Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: Biden's polls aren't great. How much is the media's fault?

Published

on

Opinion: Biden's polls aren't great. How much is the media's fault?

Long before Fox News co-opted the phrase “fair and balanced” as its slogan, American media was striving to meet that standard. Unlike Faux News, which has since dropped those words as well as just about any pretense of aspiring to them, the mainstream media still does aspire — to a fault.

Opinion Columnist

Jackie Calmes

Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.

Advertisement

That was the case in 2016 with the excessive coverage of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for some State Department business, a performance that spawned numerous critical journalistic postmortems — and the meme “but her emails.” The media, obsessed with seeming fair to Donald Trump, sought to balance all the negative coverage he generated because of his lies, slurs and bigotry and turned Clinton’s email habits into a pseudo-scandal. In the end, that imbalance in harping on the matter was unfair to her.

The media seems to be at it again. The new “but her emails” is “but his age” — that is, President Biden’s age, though Trump is only three years and seven months younger.

The issue isn’t unwarranted. Both men are the oldest by far to seek the presidency, breaking the record they set in 2020.

What’s unwarranted is the barrage of “but Biden’s age” coverage unleashed since late last week, when a Republican special counsel coupled his finding that Biden shouldn’t face charges for keeping some classified material after his vice presidency with wholly improper quackery about the “elderly” president’s “diminished faculties.”

Advertisement

On Monday, media analyst Margaret Sullivan provided a rundown of some of the coverage. It’s “nothing short of journalistic malpractice,” she wrote, for the media to make Biden’s age “the overarching issue” of the 2024 campaign — especially against the aging and democracy-threatening Trump. According to the Popular Information newsletter, in the four days after the special counsel’s report, the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal published a combined 81 articles about Biden’s age and memory.

Memory lapses, lies, name mix-ups and gaffes by Trump, a man so addled that he thinks repeating “person, woman, man, camera, TV” proves otherwise, get far less journalistic examination. For one thing, the media is as inured as the public to Trump’s falsehoods and malevolence; it’s “white noise,” the Bulwark, a Never Trump news site, bemoaned this week. Even so, he piles up outrages that can’t be ignored — like prospectively inviting Russia to attack or “do whatever the hell” it wants against NATO allies.

And as the negative coverage of Trump adds up, the media seizes disproportionately on Biden’s foibles and fumbles as if to even the score.

That is just another form of the bothsides-ism long evident in journalism: the tendency — in the interest of being fair and balanced — toward reporting that suggests that both sides, both parties or both candidates should get equal measures of critical coverage, or are equally culpable in some regard. The result too often is false equivalence.

It’s worth reprising a caution to journalists from political scientists Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, in their 2012 book documenting that Republicans were more responsible than Democrats for the dysfunction and polarization in our politics: “A balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon is a distortion of reality and a disservice to your consumers.”

Advertisement

Even the New York Times Pitchbot, an account on Twitter/X that mocks the media for just this bothsides tendency, couldn’t out-caricature the real thing on CNN. The satirist behind the account posted a photo of the network’s screen during a panel discussion. The chyron at bottom read, “Is Biden’s age now a bigger problem than Trump’s indictments?”

Some in the media have tried to explain why significantly more voters worry about Biden’s age and mental acuity than Trump’s. A poll by ABC News and Ipsos released on Sunday found that 86% of Americans say the president is too old for another term compared to 62% who say the same of Trump.

Among the reasons is the perception that Trump, while hardly physically fit, seems more energetic than Biden. Also, reporters talk a lot to Democrats, who as a party tend to overreact to unfavorable news, polls, whatever — “bedwetters,” as Obama officials used to bellyache. So you get stories like the one this week headlined “ ‘A nightmare’: Special counsel’s assessment of Biden’s mental fitness triggers Democratic panic.”

Republicans, on the other hand, typically give reporters nothing when it comes to the disgraced former president. They’re Trump toadies, obsequiously mute about his transgressions when they’re not actually defending him. Take Trump’s obscenity about abandoning NATO allies: “I couldn’t find a single sitting Republican that openly opposed what he said,” lamented former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a rare Republican who has opposed Trump. Kinzinger also said Trump’s ramblings were further evidence that he “is clearly in mental decline.”

One factor that’s missing from the media explanations for why Trump fares better than Biden on assessments of age and mental stability: the media’s own role. Might the polls be less bad for Biden if the coverage were different?

Advertisement

It was a Trump sycophant, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who back in 2016, when he was still second-guessing his support for Trump, warned that he, voters and the media would someday have “to justify how they fell into this trap.”

The unprincipled Rubio certainly has much to account for. So, too, does conservative media. As for mainstream media, it’s not too late in the election year to avoid the trap of bothsides-ing.

@jackiekcalmes

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

Published

on

Video: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

new video loaded: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

transcript

transcript

Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

The Supreme Court heard two cases from West Virginia and Idaho on Tuesday. Both concerned barring the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports teams.

“It is undisputed that states may separate their sports teams based on sex in light of the real biological differences between males and females. States may equally apply that valid sex-based rule to biological males who self-identify as female. Denying a special accommodation to trans-identifying individuals does not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity or deny equal protection.” “West Virginia argues that to protect these opportunities for cisgender girls, it has to deny them to B.P.J. But Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause protect everyone. And if the evidence shows there are no relevant physiological differences between B.P.J. and other girls, then there’s no basis to exclude her.” “Given that half the states are allowing it, allowing transgender girls and women to participate, about half are not, why would we at this point, just the role of this court, jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country while there’s still, as you say, uncertainty and debate, while there’s still strong interest in other side?” “This court has held in cases like V.M.I. that in general, classification based on sex is impermissible because in general, men and women are simply situated. Where that’s not true is for the sorts of real, enduring, obvious differences that this court talked about in cases like V.M.I., the differences in reproductive biology. I don’t think the pseudoscience you’re suggesting has been baked.” “Well, it’s not pseudo. It’s good science.” “It’s not pseudoscience to say boys’ brain development happens at a different stage than girls does.” “Well, with all respect, I don’t think there’s any science anywhere that is suggested that these intellectual differences are traceable to biological differences.” “Can we avoid your whole similarly situated argument that you run because I don’t really like it that much either? And I’m not trying to prejudice anyone making that argument later. But I mean, I think it opens a huge can of worms that maybe we don’t need to get into here.”

Advertisement
The Supreme Court heard two cases from West Virginia and Idaho on Tuesday. Both concerned barring the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports teams.

By Meg Felling

January 13, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Venezuela releases multiple American citizens from prison following military operation

Published

on

Venezuela releases multiple American citizens from prison following military operation

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The interim government in Venezuela has released at least four U.S. citizens who were imprisoned under President Nicolás Maduro’s regime, Fox News confirmed.

The release marks the first known release of Americans in the South American country since the U.S. military completed an operation to capture authoritarian Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who is now facing federal drug trafficking charges in New York.

“We welcome the release of detained Americans in Venezuela,” a State Department official said Tuesday. “This is an important step in the right direction by the interim authorities.”

The release of American citizens was first reported by Bloomberg.

Advertisement

TRUMP SIGNS ORDER TO PROTECT VENEZUELA OIL REVENUE HELD IN US ACCOUNTS

Venezuelans celebrate after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had been captured and flown out of the country in Santiago, Chile, Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026. (Esteban Felix/AP Photo)

President Donald Trump said Saturday that Venezuela had begun releasing political prisoners.

“Venezuela has started the process, in a BIG WAY, of releasing their political prisoners,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Thank you! I hope those prisoners will remember how lucky they got that the USA came along and did what had to be done.”

Venezuela’s interim government has reported that 116 prisoners have been released, although only about 70 have been verified by the non-governmental organization Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón, according to Bloomberg.

Advertisement

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez said prisoner releases would continue, according to the outlet.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FILES SEIZURE WARRANTS TARGETING SHIPS TIED TO VENEZUELAN OIL TRADE: REPORT

Nicolás Maduro is seen in handcuffs after landing at a Manhattan helipad, escorted by heavily armed federal agents as they make their way into an armored car en route to a Federal courthouse in Manhattan on January 5, 2026, in New York City (XNY/Star Max/GC Images via Getty Images)

The U.S. government issued a new security alert Saturday urging Americans in Venezuela to leave the country immediately, citing security concerns and limited ability to provide emergency assistance, the U.S. Embassy in Caracas said.

“U.S. citizens in Venezuela should leave the country immediately,” the embassy said in the alert.

Advertisement

The warning pointed to reports of armed groups operating on Venezuelan roads.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Venezuelan citizens in Cucuta, Colombia celebrate during a rally on the Colombia-Venezuela border after the confirmation of Nicolás Maduro’s capture in Caracas, on January 3, 2026. (Jair F. Coll/Getty Images)

Following the military operation, Trump suggested that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela for an extended period.

“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” he said.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Lawsuits against ICE agents would be allowed under proposed California law

Published

on

Lawsuits against ICE agents would be allowed under proposed California law

A week after a Minnesota woman was fatally shot by a federal immigration officer, California legislators moved forward a bill that would make it easier for people to sue federal agents if they believe their constitutional rights were violated.

A Senate committee passed Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which would provide Californians with a stronger ability to take legal action against federal law enforcement agents over excessive use of force, unlawful home searches, interfering with a right to protest and other violations.

California law already allows such suits against state and local law enforcement officials.

Successful civil suits against federal officers over constitutional rights are less common.

Wiener, appearing before Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said his bill has taken on new urgency in the wake of the death of Renee Nicole Good in Minnesota, the 37-year-old mother of three who was shot while driving on a snowy Minneapolis street.

Advertisement

Good was shot by an agent in self-defense, said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who alleged that Good tried to use her car as a weapon to run over the immigration officer.

Good’s death outraged Democratic leaders across the country, who accuse federal officers of flouting laws in their efforts to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants. In New York, legislators are proposing legislation similar to the one proposed by Wiener that would allow state-level civil actions against federal officers.

George Retes Jr., a U.S. citizen and Army veteran who was kept in federal custody for three days in July, described his ordeal at Tuesday’s committee hearing, and how immigration officers swarmed him during a raid in Camarillo.

Retes, a contracted security guard at the farm that was raided, said he was brought to Port Hueneme Naval Base. Officials swabbed his cheek to obtain DNA, and then moved him to Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. He was not allowed to make a phone call or see an attorney, he said.

“I did not resist, I did not impede or assault any agent,” Retes said.”What happened to me that day was not a misunderstanding. It was a violation of the Constitution by the very people sworn to uphold it.”

Advertisement

He also accused Department of Homeland security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin of spreading false information about him to justify his detention. DHS said in a statement last year that Retes impeded their operation, which he denies.

Retes has filed a tort claim against the U.S. government, a process that is rarely successful, said his attorney, Anya Bidwell.

Lawsuits can also be brought through the Bivens doctrine, which refers to the 1971 Supreme Court ruling Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Agents that established that federal officials can be sued for monetary damages for constitutional violations. But in recent decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly restricted the ability to sue under Bivens.

Wiener’s bill, if passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, would be retroactive to March 2025.

“We’ve had enough of this terror campaign in our communities by ICE,” said Wiener at a news conference before the hearing. “We need the rule of law and we need accountability.”

Advertisement

Weiner is running for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

Representatives for law enforcement agencies appeared at Tuesday’s hearing to ask for amendments to ensure that the bill wouldn’t lead to weakened protections for state and local officials.

“We’re not opposed to the intent of the bill. We’re just concerned about the future and the unintended consequences for your California employees,” said David Mastagni, speaking on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which represents more than 85,000 public safety members.

Wiener’s bill is the latest effort by the state Legislature to challenge President Trump’s immigration raids. Newsom last year signed legislation authored by Wiener that prohibits law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks, with some exceptions.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued last year to block the law, and a hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending