Aaqib Majid
Several journalists have come forward in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election to expose the extent to which certain segments of the mainstream media reportedly went in order to According to their testimonies, throughout a crucial election period, there was editorial hesitancy, selective coverage, and occasionally open suppression of news that could have affected public opinion. This has spurred an expanding discussion on the function and obligation of journalism in a democracy, in addition to media bias.
The contentious reports about Hunter Biden’s business transactions, particularly those involving foreign corporations, are among the most talked-about examples. Multiple media insiders claim that certain editors were significantly more hesitant than is customary for political reporting to touch anything about the Biden family unless it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Investigating leads and investigating the narrative were the responsibilities of journalists, but behind closed doors, they frequently encountered opposition. The general consensus was that these kinds of articles needed to be handled very carefully, if at all, since they were too “politically charged” or “potentially harmful” to the Biden campaign.
This was a frustrating experience for many reporters. Investigative articles that had undergone the customary editorial and fact-checking procedures were either modified to soften the consequences, shelved, or postponed indefinitely. After covering equally delicate stories involving leaders from other parties in the past, some reporters started to believe that a double standard was being used. The notion that a presidential candidate might profit from such a safe bubble was incompatible with the ideals of journalism.
The fact that the media narrative was influenced by larger worries about misinformation only serves to further confuse the problem. Early on, many of the Hunter Biden claims were written off as potential foreign meddling or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, especially those involving a laptop that was purportedly his. To a certain extent, this caution made sense—no ethical journalist wishes to spread misleading information. However, in hindsight, some now view the exclusion of some of the case’s supporting testimony and evidence as an overcorrection that conveniently favored a specific political person.
As a result, many large newsrooms experienced a chilling effect. Reporters who advocated for more in-depth coverage of the Biden family frequently experienced isolation or suspicion. Some started self-censoring and avoiding the subject entirely in order to prevent blowback or professional problems. Others expressed their worries in private, wondering why this political family was not subject to the same scrutiny and mistrust as other families.
Even those in the media have come to acknowledge that critical articles may not have received the attention they merited as additional information has come to light. The idea that the media favored some candidates during an election when openness ought to have been crucial is more significant than Hunter Biden’s private issues or business dealings.
These discoveries have far-reaching ramifications. Media outlets run the risk of undermining public trust, which is already severely lacking, when they seem to cover or bury stories selectively for political reasons. Regardless of party affiliation, people look to journalists to keep the powerful accountable. Breaking that trust can lead to greater partisanship, more disinformation, and a wider gulf between the public and the institutions that are supposed to educate them.
A wider cultural change is also taking place. As digital platforms and independent media voices gain traction, more consumers are avoiding traditional news sources because they believe that significant stories are being softened or filtered. The public’s desire for uncensored information, which they believe they are no longer receiving from traditional media, is the primary driver of these alternative sources’ success, despite the difficulties they present.
Many journalists are advocating for a renewed dedication to the profession’s fundamental principles of accountability, justice, and truth in the future. This entails posing difficult queries, even if the responses are politically awkward. It entails fighting the impulse to defend or elevate somebody merely because they share beliefs or political parties. Above all, it entails putting the audience’s trust in the facts, complete and unfiltered, so they may make their own conclusions.
Reporters are not the only ones who may learn from the story of how the media handled the Biden coverage during the 2020 election. It serves as a cautionary tale for the entire industry. The only way for journalism to endure—and flourish—at a time when political narratives rule the news cycle and facts are constantly being attacked is to refuse to be included in the tale. Telling the tale, regardless of where it takes you or who it unnerves, is your responsibility.
It has become evident that decisions taken behind the political curtain, even those with the best of intentions, can have far-reaching effects. It’s possible that some media members thought that by downplaying or postponing some news, they were defending democracy. However, they might have caused more harm than good by doing so. Because true democracy demands protection against the truth, not the other way around.