A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
|
|
Joe Biden’s Age Is an Issue. So Is How the Media Covers It. |
By David Corn February 13, 2024 |
President Joe Biden boards Marine One at the White House on February 9, 2024. Andrew Harnik/AP |
|
|
Joe Biden’s age has become a black hole. The gravitational pull of this issue is shaping—or misshaping—the political cosmos. In recent days, it overshadowed Donald Trump’s apparent reckless invitation to Vladimir Putin to invade NATO allies and his full-on use of fascistic rhetoric to attack the Democrats. And there’s a chicken-and-egg dilemma here. Is Biden’s eight decades truly the paramount issue it seems to be or is this a product of media hype driven by the hit-job report issued by special counsel Robert Hur, a former Trump-appointed US attorney? A front-page New York Times article that sought to examine why Biden’s longevity is more of a problem than Trump’s 79 years pointed out that Trump has not “felt the same blowback.” It noted: The response suggests profound differences, not only between the two men, but in how they are perceived by the American public, and in what their supporters expect of them—a divide that could play a major role in the coming presidential election. Yes, the old perception angle. Left out of the equation by the NYT is how each man is portrayed. There is a relationship between public attitudes and media coverage. Obviously, some voters possess a degree of concern over Biden’s age, but that concern can certainly be heightened by how news outfits cover the matter. When the New York Times floods the zone with stories about Biden’s age—as it has done the past few days—is it reflecting popular unease or encouraging it? Probably both. During one of its many reports on the Hur report, CNN asked, “Is Biden’s age now a bigger problem than Trump’s indictments?” |
Seriously? It is definitely newsworthy that Hur’s report included derogatory observations about Biden’s memory. But these gratuitous descriptions were backed up only with snippets of purported evidence, and Hur’s editorializing about Biden’s memory seemed designed to spark the firestorm it did. What was lacking in the spasm of breathless coverage that ensued was context. Which is often the great sin of mainstream media. To its credit, the Washington Post published a day-after piece that did offer a healthy dash of needed perspective. The article, based on interviews with scientists who study memory, reported: They noted that the cognitive abilities of Biden and Trump can’t be evaluated based on anecdotal memory lapses. Formal evaluations are needed to truly assess someone’s brain health. But they noted that memory lapses at any age are surprisingly normal and, for most people, aren’t a signal of mental decline. So forgetting this or that might not indicate a mental slide. But you wouldn’t know that from much of the coverage of the Hur report. Consequently, we don’t really know the full story about the inner workings of either Biden or Trump. Yet we’re all free to look at these two old guys—watch Biden walk stiffly and mistake the country governed by Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, or witness Trump confuse Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi, slur words, and utter gibberish—and render our own judgements. There’s no denying—or ought to be no denying—that some voters do see Biden as lacking the vim and vigor they want in the leader of the nation, despite his accomplishments. I, too, would have preferred Biden to bid farewell because I assess that his age, fairly or not, is a drag on the Democratic ticket—particularly for younger voters and voters who don’t follow politics as closely as you or I do. Yet if this topic is prioritized in the press above the threat that Trump poses to American democracy (and sensationalized), the national debate is warped and the republic imperiled. As most Americans agree (according to polls), Trump tried to overturn an election and subvert the constitutional order. Speaking at a rally in South Carolina on Friday, he referred to the insurrectionist January 6 rioters who have been convicted as “hostages” and complained they are being “unfairly imprisoned” (while QAnon music played in the background). This is a former president and current presidential candidate legitimizing political violence, as well as a bonkers conspiracy theory. That is crazy. Yet this remark has gone largely unnoticed. Like many of Trump’s outrages it draws little more than a shrug from the national press—and no reaction from the leaders of his own party. Why do Biden’s purported memory lapses receive more ink? Perhaps because it’s easier to spot or understand—and because people have become numb to Trump acting erratically and spouting outlandish stuff, which is basically his brand. The question is how should the media and the politerati process the Biden matter while giving at least equal attention (if not more) to Trump’s own possible cognitive issues and his alleged criminality and dangerous narcissistic authoritarianism? This appears to be a challenge for reporters working within the traditional confines of political reporting. It's also a tough subject for Democrats to handle. In the days since Hur’s report was released, numerous people have asked me how the Democrats could replace Biden as their 2024 banner carrier. If prominent Dems called on him to withdraw, wouldn’t that work? And why doesn’t a top Democrat enter the party’s primary contest? (Rep. Dean Phillips doesn’t count.) I don’t know if any of this is under discussion within high-level Democratic circles. I’ve asked a few Democratic sources, and so far no one has told me they’re aware of such talk occurring (though some might not share that information if a conversation of that nature were underway). But I can suss out the difficult issues here. Senior Democrats—say Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Pelosi—would be highly unlikely to place public pressure on Biden to head home to Delaware unless they were sure that their suggestions would be heeded and that a well-known Democrat other than Vice President Kamala Harris would be willing to leap into the fray. Such a list probably includes California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. (Don’t ask me why so many Democrats are down on Harris. That’s a topic for another day. Let’s just stipulate that they are.) Why would they need this guarantee? Otherwise, they would be out there undermining Biden in a way that would definitely hurt him in November if he’s the nominee. Imagine if this group of Democrats or others publicly state that Biden should step aside and he does not. That declaration would be handily used by Trump and the GOP against Biden. The ads would be devastating. As for another Democratic contender parachuting in, it’s too late for that. The deadline for getting on the ballot for the Democratic primary in most states has passed. For example, the deadline for California was December 15. Thus, the only non-Biden alternative path forward appears to depend on a Biden withdrawal. Is it possible for Democrats to mount a mutiny at their convention that manages to overturn the rule compelling delegates to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged—which presumably would be Biden? This may be more the terrain of House of Cards. Bottom line: There’s no good mechanism for the Democrats to force Biden into retirement against his will. If he elects to bow out, the party can pick another champion. In a way, it is indeed absurd to have such a conversation about Biden’s slips (if that’s all they are) when the presumptive GOP nominee represents a clear and present danger. But if the most important task at hand is to prevent a Trump restoration, should the mission for Democrats and progressives be to promote Biden as best they can (while highlighting the Trump threat) or find a way to field a new guy or gal? The first choice means figuring out how to overcome swing voters’ possible worries about Biden’s abilities. (And the Biden campaign and the party ought to try to accurately evaluate how deep these concerns are.) The second choice would require Biden’s assent and, if granted, could spark political chaos. “Life is unfair,” John Kennedy once said. And it may be unfair that Biden faces political headwinds because of his age and verbal miscues and Trump does not. Still, this should not be ignored; complaining about it will not help Biden and the Democrats. Biden needs to do what he can to address the matter. (Challenge Trump to a bicycle race?) If he can’t offer a measure of reassurance, he ought to consider retirement—perhaps after the primaries—and allow the delegates to the Democratic convention to slug it out over who should be the nominee. He and his supporters have argued that he’s the only Democrat who has demonstrated he can beat Trump. But as time marches on, history does not always repeat. Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
|
|
The Watch, Read, and Listen List |
The Greatest Night in Pop. Imagine corralling more than 40 music superstars into a studio for about 10 hours—most of those after midnight—and trying to get them to work together to record a song from start to finish. Seems a tall order. But one night this did happen. On January 28, 1985, four dozen rock, pop, country, and jazz artists assembled in a LA studio to lay down the vocal tracks for “We Are the World,” a single meant to raise money for famine relief in Africa. After a group of top British artists released “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” to bring attention to the famine, Harry Belafonte urged Ken Kragen, a music industry macher, to do something similar with American musicians, and the two of them enlisted Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie to write the song. Quincy Jones signed on as the producer, and they all began recruiting top names to participate: Bruce Springsteen, Tina Turner, Stevie Wonder, Bob Dylan, Huey Lewis, Cyndi Lauper, Ray Charles, Paul Simon, and more. But the how in the hell do you get all these guys and gals in a room at the same time? Kragen arranged for this session to be held right after the American Music Awards, which, coincidentally, was being hosted by Richie. Most of the artists would be attending. All they would need were a bunch of limos. You know the ending: It all worked out, and the song was released and became one of the top-selling singles of all-time. But do you know how? The Greatest Night in Pop, streaming on Netflix, is a delightful documentary that chronicles this historic get-together. The film, directed by Bao Nguyen, is a straightforward account of the project, with much emphasis placed, of course, on the late-night hours during which Jones tried mightily to obtain the vocals he needed for the song. “Leave your ego at the door,” he wrote on a sign posted at the entrance to the studio. He and everyone else knew they had one shot at this. Jones couldn’t reassemble this bunch if they didn’t get it right. The pressure was on. It's fascinating to watch the artists interact with each other. There was great camaraderie but also a touch of competition. Not everyone got to sing lead vocals. And not every participant could hit the sweet and high notes of the chorus, prompting Jones to tell these singers to remain silent for that part of the tune. One of the best moments in the film occurs when Dylan has trouble fitting his unique vocal stylings into this pop song. He looks out of sorts. Then Wonder sits down at the piano and does a dead-on impression of Dylan singing these lines. Dylan’s eyes light up, as if to say, “Oh, I see.” Imitating Wonder imitating him, he nails his solo. Springsteen also has to sync his gravelly voice with the smooth Jackson-Richie composition, but he welcomes the challenge good naturedly. There are many revealing sequences. The producers keep asking Sheila E. if her pal Prince is on his way, and, she notes in an on-screen interview, that she believes they were dangling a solo for her in exchange for her assistance in wrangling the reclusive star. But, nope, he won’t come. Too many people. And, thus, no solo for her. A more troubling moment occurs when Wonder suggests they add to the song several lines in Swahili. Someone remarks that Swahili is not spoken in Ethiopia, the site of the famine. And before the matter is resolved—no Swahili was sung—country star Waylon Jennings storms out, saying, “No good ol’ boy sings in Swahili.” Not a good look. A more amusing comment comes when Kenny Loggins quotes Simon: “If a bomb lands on this place, John Denver’s back on top.” The Greatest Night in Pop—which combines video recorded that night with hours of audio collected by David Breskin, a music journalist allowed to attend the session (and a college pal of mine)—is a deep dish of delicious nostalgia. It begs the question: Could something similar happen today? Not likely. There were no cell phones then. And no one was allowed to bring an assistant or any other escort. These stars were quasi-hostages. They were not distracted by the outside world. They were forced to mingle and engage with each other, though many in the room were unfamiliar with their fellow vocalists before this night. The final product was schmaltzy. But the song was right for that time and conveyed a sense of optimism in the face of great suffering. We are the world. If only. |
Slow Horses and For All Mankind. One of the hardest things to do in showbiz is to sustain a high-quality television series. The best are often unique in some fashion, and continuing to come up with new and original ideas is difficult. Slow Horses and For All Mankind, both on Apple TV+, have been wonderful shows. Slow Horses is le Carré-ish fare that features a bunch of British intelligence officers who have screwed up in one way or another and been reassigned to an outpost for losers who warrant exile but not dismissal. In charge of this lot is Jackson Lamb, a slovenly, ultra-curmudgeonly, and cynical MI5 veteran without a heart of gold, though there may be a pebble of glitter present in his dark soul. He’s played magnificently by Gary Oldman. For All Mankind is a brilliant alternative history. The Soviets land a man on the moon in 1969 before the Americans, and this triggers a space race that changes US politics (President Ted Kennedy!) and accelerates the development of the American space program that lands us on Mars in the early 2000s. The show is dazzlingly imaginative and has provided some tremendous season finales that satisfy and entice. But I am sorry to report that for each of these magnificent shows the most recent seasons failed to meet the standards they set for themselves. The plot For All Mankind (season 4) is flat, with a drawn-out narrative about the attempted capture of a resources-rich asteroid. The new characters introduced are not as gripping. There is less excitement about the final frontier. The overall arc got stuck on Mars. I suppose that’s natural, given there’s nowhere else to go after the Red Planet. But none of this should dissuade anyone from watching the first three seasons. Slow Horses ran into its own problem with its third season. The first two were full of nuanced intrigue driven by internal rivalries within the intelligence bureaucracy. The recent one shifted to gun fights. In the television and movie industry, there’s often a push to raise stakes. You cannot recycle. If a protagonist saves a city from a terrorist strike, in the next installment he or she must save the entire world. In the latest Slow Horses chapter, all the outcasts end up with their lives threatened in a highly improbable set of circumstances that involves a warehouse for classified documents that has an unbelievable low level of security. The action-flick quotient is ratcheted up for this season, and there is a drop-off in its charm. I hope this is a one-time deviation and future seasons force Lamb and his band to contend with the more realistic dilemmas of the netherworld they inhabit. |
Read Recent Issues of Our Land |
February 10, 2024: Biden or Trump and the memory hole; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Marjorie Taylor Greene); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. February 6, 2024: Joy Reid and a civil rights love story; a new biography of Lou Reed; and more. February 3, 2024: A too-late Biden shift on Israel?; writing about Taylor Swift; a classic Trump video on lying; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar); MoxieCam™; and more. January 30, 2024: New book tells the inside story of the Georgia RICO case against Donald Trump; Trump pals around with accused billionaire sex criminal; Anatomy of a Fall soars; and more. January 27, 2024: The dilemma of the anti-Trump conservatives; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. January 23, 2024: Trump, Putin, and Russia—it never ends; my warning to Ron DeSantis; Ava DuVernay’s big idea in Origin; Allison Russell and The Returner; and more. January 20, 2024: The absurdity of No Labels; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ron DeSantis); the Mailbag: MoxieCam™; and more. January 17, 2024: Hugh Hewitt’s constitutional con; the truth of American Fiction; George Saunders’ Liberation Day; and more. January 13, 2024: Is Trump extremism getting more extreme?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (everyone!); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. January 9, 2024: Two historic Dutch girls and today’s world; the creepy chaos of Leave the World Behind; the awesome creativity of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse; and more. |
|
|
Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
|
|
|