There is a rapidly growing trend in today’s news cycle, one that curiously is being referred to as ‘Now they tell us.’ Publications such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, mainstream media giants known for their Democratic leanings, have now begun giving airtime to a narrative concerning President Joe Biden’s mental health. With a dismissive tone, the alarm bells that many were ringing indicating that Biden was not mentally fit enough to shoulder the presidential responsibilities, have been conveniently validated. All this while, those voicing these concerns were summarily dismissed as ‘cheap fakers’ or ridiculed as ageist.
Today, their narrative has shifted, claiming that perhaps there were, indeed, legitimate concerns hidden under a cover of conspiracy theories. In fact, they’re now suggesting that this so-called conspiracy wasn’t such a conspiracy after all. The revelation of Biden’s evident cognitive challenges now finds a peculiar acceptance. Francis Collins, an integral part of the National Institutes of Health, is among the latest to jump on this regret-filled bandwagon.
It seems that Collins himself has had a change of heart, especially when it comes to the topic of lockdowns. The very policy that was praised as a ‘necessary sacrifice,’ is now, per his admission, not the most logical measure. This lockdown that supposedly was aimed to protect the middle class, appears to have almost decimated it instead.
Collins is now questioning the virtue of attaching ‘infinite value’ to halting the spread of Covid-19 and saving lives, at the expense of wrecking the economy and disrupting the day-to-day lives of the citizens. Observations overlapping with the arguments conservatives directed at the lockdowns are now, suddenly, being voiced. Themes include its role in disruptions of cancer screenings, increases in domestic abuse, excessive drinking, drug misuse and suicides. The societal effects of shutdowns on such a massive scale were well documented, but the pressing decision to halt our economy and culture was, at that time, conveniently left on the sidelines.
Interestingly, Biden is suddenly displaying critiques of his own administration, a rare display from his usual stance of defending his cohorts. The subject of his critique? The actions of Merrick Garland, particularly the handling of affairs concerning Donald Trump. What Biden seems to be conveying is a sense of disappointment, a wished for more aggressive legal pursuit of Trump. Did Biden harbour these feelings during his campaign trail? Why were such sentiments not expressed then?
Now, it seems, regret is a trend in this cycle. Reporters too are surfacing with letters to the subjects of their dubious pieces. One such figure is Mark Judge, who once found himself under scrutiny for the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. This reporter now expresses remorse over their coverage, musing that maybe, just maybe, they went ‘a bit’ overboard without accessing all the facts.
As time progresses, we find ourselves in the midst of a sudden deluge of information regarding the FBI and the events of January 6th. A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist covering the event recently confessed that the reporting had spiraled out of control. Now, even the FBI has admitted to having informants amidst the melee.
New data implies that it wasn’t necessarily only overzealous Republican partisans who placed explosive devices in front of the DNC and RNC. Suddenly, the blame game does not seem so one-sided anymore.
These revelations lead to the question – why now? What has paved the path for these revelations that Biden may not have been as fit as touted, or that the quarantine measures were a disaster, or that the allegations against Kavanaugh were unfounded? More importantly, the true nature of the January 6 events seems to come closer to the surface.
Circumstances lead us to various hypotheses. Could this flurry of truth-telling be a fearful anticipation of the Trump administration’s anticipated accounting of actions, that might be prefaced as illegal or unethical?
Alternatively, there might be a change in the National mood. Perhaps the increase in skepticism towards institutions such as the FBI, NIH, and the media, have forced them to rethink their narrative, giving way to a growing skepticism of ‘peak-woke’.
It’s possible that these institutions fear the blowback of their untruths and thus chose to come clean. It could very well be that they are simply scared of facing repercussions for their actions and thus are coming forward with the truth.
Whatever the reasoning behind these worldview adjustments may be, it’s certainly amusing, if not downright tragic, to watch the mainstream media’s narrative crumble as they scramble to make sense of their prior reporting. Were they wrong all along or are they still navigating the path of untruth? That’s a question for the discerning readers and viewers.
Ultimately, this saga reiterates the importance of skepticism and independent thinking in today’s media landscape. It serves as a lesson that sometimes, the loudest voices aren’t always right, and the perceived ‘conspiracy theories’ may hold more truth than what’s projected to us through the mainstream media’s echo chamber.