In Defense of Jake Tapper

The CNN journalist's book on Joe Biden and his presidency is drawing fire — criticism that’s as unnecessary as it is hypocritical.

CNN anchor and book author Jake Tapper (via Creative Commons)

UPDATE: Jimmy Kimmel revealed that his May 19 show was canceled for the birth of his granddaughter, not to avoid interviewing and promoting Jake Taper about his his book.

---

There’s a lot of chatter about how late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel reportedly canceled his Monday night show rather than have CNN’s Jake Tapper on to promote his book, Original Sin, which reveals President Joe Biden's physical and mental decline during his time in the White House.

I don’t know if the story is true. It might be—but it would be highly unusual unless Kimmel, a well-known Biden supporter, tried to make a strong statement. And maybe he was. Still, talk show hosts have broad latitude in selecting their guests. The Jimmy Kimmel Live! The booking team didn’t have to invite Tapper in the first place, and they could have rescinded the invitation, which is common practice in the industry.

If the cancellation happened for the reasons reported, it’s troubling. Kimmel and others can’t decry pressure from the Trump administration to toe the line, or protest the squeeze put on media companies by the Justice Department and FCC, and then turn around and reject a book—and its author—simply because they don’t like the message.

I’ve heard people say we don’t need a book about Biden’s mental decline when we currently have someone in the White House with, at best, diminished capacity, or, at worst, a psychopath with his finger on the nuclear button.

I haven’t read Tapper’s book and don’t know if I will. That’s my choice. But from a historical and journalistic perspective, it’s a necessary book. People can admire Biden for his decades of service as a senator, vice president, and president. They can respect what he accomplished in office. And they can acknowledge that he was a man past his prime, pushing himself beyond his limits at an advanced age.

I wasn't thrilled when Biden announced his presidential bid in 2020. As a politician, he was more than capable of handling the job, with decades of experience. And given the political divisions during Trump’s first term, a retail politician who could reach across the aisle seemed necessary. But was Biden the best choice? I didn’t think so.

The Democratic field was full of viable candidates: Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, Deval Patrick, and Andrew Yang. Most of them were strong contenders against Trump, who was politically weakened by his mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic. But the Democrats panicked. They wanted a centrist—a safe bet who could appeal to both the progressive left and the moderate base. That was Joe Biden.

Even then, concerns about Biden’s age were widespread. At 76, he was the oldest person ever to run for president, along with Trump. The urgency to oust Trump overrode all other considerations.

During his presidency, Biden was empathetic. He implemented policies aimed at helping Americans and revitalized the economy to the point where it became the world's envy. Not everything went according to plan: the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a disaster, inflation surged, and his administration struggled to hold the Jan. 6 rioters accountable. Still, the administration made meaningful progress that improved the country.

Then came the disastrous presidential debate in Denver. Standing opposite Trump, Biden looked and sounded feeble. His performance was so poor that Trump appeared stable, controlled, and relatively youthful by comparison. It was Biden’s siren call to retirement. Not long after, he withdrew from the race, ceding the nomination to Harris.

Now that it has been revealed Biden has advanced prostate cancer, people are openly questioning what was going on behind closed doors. Tapper is among the journalists asking who was in control, how the White House managed the situation, and how it all contributed to our current state. Writing about these issues is journalism.

Some argue that we don’t need a retrospective on Biden’s presidency when facing a divisive and potentially damaging administration now—a reference to Trump, though not all share that view. But that’s a false choice. We are capable of addressing multiple truths at once. Examining Biden’s mental and physical condition during his presidency is not a distraction. It is part of the public record.

Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Suppressing Tapper’s book to protect Biden’s legacy is a miscalculation. Understanding what happened helps future generations navigate similar situations with greater clarity and preparedness.