Recently, actor George Clooney was published in the New York Times editorial section. His piece was a puerile indictment against President Biden, pleading with him to drop out of the race against Donald Trump. The op-ed was filled with ageist tropes equating advancing age with unavoidable senility. Here Clooney’s ham-handed attempt to practice medicine without a license was center stage, as he wrongfully conflated a speech disability (aka dysfluency or stuttering), with cognitive decline. They are not the same. This bigoted trope has gained traction due to Clooney’s popularity with middle aged women who find him attractive. That being said, the accusations of senility, whether implied or directly stated require actual proof. Implying someone is senile or in cognitive decline is a serious offense that can wreck a reputation. It is also a form of cowardly political sabotage and bigotry when failing to, again, provide any proof other than anecdote and gossip.
Now Clooney began his ‘hit piece’ with a statement of friendship and love for Joe Biden. In fact, he stated his love for Joe Biden in the headline.
To quote from the op-ed;
…”I love Joe Biden. As a senator. As a vice president and as president. I consider him a friend, and I believe in him. Believe in his character. Believe in his morals.”
Sentence fragments aside, this qualifier feels a lot like the old…”it’s not that I’m racist– but” trope. Now, no one is accusing Clooney of being a racist, but the trope rings true. Ageism is as much a form of bigotry as racism or sexism. Unfortunately ageism seems to be the one socially acceptable form of bigotry amongst those who preach tolerance. So, how did this ageist trope gain traction in the corporate media, especially when considering the pesky fact that Trump is only three years younger than Biden?
The anecdotal ‘senility’ accusation timeline…
These attacks began with the debate between Biden and Trump. Poor performance aside, (from both candidates), vicious media scrutiny has focused solely on President Biden. Trump demonstrated his usual ‘word salad’ punctuated with an assortment of outlandish accusations and claims that he spewed forth with the speed of an AR-15. The CNN moderators, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash failed to fact check any of the horse ‘excrement’ coming out of Trump’s mouth.
Trump got away with multiple blatant lies, which included Nancy Pelosi accepting the blame for the Jan. 6 Insurrection, as well as blaming Biden for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel.
Additionally, Trump raged on about ‘post-birth’ abortions, which ‘are not a thing’. Abortions occur before birth and before viability, but that’s not the point. Fundamentalists are determined to link abortion with infanticide.
Again, the moderators sat there and let Trump tell lie after lie, never challenging his wild claims. There was no demand for any cited sources. Trump’s bloviating lies were deemed acceptable, while Biden stood there stunned (as most honest people would be), by their sheer volume. In short, Trump used the illegitimate debate tactic known as the ‘Gish Gallop’ fallacy.
The ‘Gish Gallop’ fallacy…
To quote; “The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, validity, or relevance of those arguments.” Often this illegitimate strategy employs using …”a large number of vague claims, anecdotal statements, misinterpreted facts, and irrelevant comments.”
Put bluntly, Biden was ‘Gish Galloped’ and the moderators proved to be little more than house plants. I sincerely doubt if Clooney himself could have responded any better.
The George Stephanopoulus hatchet job…
Clooney made mention of the interview President Biden granted George Stephanopoulus after the debate, writing that ; …”The George Stephanopoulus interview only reinforced what we saw the week before.” In the interest of accuracy, I downloaded the full transcript of the interview In total, Stephanopoulos asked 53 questions and 23 of them focused on Biden’s age and alleged ‘decline.’ Not once did Stephanopoulos offer a single cited source proving these slanderous accusations. Instead Stephanopoulos reiterated the same ageist trope. Biden provided answers to each question while tolerating this hatchet job with maturity and grace.
Stephanopoulos then moved on to the polls and popularity ratings. To quote the erstwhile journalist; “Mr. President, I’ve never seen a President 36% approval get reelected.” (Apparently, Stephanopoulos has a problem with sentence structure as well. Could he be in ‘cognitive decline’?) In actuality, recent studies have shown political polls to be often inaccurate.
James Rosen wrote a piece for the Boston Globe outlining the problem with polls in 2024, explaining how the polls failed to accurately predict outcomes in the last three elections. Rosen explained that given the volatility of today’s political climate combined with the misinformation flooding social media, past voting patterns of various demographics are no longer an accurate predictor. In fact, he outlined the various ways polls are inaccurate. To quote Rosen:
- …”The dominance of cell phones and caller ID programs on landlines has made what statisticians call the “response rate” plummet.”
- “There are too many political pollsters conducting too many polls.”
- “The internet, with its voracious appetite and greatly expanded space for new information no matter how incremental, has made some political journalists less discriminating and fueled more questionable polling. The financial pressures on news organizations have increased the need for digital readers, which has led to election articles that are little more than click-bait.”
This last point is directed at Stephanopoulos. The interview he conducted with President Biden was not only a dirty hatchet job, but little more than brain-dead click-bait.
Clooney’s op-ed, once again an ageist trope…
George Clooney wrote it himself explaining why he is pleading for Biden to drop out of the race. To quote from the New York Times op-ed; …”This is about age. Nothing more.” Rarely has a confession of subliminal bigotry been so succinctly stated. Ageism is one of the last permissible bigotries that transcends political parties.
Lester Holt reversed blame on inciteful rhetoric–blaming Biden for shooting…
This isn’t merely about Clooney. Journalist Lester Holt had an interview with Biden Monday night. Holt focused on the strong rhetoric Biden used to denounce the violence that Trump has inspired. This line of questioning was a response to the assassination attempt on Trump this past Sunday. Holt kept hammering Biden regarding what he would do to …”lower down the temperature, the rhetoric out there.” Biden pushed back at the accusation explaining that…”it matters whether or not you accept the outcome of elections. It matters whether or not you, for example, talk about how you’re gonna deal with the border instead of talking about people as being vermin and all.” …”That’s the kind of language that is inflammatory.”
Holt pushed a false equivalence between Biden’s rhetoric and that of Trump, but Biden refused to be bullied and stood his ground stating that …”I’m not the guy that said I want to be a dictator on day one. I’m not the guy that refused to accept the outcome of the election.”
Holt kept pushing the idea that Biden’s rhetoric, ( and that of Democrats in general), was somehow responsible for the shooting, asking whether he should have done…”a little soul searching on things you may have said that could incite—people who are not balanced ?”
Rightfully exasperated, Biden redirected this asinine line of questioning by asking Holt, …”how do you talk about the threat to democracy, which is real, when a president says things like he says? Do you just not say anything ‘cause it may incite somebody? Look, I have not engaged in that rhetoric.”
Biden countered with the truth, stating that…”my opponent has engaged in that rhetoric. Talks about there’d be a bloodbath if he loses. Talking about how he’s gonna forgive all the—actually I guess, suspend the sentences of all those who were arrested and sentenced to go to jail because of what happened —in the Capitol. I’m not out there making fun of—like, remember the picture of Donald Trump when Nancy Pelosi’s husband was hit with the hammer, going—talking about—joking about it.”
Biden reminded Holt of Charlottesville, how Trump’s MAGA army came …”out of the woods with torches, carrying swastikas, singing the same Nazi bile that was accompanied by this Klu Klux Klan.”
Next, Rachel Maddow piled up on Biden, calling his interview with Holt, ‘combative.’ (Apparently, defending his own reputation is now taboo, while Trump gets a pass).
NPR’s Ben Giles also ganged up, as the headline read, “Biden bristles at continued questions about his age and abilities in NBC interview.”
There was no similar attack on Trump’s routine ‘word salad’ as demonstrated in this video clip:
Frankly, these alleged ‘liberal’ outlets, perseverating on Biden’s age, are doing Fox’s dirty work, while ignoring the republican plot to undermine democratic rule, namely Project 2025.
Corporate media fixates on Biden’s age–instead of reporting on Project 2025…
Project 2025 is a 900+ page policy document that was largely crafted by former Trump staffers.
Enter…Democracy Forward…the news ignored by corporate media…
Democracy Forward is a national group of attorneys fighting for democratic rule and social progress. They provide these services free of charge, and have produced a user-friendly guide to Project 2025. This ‘Project 2025 Snapshot’ lists proposals that could be implemented solely by presidential dictate without any new legislation or congressional approval. This attack on our rights includes the following:
- “Cut overtime protections for 4.3 million workers,
- Stop efforts to lower prescription drug prices,
- Limit access to food assistance, which an average of more than 40 million people in 21.6 million households rely on monthly,
- Eliminate the Head Start early education program, which serves over 1 million children annually,
- Cut American Rescue Plan (ARP) programs that have created or saved 220,000 jobs,
- Restrict access to medication abortion,
- Push more of the 33 million people enrolled in Medicare towards Medicare Advantage and other worse, private options,
- Expose the 368,000 children in foster care to risk of increased discrimination,
- Deny students in 25 states and Washington, D.C. access to student loans because their state provides in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants,
- Roll back civil rights protections across multiple fronts, including cutting diversity, equity, and inclusion-related (DEI) programs and LGBTQ+ rights in health care, education, and workplaces.”
Now, those are a few of the highlights that journalists like Stephanopoulos and Lester Holt chose to ignore as they focused on Biden’s age and speech impediment.
Ironically, there’s more in Project 2025 that attacks democracy itself.
Project 2025 has created a formula for racists to follow at a level that makes Jim Crow proud. It attacks the ‘disparate impact’ doctrine used to fight more subtle racist policies and laws. Ending the ‘disparate impact’ doctrine would bring another pillar of Jim Crow raging back, as racists would hide behind the ‘color blind’ bromide. Judges could automatically toss out discrimination cases unless the complaint listed evidence of specific and obvious injuries based on race. And Project 2025 makes a few ‘cookbook’ suggestions showing how to eradicate the policy on page 72.
To quote from page 72;
…”Courts have ruled that even without evidence of overt, intentional discrimination, such results might suggest discrimination.”
The rest of the quote from page 72 offers a few suggestions:
“This doctrine of disparate impact could be ended legislatively or at least narrowed through the regulatory process by a future administration.”
A definition of the ‘disparate impact’ doctrine is provided by the Legal Information Institute of the Cornell Law School;
…”Disparate impact (also “adverse impact”) commonly refers to unintentional discriminatory practice, whereas disparate treatment (also “adverse treatment”) refers to intentional discriminatory practice.”
The definition’s key point lies in the next sentence.
…”A disparate impact policy or rule is one that SEEMS neutral but has a negative impact on a specific protected class of persons.”
Disparate impact doctrine put an end to this chicanery, by making these policies the subject of successful anti-discrimination litigation.
Another way to describe this semantic trap of alleged ‘color blind’ policies is to envision three men trying to cross a busy intersection on foot. The traffic light allows 30 seconds to cross, which is fine for the young man who runs track, and is barely adequate for the older man carrying groceries. A third man with no legs, no crutches, or no wheelchair is granted the same 30 seconds. In theory, it’s the same treatment, but those pushing this rule KNOW the third man never had a chance, and that was according to plan.
In spite of this existential emergency, privileged celebs like Clooney and journalists like Stephanopoulos and Lester Holt fixate on Biden’s–age–even though Trump is only three years younger. Furthermore, in spite of the non-stop incendiary language coming from Trump and the MAGA lynch mob, these journalists demand an apology from BIden and the democrats. Telling the truth about Trump and MAGA’s love affair with neo Nazism is now considered incendiary, while violent January 6th insurrectionists are seen as ‘political hostages.’ The hypocrisy is palpable.
These journalists have also implied that Biden is showing signs of cognitive decline, citing his single debate performance and a dirty ‘whisper campaign’ of undocumented gossip and rumors–as evidence–while granting Trump’s routine ‘word salad’—a pass.
Put bluntly, corporate media has been aiding and abetting the growing fascism of the GOP, acting as brown nosed lap dogs, instead of the necessary fourth pillar of democracy. That is to their collective shame.
As for Clooney, Stephanopoulos, Holt and the other members of the ‘drop out chorus’ ; they need to leave the executive corporate offices and face the people. Their collective moral cowardice speaks for itself.
As for myself, I would sooner vote for the excrement that comes out of my dog’s ass–than Donald Trump.
COMMENTS