The Washington Examiner’s Joe Concha has sharply criticized CNN host Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson, alleging they strategically withheld crucial details about former President Joe Biden’s declining health and cognitive abilities to benefit their upcoming book, "Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again." Concha’s criticism, delivered during an appearance on the "Evening Edit" with Elizabeth MacDonald, centers on the book’s inclusion of interviews with Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Michael Bennet (D-CO), which detail concerns regarding Biden’s capacity to effectively manage national security and foreign policy challenges. Concha argues that Tapper and Thompson are complicit with those closest to Biden, actively participating in a cover-up of the former president’s deteriorating mental state and health. He stated, "What about Jake Tapper of CNN. He’s supposed to be an anchor. And what about Alex Thompson, who was seated next to him there, of Axios?" Concha emphasizes the timing of the concerns raised by Senators Warner and Bennet, highlighting that these questions arose during a critical period leading up to the 2020 election, where addressing Biden’s potential vulnerabilities could have influenced the outcome. He suggests that the deliberate delay in reporting these observations reflects a conscious effort to prioritize the book’s publication over immediate, responsible journalism. Concha’s argument suggests a broader pattern of concealment and a calculated decision to suppress information that could have impacted public perception of Biden’s fitness for office. He concludes that "they wanted to save this for their book instead of reporting it at the time when it mattered, when we had an election in front of us. That’s why I think everybody’s hands are dirty in this one."

The core of Concha’s criticism points to a perceived conflict of interest, raising questions about the journalistic integrity of Tapper and Thompson’s reporting. It suggests that the pursuit of a lucrative book deal outweighed their professional obligations to provide the public with a complete and accurate assessment of Biden’s capabilities. The situation underscores a complex and controversial narrative surrounding Biden’s health and the media’s role in shaping public understanding of his condition. The accusation of a deliberate cover-up adds a significant layer of intrigue, fueling speculation about potential motivations and raising serious ethical concerns. It’s a narrative that directly implicates key figures in the media landscape, contributing to a sustained debate about transparency and accountability in political reporting. The timing of the book’s release, coinciding with the disclosure of Biden’s prostate cancer diagnosis, further amplifies these concerns. This revelation, announced on Sunday, revealed that Biden was battling an "aggressive form" of the disease that had metastasized to his bones. This announcement immediately intensified scrutiny and fueled additional allegations of a cover-up orchestrated by those surrounding the former president. The revelation of the cancer diagnosis significantly heightened the debate surrounding Biden’s fitness for office, adding a new dimension to the already contentious discussion about his cognitive abilities. The combination of the cancer diagnosis and the timing of the book’s release created a perfect storm of controversy, prompting widespread criticism and raising fundamental questions about the integrity of the reporting process. The situation highlights the potential dangers of prioritizing commercial interests over journalistic responsibility, particularly in the highly charged environment of political reporting. It’s a narrative that demands careful examination and encourages a critical assessment of the information presented to the public.

Jake Tapper’s subsequent admission to Megyn Kelly that "conservative media was right" in questioning Biden’s mental acuity further complicated the situation, acknowledging the validity of the criticisms that had been leveled against him and his colleagues. Tapper stated, "There should be a lot of soul-searching — not just among me, but among the legacy media to begin with, all of us — for how this was covered or not covered sufficiently, 100%." This admission represents a significant shift in Tapper’s stance and acknowledges the broader implications of the controversy. It’s a tacit admission that the concerns raised about Biden’s fitness for office were not unfounded and that the media’s handling of the situation fell short of expectations. Tapper's statement marks a pivotal moment in the unfolding narrative, signaling a willingness to confront the criticisms and engage in a broader reflection on the media’s role in shaping public perceptions. The admission underscores the importance of accountability in journalism and highlights the potential consequences of failing to address critical information.

The ongoing debate surrounding Biden’s health and the media’s response serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the need for transparency, accuracy, and a commitment to responsible reporting, particularly when dealing with matters of public importance and the leadership of a nation. "