New York mag reporter defends timing of Biden ‘conspiracy of silence’ bombshell amid backlash
Star reporter Olivia Nuzzi faces criticism over Biden bombshell
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Reporter Olivia Nuzzi defended her viral bombshell about President Biden, telling critics she has been chasing down whispers about the president’s fitness for office for months.
The timing of a staggering July 4 New York magazine feature, "The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden," which detailed claims that high-powered Democrats have long known about President Biden’s cognitive issues, has drawn harsh criticism.
"I work on most of my stories for months. This piece is about a conspiracy of silence that made people reluctant to talk. I’ve been chasing down what I heard since January. That’s how long reporting takes. Debate changed people’s calculations about how candid they would be, and even then not on the record," she wrote on X.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Nuzzi penned the shocking piece that details how Biden’s "mental decline was like a dark family secret for many elite supporters." She reported that Biden supporters have been expressing doubt about his ability to run for re-election since at least January and said she witnessed it herself in April when Biden looked like "something not of this earth" during an appearance when he appeared so frail that last week’s disastrous debate actually exceeded her expectations.
Nuzzi also wrote that high-powered Democrats were secretly in agreement with Trump supporters who believed Biden "may not really be the acting president after all," but were afraid to blow the whistle on Biden's issues until they were on full display during the debate meltdown.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}New York magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi penned "The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden," which featured the staggering subhead, "The president’s mental decline was like a dark family secret for many elite supporters." (Nuzzi)
The lengthy piece drew significant criticism, as many pondered why it took seven months to report what she learned in January or three months to disclose what she witnessed in April. "Olivia Nuzzi" even became a top trending topic on X.
Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume posted, "She wrote about it today, more than six months later and after numerous televised episodes showing his senility and frailty. Now she writes of a conspiracy of silence. She ought to know."
Mollie Hemingway said Nuzzi "participated in the ‘conspiracy of silence,’ by her own admission, since January. Interesting."
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}National Review editor Rich Lowry posted, "To think if it hadn’t been for the debate, they’d still be trying to get away with covering for a president who no longer reliably recognizes long-time friends."
"In January, but only thought to write this in July. Hmmmmm," radio host Erick Erickson posted on X.
Author Bill Carter posted, "Devastating: blistering indictment of everyone who facilitated this disaster knowing for months(yrs?) how shockingly enfeebled he was. Olivia will be asked why she herself didn’t unload earlier but she’s not responsible for protecting the nation. The enablers were. They failed us."
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}President Biden’s disastrous debate performance "changed people’s calculations about how candid they would be" about his cognitive issues, according to Olivia Nuzzi. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images | ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson posted, "Conspiracy of silence? You were part of it, Olivia. You saw Biden incoherent in April and wrote nothing about it until now. Every White House reporter has to be seen as either terminally incompetent or a partisan hack."
Jordan Schachtel asked, "Why didn’t your editors want this published in January, February, March, April, May, or June?"
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}"Interesting, Olivia," journalist Andrew Tavani wrote. "Genuine question: if you’ve been hearing about this for months and even witnessed something months ago, why report it only after the debate?"
Another reader posted, "Why didn't you release any of this earlier? The timing seems very suspicious. Everyone in the media who knew and said nothing are complicit"
NEW YORKER ARTICLE CALLS ON DEMS TO USE 25TH AMENDMENT TO REMOVE BIDEN: WHAT IT WAS ‘DESIGNED FOR’
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}John Podhoretz added, "When a reporter like Olivia Nuzzi says ‘oh yeah I heard Biden was senile in January,’ does she even begin to understand how she sounds?"
Nuzzi also defended her process when asked for additional comment.
"I am made of steel I don’t care about the criticism, but I do think it’s a good opportunity to inform people about what the reporting process entails. I am famously slow, all my stories take months, but with this one in particular, I thought the time it took spoke to the thesis of the piece," Nuzzi told Fox News Digital.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}"The plan was to publish before the debate, but I needed more time," she continued. "I had no reason to believe and did not believe that the liberal establishment that had ignored Biden’s mental decline — which was completely apparent for years — would suddenly change its tune after the debate."
The publication also defended the piece.
"This is a deeply reported feature that required time and care to publish. We stand by our story," a New York magazine spokesperson told Fox News Digital.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}