White House reporters respond after being called out for weak coverage of Biden's decline at WHCD
The speech made by Axios correspondent Alex Thompson at the White House Correspondents' Dinner last weekend calling out the media's weak coverage of Joe Biden continues to make waves in Washington, D.C.
"Alex's speech was the best part of an otherwise tedious night and the only real olive branch extended toward the Trump administration," one White House reporter told Fox News Digital. "But it's telling that this award is granted after Biden's already out of power. Less than a year ago, most major outlets in that room ran with White House talking points on 'cheap fakes.'"
Last Saturday, Thompson accepted the Aldo Beckman Award for Overall Excellence in White House Coverage for his reporting that shed light on Biden's cognitive decline long before his now-infamous presidential debate performance that led to his ousting from the 2024 race.
Shielding Biden: Journalists Shed Light On The Media's Cover-up Of A Weakened President
"Being truth tellers also means telling the truth about ourselves. And some people trust us less because of it," Thompson told his peers at the dinner. "We, myself included, missed a lot of this story. We bear some responsibility for faith in the media being at such lows."
"I say this because acknowledging errors builds trust, and being defensive about them further erodes it. We should've done better," Thompson added.
Read On The Fox News App
Daily Wire White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olahan told Fox News Digital, "It needed to be said."
"Most of the White House press still pretends that they fairly covered the Biden White House," Olahan said, adding that the media "acted as members of the Biden comms shop for the past four years."
Whca President Opens Dinner Highlighting Trump's Absence And 'Extremely Difficult' Year For The Press
However, another White House correspondent, who called Thompson a "terrific journalist" and said he was rightly honored for his work, seemed to push back at the Axios reporter's assertion that the media failed in its job while covering the Biden presidency.
"There was a lot of good reporting in a variety of outlets on this in the months and years leading up to the debate," the correspondent told Fox News Digital. "But it's fair to say that no story had the impact of tens of millions of people watching the debate on national television with their own eyes."
Few journalists in the Beltway dug into the severity of Biden's cognitive decline. Thompson's reporting in 2023 for example, revealed Biden's short temper behind the scenes and the extreme lengths the White House took to prevent him from tripping in front of the cameras.
Looking Back On 2024: Liberal Media Insisted Biden Was Still Sharp Until Debate Debacle Exposed Him
The Wall Street Journal and its reporters Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes were viciously attacked by Democrats and Biden's allies in the media for their bombshell reporting alleging Biden was showing "signs of slipping" behind the scenes, in a piece published weeks before his ill-fated debate.
Meanwhile, numerous outlets ran with the White House's talking points that accused conservatives of peddling "cheap fakes" when moments that showed Biden wandering or freezing up went viral.
Biden has been at the center of the turmoil within the Democratic Party ever since President Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 election. Many Democrats have blamed Biden for not withdrawing from the presidential race sooner and allowing time for an open primary to select a new Democratic nominee rather than rallying behind then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the final months of the campaign.
Since Biden left office, he has also been the subject of multiple books about how his cognitive decline was strongly apparent behind the scenes among his staffers, long before his disastrous debate performance.
Fox News' David Rutz contributed to this report. Original article source: White House reporters respond after being called out for weak coverage of Biden's decline at WHCD
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
12 minutes ago
- E&E News
New megabill text revives land sales, axes IRA funding
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's portion of Republicans' party-line bill proposes to sell off certain public lands and repeal billions of dollars for energy programs in Democrats' 2022 climate law. The committee's proposal, unveiled Wednesday evening, contains many of the provisions in the House-passed H.R. 1, the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act' — including ones that would target the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office or charge a one-time fee to speed up permitting for some natural gas projects. But there are some significant differences. Most notable is a new section favored by Chair Mike Lee (R-Utah) to revive the sale of public lands, reigniting a firestorm of opposition from advocates. The provision goes further than an abandoned proposal in the House, encompassing Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands across 11 Western states. Advertisement ENR's text comes as the Senate is racing to tweak and quickly vote on tax, energy and national security legislation after the House approved its version last month. Republicans are working through the reconciliation process, which will allow them to skirt the Senate filibuster and pass the budget-focused bill with simple majorities.
E&E News
12 minutes ago
- E&E News
The legal pitfalls of Zeldin's climate rule rollback
EPA's proposal to stop regulating power plant climate pollution is built around a bold claim that experts say could create legal stumbling blocks. The U.S. power industry is the nation's second-highest emitting sector. But in its draft rule repeal, EPA argues that the industry emits too little heat-trapping pollution to be worth regulating. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced Wednesday that his agency would repeal two 2024 power sector standards: one to limit climate pollution and another to curb mercury pollution. He accused the Biden administration of enacting the rules to kill off 'baseload' coal and natural gas generation. Advertisement 'That's not the unintended consequences of the decisions that are made by the Biden EPA,' he told an audience of reporters and industry representatives. 'That was the intended consequences.' The repeals, he said, would save fossil fuel generation and advance President Donald Trump's 'energy dominance' agenda. But Zeldin also stressed at the event that the proposals could change before they are finalized, based on public comments. 'That is a decision that we aren't prejudging, that I cannot prejudge at the onset of the proposed rule, but that is a decision that I will have to make at the end of this process,' he said, in response to a question from POLITICO'S E&E News. If EPA finalizes its power plant rule repeal in its current forms, experts warn it could face numerous challenges. Here's a look at EPA's legal arguments and their possible pitfalls. An about-face on the Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act provision that EPA uses to regulate power plant carbon — known as Section 111 — asks EPA to first determine whether a source category 'causes, or contributes significantly' to harmful air pollution. EPA determined in the 1970s that coal and gas power plants met that standard and began regulating them for smog, soot and other pollutants. EPA has always interpreted the statute as requiring only one so-called finding of significant contribution per regulated sector — and not separate findings for each pollutant, like carbon. But Wednesday's proposals break with that precedent. 'The EPA is proposing that the Clean Air Act requires it to make a finding that [greenhouse gas] emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution, as a predicate to regulating [greenhouse gas] emissions from those plants,' states the draft rule. Jason Schwartz, legal director for the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School, said the statutory language was 'pretty clear that you don't need pollutant-specific findings.' Jeff Holmstead, who served as EPA air chief during the George W. Bush administration, disagreed. He said the Trump EPA is right that the Clean Air Act requires it to make a separate finding of significant contribution before regulating a new pollutant from any given sector. 'This issue, though, is separate from the question of whether CO2 emissions from U.S. power plants significantly contribute to climate change that harms public health or welfare,' he said. 'The courts could agree with EPA on this issue but still reject EPA's position that power plants do not significantly contribute to climate change.' What is 'significant' pollution? The U.S. power sector is responsible for about one-quarter of U.S. climate-warming emissions — and 3 percent of global emissions. It is the largest contributor to climate pollution in the U.S. outside of transportation. It would be difficult for EPA to argue that the U.S. power sector isn't a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, Schwartz said. In 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in American Lung Association v. EPA that EPA was right to decide that power plants contribute significantly to climate change 'because of their substantial contribution of greenhouse gases, under any reasonable threshold or definition.' The Supreme Court was asked to review that decision and declined. Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department attorney, said the text of the EPA power plant repeal doesn't grapple meaningfully with the D.C. Circuit's decision that power plants are significant emitters almost no matter how you look at it. But she said the agency's broader argument for why power plants shouldn't be considered significant contributors also deserved scrutiny. EPA states in the rule that U.S. power generation's share of global CO2 emissions 'is relatively minor and has been declining over time.' It notes that U.S. gas and coal plants are responsible for about 3 percent of worldwide emissions — a decline from previous years caused as much by rising emissions in developing countries as falling emissions in the U.S. The agency's draft repeal doesn't seem to propose that 3 percent as a new threshold below which source categories shouldn't be considered 'significant.' Instead, it discusses the economic impact of regulating coal and gas plants, which it claims would barely make a dent in global emissions. 'What I think is really unusual here is that they're collapsing the inquiry of whether or not the pollution is harmful into whether or not you can address it,' said Greenfield, who is now a partner at Jenner and Block. 'They're saying, 'This is too small, and regardless, we can't do anything, and so it's not bad,'' she said. 'That's kind of how I read it.' Looming litigation Environmental groups made it clear Wednesday that they will challenge the repeals in court. 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' said Manish Bapna, president and chief executive officer of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'Our lawyers will be watching closely, and if the EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' In order for EPA to reverse its existing rule, it has to make the case that the change is reasonable, and that means the agency has to rebut all its prior rationale for its rules, said Ryan Maher, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. Courts tend to be skeptical when an agency does an about-face, he said. 'It is an uphill battle, especially where the significance threshold hasn't been evaluated or applied.' Maher said. 'They are changing the goal posts that basically eliminate greenhouse gas regulation.' EPA's regulatory rollback announcement did not address whether the agency was still planning to undo its 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, a goal that fizzled out during Trump's first term. The question of climate costs The Biden-era power plant carbon rule that EPA proposes to repeal was supported by 405 pages of modeling and analysis on health, economic and energy impacts of that rule. But the regulatory impact analysis EPA released Wednesday with its draft rule totaled only 72 pages, compared with the hundreds that are usually devoted to weighing the costs and benefits of important rulemakings. The draft doesn't consider any costs associated with the increased carbon emissions the repeal would cause. It briefly cites 'significant uncertainties related to the monetization of greenhouse gases.' The Trump White House has directed agencies to avoid using social cost of greenhouse gases metrics in rulemakings. Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney with NRDC, said the lack of detailed analysis 'definitely stood out to me.' 'Under the principles of administrative law, agencies can of course change their minds — but they do need to provide a reasoned explanation for their decision, and can't ignore significant aspects of the problem,' she said. 'The paucity of technical analysis, and total lack of climate impacts in their cost-benefit analysis certainly don't seem to lend themselves to meeting those basic standards.' Dena Adler, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, expressed skepticism that EPA would be able to make its case that U.S. power sector emissions were insignificant. 'EPA will be hard-pressed to justify reversing the immense climate and public health benefits of the 2024 carbon pollution rule, and it's arbitrary for EPA to dismiss the climate benefits of the 2024 rule as zero,' Adler said. Even the first Trump administration found U.S. power sector emissions were significant, she added. The legal terrain Richard Revesz, faculty director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, noted that EPA found that its proposed rule repeal would result in greater costs than benefits. He noted that EPA for decades has considered how reducing each source of emissions contributes to solving larger pollution challenges and argued that the new approach breaks with 'rationality' and past practice. Wednesday's proposed repeal, he said, also abandons EPA's own peer-reviewed value of the social cost of greenhouse gases, which the agency has used since the George W. Bush administration. 'Greenhouse gas emissions cause extensive economic harm, and their proper valuation is certainly not zero as this proposal essentially suggests,' said Revesz, who served as administrator at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs during the Biden administration. 'Courts have previously rejected agency analyses that undervalue or fail to value the significant and well-established damages from greenhouse gases.' Zeldin's move Wednesday was just the latest in a yearslong back and forth at EPA over how the agency should address the climate effects of the power sector. In 2015, the Obama administration set the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants — only for the rule to be blocked by the Supreme Court. The first Trump administration's replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan — called the Affordable Clean Energy rule — was then repealed by the Biden administration, which replaced it with the regulation EPA is now trying to unwind. The Biden rules were already being challenged by Republican-led states and industry groups. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments in December but put deliberations on hold after a request from the Trump administration. The Biden-era rule relies on carbon capture and storage technology to curb greenhouse gas emissions. States and industry argued before the appeals court that the technology has not advanced enough to be applied at the scale proposed by the rule and that EPA exceeded its authority when it finalized the rule . The Biden EPA defended the regulation, as well within the agency's traditional rulemaking power to regulate pollution at its source. This story also appears in Energywire.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Democrats demand probe of Ed Martin's pledge to 'shame' Trump's opponents, other actions at DOJ
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are pushing for an investigation into top Justice Department official Ed Martin over his stated plans to "shame" political opponents of President Donald Trump who he's unable to charge criminally, as well as a host of other politically charged matters Martin has publicly pledged to pursue in his new position. "I write to express my grave concern about Ed Martin's stated intention to abuse his new roles as lead of the so-called 'Weaponization Working Group' you constituted at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and as DOJ's Pardon Attorney," Sen. Dick Durbin, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a letter transmitted to the Justice Department, which was first obtained by ABC News. "Following his disgraceful tenure as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Martin apparently plans to continue his misconduct in his new roles at DOJ." The DOJ did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment on the letter. MORE: Ed Martin, Trump's DOJ pardon attorney, says he'll review Biden's outgoing pardons Martin's controversial tenure as the interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., in the opening months of Trump's presidency thrust the office into turmoil and led several Senate Republicans to state publicly they wouldn't support his permanent confirmation in the role. But once the White House announced they were pulling Martin's nomination, Trump said Martin would instead be appointed to several top positions working out of DOJ's main headquarters -- serving as an associate deputy attorney general, the U.S. pardon attorney and director of the so-called "Weaponization Working Group." Martin celebrated the news on his X account, posting 'Eagle Unleashed,' and in various interviews celebrated what he described as a mandate from Trump directly to target the alleged 'weaponization' of the department under the Biden administration. 'It's classic Donald Trump, right? That somebody tries to block him and block his pick, and he decides to double down,' Martin told Breitbart News last month. 'This is probably the greatest job I could ever envision.' MORE: Trump US attorney nominee distances himself from antisemitic Jan. 6 rioter he once praised In a news conference announcing his departure from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, Martin confirmed he planned to launch a probe of last-minute pardons issued by former President Joe Biden just before he left office -- and suggested that officials he's unable to charge would instead be publicly "shamed." "There are some really bad actors, some people that did some really bad things to the American people," Martin said. "And if they can be charged, we'll charge them. But if they can't be charged, we will name them ... And in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are shamed. And that's a fact. That's the way things work. And so that's how I believe the job operates." The approach would directly conflict with longstanding DOJ policy that prohibits prosecutors from naming or disparaging individuals who they don't intend to charge criminally. When asked about that policy by ABC News during the news conference, Martin said he would "have to look at what the provision you're referring to, to see -- we want to square ourselves with doing the things correctly." The letter from Senate Democrats said Martin's statements "are a brazen admission that Mr. Martin plans to systematically violate the Justice Manual's prohibition on extrajudicial statements by shaming uncharged parties for nakedly partisan reasons. Weaponizing DOJ in this manner will further undermine the public's trust in the department in irreparable ways." MORE: Bondi, as new AG, launches 'Weaponization Working Group' to review officials who investigated Trump In his early days as pardon attorney, Martin said he advised the president in his pardon of former Virginia county sheriff Scott Jenkins, who had been sentenced to ten years in prison for a federal bribery conviction. "No MAGA left behind," Martin posted on X in response to the pardon. Durbin's letter further cited reports Martin has "personally advocated" fast-tracking pardons for members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were convicted of seditious conspiracy stemming from their roles leading up to the attack on the Capitol, after President Trump initially opted to commute their sentences in his sweeping clemency action for the nearly 1600 individuals charged in connection with Jan. 6. Durbin's letter requests Bondi provide a host of records related to Martin's appointment and early days as head of the Weaponization Working Group and Pardon Attorney's Office. It's unclear whether DOJ will ultimately respond to Durbin's demands given Democrats' minority position on the committee. Senate Democrats demand probe of Ed Martin's pledge to 'shame' Trump's opponents, other actions at DOJ originally appeared on
