New details are emerging about an extensive media effort to downplay sensitive issues involving President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. According to recent reports, longstanding critics of legacy media have alleged that news organizations deliberately shielded the 46th president from unfavorable coverage—particularly concerning revelations about his family’s financial dealings and questions surrounding his cognitive abilities. These efforts, it is claimed, date back well before Biden assumed the presidency.
In a report highlighted by Fox News, it was noted that allegations of a media cover-up regarding Biden’s mental decline and Hunter Biden’s legal challenges have been circulating for years. Critics argue that major news outlets systematically avoided reporting on stories that could cast a negative light on the former vice president and, later, president. The purported cover-up includes information about questionable financial transactions involving Biden’s family, as well as instances that critics say reveal signs of cognitive decline—a concern that became particularly evident during last year’s CNN debate and ultimately contributed to his exit from the 2024 presidential race.
The allegations suggest that efforts to protect Biden from scrutiny began as early as May 2019, during the primary race for the 2020 Democratic nomination. At that time, some reporters claim there was an active, if covert, campaign within the media to suppress stories that might have undermined Biden’s lead in the polls.
One significant revelation came from former Politico reporter Marc Caputo. Caputo disclosed on the “Somebody’s Gotta Win” podcast that he had written a report in 2019 that used opposition research from Biden’s Democratic rivals. His report detailed a “tax lien” issued against Hunter Biden related to his work with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. At that time, Biden was leading in the polls as a front-runner among Democratic candidates. Caputo explained that his story, which he described as a “classic report” linking the former vice president’s family to a potentially damaging financial controversy, was abruptly shelved by his editors without any explanation.
According to Caputo, the story would have spotlighted how Hunter Biden was burdened by a significant tax lien incurred during his tenure with Burisma—an issue that critics argue had the potential to cast doubts on Biden’s judgment and his family’s financial dealings. However, his report was suppressed, and he believes that if the same story had emerged about a candidate from another party, it would have been published without hesitation.
The controversy did not end there. In October 2020, as Biden secured the Democratic nomination and the electoral contest with then-incumbent President Trump became more competitive, the New York Post broke its now-famous story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. That report provided unprecedented details regarding Hunter Biden’s overseas financial transactions and raised questions about potential connections to his father. Caputo recalled that when he approached his editor at Politico to push for coverage of the laptop story, he was instructed to refrain from publishing or even tweeting about it. According to Caputo, these directives came directly from Politico’s upper management, suggesting that there was a coordinated effort to control the narrative around Hunter Biden.
This pattern of media self-censorship is not unique to Politico. A leaked audio recording obtained by Project Veritas reportedly captured CNN executives, including political director David Chalian, instructing staff not to cover the New York Post’s laptop story on Hunter Biden. Chalian is quoted as saying, “Obviously, we’re not going with the New York Post story right now on Hunter Biden,” on the same day the Post published its initial report. Former Politico reporter Tara Palmeri, who had broken the story regarding Hunter Biden’s involvement in a gun-related incident, also shared that her outlet took a cautious, drawn-out approach to her reporting on the laptop. Palmeri noted that despite having meticulously gathered evidence—including police reports and interviews—the story had to be “100% nailed down” before it could be published. She expressed doubt that the story would have seen the light of day any sooner if it had involved a different political figure.
The suppression of these stories appears to be part of a broader effort to mitigate any potential damage to Biden’s public image. Beyond the issues related to Hunter Biden’s financial and legal troubles, the alleged media cover-up extended to concerns about President Biden’s own health. A Wall Street Journal report last month indicated that as early as the spring of 2021, White House staff had observed fluctuations in Biden’s energy levels—characterized by “good days and bad days”—which necessitated adjustments to his demanding schedule. Other journalists, speaking on condition of anonymity, noted that Biden’s demeanor in public appearances was often “stiff” and “old,” and his responses to questions appeared deliberately short, as though carefully coached. These observations have fed into a narrative suggesting that the president’s cognitive abilities may be in decline, a topic that mainstream media reportedly avoided addressing in detail.
Critics contend that by suppressing these stories, the media not only protected a sitting president but also contributed to a distorted public perception of the current administration. They argue that in doing so, news organizations have compromised their role as watchdogs of democracy, undermining the public’s right to be fully informed about the actions and health of their leaders.
The implications of such media practices are significant. In an era where trust in the news media is already in decline, revelations of systematic cover-ups can further erode public confidence in journalistic integrity. Supporters of legacy media claim that stringent editorial standards and careful fact-checking are necessary to avoid the spread of unverified or politically motivated information. However, critics argue that these same processes have been misused to suppress information that is unfavorable to powerful political figures.
The debate over media bias and self-censorship is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. However, what is clear from these recent revelations is that the extent of media protection for Joe Biden and his family is drawing renewed scrutiny. As journalists and political observers continue to examine the practices behind editorial decisions, questions about accountability and transparency in the media remain at the forefront of the public discourse.
In summary, a growing body of evidence suggests that a deliberate effort was made by several major news outlets to limit coverage of issues that could have negatively impacted President Joe Biden’s image. This effort extended from the early days of the 2020 primary season—when Biden was still considered a leading candidate—to the period after he secured the nomination and eventually took office. The decision to suppress stories about Hunter Biden’s financial dealings, his tax issues related to Burisma, and even concerns about Biden’s own health have all contributed to a narrative of protection that many critics find deeply troubling.
The unfolding revelations have sparked intense discussions among media critics, political analysts, and the general public. Whether these practices represent a deliberate attempt to shield a political figure from accountability, or whether they are the result of internal editorial policies aimed at preventing the dissemination of unverified information, remains a point of contention. What is indisputable, however, is that these actions have had a profound impact on public discourse, shaping perceptions and potentially influencing the outcome of political contests.
As the nation continues to grapple with the challenges of maintaining a free and independent press, these revelations serve as a stark reminder of the vital importance of transparency and accountability in journalism. The ability of the media to serve as a check on power depends not only on its willingness to report on all aspects of political life but also on its commitment to ensuring that the public is given a full and unvarnished view of the issues that affect our democracy.
In this evolving landscape, the debate over media cover-ups and the protection of political figures is far from over. As new information continues to emerge and as more former insiders speak out, it is clear that the story of how far some media outlets went to cover for Joe and Hunter Biden will remain a contentious and significant chapter in the history of American journalism.
This comprehensive analysis examines the extent of alleged media efforts to shield President Joe Biden and his family from negative coverage. It explores claims of systematic suppression of critical stories, the implications for journalistic integrity, and the broader impact on public trust and accountability in American politics.
