Fact-Checking the Fact Checkers: Unmasking Media Bias in Biden Coverage

In a political landscape where the truth often takes a backseat to narrative, the reliability of fact-checking has come under scrutiny. Recent revelations from the book “Original Sin,” co-authored by CNN anchor Jake Tapper, shine a spotlight on the tactics employed by the White House to manage perceptions of President Joe Biden’s mental acuity and public image. The implications of these revelations extend beyond mere political maneuvering; they raise questions about the integrity of media institutions like the “Fact Checker” column, which has been criticized for its handling of Biden-related narratives.

A striking example of this dynamic unfolded during the D-Day celebrations last June, when Biden wandered off from a gathering of world leaders. The incident was captured on video and quickly became fodder for criticism, with one publication’s front page boldly declaring “MEANDER IN CHIEF.” In response, Glenn Kessler, the column’s author, labeled the media’s portrayal as a “cheap fake” and awarded “Four Pinocchios” for what he termed a misleading narrative. Yet, as Tapper later noted, the reactions from the White House were part of a broader strategy to discredit any visual evidence that portrayed Biden in a less-than-flattering light.

Tapper pointed out that throughout Biden’s presidency, whenever footage surfaced that suggested he was acting oddly or seemed disoriented, the White House would dismiss it as “cheap fake” content. However, as Tapper confirmed, these were not fabrications; they represented real moments that raised legitimate concerns about the president’s capacity. This contradiction between Kessler’s reprimands and the reality of Biden’s behavior introduces a troubling inconsistency in the narrative presented to the public.

The credibility of the “Fact Checker” column has further eroded following another misstep in 2021, when Kessler dismissed claims that Biden had attended a dinner with Hunter Biden and his business associates. Relying solely on a White House denial, Kessler labeled the assertion a lie. Fast forward to March 2024, and Kessler was forced to issue a correction, acknowledging that the dinner did indeed take place—a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls when fact-checking is conducted without a critical eye.

In December, Kessler’s analysis reached new heights of absurdity when he questioned whether Biden’s pardon of Hunter represented a flip-flop or a lie. His conclusion? It was unclear if Biden had lied because there was no evidence suggesting he had made his earlier statements with the knowledge of a forthcoming reversal. This somewhat convoluted reasoning drew parallels to past political rhetoric, notably Bill Clinton’s infamous “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” raising eyebrows about the standards applied to different political figures.

In February 2024, Kessler ventured into territory that could only be described as speculative, contemplating whether Biden needed a new law to “shut down the border.” Citing past legal challenges faced by Trump, Kessler concluded that a new law might be necessary. However, the subsequent drop in border crossings following the reversal of Biden’s open-border policies called this assertion into question, revealing another flawed judgment that was yet to be corrected.

The overarching theme here is one of accountability—or the lack thereof. How many inaccuracies must accumulate before the arbiter of truth begins to feel the weight of its own contradictions? The role of fact-checkers is not only to uphold journalistic standards but to foster an informed public. Yet, as evidenced by the recent revelations and Kessler’s missteps, the truth often gets muddled in political narratives that prioritize party loyalty over factual accuracy.

As we navigate this complex landscape, it becomes increasingly essential for readers to approach all media with a critical lens. The stakes are high; misinformation can shape public perception and influence electoral outcomes. By fostering an environment where questioning and verification are valued, we can begin to hold not just our leaders, but our fact-checkers and media institutions accountable for the narratives they propagate. Ultimately, a well-informed citizenry is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and that depends on media integrity and transparency.