By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A media reckoning is underway regarding the inadequate coverage of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, with accusations of downplaying his decline. However, this focus overlooks a more significant failure: the mainstream media’s insufficient portrayal of the dangers of a second Trump presidency. This inadequate coverage, characterized by “false equivalence” and the normalization of Trump’s behavior, extended from his initial candidacy through the 2024 election. The media’s prioritization of “horserace coverage” and their late shift to focusing on Biden’s age further exacerbated this issue. Ultimately, the lack of acknowledgment of the media’s role in these failures hinders any meaningful self-reflection.
Read the original article here
Yes, the media’s coverage of President Biden has undeniably had its flaws. There have been instances where age-related gaffes were amplified, potentially overshadowing substantive policy discussions and accomplishments. This uneven focus can create a distorted narrative, leaving viewers with an incomplete picture of his presidency.
The media’s treatment of Biden’s age, for instance, has sometimes felt disproportionate. While it’s legitimate to discuss a candidate’s fitness for office, the emphasis on perceived cognitive decline, often presented without the necessary context or nuance, has arguably fueled unnecessary anxieties among voters.
However, to equate the shortcomings in Biden’s media coverage with the media’s handling of Donald Trump is to fundamentally misunderstand the scale and nature of the problem. The media’s failures concerning Trump were far more profound and consequential.
For years, the media often treated Trump’s pronouncements as newsworthy simply because they were shocking or outrageous, regardless of their factual basis. The constant cycle of “liar says” reporting, amplifying falsehoods and inflammatory rhetoric, actively contributed to the normalization of misinformation.
The relentless focus on the spectacle often overshadowed the substance of Trump’s actions and policies. Serious allegations of misconduct – financial impropriety, abuse of power, and threats to democratic institutions – were frequently downplayed or buried under a mountain of trivial controversies.
This approach wasn’t simply a matter of biased reporting; it was a failure of journalistic responsibility. The pursuit of sensationalism and ratings often superseded the critical function of informing the public accurately and thoroughly. The media’s unwillingness or inability to effectively challenge Trump’s blatant falsehoods created an environment where disinformation thrived.
Furthermore, the “both sides” approach often employed by the media served to falsely equate legitimate criticisms of Biden with Trump’s demonstrably dangerous actions and statements. This false equivalency effectively neutralized the gravity of Trump’s behavior, allowing it to become normalized and even celebrated within certain segments of the population.
The media’s response to Trump’s actions during and after the 2020 election perfectly illustrates this point. The attempted coup and subsequent efforts to undermine democratic processes were not treated with the gravity and immediacy they deserved. Instead, they were often presented as just another episode in the ongoing political drama, blurring lines and obscuring the true threat to democracy.
The aftermath of the 2024 election is a further testament to these failures. While there was coverage of Trump’s conduct, it frequently lacked the necessary condemnation and context to counter the ongoing disinformation campaign. This resulted in a large swathe of the public remaining unconvinced by the severity of Trump’s actions.
While the media’s treatment of Biden has undoubtedly had its flaws, these flaws pale in comparison to the systemic failures in their coverage of Trump. The latter significantly damaged public discourse, eroded trust in institutions, and ultimately contributed to a dangerous political environment. This is not to excuse any flaws in Biden’s coverage, but to stress the disproportionate and significantly more damaging nature of the media’s handling of Trump’s presidency and its aftermath. The focus should be on correcting the far more egregious errors in the latter, rather than engaging in whataboutism that diminishes the severity of Trump’s actions and their consequences. The media’s role in fostering the current political climate demands a more thorough examination and critical self-reflection than simply acknowledging minor inaccuracies in their coverage of one president while ignoring the far larger crisis caused by their failure to adequately address the other.