Two of America’s most respected publications, Time and The Economist, hit the stands after the now-infamous debate between Biden and Trump with covers that, under different circumstances, might have invited accusations of ageism or even libel.
Time’s bold red cover featured Biden, emerging from the background, with a one-word headline: “Panic.” The Economist’s cover depicted the presidential seal of the United States affixed to a mobility aid for the elderly (the infamous walker). Its headline, “No way to run a country,” played with the double meaning of the word “run.”
The accompanying article in The Economist included descriptions that departed from the usual norms of politeness and political correctness. It referred to the choice facing voters as one “between the incapable and the abhorrent,” criticising the Biden camp for concealment.
These two examples are not isolated, and their motive is not to support the opposition. So, what is happening? Have journalists abandoned their ethics? The answer is a clear no. Sometimes, the stakes are far more important than personal sensitivities, respect, or political correctness. When politics and politicians falter, stronger journalism is needed.
We have been cleverly convinced that certain topics are off-limits: “It’s ageist to talk about age,” “A person’s health status is a private matter,” “We shouldn’t reveal personal messages exchanged with colleagues—that’s gossip,” or “we mustn’t label someone’s actions as ridiculous.”
But in America, at this particular moment, such taboos do not apply in this critical election. During an interview with Biden on ABC News on Friday, July 5, Greek-American presenter George Stephanopoulos asked the candidate if he had taken a cognitive test. “No one said I had to,” Biden replied. When pressed again, he said he took one every day by running the country. And when the journalist persisted, Biden answered, “Well, I’ve already done it.”
Under normal circumstances, journalists might have been criticised for yellow journalism. But not this time. Instead, they are engaging in self-criticism, believing they should have acted sooner and been tougher, both for the truth they represent and for their country. And also for the individual who is being publicly humiliated and gradually transformed into a caricature.
So, things are not as clear-cut as black and white. Sometimes, it is necessary to break the rules to reveal the truth, which is the ultimate goal.