What, Exactly, Is the "Biden is Old" Story Supposed to Be, Anyway?
Is it that he's in decline? That he will decline? That he'll die? All of the above?
Hello, readers. Parker here.
I linked to this story yesterday, but I think it’s worth its own post. Oliver Willis brought this up in his newsletter, and I’ve been thinking about it since:
Check out this comment from NY Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger for an example of this dismissive tone:
For example, in my country, there are a disproportionate number of conservative voters who will not trust any news source that says that Joe Biden was the rightful winner of the 2020 presidential election, and we can’t try to win those folks over and hedge our language. We are just stating the truth fully and plainly, but we are also doing that in a way that is unemotional. We are not anyone’s opposition and we’re not anyone’s lap dog.
We are going to continue to report fully and fairly, not just on Donald Trump but also on President Joe Biden. He is a historically unpopular incumbent and the oldest man to ever hold this office. We’ve reported on both of those realities extensively, and the White House has been extremely upset about it.
In no universe is Trump’s authoritarian and fake claim that he won the 2020 election anywhere on par with legitimate concerns about Biden’s age. The only way you could make those two world views two sides of the same coin would be if liberals insisted that Biden is only 50 years old despite the clear evidence to the contrary.
Here’s the part of the newsletter where I say The Present Age is reader-supported. Please consider subscribing to the free or paid versions. Thanks!
It got me thinking… what is the “Biden’s old” story supposed to be, anyway?
There's a relentless media obsession with Biden's age that, one could argue, borders on the absurd. And yes, yes, voters care about this. But this fixation isn't new; it was there in 2020, as well. And I guess I just have to question why it’s so newsworthy. Hear me out.
There’s an obvious and understandable concern for the president's capability to serve. Of course. It's reasonable to scrutinize the physical health and mental acuity of anyone in such a powerful position. If the story is that Biden is having stumbles or otherwise experienced a decline in the past few years, that’s legitimate. But the real topic should be whether there's been a significant decline in Biden's ability to lead (which I don’t believe has been demonstrated in the current reporting), not the mere fact of his aging, which is entirely beyond his control.
The underlying issue isn't about ignoring the implications of aging; it's about whether endlessly harping on Biden's age offers any real journalistic value, and I found Sulzberger’s comments telling. By gloating about how “extremely upset” the White House has been with stories centered on Biden’s age, he’s treating that as evidence that the paper’s obsessiveness on the topic is warranted.
The passage of time is not a policy position. This isn’t something the White House can “address” meaningfully beyond increasing Biden’s public-facing events and holding press conferences.
People know that Biden is old. Very old, in fact. People knew that in 2020, and they know it now. And people generally know the types of risks that come with advanced age. His brain could start turning to pudding. Hell, he could drop dead tomorrow. People know this, and they’re either fine with the candidate they voted for/against in 2020 plus four years, or they’re not.
Again, I reiterate: if there is actual news to be told, if there are stories about Biden actively declining, then yes, that is worth splashing across your front page — just as it should be actual news that the other elderly man in the race (weird how we don’t get “He’s old” stories about the guy who is just 3 years younger, hmm…) repeatedly confuses Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi (no, he did not “do it on purpose”) and regularly says that the current president is Barack Obama.
Without actual news to tie these stories to, journalists come off as manufacturers of consent, as biased opinion-havers by way of editorial decision-makers. These pieces are meant as reminders to voters. Journalists don’t typically print reminders of known facts unless there’s something new to tie it to. Davidson College professor Issac Bailey had an insightful thread about this sort of prioritization on Twitter/X the other day:
I’m not the originator of this point, but it’s an important one concerning “objectivity” journalism. [The New York Times] recently released a poll saying most Biden voters think he’s too old. Why didn’t they ask Trump voters if being held liable for rape by a court makes Trump unfit?
When a journalist tells you he “must” do his job a particular way because he’s “just following the facts,” tell him to stop lying. Each of us in this industry makes a series of choices about what we will focus on, ask, print and prioritize depending on what we believe is best.
What I tell my students is there are a series of threshold tests. “Do I have enough confirmation to print this thing I really believe?” Ten journalists can answer that question differently, even if they are staring at the same facts — because they have different thresholds.
If The Times believed being a rapist is a more important issue than age, it would focus more on that rape finding. Oftentimes, journalists get stuck in narratives and refuse to reconsider and simply go along with the flow and pretend we are “just following the facts.”
Merely chanting, "He's old! He's old! He's old!" without presenting new insights or significant revelations does little more than fill space. If there's no new evidence to suggest that Biden's health has changed, suddenly becoming a legitimately pressing concern for his presidency, then this fixation seems more like sensationalism than substantive reporting.
In a world filled with stories to cover — ranging from policy discussions and legislative conflicts to broader questions about the erosion of democracy — the media's priorities should be reevaluated. Does their coverage reflect the public's needs, or is it merely echoing the obvious? In these times, the value of news lies in its ability to reveal the truth, challenge the status quo, and provide the context necessary for informed decision-making. It's time for the media to focus on what’s new rather than the inexorable ticking of the clock.
What I’m Reading Today
“Why the Leak Investigation Inside the New York Times Newsroom is So Disturbing” (American Crisis, Margaret Sullivan, 3/4/24)
“No, Donald Trump hasn’t stopped lying that the 2020 election was ‘rigged’” (Media Matters, Matt Gertz, 3/4/24)
“How the Media Failed Nex Benedict” (Popular Information, Judd Legum, 3/4/24)
“Be Alarmed, Be Very Alarmed, and Do Something About It” (Stop the Presses, Mark Jacob, 3/4/24)
“Every New Trump Endorsement is a Story of Profound Moral Collapse” (PressWatchers, Dan Froomkin, 3/1/24)
“Covid Taught Us a Lot. The CDC Now Wants Us to Forget It.” (The New Republic, Melody Schreiber, 2/28/24)
I don't think I'm asking for so much when I ask people harping on this "Biden is old!" stuff to name ONE negative consequence that has befallen the United States of America specifically because Biden is old. Yes, Biden does things I disagree with, even things that infuriate me (like his support of Netanyahu and the massacre in Gaza, seemingly down to the last Palestinian) but does he do these things because he's old? Of course not, he does these things because he's WRONG (just ask me!) and Presidents being wrong about stuff is a totally normal non-age-related condition.
T H I S. I’ve been waiting for this post for six months, when I swear, some Russian bot pointed out what we knew: Biden’s age (again 3 years older than Trump) and the media FREAKED OUT about this brand new information and has become an echo chamber for Trump and Putin. Ever since whatever Trump tweets is a headline, so much news has been aggravating, not “investigative.” I really appreciate how you’ve pointed out the difference between what can be helped (specific choices) and what is out of his/our control (years passing). One thing in Biden’s control is whom he surrounds himself with. One thing in Trump’s control is the color of pancake makeup he wears.
One thing in our control is whom we vote for; would be helpful to be informed about those consequences short term and long term (and why aren’t we envisioning a Harris presidency? And discussing who would become president if Trump won and passed on in office? ACTUAL SCENARIOS and their import). I’m rambling, too many thoughts, I’m just so excited you addressed this issue and how it’s being treated. It’s influencing who we vote for this election year and it feels like we’re missing the point.