It's time to talk about Joe Biden's negative media coverage

[GeneralMacArthur]

According to this Axios article, in the month of August, 77% of top-shared stories about Biden were negative.  24 of the top 25 were negative.

Let's look at what exactly America's favorite Biden stories are:

The most-shared negative story was the Monmouth poll showing him in a tie with Sanders and Warren.  This poll was a huge outlier, as dozens of other polls that came out before and after it showed.  Monmouth themselves, seeing how much attention it was getting, put out a statement saying "our poll is an outlier."  Is Biden actually tied with Sanders/Warren?  No, he has a comfortable double-digit lead nationally over both of them.

#2 was the Washington Post saying "almost every details" of a war story Biden shared was false.  Except this characterization of the story is BS.  It makes it sound like Biden made up the story.  But what Biden actually did was mush together details from two different stories.  About 80% of the details are from story A, and 20% are from story B.  If you assume he's trying to tell story A, the kicker is "Biden gets story mostly right, but mixes up a few details."  To get WaPo's headline, you have to maliciously assume (as they did) that he's trying to tell story B.

It's like if I were to tell you the story of the Civil War, and then say "25,000 Americans died."  Um, no, that's how many died during the Revolutionary War.  Ordinarily you'd just say "GeneralMacarthur gets number wrong for dead in Civil War."  But to get the WaPo headline, you have to assume I was trying to tell the story of the Revolutionary War, and write "GeneralMacarthur tries to tell story of Revolutionary War, gets nearly every detail wrong except the number of dead."

#3 is an article called Joe Biden: It Would Be an Insult to My Dead Son for Everyone to Have Healthcare.  The headline is a brazen lie about a Biden campaign ad.  In the ad, he says "I learned a lot about how important health care is from taking care of my son.  We should build on what we have, not tear it down and start over."  That's it, that's all the headline is describing.  The article is an obvious hit piece from an ex-Gawker employee written with an anti-Biden and pro-Bernie tone, using the Sanders campaign attack line that Biden's public option plan is "denying people healthcare" because some wealthy people might not want to buy it.

#4 is Biden saying he's in Vermont when he's in New Hampshire.  Classic Biden gaffe.  People gave him s**t for this because "obviously he would never go to Vermont, he's running a presidential campaign."  This is exactly the kind of mix-up Biden has been making for decades, if you go watch his debate performances from 2007 he does stuff like this all the time.

#5 is Jill Biden saying "you may have to swallow a little" to vote for Biden.  This has been taken outrageously out of context by headlines pretending she was talking to all Americans and slamming her own husband.  In full context, she's talking to supporters of Biden's opponents, telling them "you may like Sanders better than Biden, but you gotta vote for Biden over Trump."

#6 is one that really makes me mad.  Joe Biden saying "I want to be clear, I'm not going nuts."

Anyone remember the bad old days of the Colbert Report, when Colbert wanted to make fun of the media by having Congressman Robert Wexler say things on camera like "I enjoy the company of prostitutes because it's a fun thing to do"?  It was obvious in context that it was a joke, but some Republicans cut it out of context and ran ads trying to convince people it was serious.

That's kind of what this quote is.  Biden is making fun of the media's constant narrative that he's going insane by joking about it when he mixes up a small detail.  The full quote is "I just spoke at Dartmouth, on health care, at the medical school -- or, not, I guess it wasn't actually on the campus but people from campus were at the... I want to be clear, I'm not going nuts, I'm not sure whether it was the medical school or where I spoke but it was on the campus."  So Biden is making fun of the fact that the media is going to call him "nuts" for mixing up some stupid detail about where he spoke (and the crowd laughed).  The media responded by ripping the quote out of context to make it look like he was addressing America on his dementia.  Multiple reports compared it to Nixon's "I am not a crook" line.

Then #7 is just another Biden gaffe.  He said RFK and MLK were assassinated in the 1970s.  If you watch the full speech, it's not clear that he's actually referring to the assassinations when he says the 1970s, but even if he is, it's just another Biden gaffe, obviously he knows when RFK and MLK were assassinated.

So in summary we have one outlier poll, two minor gaffes, and four articles that are obvious hit pieces.  Of the hit pieces, two are just straight-up hit pieces (#2 and #3) while two others are maliciously taking quotes out of context to make them look worse (#5 and #6).

This is the news people are getting about Biden.  Especially young people who only get their news from social media and comedy shows.  And somehow he's still at 30%.  Just imagine where he'd be if people were exposed to what he's actually saying and doing instead of this fake s**t.

[President Johnson]

Yeah, this is destroying the narrative of Joe Biden being the candidate of the elites and the so-called establishment. The focus should more be on his actual policies, which are detailed (just read his website), not just in substance, but also how to pay for these things. The problem is that politics has largely become a showbusiness instead of something more serious. Otherwise, Donald Trump wouldn't be near the White House.

[Hermit For Peace]

This man has too many negatives, just like Hillary did.

I'm sorry but we can't afford to let him get anywhere near the Presidency. His time has passed.

All he does is make gaffes and defend himself. And it's only going to get worse with his advanced age. He is ripe for all this media bias against him.

Biden is skating on white male privilege and Obama's coattails. That's it. While at the same time, Warren (for example) is running circles around him campaigning and getting her message out, making a lot of sense. She has high energy and is a remarkable debater, consistent, and ultra smart. Who deserves to be President in this scenario? Who is earning the negative media press?

[GeneralMacArthur]

This man has too many negatives, just like Hillary did.

Literally none of these stories are about any actual negatives.

At least early in the race there were stories about problematic comments he made in the 1970s, or his Iraq War views (neither of which I view as negatives, but voters might).  But this stuff is just dumb.  The third-most popular Biden article is a pro-Bernie Gawker hack lying about what he says in a campaign ad, for christ's sake.

All he does is make gaffes

Biden spoke for twenty minutes at the debate and made one gaffe, the record players thing.  I wouldn't even call that a gaffe.  He didn't say anything wrong or stupid.  He didn't mix up a fact.  He just referenced a technology that people don't use anymore.  So no, it's not true that "all he does is make gaffes" because the other 99.99% of his what he said was gaffe-free.  But 85% of the media coverage has been about that 0.01% of what he said.

[Old Man Willow]

Yeah, this is destroying the narrative of Joe Biden being the candidate of the elites and the so-called establishment. The focus should more be on his actual policies, which are detailed (just read his website), not just in substance, but also how to pay for these things. The problem is that politics has largely become a showbusiness instead of something more serious. Otherwise, Donald Trump wouldn't be near the White House.

The candidate of the elites and establishment was Queen Kamala. Unfortunately for them, few people are interested in that product.

[GeneralMacArthur]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/joe-biden-gaffes-media-clickbait

For reporters, gaffes are fun and straightforward to cover, especially when a wounded front-runner is involved. Hillary Clinton drowned in gaffes and verbal flubs in 2008—including when she asked voters to imagine Obama’s assassination as they were both seeking the Democratic nomination. Reporters seized on her gaffes and hyped them up at every turn, while usually giving Obama the benefit of the doubt during his rise and eventual victory. Political reporters usually reward new faces and punish old ones, a dynamic you can sense in the coverage of Elizabeth Warren’s rise against the front-runner Biden. And Biden—boy, does he give good gaffe. His mistakes happen often enough to satisfy the feed-the-beast demands of reporters on the campaign trail. The gaffes fulfill a simple narrative about Biden’s age and fitness that makes the stories easy to write and easy to tweet. They deliver precious content and engagement to the gods of Chartbeat. “Gaffes are one of the easiest ways to get clicks,” Cameron said. “Usually, the video is there to prove it. So if someone says something new, and there’s video, according to the most basic responsibilities of journalism today, it’s going to get covered, and Democrats have to realize they are going to get hit with it just as much as Trump.”

Biden has already leaned into his reputation, even once calling himself “a gaffe machine.” He might as well, because unlike Kerry or Romney or Clinton, his gaffes don’t actually reveal some deeper hidden truth. Biden’s gaffes really only showcase what we’ve known about him for a long time—that he makes gaffes. Compared to the horror show coming out of Trump’s mouth on a near-daily basis, who cares?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Are people really jumping on Corn Pop?  It's just a funny story to entertain the crowd, nothing more nothing less.  Sounds like something out of a 50s movie.

[John Dule]

Lol, his teeth literally fell out in front of twelve million people.

[rhg2052]

Biden spoke for twenty minutes at the debate and made one gaffe, the record players thing.  I wouldn't even call that a gaffe.  He didn't say anything wrong or stupid.  He didn't mix up a fact.  He just referenced a technology that people don't use anymore.  So no, it's not true that "all he does is make gaffes" because the other 99.99% of his what he said was gaffe-free.  But 85% of the media coverage has been about that 0.01% of what he said.

Okay but that answer was a lot worse than just citing an outdated piece of technology, and I actually agree that too much focus has been on the record player sound bite in particular.

"We bring social workers into homes of parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t want to help, they don’t want — they don’t know quite what to do."

Here you have the implication that social work is important because black people don't know how to raise their kids.

"Play the radio, make sure the television — excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the phone — make sure that kids hear words."

And here you have Biden offering ~helpful~ suggestions on how black people should be raising their kids.

[Hammy]

Biden's negative coverage isn't nearly as high as it needs to be to keep this dangerously out of touch fool from away from the nomination.

[Minnesota Mike]

Lol, his teeth literally fell out in front of twelve million people.

And that's a negative because?

[John Dule]

Lol, his teeth literally fell out in front of twelve million people.

And that's a negative because?

Because he's an elderly coot and he's decomposing before our eyes.

[Minnesota Mike]

Lol, his teeth literally fell out in front of twelve million people.

And that's a negative because?

Because he's an elderly coot and he's decomposing before our eyes.

The man's dentures came loose. BFD.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Gotta love it.  I start this thread talking about how the top 7 Biden stories are all negative coverage that's either demonstrably false or simply meaningless.  And you guys ignore the post and get talking about an eighth Biden story.  When you're called out on the fact that it's just another meaningless gaffe, you change the subject to "yeah but he's a racist."

Biden supporters could waste our time shooting that down, but why bother?  You'll just move on to story #9, or loop around to one of the other seven.  Never stopping to think "hmmm if I've been misinformed about this guy 8 times in a row maybe I should stop and think before the ninth time."

The GOP strategy in 2016 was clear as day.  Just create an endless stream of minor scandals about the opponent, market them to leftists within the party, sit back and stoke the gish gallop from your ivory tower.  It's happening again with Biden and y'all are falling for it hook line and sinker.  In 2024 it'll happen with Buttigieg or whoever.  And it'll keep happening every year until y'all wise up.

[Higgins]

This man has too many negatives, just like Hillary did.

I'm sorry but we can't afford to let him get anywhere near the Presidency. His time has passed.

All he does is make gaffes and defend himself. And it's only going to get worse with his advanced age. He is ripe for all this media bias against him.

Biden is skating on white male privilege and Obama's coattails. That's it. While at the same time, Warren (for example) is running circles around him campaigning and getting her message out, making a lot of sense. She has high energy and is a remarkable debater, consistent, and ultra smart. Who deserves to be President in this scenario? Who is earning the negative media press?

And again, comrade, it goes back to race. Why are you and your ilk so hateful of white men, and why are you so centered on race?

[Mr. Smith]

So what? It only proves that media know he's terrible, but are too afraid of the status-quo changing, so they cling to him. Tax raises would be terrible!

And of course they gotta have dat horse race! Gotta be objective after all!

Besides, negative coverage is still more coverage than no coverage.

[Virginiá]

Biden's constant gaffes and baggage from a lifetime in politics is like 2016 déjà vu. Even the fact that people have to sit here and deconstruct the criticisms reminds me very much of her campaign. At some point you have to ask yourself why this person should be the nominee when they are constantly on defense and seem ill-equipped for the general election.

Personally, I'm not going down that road again, and for numerous reasons. Biden does not encourage optimism for unseating Donald Trump - regardless of what the polls say right now.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Biden's constant gaffes and baggage from a lifetime in politics is like 2016 déjà vu. Even the fact that people have to sit here and deconstruct the criticisms reminds me very much of her campaign. At some point you have to ask yourself why this person should be the nominee when they are constantly on defense and seem ill-equipped for the general election.

Personally, I'm not going down that road again, and for numerous reasons. Biden does not encourage optimism for unseating Donald Trump - regardless of what the polls say right now.

The media could do this with any candidate.  They could try actually delving into Warren's policy proposals, or investigating her personal life, or hounding her around at events.  Instead she gets a free pass on everything.  And Lord knows Bernie has gotten away with murder time and time again.  Yet the press picks on Biden.  Does it really matter why?

What you're saying in your post is we should basically let the media choose our candidate for us because constant negative coverage is, in and if itself, a disqualifier, regardless of the subject of the negative coverage.  I could go write 20 negative articles about Warren's relationship with her husband, or her finances, or what she was up to in the 90s, or demanding to see transcripts of her Harvard lectures, or any number of things, and it would be super unfair, but you would say "do we really want a candidate who gets so much negative coverage, Warren is constantly on defense, this just reminds me of 2016."

If Warren were the frontrunner and Biden not in the race, you can bet those kinds of articles would be written and her Native American heritage would be the new email scandal.  Would she then be disqualified?  Do we have to find a new, charismatic, squeaky-clean candidate with no political history every four years so the press doesn't have anything to write about?

[Hermit For Peace]

This man has too many negatives, just like Hillary did.

I'm sorry but we can't afford to let him get anywhere near the Presidency. His time has passed.

All he does is make gaffes and defend himself. And it's only going to get worse with his advanced age. He is ripe for all this media bias against him.

Biden is skating on white male privilege and Obama's coattails. That's it. While at the same time, Warren (for example) is running circles around him campaigning and getting her message out, making a lot of sense. She has high energy and is a remarkable debater, consistent, and ultra smart. Who deserves to be President in this scenario? Who is earning the negative media press?

And again, comrade, it goes back to race. Why are you and your ilk so hateful of white men, and why are you so centered on race?

I didn't say white men. I was referring to the concept of "white male privilege." That's what needs to go, not white males. Society needs to take a hard look at our practice of giving white males special treatment over all others. Look at Trump. He's the perfect example. All that sh**t he's pulled and yet, he continues to get a pass from everyone, and he stays in office. Imagine if a woman President pulled all the crap he does. How long would she stay in office?

As for race, I'm not speaking about or referring to race, you are. (See concept above)

[GeneralMacArthur]

Folks, this is a serious thread.  Can we please not turn it into another race war.

[John Dule]

Lol, his teeth literally fell out in front of twelve million people.

And that's a negative because?

Because he's an elderly coot and he's decomposing before our eyes.

The man's dentures came loose. BFD.

He's embarrassing himself. He needs to drop out.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The candidates running for the primary have influence on how people view Joe Biden; as a result, Warren is getting the same media coverage that Harris was getting, while Harris was in Warren's position. All that happened was the medla switched positive coverage from Harris to Warren due to Warren 2nd place

[Crumpets]

It's funny because, while I agree that Joe Biden gets a lot of negative coverage, the fact that the media hasn't completely written him off just because of that record player/Venezuela answer shows he still gets significantly more favorable coverage than almost all other Democratic candidates since Obama.

[heatcharger]

It's funny because, while I agree that Joe Biden gets a lot of negative coverage, the fact that the media hasn't completely written him off just because of that record player/Venezuela answer shows he still gets significantly more favorable coverage than almost all other Democratic candidates since Obama.

It can simultaneously be true that Biden is the subject of a large number of negative news stories as well as that he has a certain aura around him, mitigating the impact of said stories. In my opinion, he’s earned some of both. I agree with MacArthur’s assessments generally however.

But shouldn’t this be a positive indicator for Biden? This isn’t the same as Hillary Clinton in 2016, because her favorability with the public and general election standing plummeted as Benghazi, emails, and general Clinton rehashes took their toll. Biden is still viewed favorably by the public even after he’s been derided and canceled for months. Democrats should appreciate that they have a guy made of Teflon for once.

[The Mikado]

It's almost as if it's completely obvious that this candidate is a dangerous buffoon undergoing mental deterioration before our very eyes with no business being in the White House, but he has a loud, vehemently supportive core base of support and the more people attack him, the more devoted they get. And almost like no matter how vigorously other candidates attack him, he emerges just as strong and his attackers get wounded instead. The press and commentariat seem shocked that his base of elderly, uncool, and not particularly with the times supporters who aren't the sort of people they socialize with stick with him, and many loudly say that they know no one who supports this person in real life, yet he continues to lead.

It is such a strange phenomenon. I've never seen a candidate like this before.