We could fill this page with evidence thereof. Any number of left-leaning columnists at prestigious media outlets tried to bat down the rumors that Biden’s visible aging (as manifested both physically and mentally) was compromising his credibility as a viable candidate for perhaps the most demanding job in the world.

Please. Let’s just be honest.

Biden and his wife, Jill, wished to continue as president and first lady. Their handlers, who had a vested interest in that continuance, did all they could to minimize what became obvious during Biden’s June 2024 debate with (then former) President Donald Trump. There is room for debate as to whether the minimization of Biden’s age-related limitations was simply their political job as loyal aides or an example of epic moral malfeasance that put the country at risk. The truth likely is somewhere in between.

But the media should have known better. Alas, too many outlets were blinded by their desire to see the Democrats win.

Most voters also saw the issues with Biden. But some made the decision that even a less-than-capable president who matched their values was a better choice than his opponent because we all know that most of the actions of a White House come from staffers, not one individual with an impossibly massive workload. That was not an illogical or a stupid choice. But it doesn’t absolve either the Biden White House or the fourth estate.

That brings us to Biden’s cancer, a diagnosis that surely cast a pall over the various book tours and panel discussions on what the Bidens and their handlers did or did not obscure.

On the far right, the general assumption was that the Stage 4 prostate cancer diagnosis must have been made a long time ago and known by Biden’s personal physician, given that presidents do not have to wait weeks for medical appointments. In this telling, the prostate cancer was all part of the cover-up and the choice to release the information now was timed to boost Biden as a sympathetic figure and deflate chatter about the other cover-ups.

If so, it was effective. On Sunday, media outlets found themselves in the uncomfortable position of reporting a president’s cancer diagnosis on the same homepage as columns and news stories that were claiming he, his wife and their aides were either lying or in a state of deep denial.

We simply do not know, and may never know, if the cancer conspiracy theories are true.

Sunday’s news was uncomfortable and depressing, given that Biden had a long career of public service and that advanced cancer diagnoses often hit families without warning, sparking the chaos that invariably accompanies such news. For decent Americans, the vast majority of this nation, simple human concerns for Biden and his loving family eclipsed political considerations (and someone else’s book sales). As well they should.

What might the Democratic establishment take from this? Cover-ups are inadvisable, however well meant, because the erosion of trust only compounds. A typical result is the opposite of the original intent.

And the media? Reporters and editors have to be more aware of personal biases and the sins of omission. Many of those who reported and commented on the news of the last presidential election had a deeply felt stake in the result. That’s natural. Reporters are people too. But the place for that expression is the voting booth. Outside that anonymous act, the job is to report the truth, whatever the likely consequences.

We wish President Biden a long life yet to come and we surely join with our readers in hoping his condition responds well to treatment.

The Chicago Tribune