Media Labels Biden’s Incorrect Cannibal Story as a Mere ‘Misstatement’ or Being ‘Off on the Details’

 Media Labels Biden’s Incorrect Cannibal Story as a Mere ‘Misstatement’ or Being ‘Off on the Details’

Photo by AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Recent reports have surfaced regarding President Joe Biden recounting a striking story involving his uncle, 2nd Lt. Ambrose J. Finnegan Jr., who Biden claimed was potentially victimized by cannibals after his plane was shot down in New Guinea during World War II.

This story was shared by Biden twice on Wednesday, first during a visit to a missing-in-action war memorial in Scranton, his hometown, and later while in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Despite his vivid recounting, military records from the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency indicate that Biden’s uncle perished following a plane crash in the Pacific Ocean, with no mention of cannibalism.

The way the media reported on Biden’s statements has sparked a debate over the terminology used to describe his inaccuracies, particularly in comparison to the media’s treatment of former President Donald Trump. Some media outlets have described Biden’s recounting as a “misstatement” rather than outright falsehoods.

For instance, NBC News referred to Biden’s account as a mischaracterization of his uncle’s disappearance, highlighting Biden’s intention to draw a contrast between his family’s military service and Trump’s controversial comments about military members. The Associated Press and MSNBC coverage similarly downplayed the inaccuracies, referring to them as “misstated details” and “unsubstantiated family lore.”

In contrast, critics, including NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck, argue that such language reflects a double standard in media coverage. Speaking to Fox News Digital, Houck pointed out that when Trump made questionable claims, the immediate media response often leaned towards labeling them as “lies.”

He criticized the apparent leniency afforded to Biden and other Democrats, suggesting a bias in how inaccuracies are reported depending on the political figure involved. CNN’s report straightforwardly noted the discrepancy between Biden’s dramatic narrative and the official military account, highlighting the difference without overtly criticizing Biden’s intent or veracity.

Meanwhile, when addressing inquiries about Biden’s statements, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre emphasized the emotional significance of the president’s visit to the war memorial and his pride in his uncle’s military service. She carefully steered responses towards the broader context of honoring military commitments rather than directly addressing the cannibalism claim.

This situation brings to the forefront the challenges in political communication and media reporting. The difference in handling misstatements among political leaders raises questions about consistency and bias in journalistic practices.

It also highlights the delicate balance between conveying respect for personal narratives and maintaining factual integrity in reporting. As media outlets navigate these complexities, the scrutiny of their terminology and the implications of their word choices continue to stir discussions about media fairness and the portrayal of political figures.

Related post