“They're also wary, in an era of shrinking audiences, of offending conservatives by appearing to pile on the conservative candidate since mainstream journalists are already seen (accurately) as left of center themselves”
Great quote. It’s frustrating, because it’s not like conservatives genuinely notice or appreciate the both-sidesy coverage. The mainstream media criticizes Biden and Dems every day (and that’s good! Journalists should be holding truth to power) but if you were to ask a conservative, they’d tell you that these sources only ever talk about Trump because they’re in the pockets of democrats or whatever. So it’s really annoying when journalists go out of their way to avoid offending an audience that doesn’t care about facts, wants a dictator to take over the country, and will accuse even the most flaccid reporters of being liberal shills anyway.
I watched that interview & thought it was the best I've seen in years! He really asked important questions, not the ridiculous drivel the media has been lobbing to get clicks or advertising money, to get attention or sound intelligent. Most interviews these days are worthless. They don't advance the discussion like John Harwood's did.
It seems essential you anchor your work to this message of "MAGA Republicans are an existential threat to the American experiment" in tandem with your criticisms of the Democratic party. I suppose that's obvious and I should never have been worried you wouldn't.
Great writing, you're both very sharp and helped clarify some of my preconceived notions of reporters in a couple small ways, like recognizing their limited question sets and that the questions they get to ask are often decisions made by the home team, not individual reporters.
Thanks Matt. And yes! That point about Republicans is a key premise for the whole thing. GIVEN that existential threat, it's exceptionally important that the opposition not bypass opportunities to weaken MAGA—and if and when they do, it shouldn't be ignored, and excuses shouldn't be made.
Mainstream journalists operate from the assumption that we have two parties competing over power and policy and we should cover them as if they are more or less comparable—just on different sides. And they see the job of covering two opposing presidential candidates as exploring their problems and vulnerabilities.
^ This is the main issue with mainstream journalism today. But it won’t be fixed any time soon.
I suspect that my opinions are quiet different than most of your subscribers. I am largely a centrist - socially fairly liberal but fiscally/national security significantly more conservatives. I'm definitely not a Democrat nor a Republican (given huge dissatisfaction with both parties).
I am no fan of Trump, and agree with the sentiment that he poses a grave threat to our democracy. I hope that he is convicted of the Jan 6 charges (among others).
That being said, I disagree with idea that Mr. Harwood should not have pressed Biden about the issues with his son, Hunter. While there is no evidence at this point, there is, at a minimum, terrible optics and at least a whiff of corruption. The fact that Biden's family members took in millions of dollars based on, at a minimum, an illusion of influence with the then Vice President demands much more transparency. There is some evidence that Joe Biden has financially benefited from these dealings, and it seems at least reasonable, if not important, for him to publicly answer direct questions on this subject (e.g. "did your son Hunter pay some/many of your expenses"? or "provide more detail on why you forced the firing of the prosecutor in the Ukraine."). Corruption at the highest level is ALSO a threat to democracy (although agreeable not even comparable to the threat from Trump).
Where and how has Joe done so? Republicans have spent years now looking for this nonexistent money. He was well known as the least financially well off Senator when he served. That hasn’t changed substantially. His tax returns are available (unlike another person *cough, cough*).
Did it look bad? Yup. Is there any proof Joe Biden has done anything wrong, other than having a massive blind spot after losing literally his entire family?
As I said, there is no proof; there is enough suggestion that it bears investigation.
1) There is a text from Hunter saying that he (Hunter) had to give half of his money to his father
2) There is evidence that Hunter and Joe shared bank accounts from which at least some of Joe's expenses were paid
3) There is an email saying that $1M should go to "the big guy"
4) Biden and the White House have changed their story from "I never discussed any of my son's business dealings" to "I am not in business with my son".
There has not yet been a comprehensive review of their financials. Tax returns don't tell the whole story. And, as I said, there is no comparison to (another person *cough *cough).
In short, there is smoke, but no fire. I am simply suggesting that we SHOULD be asking the questions and ensuring that our elected officials are free from corruption
Wow. That you have gone this far down the rabbit hole suggests you are a sleeper Fox News fan. Not sure how you stumbled upon Brian’s column as you seem to be all in on the Biden train to corruption, but yet it’s fine for Trump to literally enrich himself from American citizens while in office and his entire family to profit from the Presidency.
Again, this has been going on for years. No one has denied Joe has made poor decisions when it comes to his son. Taking that to say he’s profiting or corrupt is a Republican fever dream.
Wow? I said numerous times that there is no comparison to the crimes committed by Trump. You, along with many other partisans, seem to be of the opinion that because Trump was so much worse that it excuses other's behaviors.
I voted for Biden (because he's better than Trump) but that doesn't mean that he gets a free pass. And I did not say that he's corrupt; I said there's enough there to warrant further investigation.
Just a few observations and I'll close this one out.
Whether the Hunter business deserves more investigative scrutiny is a significantly different question from where mainstream news should dedicate valuable resources (questions to presidents, front-page column inches, A-block airtime, etc). As it stands, the collective political-media decision to follow the GOP lead here has persuaded the country that Biden and Trump are roughly equally corrupt—a badly mistaken impression, as you acknowledge.
Stipulating that all instances of family members trading on the names of their powerful political patriarchs and matriarchs are bad and should be discouraged, there's no contest here. A voter whose single issue was "opposes family corruption" would have to vote for Biden over Trump. It wouldn't even be close. But there is no congressional circus investigation (or, as far as we know, U.S. Attorney investigation) of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, or any other Trump familiars, and, thus, no media fixation on it.
Against that backdrop, omitting Hunter questions from an interview about democracy was more than reasonable (I'd say it was correct).
But you're in luck! Hunter remains under investigation, by a Justice Department special counsel originally appointed U.S. Attorney by Donald Trump no less. Seems like overkill to me, but that's much more credible than anything House Republicans would describe as an "investigation," and if Biden had done anything illegal, a special counsel will be much more likely to find it than House Republicans or John Harwood.
It's a follow-the-money investigation, and the money has been followed. It's easy to follow because Biden (like past non-Trump presidents) disclosed both his tax returns AND his financial holdings. Maybe he's got a bunch of gold bouillon stashed in Rehoboth like Robert Menendez, but I have my doubts.
That's why GOP fact witnesses keep saying there's no evidence of corruption (by the elder Biden, of course), why GOP expert witnesses say an impeachment is unmerited, and why House Republicans acknowledge that they escalated to an impeachment inquiry in order to avoid leaving the public with the correct impression that their lengthy investigations have turned up nothing. Seriously, they admit this!
None of that means Biden (who clearly knew Hunter was up to no good and exercising poor judgment) dealt with the situation optimally. Obviously Hunter was a grown man, and his dad couldn't ground him, but he could (and I think clearly should) have taken a firmer hand than the public evidence suggests he did. No non-family dinners with Hunter. Less "I hope you know what you're doing," more "I don't approve of this and it's an abuse of trust." But that's a pretty thin complaint, complicated further by the horrible family history that saw him lose half of his offspring.
Maybe David Weiss will find that gold bouillon and I'll eat a lot of crow, but if not, I think Biden would actually benefit politically from saying something like that: My son has struggled a lot but he exercised poor judgment, and it's right that he face the consequences; I love my son unconditionally and it clouded mine.
Hunter's on trial now, so I doubt Biden will be saying that anytime soon, if ever, but it would be human, and I think a lot of people would relate to it.
“They're also wary, in an era of shrinking audiences, of offending conservatives by appearing to pile on the conservative candidate since mainstream journalists are already seen (accurately) as left of center themselves”
Great quote. It’s frustrating, because it’s not like conservatives genuinely notice or appreciate the both-sidesy coverage. The mainstream media criticizes Biden and Dems every day (and that’s good! Journalists should be holding truth to power) but if you were to ask a conservative, they’d tell you that these sources only ever talk about Trump because they’re in the pockets of democrats or whatever. So it’s really annoying when journalists go out of their way to avoid offending an audience that doesn’t care about facts, wants a dictator to take over the country, and will accuse even the most flaccid reporters of being liberal shills anyway.
Important piece.
Thank you. Share it far and wide if you can!
I watched that interview & thought it was the best I've seen in years! He really asked important questions, not the ridiculous drivel the media has been lobbing to get clicks or advertising money, to get attention or sound intelligent. Most interviews these days are worthless. They don't advance the discussion like John Harwood's did.
It seems essential you anchor your work to this message of "MAGA Republicans are an existential threat to the American experiment" in tandem with your criticisms of the Democratic party. I suppose that's obvious and I should never have been worried you wouldn't.
Great writing, you're both very sharp and helped clarify some of my preconceived notions of reporters in a couple small ways, like recognizing their limited question sets and that the questions they get to ask are often decisions made by the home team, not individual reporters.
Thanks Matt. And yes! That point about Republicans is a key premise for the whole thing. GIVEN that existential threat, it's exceptionally important that the opposition not bypass opportunities to weaken MAGA—and if and when they do, it shouldn't be ignored, and excuses shouldn't be made.
Biden should be doing a LOT more interviews like this.
An excellent interview - and John's top-notch.
Glad I waited until I had time to read it today, Brian. Spot on.
Mainstream journalists operate from the assumption that we have two parties competing over power and policy and we should cover them as if they are more or less comparable—just on different sides. And they see the job of covering two opposing presidential candidates as exploring their problems and vulnerabilities.
^ This is the main issue with mainstream journalism today. But it won’t be fixed any time soon.
I suspect that my opinions are quiet different than most of your subscribers. I am largely a centrist - socially fairly liberal but fiscally/national security significantly more conservatives. I'm definitely not a Democrat nor a Republican (given huge dissatisfaction with both parties).
I am no fan of Trump, and agree with the sentiment that he poses a grave threat to our democracy. I hope that he is convicted of the Jan 6 charges (among others).
That being said, I disagree with idea that Mr. Harwood should not have pressed Biden about the issues with his son, Hunter. While there is no evidence at this point, there is, at a minimum, terrible optics and at least a whiff of corruption. The fact that Biden's family members took in millions of dollars based on, at a minimum, an illusion of influence with the then Vice President demands much more transparency. There is some evidence that Joe Biden has financially benefited from these dealings, and it seems at least reasonable, if not important, for him to publicly answer direct questions on this subject (e.g. "did your son Hunter pay some/many of your expenses"? or "provide more detail on why you forced the firing of the prosecutor in the Ukraine."). Corruption at the highest level is ALSO a threat to democracy (although agreeable not even comparable to the threat from Trump).
Where and how has Joe done so? Republicans have spent years now looking for this nonexistent money. He was well known as the least financially well off Senator when he served. That hasn’t changed substantially. His tax returns are available (unlike another person *cough, cough*).
Did it look bad? Yup. Is there any proof Joe Biden has done anything wrong, other than having a massive blind spot after losing literally his entire family?
As I said, there is no proof; there is enough suggestion that it bears investigation.
1) There is a text from Hunter saying that he (Hunter) had to give half of his money to his father
2) There is evidence that Hunter and Joe shared bank accounts from which at least some of Joe's expenses were paid
3) There is an email saying that $1M should go to "the big guy"
4) Biden and the White House have changed their story from "I never discussed any of my son's business dealings" to "I am not in business with my son".
There has not yet been a comprehensive review of their financials. Tax returns don't tell the whole story. And, as I said, there is no comparison to (another person *cough *cough).
In short, there is smoke, but no fire. I am simply suggesting that we SHOULD be asking the questions and ensuring that our elected officials are free from corruption
Wow. That you have gone this far down the rabbit hole suggests you are a sleeper Fox News fan. Not sure how you stumbled upon Brian’s column as you seem to be all in on the Biden train to corruption, but yet it’s fine for Trump to literally enrich himself from American citizens while in office and his entire family to profit from the Presidency.
Again, this has been going on for years. No one has denied Joe has made poor decisions when it comes to his son. Taking that to say he’s profiting or corrupt is a Republican fever dream.
Wow? I said numerous times that there is no comparison to the crimes committed by Trump. You, along with many other partisans, seem to be of the opinion that because Trump was so much worse that it excuses other's behaviors.
I voted for Biden (because he's better than Trump) but that doesn't mean that he gets a free pass. And I did not say that he's corrupt; I said there's enough there to warrant further investigation.
Welcome to Thanksgiving! Hi unc!
Just a few observations and I'll close this one out.
Whether the Hunter business deserves more investigative scrutiny is a significantly different question from where mainstream news should dedicate valuable resources (questions to presidents, front-page column inches, A-block airtime, etc). As it stands, the collective political-media decision to follow the GOP lead here has persuaded the country that Biden and Trump are roughly equally corrupt—a badly mistaken impression, as you acknowledge.
Stipulating that all instances of family members trading on the names of their powerful political patriarchs and matriarchs are bad and should be discouraged, there's no contest here. A voter whose single issue was "opposes family corruption" would have to vote for Biden over Trump. It wouldn't even be close. But there is no congressional circus investigation (or, as far as we know, U.S. Attorney investigation) of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, or any other Trump familiars, and, thus, no media fixation on it.
Against that backdrop, omitting Hunter questions from an interview about democracy was more than reasonable (I'd say it was correct).
But you're in luck! Hunter remains under investigation, by a Justice Department special counsel originally appointed U.S. Attorney by Donald Trump no less. Seems like overkill to me, but that's much more credible than anything House Republicans would describe as an "investigation," and if Biden had done anything illegal, a special counsel will be much more likely to find it than House Republicans or John Harwood.
It's a follow-the-money investigation, and the money has been followed. It's easy to follow because Biden (like past non-Trump presidents) disclosed both his tax returns AND his financial holdings. Maybe he's got a bunch of gold bouillon stashed in Rehoboth like Robert Menendez, but I have my doubts.
That's why GOP fact witnesses keep saying there's no evidence of corruption (by the elder Biden, of course), why GOP expert witnesses say an impeachment is unmerited, and why House Republicans acknowledge that they escalated to an impeachment inquiry in order to avoid leaving the public with the correct impression that their lengthy investigations have turned up nothing. Seriously, they admit this!
None of that means Biden (who clearly knew Hunter was up to no good and exercising poor judgment) dealt with the situation optimally. Obviously Hunter was a grown man, and his dad couldn't ground him, but he could (and I think clearly should) have taken a firmer hand than the public evidence suggests he did. No non-family dinners with Hunter. Less "I hope you know what you're doing," more "I don't approve of this and it's an abuse of trust." But that's a pretty thin complaint, complicated further by the horrible family history that saw him lose half of his offspring.
Maybe David Weiss will find that gold bouillon and I'll eat a lot of crow, but if not, I think Biden would actually benefit politically from saying something like that: My son has struggled a lot but he exercised poor judgment, and it's right that he face the consequences; I love my son unconditionally and it clouded mine.
Hunter's on trial now, so I doubt Biden will be saying that anytime soon, if ever, but it would be human, and I think a lot of people would relate to it.
This was fantastic!
Thank you Terryl! I hope you’ll share it around.
I will!
Seemed to me that Harwood slipped into #resistance mode early on and lost credibility.