests they [the Democrats] evidently thought they could get away with promoting it. [Yet] by perpetuating that fiction they were also revealing their contempt for the voters and for democracy itself[.]

. . . They sought a loyal and reliable figurehead, a flag of convenience, under which they could sail the progressive vessel into the deepest reaches of American life — on a mission to advance statism, climate extremism and self-lacerating wokery. There was no more loyal and convenient vehicle than Joe.

You [the Democratic machine] don’t get to deceive, dissemble and gaslight us for years about how this man was both brilliantly competent at the job and a healing force for national unity – and now tell us, when your deception is uncovered, that it’s ‘bedtime for Bonzo’ – thanks for your service, and let’s move on.

Except that News Corp, the Murdoch vehicle that owns the Wall Street Journal, was consistently Never Trump throughout this same period, and it was just as complicit as any other legacy outlet in perpetuating the idea that boring Biden was preferable to tempestuous Trump. Gerry Baker here is doing nothing but limning the same faux shocked, horrified, appalled, and furrowed-brow-uncomprehending schtick of all his colleagues.

In fact, even before the June 27 debate, it was recognized that in its initial early June story that made it OK to talk about Joe's cognitive decline, the WSJ was simply giving everyone a permission slip, not covering anything new. I quoted Greg Gutfeld at the time:

The Wall Street Journal revealed that Joe Biden may be suffering cognitive decline. Talk about breaking news. Nice work there, Wall Street Journal!

So, although nearly every legacy outlet from CNN through ABC and NBC to Fox is cashing in on the Joe-is-senile stampede, there may even be a faint element of remorse in the brow furrowing. This goes back to the origin of the 2024 constitutional crisis, which stems from the "stolen" 2020 election. I've been saying that the current crisis of succession is actually very similar to the 1972-74 Watergate succession crisis, which in turn was caused by the conditions of the 1972 election and the failure of the Democrats to run a viable opponent to Nixon.

As I've been pointing out, in order to get a Nixon resignation, it was necessary to get Agnew to resign first and replace him with the safe and boring Gerald Ford, who in turn was replaced by the uber-lizard-person Nelson Rockefeller. This all was needful to mitigate the effect of Nixon's 1972 landslide victory over McGovern and restore center-left credibility, which it did in large part by demonizing Nixon and allowing the national media to portray themselves as saviors and heroes.

So the Watergate crisis was something that extended over a period of years. I think the 2024 constitutional crisis has been building even longer -- it arguably started when Trump announced his first candidacy in 2015, became more acute with his 2016 surprise victory, and grew even more problematic through two unsuccessful impeachments, the questionable 2020 Biden election victory, the January 6 committee, and now the revelations that, enabled by rhe establishment media, the Democrats concealed Biden's cognitive decline over a period that probably began while he was vice president.

But at the root of both the Watergate crisis and the 2024 crisis is the failure of the Democrats to nominate a viable presidential candidate. The difference is that in 1972, McGovern was recognized from the start as a foreordained loser, to the point that no serious Democrat would agree to run as his vice presidential nominee. In 2024, the election was at least politely handicapped as a "tossup", and up to the events of June, establishment media was complicit in concealing Biden's actual condition.

One aspect of how the 2024 crisis is resolved will be, as in 1972-4, the need for legacy media to rehabilitate its credibility in the crisis's wake. They'll need to find new Woodwards and Bernsteins at minimum. This is partly what's happening now -- Jake Tapper is in the running. Even Jen Psaki's got herself a new face, don't count her out.

Jen Psaki totally had plastic surgery. She looks different. https://t.co/8in1xjFQCM

— Cecilia Glennon (@CeciliaGlennon) December 15, 2023

The auditions for the next Woodward and Bernstein are already under way.