The media (and Biden critic) narrative focusing on Biden's occasional gaffes is silly and pointless

[highplainsdem]

Unfortunately, the journalists following our candidates loooove narratives. I remember Margaret Carlson admitting during the 2000 campaign that journalists were sniping at Gore rather than critizing Dubya because it was fun. It was entertaining for them. It was "sport" for them.

In case you've forgotten just how bad it was for the Democrats that journalists focused on trivial narratives that hurt Gore and helped Bush:

https://www.salon.com/2000/10/27/media_247/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/10/gore200710

I was reminded just how silly these narratives can be yesterday when I was checking Twitter and saw multiple tweets, coming from different reporters, about how many minutes Biden was at the Iowa State Fair before he bought some ice cream. They didn't agree on exactly how many minutes, but obviously this had become something that HAD to be reported, as part of the "Biden loves ice cream" narrative.

The same thing is going on with reporting his gaffes.

And it's been weaponized for this primary race by Biden critics who want to attack him as being "too old" -- sometimes, absurdly, making those attacks in favor of a candidate only 6 years younger.

Daniel Dale brought up one of those gaffes yesterday.

I read Daniel Dale's tweets fairly often.

I like his comments on Twitter.

But he's made LOTS of mistakes in them.

I don't conclude from those mistakes on Twitter that Dale is either suffering from dementia or incompetent. Dale is 34 years old and a professional fact-checker as well as a journalist.

But he makes mistakes.

It happens. To everyone.

It happens more if you do a lot of speaking, or writing.

It happens most often if much of that speaking or writing is extemporaneous, off the cuff.

But it can happen even if a speaker or writer is trying to be careful, or repeating familiar remarks. That's why, for instance, editors have to watch out for misstatements like a writer reaching for a name and getting the wrong name, whether in a news article or a novel.

I can guarantee you that every single journalist writing or tweeting or opinionating on TV about Biden's gaffes has made similar mistakes, including professionally.

I can guarantee you that every person here on DU who's harped on Biden's gaffes has had to correct DU posts to fix mistakes.

Because we're all human.

We'd be living in a very different world now if Gore had won the electoral college in 2000.

We'll never know how much the media narrative focusing on trivia hurt him. But it probably played a role in hurting his chances and helping Bush.

I hope we Democrats are not going to play along with, let alone encourage, a media narrative that will hurt our front-runner -- not only in the primary, but in the GE.

What we should be doing is pointing out, to journalists or others focusing like a laser on tiny gaffes, that everyone's human and they make mistakes, too.

Don't let journalists get away with behaving like children playing a game of slug-bug in the back of a car because it's "entertaining" and "sport."

Too much is at stake for these games.

[democratisphere]

1. Sick of the MSM noise!

[wysimdnwyg]

2. To be fair (not that I think it is)...

The media have been harping on Biden's "gaffes" for years. Anything that he does that is seemingly odd or goofball (especially the occasional foot-in-mouth episode) is ripe for the picking. This is not a new phenomena, and IMO most of these incidents should not be taken seriously. If anything, they help endear Biden to the public because he's not seen as perfect, and we all know the public likes their leaders to be less than perfect (see George W. Bush).

[MoonRiver]

14. Yes, it's like the media lies in wait for these gaffs.

Reminds me of how crocodiles hang out on the edges of the Mara river waiting for wildebeest herds crossing through the water. Biden isn't my favorite candidate, but I like him a lot, and will completely support him if he gets the nomination.

[still_one]

3. Salon was and is one of the worst. Their constant Hillary bashing was insane

No surprise they are still up to their same ole tactics

[BeyondGeography]

4. It doesn't happen to everyone as much as it does to Joe

In 2008, Obama restricted Biden’s access to the press because he got tired of days like yesterday.

It’s in here if you want to read about it:

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/game-change-authors-halperin-heilemann-shocked/story?id=9530045

You can say gaffability is part of Biden’s charm, but he is in a class by himself when it comes to the self-inflicted wound.

Pointing this out isn’t a crime. Some of us simply prefer a more disciplined candidate.

[zackymilly]

6. Joe needs to read from a script and nothing else. Just answer live questions yes or no. n/t

[highplainsdem]

9. Did you forget a sarcasm smilie? If Biden did that, he'd be hammered for being inauthentic,

as Elizabeth Warren sometimes is:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/01/why-elizabeth-warrens-beer-moment-fell-flat/579544/

Or he'd be hammered for just repeating the same old same old stump speech, as Sanders often is.

[zackymilly]

11. ::Sarcasm:: n/t

[highplainsdem]

15. Thanks!

[highplainsdem]

13. Did you read the article you posted the link for? About how campaign insiders said

Elizabeth Edwards was "an abusive, intrusive, paranoid, condescending, crazy woman"?

Campaign insider gossip, which Halperin was reporting, is often vicious and misleading.

[BeyondGeography]

16. Deflect all you want

No one from the Obama or Biden camp has refuted that story.

And the proof is in the pudding, isn't it? Biden has made more news in the last two months with his verbal adventures than he did in eight years working for Obama.

[highplainsdem]

18. As I said in my OP, it's become a sport for the media. And it's a safe bet that reporters watching

for any tiny Biden gaffe will tend to overlook/ignore any gaffes by candidates they prefer. Because it isn't part of the media narrative they find entertaining. And even if they report them, their editors might edit those reports out.

[wysimdnwyg]

26. Don't think I can agree with that (re: other candidates)

And it's a safe bet that reporters watching for any tiny Biden gaffe will tend to overlook/ignore any gaffes by candidates they prefer.

I think it's a lot less of this than the media harping upon every little thing they can find about ANY candidate, because they know it gets them eyedrums and earballs. It's just that with Biden, most of the things they call out are really quite innocuous, whereas they don't bother with that kind of thing with Trump because they have so many other, more substantial things, they can go after him for.

As for the other Dem candidates, it's Bernie's wild hair, gesticulating arms, yelling, and, especially, the Socialist tag. With Warren, it's her schoolmarm portrayal. With Harris, it's the questions of authenticity and electability. They all have something the media dings them for, most of them non-issues. Perhaps you're guilty - like almost all of us - of noting the things that affect your preferred candidate, while not noticing as much when those things happen to others. It's natural, and I've caught myself as guilty of that as well.

Is it bullshit? Of course! But they're going to do what they can to generate viewers and listeners. If the worst they can come up with is Biden stumbling through a statement on occasion, then count him lucky. Some (see Hillary) are laden with a much heavier load to bear.

[Peacetrain]

5. We are on the same wavelength today!!

[highplainsdem]

10. Yep! GMTA!

[StarfishSaver]

7. Whether the media is making too big a deal of them is one thing. But ANY Democratic candidate

making the gaffes he does would get the same treatment and probably worse because they would not be treated as charming or cute or "there goes Joe being Joe" boo boos.

[George II]

8. I would rather a candidate that makes occasional VERBAL gaffes, unrelated....

....to his policies and what's in his heart, than one who has to "turn on the charm" when speaking to certain people.

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. Preach!

Thank you. As a public speaker, this drives me crazy. I made gaffs when I was in my 20s, 30s, 40s, and now that I'm post-50 and have gray in my hair I do worry that every gaff will be viewed as potential senility. It happens in every speech, sermon, ceremony, lecture, etc. regardless of your age.

I think people have become so unconsciously used to the flawless extemporaneous delivery in movies and television shows, they forget it likely took multiple takes and some editing to produce that flawless monologue.

And yeah, the "entertaining" pet narratives have got to go.

[highplainsdem]

20. Thanks, Pacifist Patriot! That's a great point about people being so accustomed to flawless

delivery of lines on TV and in movies that they unconsciously expect similar perfection from politicians, including when they're speaking extemporaneously.

Most people don't realize, either, how much editing goes into every article or book they read.

[Andy823]

17. So does that mean

No more attacks on Harris as well, or is this only for Biden?

I do agree there is way too much at stake to play games, and attacking any candidate instead of promoting the qualities of ones own candidate, is simply playing into the trump play book, and the Russian trolls.

Remember the nominee has NOT been picked yet by the voters, and in attacking other candidates one could be hurting our nominee in the long run, whoever that may be.

[highplainsdem]

19. I didn't post a single word critical of Harris here until after she attacked Biden and made it clear

she considered it open season to go after anything in his background.

[Andy823]

22. She did that once

so how many times have you been critical of her? She has just as good of a chance to win the nomination as Biden does, so why talk about how "terrible" it is to go after him, yet not have the same standards with her?

Nobody has a lock on the nomination, nobody, so we should have the same standards for all of them, shouldn't we?

Just my opinion.

[highplainsdem]

24. Like Booker, Harris has been repeatedly critical of Biden.

So has her press secretary, and I think my last OP about her here was after her press secretary tweeted a link to a fact-checking article in a San Jose paper and said it proved what Biden said about Harris's background was a "dishonest smear," when in fact it basically confirmed what Biden had said.

I wish she hadn't attacked Biden the way she did. I don't believe he'd have gone after her background if she hadn't gone after his first.

And I have seen her attacks on him amplified online, especially on Twitter, by Trump supporters as well as her supporters.

[colsohlibgal]

21. This Seems Different

His age has to be a concern, no? His gaffes seem to be picking up, do we think this will improve as he gets any older? It is unfortunate but it is what it is. Two terms would put him in his mid 80s.

Again, I saw this with both my Father and Paternal Grandfather. They were not prone to gaffes but both went quickly downhill mentally in their early 80s.

It has to be a concern IMHO. Again I will vote for him if he gets it but hope he picks the right running mate.

[highplainsdem]

25. See this thread about a Psychology Today article explaining slips of the tongue:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287233461

[mcar]

23. They have to have a theme

While Dotards vomits filth every time he opens his racist pie hole, they've got to find their "both sides" crap.

[Gothmog]

27. I agree

Link to tweet

[Cha]

28. Thanks for your research

on this, highplains!