At the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last weekend, President Joe Biden donned his press critic headwear in order to instruct the reporters and editors who provide coverage on the 2024 presidential campaign.
Biden, adhering to WHCD tradition, delivered a self-aware, humorous address that used puns and exaggerations to spearhead his primary opponent, former President Donald Trump. “Age is indeed an issue.” Biden stated, “I am an adult running against a six-year-old,” to laughter and acclaim. However, at the 75% point of his 10-minute speech, Biden transitioned to a more solemn demeanor. He accurately identified Trump’s aspirations to assume the role of a “dictator” and act as “revenge” and “retribution” for his supporters.
“This must be treated with seriousness.” It was rhetoric that could have been dismissed as such eight years ago. However, no longer. “Not prior to January 6th,” stated Biden. He proceeded.
“I am not sincerely requesting that you take a side; rather, I am urging you to elevate to the gravity of the situation; disregard the horserace numbers, gotcha moments, distractions, and sideshows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics; and concentrate on what is truly at stake.” Surely, you are cognizant of the fact that much is at stake. Higher risks are not possible.”
A discordant note was present. Did any member of the audience not consider Trump to be a formidable opponent? Which prominent news organization, which was represented in the audience, has been unable to convey the gravity of Trump’s resurgence and authoritarian rhetoric? (Fox News is not included.)
As the president put it, coverage of the campaign can be categorized into two extremes: reporting on the perilous nature of Trump or divulging information that exposes the Biden administration’s errors, or publishing stories that humiliate the administration, constitutes frivolous coverage. The manner in which he presented this erroneous option as an either-or proposition is abhorrent.
To be more forgiving of Biden, his proclamation may have been strategically constructed to provoke increasing “seriousness” from the press corps throughout the campaign. In that case, what is the point in continuing to do so when the seriousness reservoir is already full?
Biden’s speech, in which he urges the press to “concentrate on what’s truly at stake” and “avoid horserace numbers, gotcha moments, and distractions,” is reprehensible and should not be overlooked.
It is hypocritical for a politician to request that the press minimize the horserace, given that politicians are among the most devoted clients of pollsters. Disdaining gotcha moments, which are utilized by every campaign against opponents, is essentially the same. Regarding sideshows and diversions, each and every political campaign in history, including Biden’s, strategically utilizes these elements to its benefit.
Again, Biden’s recommendation that the press select broccoli instead of Pop-Tarts this year is difficult to fault. However, a journalist, whether sincere or not, can only respond, “Why not both?” The press’s coverage of the extent to which Trump has deviated from standard politicking and governance, which it has, should not preclude newsrooms from reporting scandals, polls, errors, and other significant events that politicians would rather obscure by labeling “distractions” from what is essential.
Biden’s jawboning, which is precisely that, is quite comparable to that of other presidents. Lyndon Johnson would call and scream at network news executives regarding the manner in which they reported the news. Spiro Agnew was tasked by Richard Nixon with instructing the press on how to cover the presidency. The press was sandbagged by George W. Bush. As the former Washington bureau chief of the Associated Press, Washington Post Executive Editor Sally Buzbee stated that the Obama administration intimidated sources on a daily basis. In regards to Trump, hyperlinks are unnecessary to support the argument against him. His administration established benchmarks for harassment and jawboning. And Biden has been urged by members of his own party to spend more time with reporters due to his extreme aversion to the press.
Potentially susceptible to misinterpretation, Biden’s either-or commandment appears to convey two distinct meanings. Eliminate yourself from my spine. Avoid bothering me concerning my physical infirmity… Hunter, my son, be left alone… Explain to the electorate how favorable the state of the economy is and how they have no reason to be so unappreciative of my efforts… given that these are all mere sideshows and gotchas. Biden appears to pose the correspondents at the WHCD the question, “Which side are you on?” for several seconds. Your failure to report on the campaign in accordance with my strategic plan, which emphasizes my positive attributes, constitutes an indirect support for Trump. Do even the speechwriters for Biden subscribe to this formula?
It appears that every president is unable to acknowledge that the press, in its multifarious and partisan manifestations, endeavors to maintain its autonomy from the disruptive currents of politics. Typically, the intention behind a politically detrimental news article featuring Politician A is not to benefit Politician B politically, notwithstanding the declaration of dictatorial aspirations by Politician B. Furthermore, such a narrative does not inherently establish a degree of “equivalence” between Pols A and B. One would anticipate that Biden, who has spent the better part of his career in politics, would have discerned this and developed a more rigid stance.
“Stakes” is a term coined by journalism professor Jay Rosen of New York University. Biden’s request that the press pay more attention to this notion appears tedious. Who, in all sincerity, would argue against exposing the stakes when one of the two candidates, as Trump did this week in Time magazine, makes such claims as deportation camps, surveillance of women’s pregnancies, potential pardons for January 6th rioters, and criminal prosecutions ordered from the Oval Office? Although the consequences are significant, they do not exclusively warrant reporting.
Moreover, Biden’s broad allegation that the press has been blinded by stakes-neutral sensationalism regarding the potential nature of a second Trump term is not supported by the evidence. The New York Times, in addition to publishing the Time article, predicted the appearance of a second Trump administration in December and has since launched a podcast series devoted to the subject. In January, The Atlantic published a special issue on the subject. This article was published by POLITICO in February. New York arrived as well. And so forth.
There has been an abundance of high-stakes reporting, which the president would be aware of if he engaged in more conversations with reporters instead of resorting to his customary practice of press abuse. There is no case for the president.
