Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

The Media’s Cover-Up of John Fetterman

No amount of spin can undo what v**ers witnessed on the debate stage last night in Pennsylvania.

PETER SAVODNIK
OCT 26

It should now be crystal clear why Democrat John Fetterman refused to take part in more than a single debate with his Republican Senate rival, Mehmet Oz, and why Fetterman insisted on pushing that debate to just two weeks before E******n Day—after at least 500,000 Pennsylvania v**ers had already v**ed.

Last night’s debate was an unmitigated disaster.

A disaster for Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor—who appeared confused and could barely manage a coherent sentence, let alone a complete paragraph.

And a disaster for Pennsylvania v**ers, who didn’t get the tough, substantive debate they deserved, one that would have pushed Oz to explain, among other things, why he was distancing himself from Donald Trump (without whom he wouldn’t be the nominee); his position on a******n; China; and how he plans to bring down gas prices.

Oz had some solid talking points, but they were just that—talking points. But Fetterman lacked even those.

You can watch the whole debate here:


A few examples of what went down:

There was Fetterman’s confusing opening statement.

His refusal to share his medical records.

His simplistic and, at moments, cheerleader-sounding celebration of Roe v. Wade.

And, in perhaps the most baffling moment of the night, his inability to explain his position on fracking:

The Pennsylvania Senate race is among the most important in the country. So, the Fetterman campaign—which seriously limited the candidate’s interaction with constituents and put the kibosh on press gaggles—granted some interviews. Almost all of them were conducted remotely, over Google Hang, with closed captioning. None that we can recall focused on the most important thing about John Fetterman: The fact that the candidate, who suffered from a stroke five months ago, does not appear fit to serve.

Until last week.

Last week, NBC reporter Dasha Burns had the temerity to observe the obvious: John Fetterman has trouble with chit chat. Here is what she said: “In small talk before the interview without captioning, it wasn’t clear that he was understanding our conversation.”

She got crucified for it by any number of journalists with blue checks.

From Kara Swisher: “Sorry to say but I talked to @JohnFetterman for over an hour without stop or any aides and this is just nonsense. Maybe this reporter is just bad at small talk.”

From New York Magazine’s Rebecca Traister, who profiled the candidate: His “comprehension is not at all impaired.” The problem, she explained, is “a hearing/auditory challenge.” She added: “He understands everything.”

Molly Jong-Fast came to Fetterman’s defense, tweeting that, in a recent interview, the candidate “understood everything I was saying and he was funny.”

Connie Schultz, a USAToday columnist and the wife of Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, observed: “As he continues to recover, @JohnFetterman used technology to help him answer a reporter’s questions. How we as journalists frame this reveals more about us than it does him.”

The Atlantic’s John Hendrickson suggested that the problem wasn’t Fetterman but, well, us. “Part of our culture’s ongoing stigmatization of disability stems from our profound lack of understanding about the variability—and spectrum—of physical and mental challenges.”

And so on.

The NBC reporter was also attacked by Fetterman’s wife, Gisele. She suggested that Burns should be punished for reporting honestly. “I mean, there are consequences for folks in these positions who are any of these isms,” Gisele Fetterman said. “I mean, she was ableist. That’s what she was in her interview. It was appalling to the entire disability community and I think to journalism.” (The Second Lady of Pennsylvania seemed unconcerned with the First Amendment.)

If anything, Burns, who has covered the race extensively, understated just how bad Fetterman’s condition is.

I was in Pennsylvania a few weeks ago to report on the race, and the Fetterman campaign refused to make the candidate available. Now, it’s obvious why they have limited media engagements to friendly venues like MSNBC, New York Magazine and The New York Times—where reporters are, presumably, reticent to report anything that might be viewed as helping Republicans.

But there was no sympathetic journalist on stage with John Fetterman last night. What we were left with was reality. And reality was painful to watch.

Perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the campaign is blaming the closed captioning system for being “delayed” and “filled with errors.” What’s astonishing is how little so many journalists at some of our most storied news organizations respect normal Americans’ ability to use their eyes and ears.

The spin machine is already whirring away, with journalists claiming that it was the technology that was to blame or that Fetterman was brave to debate Oz or that, as Rebecca Traister put it, Fetterman should be lauded for his “remarkable t***sparency.” Josh Krashaar, at Axios, was honest and ballsy enough to report that Democrats on Capitol Hill were left rattled by Fetterman’s performance.

Far from shielding Fetterman from scrutiny, in the end too many journalists in the legacy media have simply revealed—once again—why they cannot be trusted. From Russiagate to the lab leak theory to the r**ts in the summer of 2020 to the effect of school closures during the p******c, reporters seem increasingly incapable of reporting honestly and comprehensively on the most important issues of the day. Last night, for anyone who was watching the debate with eyes wide open, that much was indisputable.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Ps, I watched the whole debate carefully.
Oz did support and said that he would v**e for Trump.
I***ts forget though that Trump has not announced that he is running so the question is a loaded one and irrelevant until Trump announces, if he does.
These summaries are in many ways very misleading with opinion commentary.

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

I listened to the debate. Fetterman’s responses revealed a cognitive impairment consistent with the aftermath of a stroke. I can’t believe that his team allowed him to show up, surely they could have come up with a plausible excuse, i.e. symptoms of some minor ailment, etc. Mercifully, the debate moderators did not press him when his responses did not answer their questions; it would have been cruel.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

There seems to be a trend of promoting disabled candidates for office. Their disability is obvious to all, yet denied by the promoters. If elected, it permits an entire invisible, unelected committee to decide and then declare what the disabled actually "meant" to say or do.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

He fought the debate idea and delayed it until a week before the e******n knowing all the moron libs and democrats will have already v**ed so no damage to the evil fool.

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Pre-stroke, Fetterman was a piss-poor candidate, never holding a real job and more liberal than the majority of PA democrats. Now he's just a sock-puppet like Joe Biden. The Democrats in PA had every chance in the world to put forward another candidate and chose not to. They deserve to lose and I hope they do.

btbg

What do you mean mercifully the moderators did not press him? There is nothing cruel about exposing that someone is unfit to hold public office. Rather than cruel it is a duty to expose incompetence in government. Your attitude about the situation highlights exactly what is wrong with our country now. Fetterman is clearly impaired, so that should be exposed. Biden is clearly impaired so that should be exposed as well. Instead for wh**ever reason instead of exposing the t***h we as a society seem to think it is acceptable to have incompetent and impaired leaders and it would be cruel to tell the t***h. The t***h may be cruel, but it is necessary to a fair and free society.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

OK. I have to ask two questions, it is possible that his health may take a long recovery or that it not improve a great deal at all. Do you think it wise that he and his wife would risk his health for the seat? The pressure of the Senate has to be a great deal more than what he was doing prior to his stroke. Secondly, would hiding him from the v****g public be fair to the people of PA?

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

So how can the media cover up anything that was broadcast live and replayed on an endless loop on cable news?
You may not like the left's interpretation of the debate, but neither you the author can honestly claim a cover up.

FrumCA

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Because for Democrat v**ers who did not watch the debate or clips of the debate, they'll rely on the spin. The Democratic spin is Fetterman did OK, should be commended for agreeing to debate under the rules set up, and is perfectly capable of handling a position in the Senate. The interpretations of the liberal, blue-check media are the cover up.

In reality, Fetterman CAN do the job of a Democratic senator because all he needs to do is v**e the way Chuck Schumer says he should v**e.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Please, most people go to work, come home and watch football, maybe get some local news.... There is a cover-up without doubt, only the e******n will inform us as to how effective it will be.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Pennsylvania is a great state with great people. It can't be that stupid to elect Fetterman.

btbg

Don't bet on it. We were foolish enough as a nation to elect Biden.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

That is still not a coverup. As a matter of fact, the use of hyperbolic and inaccurate language l to try to gin up a false narrative is the very essence of spin. There are plenty of good dictionaries on lime. Let me know if you need a link.