Jon Stewart pointed out the obvious on Monday, Tapper didn't need to write a book months later he could have simply reported the truth as he knew it at the time. The problem is the media is agenda driven and not honest arbiters of news. Someone posted something very noteworthy don't believe Walter Cronkite ever hawked a book while he was an anchor.
Perhaps if journalist actually reported news rather than trying to hawk books more people would be watching the news and better informed.
It would have made it impossible for Harris or any other Democratic candidates. The fatal blow of a commander-in-chief not in charge would have ended not just Biden’s career but the short term Democratic brand. More independents would have voted for Trump.
So, I ran an early disclosure scenario through my game theory simulator. This is what came out:
Had Tapper disclosed early, the impact on the 2024 election would likely have been significant only if the media ecosystem fully engaged and the content was indisputable—which was far from guaranteed in a polarized environment.
I think there’s an irony here. Had Tapper started reporting on this credibly 12 months ago, I don’t think it would have accelerated Biden’s exit. But it would have emboldened Trump supporters even more, and his margin of victory might have been larger. The counter argument, Tapper withheld info to protect us from Trump. Speculation of course. Either way, journalist are entitled to write books as a side hustle.
I tend to agree with you. I think it would have been an accelerant more than anything else. Back to Michael Hickins' point: Would it have made it easier for Harris? Probably not. She could never run against Trump and Biden at the same time. He was always an anchor that weighed her down.
Larry, I’m really enjoying your work and your enlightened point of view. And I agree that we need to examine the Biden presidency and how Biden’s staff handled (hid?) his growing senescence. But I think the criticism of Tapper for having withheld this information for close to a year so he could sell (and sell and sell) his book is also justified. He’s not Bob Woodward, whose affiliation with the WaPo is tenuous at best; Tapper is an active CNN anchor who is supposed to report news daily — not hold it back so he can publish a bombshell. You’re absolutely right that this story needs to be told — but our country would have been better served if it had been told 12 months ago!
It's a rational criticism. However, as journalists, you and I know that we will sit on a great story and maximize the value and impact. Book publishing is a competitive sport, and dripping pieces of the story may have been counterproductive. Now, that's the business counterargument.
What if he had published pieces of the story 12 months ago? Would it have changed the equation on Biden running for re-election? That ship had already sailed. There were plenty of people surrounding and protecting Biden during that time. I would hazard that publishing then would have invited sharper criticism and charges that he was trying to get Trump elected.
I'm willing to say that Tapper is/was in a damned do/don't situation.
I get the business decision. But I disagree with the premise that sitting on a story — for the purpose of impact — is a journalistic decision. Journalists want to be first with the story. As for the electoral impact, a couple of months more for Harris could have been a lifeline (and lifetime in politics).
True. And I agree. Back in my newspaper days, I would have thought about getting the story out first and all other things second. Times have changed. Tapper isn't the first to get this criticism.
Nope
A hard pass
Tapper & CNN lost nearly everyone’s respect
They are deservingly going to lose alot of $$$ & viewers
CNN & Tapper are cowardly narcissists & morally bankrupt for omitting the elephant in the room - the antithesis of free press
Jon Stewart pointed out the obvious on Monday, Tapper didn't need to write a book months later he could have simply reported the truth as he knew it at the time. The problem is the media is agenda driven and not honest arbiters of news. Someone posted something very noteworthy don't believe Walter Cronkite ever hawked a book while he was an anchor.
Perhaps if journalist actually reported news rather than trying to hawk books more people would be watching the news and better informed.
It would have made it impossible for Harris or any other Democratic candidates. The fatal blow of a commander-in-chief not in charge would have ended not just Biden’s career but the short term Democratic brand. More independents would have voted for Trump.
So, I ran an early disclosure scenario through my game theory simulator. This is what came out:
Had Tapper disclosed early, the impact on the 2024 election would likely have been significant only if the media ecosystem fully engaged and the content was indisputable—which was far from guaranteed in a polarized environment.
I think there’s an irony here. Had Tapper started reporting on this credibly 12 months ago, I don’t think it would have accelerated Biden’s exit. But it would have emboldened Trump supporters even more, and his margin of victory might have been larger. The counter argument, Tapper withheld info to protect us from Trump. Speculation of course. Either way, journalist are entitled to write books as a side hustle.
I tend to agree with you. I think it would have been an accelerant more than anything else. Back to Michael Hickins' point: Would it have made it easier for Harris? Probably not. She could never run against Trump and Biden at the same time. He was always an anchor that weighed her down.
Larry, I’m really enjoying your work and your enlightened point of view. And I agree that we need to examine the Biden presidency and how Biden’s staff handled (hid?) his growing senescence. But I think the criticism of Tapper for having withheld this information for close to a year so he could sell (and sell and sell) his book is also justified. He’s not Bob Woodward, whose affiliation with the WaPo is tenuous at best; Tapper is an active CNN anchor who is supposed to report news daily — not hold it back so he can publish a bombshell. You’re absolutely right that this story needs to be told — but our country would have been better served if it had been told 12 months ago!
It's a rational criticism. However, as journalists, you and I know that we will sit on a great story and maximize the value and impact. Book publishing is a competitive sport, and dripping pieces of the story may have been counterproductive. Now, that's the business counterargument.
What if he had published pieces of the story 12 months ago? Would it have changed the equation on Biden running for re-election? That ship had already sailed. There were plenty of people surrounding and protecting Biden during that time. I would hazard that publishing then would have invited sharper criticism and charges that he was trying to get Trump elected.
I'm willing to say that Tapper is/was in a damned do/don't situation.
I get the business decision. But I disagree with the premise that sitting on a story — for the purpose of impact — is a journalistic decision. Journalists want to be first with the story. As for the electoral impact, a couple of months more for Harris could have been a lifeline (and lifetime in politics).
True. And I agree. Back in my newspaper days, I would have thought about getting the story out first and all other things second. Times have changed. Tapper isn't the first to get this criticism.
We can debate the merits of Harris another time.