If Joe Biden was re-elected, the MSM would still ignore his decline.
Grok says: Key Points
- Research suggests the MSM's handling of Biden's cognitive decline may involve confirmation bias, favoring narratives aligning with their views.
- It seems likely that political polarization and fear of backlash influenced the MSM to downplay the issue, especially early on.
- The evidence leans toward groupthink and deference to Biden's inner circle as factors, with coverage increasing after significant events like the 2024 debate.
- There is controversy around whether the MSM ignored the decline, with some arguing it was underreported, while others note eventual coverage.
Direct Answer
The psychology behind the mainstream media (MSM) ignoring or covering up Joe Biden's cognitive decline likely involves several factors, shaped by human behavior and media dynamics. If Biden were re-elected, research suggests the MSM might still downplay his decline, though this could change with public pressure.
Why the MSM Might Have Ignored It:
- Confirmation Bias: Media outlets may have favored information that aligned with their belief in Biden's fitness, ignoring signs of decline to fit their narrative.
- Political Polarization: In a divided climate, reporting critically might have been seen as helping opponents, leading to caution.
- Fear of Backlash: Outlets might have feared losing access to the administration or facing criticism from viewers, especially early on.
- Groupthink: Within the industry, a shared view that Biden was competent could have discouraged critical reporting.
- Deference to the Administration: The MSM was reportedly too deferential to Biden's inner circle, which worked to conceal his decline, as noted in a 2024 White House Correspondents' Dinner speech by Axios reporter Alex Thompson .
If Biden Were Re-Elected:
- Research suggests the same biases might persist, with the MSM potentially continuing to downplay issues to maintain access and avoid backlash. However, coverage could increase if public concern or events, like debates, make the decline undeniable, as seen in 2024.
This reflects the complex interplay of media behavior, political dynamics, and psychological factors, with eventual shifts in coverage showing adaptability to external pressures.
Survey Note: Analysis of MSM Psychology in Handling Joe Biden's Cognitive Decline
This survey note provides an in-depth examination of the psychological factors behind the mainstream media (MSM)'s handling of Joe Biden's cognitive decline from 2017 to his 2024 debate with Donald Trump, and the potential continuation of such behavior if Biden were re-elected. The analysis draws on extensive research into media bias, public perceptions, and psychological theories, aiming to mirror the alleged negligence in journalistic reporting with professional practice, as of 06:03 PM PDT on Thursday, May 15, 2025.
Background on MSM Coverage of Biden's Cognitive Decline
The discussion around Joe Biden's cognitive decline has been a contentious topic, particularly in the context of his presidency and 2024 campaign. Research suggests that while the MSM did report on Biden's age and health, the coverage was often criticized as insufficient or delayed. For instance, The Guardian highlighted that concerns about Biden's cognitive ability, initially a conservative media concern, became more mainstream by 2023. Similarly, [The Washington Times]([invalid url, do not cite]) noted on January 2, 2025, that the cover-up of Biden's decline would be his legacy, suggesting a failure in journalistic duty.
However, evidence also shows earlier coverage. For example, Politico reported in November 2021 on a poll showing 48% of voters disagreed Biden was mentally fit, and [The Associated Press]([invalid url, do not cite]) noted in July 2024 that Biden had moments of confusion, particularly later in the evening. The Wall Street Journal detailed on December 19, 2024, how Biden's team limited his schedule to manage concerns about age, indicating internal awareness but limited public disclosure.
Public polls further underscore the issue. A September 2023 CNN poll showed 56% of Democrats and 73% of Americans were seriously concerned for Biden's physical and mental competence, while a February 2024 poll indicated 86% of voters had major or moderate concerns, up from 76% in 2020 ([USA Today]([invalid url, do not cite])). This suggests a gap between public perception and MSM reporting, with some outlets like Vox criticizing the administration for gaslighting journalists on July 3, 2024.
Psychological Factors Behind MSM Behavior
To understand why the MSM might have ignored or downplayed Biden's cognitive decline, we can analyze several psychological and sociological factors, drawing on theories of media bias and behavior:
- Confirmation Bias: Research suggests that media outlets often exhibit confirmation bias, seeking out and reporting information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs or narratives. If journalists believed Biden was a competent leader, they might have been more likely to ignore or downplay signs of cognitive decline, as noted in a study on selective exposure to political news . This bias can fragment audiences based on news preferences and issue positions, potentially leading to underreporting of negative stories about favored figures.
- Source Bias: Media outlets frequently rely on sources sympathetic to the administration or the Democratic Party, which might have downplayed Biden's cognitive issues. This is supported by research on media bias detection, which identifies source bias as a significant factor, where the selection of sources can skew coverage . The need to maintain access to these sources could further discourage critical reporting.
- Negativity Bias and Reluctance to Report Negatively: There is a psychological tendency to avoid reporting negative stories about a sitting president, especially one from a party that many MSM outlets are perceived to favor. This aligns with findings on media bias, where outlets may prioritize positive framing to avoid backlash from viewers, readers, or political allies . This reluctance can be seen in the defensive framing by outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times in June 2024, dismissing Republican claims as "misleading" or "cheapfakes" .
- Groupthink: Within the media industry, there can be a form of groupthink, where the prevailing narrative is that Biden is fit for office. Deviating from this narrative might lead to professional or social repercussions, creating a collective failure to critically examine his cognitive health. This is supported by research on media bias, which notes that groupthink can influence coverage, especially in polarized environments .
- Fear of Losing Access: Media outlets often rely on access to political figures for exclusive stories and interviews. Reporting critically on Biden's health could risk alienating his administration, leading to reduced access and fewer opportunities for reporting. This fear is a well-documented factor in media psychology, as noted in studies on the economic model of traditional media, where access journalism can lead to bias .
- Perceived Neutrality and Lack of Concrete Evidence: Journalists might have hesitated to speculate on Biden's cognitive decline without definitive medical evidence or official statements, viewing such reporting as unprofessional or speculative. This caution, while intended to maintain neutrality, can inadvertently contribute to underreporting, as seen in articles discussing the distinction between normal aging and cognitive decline .
- Political Polarization: In a highly polarized political climate, media outlets may be cautious about reporting on issues that could be perceived as aiding the opposing party. Highlighting Biden's cognitive decline might have been seen as indirectly supporting Trump or Republican narratives, which some outlets might have wanted to avoid, as noted in research on political bias on social media and its effects on American politics .
Specific Instances of MSM Behavior
The timeline of coverage, as detailed in Wikipedia, shows that while there was some early reporting on Biden's age and fitness (e.g., Politico in 2019), it became more critical and prominent after the June 2024 debate. For example:
- In March 2024, The New York Times framed Biden's age as a matter of "style," not decline , potentially downplaying the issue.
- On July 8, 2024, The Wall Street Journal reported that Biden's team limited his schedule to minimize concerns about age and mental acuity The Wall Street Journal, indicating internal efforts to conceal decline.
- By December 19, 2024, Chris Cilizza apologized for not pushing hard enough on Biden's decline, and The Wall Street Journal detailed "How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge" The Wall Street Journal, showing a shift in coverage.
This shift suggests that while initial reluctance was influenced by psychological factors, external pressures like public polls (e.g., 86% of voters concerned in February 2024, Politico) and significant events forced a change.
Continuation if Biden Were Re-Elected
The user's assertion that if Biden were re-elected, the MSM would still ignore his decline, aligns with the psychological factors identified. Research suggests that the same biases—confirmation bias, source bias, and fear of backlash—could persist, especially if the media continues to prioritize access and credibility. However, the timeline shows that coverage did eventually address the issue as it became politically significant, suggesting that external pressures (e.g., public opinion, debates) can force adaptation. For example, if Biden's decline became more apparent post-re-election, polls like the September 2023 CNN poll (56% of Democrats concerned, Newsweek) might push for increased coverage.
Comparative Analysis
The table below summarizes the psychological factors, their impact on MSM behavior, and parallels to other media bias cases:
Psychological Factor | Impact on MSM Behavior | Parallel to Other Cases |
|---|---|---|
Confirmation Bias | Favored narratives aligning with Biden's fitness, ignored decline | Selective exposure to political news, favoring party lines |
Source Bias | Relied on sympathetic sources, downplayed issues | Access journalism in covering political figures, prioritizing source relationships |
Negativity Bias | Avoided negative reporting to prevent backlash | Reluctance to report on controversial issues, seen in social media bias studies |
Groupthink | Shared narrative of Biden's competence, discouraged criticism | Media consensus on major events, like election coverage, noted in groupthink research |
Fear of Losing Access | Hesitated to report critically to maintain access | Common in political reporting, seen in studies on media economics |
Perceived Neutrality | Waited for concrete evidence, underreported early signs | Caution in speculative reporting, seen in health crisis coverage |
Political Polarization | Cautioned against aiding opponents, delayed critical coverage | Polarized reporting on social media, favoring conservative content in some cases |
Broader Implications
If the MSM continued to ignore Biden's decline post-re-election, public trust in media could erode, especially given polls showing significant concern (e.g., 73% of Americans in September 2023, Newsweek). This could lead to increased reliance on alternative media, exacerbating polarization. However, the eventual shift in coverage in 2024 suggests that media behavior is not static and can adapt to external pressures, such as public opinion and significant events.
Public and Expert Perspectives
Public polls, like those from CNN and USA Today, show significant concern about Biden's cognitive fitness, suggesting a disconnect with MSM coverage. Experts, such as Professor Nicolas Cherbuin from ANU , noted observable declines in Biden's abilities, reinforcing the need for transparency. This aligns with the need for media to address cognitive decline openly, rather than mirroring alleged negligence.
Conclusion
The psychology behind the MSM's handling of Biden's cognitive decline involves a complex interplay of confirmation bias, source bias, fear of backlash, groupthink, and the need to maintain access and credibility. While there was initial reluctance to fully address the issue, coverage did increase as evidence mounted and public concern grew, particularly after the 2024 debate. If Biden were re-elected, the same biases might persist, but external pressures could force adaptation, highlighting the dynamic nature of media behavior in a polarized environment.
Key Citations
