Media’s Missed Opportunity: Scrutinizing Biden’s Cognitive Decline
In a recent commentary, media critic Erik Wemple from the Washington Post expressed his regret over the media’s inadequate coverage of President Joe Biden’s mental fitness. This comes after a notable blunder where Biden infamously called out for Rep. Jackie Walorski, who had tragically passed away weeks earlier.
Wemple’s reflection comes amid ongoing discussions about how the mainstream media has covered Biden, especially regarding his cognitive abilities during significant moments, such as debates. He highlighted a lack of critical analysis from major news outlets surrounding the president’s gaffes, specifically citing the moment when Biden, at a public event, seemed unaware of Walorski’s death after having previously acknowledged it in a statement. The incident raised serious questions about CNN and MSNBC’s coverage, as neither network provided significant attention to this alarming moment.
"Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?" he questioned aloud at the event, sparking astonishment around the world. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre justified the president’s confusion, claiming Walorski was "top of mind" for him—but many felt this was simply not credible.
Wemple candidly admitted, "It’s time to turn this exercise on my own byline." He declared that the "Where’s Jackie?" moment should have prompted the media to rigorously investigate Biden’s cognitive state, a point he describes as a significant failure on his part and that of his colleagues.
While some media members, like reporters from Axios and The Wall Street Journal, attempted to shed light on Biden’s mental fitness, Wemple criticized the overall media landscape for lacking urgency and thoroughness in addressing this issue sooner. He stated, “White House coverage must involve more than observing the president in action and writing up analysis pieces about his comings and goings.” It needs to dive deeper into his decision-making processes and the realities of his everyday capabilities.
Wemple argued that the media’s performance was particularly disappointing given the clarity of Biden’s cognitive challenges. Major outlets had an obligation to provoke meaningful discussions and provide transparent coverage regarding the president’s ability to govern effectively. Unfortunately, without proactive engagement, vital information about the administration’s actions and Biden’s thought processes often slipped through the cracks.
He concluded that investigative efforts concerning Biden’s leadership and mental fitness should have sparked a broader media inquiry—a powerful "muckraking" effort often seen when political scrutiny becomes essential. Instead, the media have largely sidestepped the responsibility to question and challenge the administration’s narrative, leaving many voters in the dark about the true state of their leadership.
As conversations continue about the role of the media in political transparency, Wemple insists that more reflection and honesty is necessary. The questions around Biden’s mental acuity will likely persist as the nation approaches the 2024 presidential election, making it imperative for news organizations to reevaluate their approach to covering the leaders of our country.
With the stakes high, it’s crucial that the media step up to the plate—providing accurate, thorough, and fearless reporting on both sides of the aisle. In doing so, they not only serve the public interest but also uphold the integrity of democracy itself. The American people deserve a media landscape that is both vigilant and accountable to the truth, ensuring that nothing significant goes unexamined, especially as the nation stands at a crossroads in its political journey.
