Following the presidential debate last Thursday, Mr. Biden’s press image has been streamlined to that of a, as Brookings puts it, “a doddering old man, wobbly on his feet and barely able to articulate a single thought without slurring.”
Indeed, Biden would be 86 by the end of a possible full second term, the oldest nominee and president in American history. Mr. Biden’s failure to explain what he would accomplish in a second term under Trump’s firing provocations cemented this impression which, in some part, is claimed to be amplified by the media, according to Biden’s reelection campaign.
The debate marked a clear turn in Mr. Biden’s popularity after “Biden’s closest media allies defect” following the event. Amongst them, Mr. Scarborough, host of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC cast doubts on his support for Biden. “I love Joe Biden,” he remarks, but couldn’t get over the amount of time Biden “spends with his mouth agape” and his “eyes darting back and forth.” What was even more devastating was that he “couldn’t fact-check anything Donald Trump said,” Scarborough sighs.
“Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election,” corroborates Thomas Friedman, a regular journalist contributor for The New York Times who speaks frequently with Mr. Biden. Astonishment even bled into the few who had extensive access to the President, characterizing him as someone who was “diminished from where he was” from his previous election.
It is also important to remember that Mr. Biden himself was the one insisting on an earlier date for the debate after promptly realizing his burning need to address the public about their concerns over his “intellectual alertness.” Unfortunately, Mr. Biden had “failed his own test.”
Is this the real Biden?
Columnist Perry Bacon Jr’s analysis of the press’ ruthless critique of the President points to an interesting reality. Journalists seem to lean to negativity not only for a greater public interest –hence profit — but to balance out their “unjustifiably” negative reports of Biden with the “justifiably” negative exposures of Trump. “It if bleeds, it leads,” says Harvard’s Professor Thomas Patterson.
In 1947, the Hutchins Commission’s inquiry into the function of media in a modern democracy urged the American press to take responsibility for the way negativity is covering the nation’s business. Understandably, the origin of the negative press drew attention due to intuitive human constructs; focusing on the dangers and destructiveness of threats came to a matter of life and death.
Weeks prior, Newswire’s “How to Handle Negative Publicity in a Positive Manner: 7 Ways” instructed readers to “Get the Facts Straight.” But in the digital age of lacking privacy, complex ethicalities, and capitalism, will we ever know the “fact”? Is the truth still inherently valuable?
In addition to American media, global news sites are actively stirring the water.
From the East to Middle to Southern Asia, Mr. Biden was labeled similarly. Russia’s state-owned Channel One shows 60% of reported opinion polls expecting Biden to have survived the debate through a stimulant while highlighting Biden’s “mishandling” of the Russian-Ukrainian war.
Meanwhile, Chinese audiences enjoyed more satirical aspects of the debate, marking the event ‘like a reality show’ and quirking over the two’s discussion over their “golf skills.”
Of course, such judgments are significantly troubled through geopolitical relationships, but is still valuable to note when considering the President’s role in concurring global diplomatic impact.
Interestingly, Israeli media seem to go along with Trump’s claim of completely deterring the Hamas-led attack on Israel (if he was president) as it suggests Mr. Biden as looking “weak.”
“Elections are about the future, and the panic is now in full bloom,” said Mike Barnicle, a regular on “Morning Joe.” Regardless, the fact that Americans are “panicking” instead of “laughing” may suggest some hope for Mr. Biden’s future reelection campaign endeavors.
Written by Julia Jiang
