One might think a reporter celebrated for this type of story would have been interested…
Yesterday, I wrote about the story that came out after the election about Joe Biden’s cancer foundation. After years of collecting millions of dollars, it managed to apply all of that money strictly to salaries and operations expenses, with dime-zero being donated to cancer research and grant offerings. You would think this would be the kind of detail about a presidential candidate to spark interest in the press.
It did not. Apart from the very core story — that of a foundation headed up by Biden proving to be an enrichment sham — there is also the case of this being a completely mismanaged health-based enterprise. The Joe Biden Cancer Initiative was headed up by the man who today is claiming he will be the one to take over the leadership of the Covid crisis. Seems kind of important to look into such a glaring problem in leadership on a health matter.
It should have been of interest that this man demanding he take over the pandemic response was lording over an organization that collected millions and was not able to make any grants at all to cancer research. There was, however, little to no curiosity to be found in the media on this story, specifically from one reporter — David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post. I bring him up because he is one journalist who has a history of working stories of this particular nature.
One reason the media avoidance of this Joe Biden cancer institute is so stark is that it involved the very type of work the press has been showing it is capable of doing in regards to Donald Trump. For years we have seen the media clamoring to get in possession of documents surrounding the president’s dealings — even doing so illegally at times — so gleaning the details of the Biden cancer foundation is within their power. Yet nothing was forthcoming from these sleuths.
Farenthold, in particular, has built a name for himself by delving into the financials of President Trump. In 2017, he was the winner of the Pulitzer Prize, “For a distinguished example of reporting on national affairs.” The topic that earned David this honor was a series of articles he wrote in 2016 covering Donald Trump’s involvement in — wait for it — charitable affairs. In nearly a dozen articles, Fahrenthold studied and investigated the money Trump pledged and paid out to veterans, as well as looking into the records of Trump charities.
So not only is David Fahrenthold familiar with the subject matter, he has been lauded for his work on this type of reporting specifically, enough to have him classified as an expert on such matters. Yet the Pulitzer winner who is hailed for investigating the charitable works of then-candidate Donald Trump exhibited zero interest in the charitable work of now-candidate Joe Biden.
This convenient blind spot in journalism takes on an added significance when you look at his bio on Twitter. Farenthold boldly includes this quote in his header — “If you don’t want it printed, don’t let it happen.” Makes you start to wonder, why is it that Joe Biden’s deeply questionable charity never made it to print…?
Maybe there is some kind of semantic defense in play. Since Biden did not let grants happen at his cancer foundation, that is the justification for that story not to be covered? There must be a cause that prevents a Pulitzer winner skilled in charitable research to have missed a rather significant charity scandal involving a national candidate.