PoliticusUSA operates independently and is sustained solely through the generosity of our readers. We invite you to support us by becoming a subscriber.
While Jake Tapper’s recent book on Biden has quickly slipped from the headlines, it has ignited scrutiny over the accuracy of its claims. Politico’s investigation suggests that the narrative presented by the authors may not align with the facts.
Documents obtained by Politico reveal that Tapper and co-author Thompson claimed certain ads could not be utilized by the Biden campaign due to his poor performance. However, this narrative appears overly simplistic upon closer examination.
Three different versions of test ads, acquired exclusively by POLITICO, paint a more nuanced picture.
Although all three versions are significantly edited and include abrupt cuts of Biden’s speeches, they also display the candidate interacting with audience members. POLITICO confirmed the date and location of the town hall through dated planning documents and a mural in the gym.
…
A spokesperson for Biden noted that while the campaign did test the ads with focus groups, they were never released to the public, as Biden withdrew from the race following a disastrous debate in June 2024.
Moreover, claims regarding the ads being unusable due to lighting and technical issues are commonplace in political advertising, raising questions about the authors’ narrative.
Further complicating matters is the assertion that Tapper and Thompson engaged in a fact-checking process, which appears to have been rather superficial. Biden’s aides contend that the authors never reached out to the president or his team for input during their fact-checking, leaving significant gaps in their account.
The implication here is that the authors approached the writing process with a preconceived notion and selectively sought information that supported their thesis, rather than striving for a comprehensive account of Biden’s presidency.
It seems they were less interested in chronicling the events of the Biden administration and more focused on crafting a narrative about “Biden’s decline,” cherry-picking quotes to bolster their predetermined viewpoint.
In this light, the book may resemble a sensationalist endeavor rather than a serious historical examination.
Authentic presidential histories require years of diligent research, not a hasty compilation over a few months. True historians prioritize dialogue with their subjects or at least extend an opportunity for them to contribute.
It is disheartening to see financial gain prioritized over a rigorous scholarly approach to such a significant topic.
The American public deserves a thorough, well-researched account of Biden’s presidency and the 2024 campaign.
Unfortunately, what Tapper and Thompson have produced does not meet that standard.
