The comments are closed, or I would have posted this in the New York Times following the frontpage article that somehow the Times believes is part of “all the news that’s fit to print,” the legendary creed it places on every print edition. The article by Katie Rogers, “a White House correspondent, covering life in the Biden administration, Washington culture and domestic policy” since 2014, is entitled, The Peril in Biden’s Inability to Say No to Son. The online version is titled differently: President Biden Keeps Hunter Close Despite the Political Peril. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/10/us/politics/joe-biden-hunter-relationship.html Both titles imply that Hunter Biden somehow controls or exerts undue influence over the President.

I have searched this 2,400-word piece for “news,” something that was not previously reported and widely known about Hunter Biden and his problems along with President Biden’s continuing struggle to support his son and hold his family together following tragedy after tragedy. I searched again and again. Nothing. No news. Nothing not known before.

The article begins with the collapse of Hunter’s Justice Department plea deal, leading the President to a state of “sadness and frustration” according to “several people close to him” and “more than a dozen” who spoke only anonymously. [I counted at least 7 references to unnamed sources for the various slights and jabs laced through the piece.] Predictably, this will lead to renewed Republican attacks that, even though lacking any factual basis, Ms. Rogers asserts leave “no doubt that Hunter’s case is a drain, politically and emotionally, on his father and those who wish to see him re-elected.” The link is to a CNN article about a poll asserting that, largely along partisan lines, a majority of Americans think President Biden was inappropriately involved in Hunter Biden’s business affairs. Yet, later in the article,

Mr. Biden does not believe that Republican attacks on his son will hurt him with voters as he runs for re-election in 2024, and there is data to suggest that is largely true, at least for now. A June poll by Reuters and Ipsos found that 58 percent of Americans would not factor Hunter Biden into their decision in the presidential race.

“At least for now.” Of course, in case you missed it, Ms. Rogers wants to be sure you don’t think this sad story isn’t going to affect the election.

And when it comes to polls, you can pick your poison. See Jennifer Rubin’s excellent piece on polling in Sunday’s Washington Post. I don’t write about polls. You shouldn’t bother with them, either.https://tinyurl.com/mpj94udv

The Times piece then turns to the family history, Hunter, Beau, all of it, 830 words, more than a third of the entire article, rehashing Hunter’s descent into addiction.

The article then goes subtle as a sledgehammer to the head. It describes Hunter traveling with the President on Air Force One. The piece notes that “No hard evidence has emerged that Mr. Biden personally participated in or profited from the business deals or used his office to benefit his son’s partners while he was vice president.” It’s likely true, of course, as the article suggests, that Hunter used his father’s prominence to create the “illusion” of access, but that is on Hunter, not on the President. And the “revelation” is not new or surprising that someone in Hunter’s position and condition would try to exploit his “connections.”

The article then turns back to Hunter’s life in California and his continuing struggles, another 357 words to be sure we know what a problem Hunter is. Like father like son. You know the cliché. If Hunter is bad, Joe Biden must also be bad.

Then, the final knife in the President’s back:

Last month, when asked by reporters at Camp David about the special counsel investigation into his son, Mr. Biden’s response was terse. “That’s up to the Justice Department,” Mr. Biden said, “and that’s all I have to say.” Mr. Biden then left Camp David and rode aboard Air Force One to Lake Tahoe for vacation. Hunter joined him there.

That time, the president’s son flew commercial.

End of article. Very cute.

What possible purpose in “all the news that fit to print” could this piece serve other than to remind readers yet again that (1) Hunter Biden has a lot of problems, (2) Republicans are trying to pin those problems as evidence of corruption by the President (because, you know, the Republicans are supporting a twice-impeached, four-time felony indicted man named Trump to lead the country). And, oh yes, (3) the President loves his son despite his problems but cannot solve those problems, yet still supports him. No news. Zero. Yet, the Times puts it on the Sunday front page and devoted an entire page, replete with photos, inside the paper.

Why? The continued undermining of President Biden by publishing this no-news hit-piece is obvious and obnoxious. The editors of the New York Times should be ashamed that they published this attack and, worse, prominently featured it on the front page of the Times where it would garner the most attention.