Media coverage of Biden's age: time for a rethink

Biden's age criticism is overblown, with media focusing on trivialities rather than substance. Concerns are more about performance than actual impairment.

The discourse surrounding Biden's age has reached a point of absurdity, as evidenced by the recent scrutiny following special counsel Robert Hur's report on Biden's "poor memory." Critics jump on any verbal slip from Biden, painting it as damning evidence of his unsuitability for another term, while overlooking similar mistakes made by Trump and others.

The media's focus on trivialities rather than substance has led to a skewed narrative on Biden's age. While it's true that Biden may not speak or walk as fluidly as he once did, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that his mental acuity has declined to the point where he is unfit to lead.

Critics often conflate two separate concerns when discussing Biden's age. The first is a fear that his age may impact his decision-making abilities, while the second revolves around his ability to perform the role of president effectively. The latter criticism often devolves into a critique of Biden's public persona, with concerns raised about his energy levels and ability to connect with voters.

However, much of this criticism is based on speculation rather than concrete evidence. While Biden may not always appear as commanding or energetic as some would like, it's important to consider the broader context of his policies and track record. Additionally, the impact of Biden's age on his polling numbers is unclear, as many younger leaders in other countries are facing similar challenges in terms of popularity.

In order to truly understand the implications of Biden's age on his candidacy, it is crucial to look beyond surface-level analysis and consider the broader political landscape. By focusing on substance rather than superficial critiques, we can gain a more nuanced understanding of how age may or may not impact governance in the upcoming election.