Earlier today, David argued that news articles such as the NY Magazine exposé of Joe Biden's cognitive decline "don't get much worse than this." He's right -- David got to it before I had a chance to write something similar -- but the sheer volume of these suddenly sharp looks at Biden's incapacities challenges that conclusion. 

For instance, at the same time NY Magazine ran that article, The Economist published a cover story on Biden calling on him to withdraw from the race. And this is the front page of The Economist, along with its conclusion that the campaign -- and by extension the White House -- deserve contempt for their dishonesty:

The presidential debate was awful for Joe Biden, but the cover-­up has been worse. The dishonesty of his campaign provokes contempt. He must withdraw https://t.co/RijgS4gDI2 pic.twitter.com/NcsrEVPwdx

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) July 4, 2024

Most of the article is behind a (freebie registration) pay wall, and it has all of the BUT TRUMP necessary for a mainstream-media outlet to posit any criticism of a Democrat. Eventually, though, the editors do get to Biden and the cover-up of his cognitive incompetence. The Economist indicts everyone, including his family, for covering up what, um, everyone else could see with their own eyes for the last three years:

Mr Biden is blameless for his failing powers, but not for a second disqualification, which is his insistence, abetted by his family, senior staff and Democratic elites, that he is still up to the world’s toughest job. Mr Biden’s claim that this election is between right and wrong is ruined by the fact that the existence of his campaign now depends on a lie. ...

The Democratic Party should look in the mirror, starting with Mr Biden himself. He avers that he failed in the debate because he was tired from jetting around the world, as if his debility were evidence of his vitality. His supporters argue that those awful 90 minutes should not overshadow the past three and a half years. But what matters is whether they foreshadow the next four. Senior Democrats repeating these desperate talking points or waiting in silence for someone else to speak up first may think they are being loyal. Is that loyal to their country or their careers?

Democrats might say that their tactics are just politics. Their ugly means are justified by their honourable ends of saving American democracy from the predations of Mr Trump. That defence does America no favours. The tactic of covering up your own flaws by demonising your opponent has long marred American politics, but using the threat of Mr Trump as a “dictator” to offset Mr Biden’s evident infirmity is a form of blackmail. As the head of state, America’s president embodies the virtues of the republic. The more he is seen as a stubborn old man who leaves the real work to his courtiers, the more he will undermine Americans’ faith in their system of government. 

Perhaps the editors might want to cast this kind of accusation on themselves and their industry. The editorial points out that they called on Biden to withdraw in November 2022 because of his age, but The Economist fails to recognize that age wasn't the issue, not even then. Seven months earlier, the White House press corps watched the Easter Bunny bodily block the president from speaking to members of the media on the lawn of the White House. Before and since, innumerable public incidents gave the media plenty of evidence of serious cognitive decline -- not to mention that the White House would only rarely allow Biden to speak to reporters at all.

The Economist didn't even mention the signs of cognitive decline in its November 2022 editorial. Now they want credit for prescience and heap contempt on those conspiring to hide the truth, when they were part of the conspiracy.

But as a British economics magazine, The Economist was just a minor member of the Protection Racket Media. The biggest conspirators can be identified now by the rapidity by which they've dumped "cheap fakes" in favor of Joe Biden's dementia as a very real problem. For instance, at the Washington Post, the following headlines appear on the front page:

• Biden’s aging is seen as accelerating, lapses described as more common
• Biden faces critical day to push back against calls to withdraw
• How will this end? It’s all up to Biden, allies say.

On the latter, the Post seems to be plotting out the logistics of a forced retirement:

The polling would need to further plummet. Elected Democrats would need to desert him in large numbers. And donor money would need to show clear signs of drying up.

Then, a group of Democratic leaders — figures such as Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), Rep. James E. Clyburn (S.C.) or former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) — could privately tell Biden that not only is he going to lose but remaining on the ticket is also going to cost them the House and the Senate. ...

A former Democratic Senate aide now in regular contact with Democratic donors and elected officials was more blunt: “He’s going to become a ‘Scarlet B’ around candidates’ necks, and it’s not going to be a pleasant experience, and it’s going to be humiliating and demeaning for someone like him who doesn’t deserve that and deserves a more dignified exit based on their record.”

It's only slightly more subtle at the New York Times, where only one Biden-skeptical story appears on the front page: "These Voters Supported Biden in 2020. Now They Want a Plan B." Click over to the 2024 Elections section, however, and the top headlines practically scream narrative:

• Biden stumbles in radio interviews as he tries to steady his re-election campaign.

• Newsom urges Michigan Democrats to stay calm and support Biden.

• Biden tells governors he needs more sleep and less work at night.

• How Biden’s struggles are factoring into Trump’s running mate selection.

• Biden responds to debate debacle in Wisconsin interview: ‘I screwed up.’

• Biden is facing a crisis of confidence.

• Trump lets Democrats dominate the public debate over Biden’s future.

Bear in mind that the Post and the Times barely covered Biden's cognitive issues at all before June 27. They ran with the "cheap fakes" lie from the White House to gaslight their readers and try to cook the election by covering up Joe Biden's incapacity. Their enthusiasm for reporting on it now is nothing more than an attempt to distract attention from their own participation in that cover-up. 

That's why the Protection Racket Media has started ginning up a preference cascade to toss an ailing and confused old man under the bus. It's every propagandist for themselves these days; the roaches are running for cover now that the lights have snapped on.