It's hard to believe that one could look at Biden's public performances and accept the White House spin, but that is exactly what some did.

Tweet

Here is a basic question about "Original Sin," the new book detailing the White House's attempt to hide former President Joe Biden's in-plain-sight mental and physical decline: Why is it having such an impact? Sure, the subject – an intermittently disabled president – is hugely important. But on the other hand, everybody knew, or should have known, that Biden was an intermittently disabled president.

So why did the book devour the news cycle last week? You have to go back to the pivotal debate between Biden and then-former President Donald Trump on June 27, 2024. Biden's out-of-it performance shocked Democrats and their allies in the media. In an instant, they realized he was not up to the job of serving a second term as president. (Truth be told, he was not up to the job of finishing his first term, either.)

How could they be shocked? It had been obvious for a while that Biden was struggling, cognitively and physically. There were three public events in just the weeks before the debate in which Biden's problems were overwhelmingly clear. Yet even today, many insist they were shocked on debate night.

What "Original Sin" does is to give those Democrats and their allies in the media an explanation – an excuse, if you prefer – for that feeling of shock, for missing a huge story that was happening right in front of their eyes. There was a White House conspiracy! The tight circle around Biden – the politburo! – carefully controlled his schedule to conceal the truth! We weren't in the tank. We weren't negligent. White House insiders were hiding it.

Last week, the book's two authors, Axios' Alex Thompson and CNN's Jake Tapper, appeared on the MSNBC program "Morning Joe." Co-host Joe Scarborough said to both Tapper and Thompson, "Can I ask you guys, were you shocked by the debate?" "Yes, of course – especially in person. I was there," said Tapper, who had co-moderated the debate for CNN. Thompson, who, unlike the others, had actually looked into Biden's condition well before the debate, said no, he was not. "I wouldn't say I was shocked," Thompson said. "I was a little surprised it had gotten that bad."

"Original Sin" carries a big impact for people who say they were shocked by the debate. Consider it this way. If you look at the story of Biden's infirmity and White House efforts to conceal it, and you say, "I had no idea!" – then the book is shocking. On the other hand, if you say, "Of course he had cognitive issues; everybody could see that" – then the book is not shocking.

The big problem for the we-were-shocked group is that Biden's problems were not only obvious, but also that there were reputable journalists – not Trump or Republican activists – who reported on those problems in real time. Thompson did some. A number of commentators pointed out troubling videos of Biden losing his train of thought, wandering around and appearing generally confused in public. And then, on June 4, 2024, three weeks before the debate, the Wall Street Journal published a story headlined "Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping."

Reporters Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes began with a description of a Biden meeting with congressional leaders in which the president "spoke so softly at times that some participants struggled to hear him ... read from notes to make obvious points, paused for extended periods and sometimes closed his eyes for so long that some in the room wondered whether he had tuned out."

The article added that "the White House and top aides said [Biden] remains a sharp and vigorous leader. Some who have worked with him, however, including Democrats and some who have known him back to his time as vice president, described a president who appears slower now, someone who has both good moments and bad ones."

If one looked at the Journal story, plus some other reporting, plus the many examples of Biden spacing out in public, there was cause for alarm, especially when it came to the president asking voters for four more years in office. Yet the reaction of some in the press was to try to knock the story down. 

CNN's media reporter attacked the Journal article, arguing it suffered from a "glaring problem," which was that it purportedly relied on too many Republican sources. Tapper's program reported the story the day after it appeared, when the news was White House pushback against the Journal. The overall message was exactly what the White House wanted: Everything is fine. Those stories that the president is suffering from cognitive decline are all falsehoods pushed by his political opponents.

Did the journalists really believe that? That's for them to say. It's hard to believe that one could look at Biden's public performances and accept the White House spin, but that is exactly what some did. It is easier to believe this: Many in the media were biased in favor of Biden over Trump. When there was something terribly wrong with Biden, they either did not want to know about it or reacted reflexively in a way that was comfortable to them – that is, when Trump or Republicans said something, their instinct was to knock it down. And so it was with Biden's infirmity.

Then came the debate and the professions of shock. Now, a year later, with all the other things that are happening, the political world is still grappling with it, and it is still dominating the news.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

COPYRIGHT 2025 BYRON YORK