There they go again
The story of the crusading journalist has traditionally been a welcome image for reporters, as long as the crusade seemed noble and just. But when it goes off the rails, it’s not a pretty picture.
Take reports that a Parkinson’s Disease expert visited the White House eight times in eight months. You need to reach the third paragraph for what many journalists would consider an important piece of context:
It was unclear whether Dr. Cannard was at the White House to consult specifically about the president or was there for unrelated meetings.
Seems like an important thing to pin down before publication, don’t you think?
But when you are on a crusade that Joe Biden is too old and infirm to run for reelection, well…
If only it were the first time the New York Times rushed to judgment.
Remember weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
How about “her emails”?
The Times, of course, has done some award-winning investigative reporting. But the Newspaper of Record’s pursuit of Biden’s age as a centerpiece of its 2024 presidential coverage has taken on elements of Captain Ahab’s search for a white whale.
To be fair, the White House won’t win any awards for transparency for its handling of the media feeding frenzy that has developed in the wake of the June 27 debate debacle.
Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre at first said Biden had not seen a doctor around the debate, a lie exposed by Biden himself.
The latest “scoop” was first reported by Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, which should give responsible journalists a heads up. But even assuming the there’s nothing wrong with publishing facts from visitor logs without context, the Post offered this piece of speculation from a former White House doctor: Ronny Jackson:
Since Biden’s health is [Kevin] O’Connor’s primary responsibility, it is highly probable the meeting was about the commander in chief, according to Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Tx), the doctor for both Presidents Obama and Trump. “It’s highly likely they were talking about Biden,” Jackson told The Post.
Buried deeper in the story is this crucial piece of context:
“Records from the Obama administration, when Mr. Biden was vice president, show that Dr. Cannard made at least 10 visits in 2012 plus a family tour; four in 2013; one in 2014; four in 2015; and eight in 2016. Mr. Trump rescinded Mr. Obama’s voluntary White House visitors disclosure policy, so records are not available for his four years in office.”
This latest round of the media feeding frenzy prompted a shouting match in the White House press briefing in which Jean-Pierre took offense to the tone of the questioning.
“We do our best to give you the information that we have at the time, that’s what we do,” she said, calling the questioning “really, really unfair” to her. “I do take offense to what was just happening at the beginning of this briefing. It’s not OK.”
Sorry but that seems fair given her performance to date.
Jean-Pierre did raise one good point, mainly that personal health information is protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Questions about what other patients, if any, Cannard was seeing, is totally off limits.
The current White House physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, eventually released a statement that:
“…confirmed that Dr. Cannard had seen Mr. Biden three times during the three and a half years of his presidency, but did not directly say whether any of his other visits were related to consulting on the president’s health.
Instead, Dr. O’Connor implied that most of Dr. Cannard’s visits were related to treating other people who work at the White House. “Prior to the pandemic, and following its end, he has held regular neurology clinics at the White House Medical Clinic in support of the thousands of active-duty members assigned in support of White House operations,” Dr. O’Connor wrote.”
“Implied.” A classic weasel word when you don’t have something pinned down.
The press is already held in low regard by much of the nation, egged on especially by Donald Trump who loves calling reporters the “enemy of the people.” This frenzy, coupled with the shouting match, isn’t going to help journalism.
Especially when it follows in lock step with a shakily-sourced report by a blatantly partisan outlet.
I’d fail students who turn in a story like this. And I’d advise them to follow the words of, um, Ronald Reagan, from a different time and context.
just silent.