During last weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, President Joe Biden lectured the reporters and editors who cover him on how to cover the 2024 presidential race, donning the hat of a press critic.
In keeping with WHCD norms, Biden gave a humorous, modest speech that used jokes and exaggerations to attack his primary opponent, former President Trump. Indeed, one’s age is a factor. As he said, Biden was met with laughter and cheers; he was contrasting himself as an adult competing against a child. However, Biden shifted to a more solemn tone halfway through his 10-minute speech. He made an accurate point when he said that Trump wants to become a “dictator” and exact “retribution” and “revenge” on those who support him.
We need to give this our whole attention. You could have dismissed it as mere Trump rhetoric eight years ago. Until now, though. That is, until January 6th,” Biden promised. His speech went on as before.
“I don’t want you to take sides, but please, put aside the trivialities of this situation and concentrate on the issues that truly matter. Our politics have become so dominated and sensationalized by horserace numbers, gotcha moments, distractions, and sideshows. I believe you all understand the gravity of the situation. The stakes are at an all-time high.
The note was dissonant. Anyone here who hasn’t been giving Trump his full attention? No major news outlet there has been serious enough to condemn Trump’s comeback and autocratic rhetoric. (Fox News is not included.)
The president has said that journalists can be either “seriously” covering the campaign by reporting on Trump’s dangers or “frivolously” by publishing and analyzing poll data, exposing the Biden administration’s errors, or publishing stories that shame the administration. The fact that he framed this bogus choice as a binary choice irritates me.
To be fair to Biden, maybe his statement was just rhetorical, designed to get the press corps to be more “serious” throughout the campaign. After all, what’s the harm in that, even if they’re already overflowing?
What Biden said in his speech—asking the press to stop wasting time on “horserace numbers and the gotcha moments and the distractions” and “the sideshows”—deserves no leniency.
Politicians are among the most loyal customers of pollsters, so it’s hypocritical of them to encourage the media to minimize the significance of the horserace. Assuming that every campaign uses gotcha moments to undermine their opponents is just more of the same. Regarding diversionary tactics, it is well-known that every political campaign, including Biden’s, makes use of them.
Once again, Biden’s plea for the press to pick vegetables over Pop-Tarts this year is hard to criticize. “Why not both?” is the only thing a journalist, serious or not, can say. Politicians like to brush off polls, errors, scandals, and other deserving stories as “distractions” from what’s important, but that shouldn’t stop newsrooms from covering how violently Trump has broken with normal politics and governance—and it has.
There are many similarities between Biden’s jawboning and that of previous presidents. Former president Lyndon B. Johnson was known to shout at network news executives over their coverage of the news. Spiro Agnew was tasked by Richard Nixon to instruct journalists on proper presidential coverage. Bush uses sandbags to intimidate media. According to Sally Buzbee, who was the chief of the Associated Press’ Washington bureau while Barack Obama was in office, “day-to-day intimidation of sources” was a common practice in his administration. The case against Trump, well, it doesn’t require hyperlinks to be made. Records for jawboning and harassment were set by his regime. Members of Biden’s own party have pleaded with him to spend more time with reporters since he is so uncomfortable with the press.
If I’m not mistaken, Biden seems to be stating two things with his either/or commandment. Get off my back is the first. Stop making fun of my frail body… Just give Hunter some space. convey to voters the positive aspects of the economy and explain why they should be grateful to me… because these are all distractions and surprises. Biden seems to briefly inquire of the WHCD journalists, “Which side are you on?” In any case, you’re aiding Trump if you don’t cover the campaign in a way that complements my strategy and highlights my strengths. Has anybody believed this formula, not even Biden’s speechwriters?
It appears that no president can comprehend the fact that the press, in all its political and nonpartisan manifestations, endeavors to maintain its autonomy from the overwhelming influence of politics. Even if Politician B has declared his dictatorial inclinations, a politically damaging news report about Politician A is not usually intended to benefit Politician B. On top of that, the story doesn’t really show how similar or similar to Pols A and B they are. After spending half a century in politics, you’d think Biden would know this and have his mouth set in stone.
It appears like Biden’s request that the media focus more on the “stakes”—a term originated by journalism professor Jay Rosen of New York University—is uninteresting. No one can deny the gravity of the situation when one of the candidates, like Trump did in this week’s Time magazine, proposes deportation camps, prenatal surveillance of pregnant women, probable pardons for January 6th rioters, and criminal prosecutions authorized by the Oval Office. Despite their importance, the stakes aren’t the sole factor deserving of coverage.
To add insult to injury, there is no evidence to back up Biden’s broad claim that the press has been distracted from the potential consequences of a second Trump term because to stakes-neutering sensationalism. Aside from the Time article, the New York Times also published a December story and just launched a podcast series outlining the features of a Trump government that serves a second term. This subject was the focus of a January special edition of The Atlantic magazine. In February, AWN submitted this type of article. And so did New York. Continually etc.
If the president spoke to more reporters instead of resorting to his typical overabundance of press criticism, he would realize that there has been no shortage of stakes reporting. There is no issue for the president to address.
