It’s a curious thing to witness the spectacle of media figures scrambling to rewrite history, especially those who were once staunch supporters of a particular narrative. Joe Scarborough, a former Republican and now a media personality known for his fervent criticisms, seems to have executed a spectacular about-face regarding Joe Biden’s presidency. Once an advocate praising Biden’s mental acuity, Scarborough now finds himself reversing course, conveniently aligning with the broader, more critical sentiment that time has brought to the forefront.
When Joe Scarborough initially described Biden as more than just “cogent,” suggesting he was at the peak of his intellectual prowess, it was met with skepticism. Many wondered if Scarborough was speaking about the same Biden who at times struggled to string a coherent sentence together during debates. However, Scarborough, it seemed, was committed to championing Biden, clinging to the notion of a sharp and strategic leader.
Fast forward to the present day, and it’s as if Scarborough has experienced a revelation of sorts. Suddenly, he’s acknowledging what many conservatives had been asserting all along: that Biden’s presidency was fraught with challenges, not the least of which was the president’s own cognitive struggles. Scarborough paints a picture of a Biden administration in decline, as if this realization hadn’t struck him until it was convenient—long after the mainstream media had moved on from their ardent defense of Biden’s mental fitness.
One can’t help but marvel at the contortions some figures will perform to stay relevant in the ever-shifting landscape of political opinion. Perhaps Scarborough believed that shifting his stance would endear him to a broader audience, aiming to salvage any remaining credibility. Yet, it seems this maneuver might be too little, too late. After all, where was this critical eye when Biden was navigating the primaries, when every misstep and verbal gaffe was soundtracked by a chorus of defenders?
The real kicker is the media’s own role in this folie à deux. By amplifying such narratives without question, they’ve inadvertently crafted a cocoon of misinformation, only now starting to unravel. Scarborough’s current position, pegged as insightful retrospect, reads more as an attempt to distance himself from a misguided past stance rather than a genuine reckoning with the truth.
If there’s a lesson to be gleaned from Scarborough’s theatrical pivot, it’s a cautionary tale of media complicity and the perils of blind allegiance. As viewers and readers, perhaps it’s time to remain vigilant, lest we be swept up in another cycle of selective amnesia and narrative contrivance. And for those in the media, maybe it’s time to consider the long game—truth has a funny way of catching up.
