Biden's deterioration in 'Original Sin': journalism that reveals and conceals

Lagging behind. Late. With a now former president, slump-shouldered, abandoned by power, by the public, by his party, by the press, it was only then that Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again (Penguin Press, 2025) appeared in the spotlight.

Months earlier it would have been an admirable feat. A case study. But having vacated the White House, installed already in Delaware, muttering under his breath (and loudly, to anyone who would listen), I would have won the election, only then, the authors tell Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, both journalists, "officials and aides felt considerably freer to talk" about Joe Biden.

The book portrays (late but surely) the decay of the former president in the eyes of more than 200 close witnesses, even within his intimate, innermost circle. Valuable testimonies, although, to some extent, unnecessary: Scranton Joe, Amtrak Joe, Sleepy Joe, collapsed live and direct, suffices with reverting to the presidential debate.

But the first signs of deterioration begin much, much earlier, with some "close to him," the book recounts, saying they date back to 2015, after the death of "beloved son Beau." His first-born, his favorite.

Blind partisanship, vague institutions, a family that exhales lies so as not to inhale uncomfortable truths, an entourage that professes quasi-religious fidelity to him, the self-interest and heartlessness of Washington vultures. Problems, in the book, problems galore!

But even if there are too many, they are missing: what happened to journalism, what about the Democratic Party?

Rigor in journalism

A book cannot, obviously, portray the universe. Neither can a map the whole terrain, Borges would say. Original Sin focuses on Biden and his entourage, and that's fine. But the identity of its authors (and from it, their profession: journalists), leads logically, necessarily, to expect an analysis of the failed media coverage. Because, as Thomson himself acknowledged in a speech: "We missed a lot of the story."

In the book, however, they speak of a cover-up by the powers that be. Is that all? Americans saw it, the world saw it: big mass media said no, that Biden had nothing, while Biden's own body showed that he did, when he tripped, that he did, when he fell, that he did, getting lost, he did, he did, he did.

Some media showed (we showed) the episodes. It was, simply, reporting what appeared before the eyes:

Tapper's case is especially treacherous. (Thomson does publish some information when Biden still held the title of the most powerful man in the world). Author of the revelation book today, he is accused of having been an accomplice yesterday. He went so far as to say that it was all a Russian machination.

Confronted by Megyn Kelly, the CNN anchor repeated, again and again, as an expiatory prayer: "I feel tremendous humility about my coverage." Is this a plea for forgiveness, a defense of his work, a promise to improve, what does it mean? He conceded, though, that he would have liked to dig deeper during Biden's tenure.

One of the viral examples of that coverage that awakens his humility is the following exchange with Lara Trump:

A snippet with other moments:

In one passage, Thomson and Tapper outline possible inoculations: Congress, they say, should vote...the law, they say, should say...Nothing about journalism. Even believing that so many media missed much of the story by mistake, that they were misled, that journalism is hands in the mud, that the human is imperfect, even so many media must acknowledge that they failed in a basic function of the profession.

This is what Americans believe: 63% think that the mainstream media purposely concealed the mental toll of the former president (Rasmussen).

From the Democratic Party

"We got so scr**** by Biden as a party." These are the words of David Plouffe, senior adviser to the Kamala Harris campaign. Senior Democratic officials, donors and advisers agree: Biden blew the election for them.

If he had given more time to Harris? If there had been an open primary? If they had pitted Trump against Newsom, JB Pritzker, Whitmer? This is how Democrats lament.

Are the questions right? They don't go beyond the election. Let's add, too: isn't it problematic, in and of itself, that a man who stumbles in word and body years ago occupies the Oval Office? And that there is a team willing to hide it? And donors and activists who, rather than their eyes, trust the words of politicians chasing their money and activism?

The Republican pressure to shed light on the cover-up may force the now-opposition to think beyond the thwarted presidential election. Also, perhaps, thanks to de facto bipartisanship, it won't be necessary. Maybe it's enough that Trump is doing poorly.