See No Stumbles

About a month before the debate that upended President Joe Biden's campaign, The Wall Street Journal published a story headlined "Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping." The story was built largely on anonymous sources, with only Republicans providing the on-the-record ballast. Though the Journal's news pages have long had a reputation for studious nonpartisanship, it was roundly slammed by a cadre of media experts, who dismissed it as a hit piece filled with innuendo. The article has aged, obviously, far better than the critiques — which raises the question: Why weren't there more stories that prepared us for the shock of the debate? One theory, of course, is that many journalists didn't want to hurt Biden. I take a generous view here. The New York Times, for instance, did do many stories about the problem of Biden's age, despite the predictable savaging it got them from the Left. But there is a difference between covering Biden's age as a campaign issue and getting the straight story on his deterioration.

I think there is a more intricate underlying issue here of how reporting works today. The kind of reporting the Journal did, relying on deep and often anonymous sourcing, has become increasingly rare. Both editors and readers now expect hard evidence — documents, tapes, quotes from multiple named sources. Last week, the excellent reporter Olivia Nuzzi published a story in New York magazine detailing how Biden's decline was an open secret to insiders and to the reporters grimly following his public appearances. Commentators complained that the story could have been published earlier. My suspicion, however, is that before the debate any article like Nuzzi's would have been dismissed as "just vibes." Reporters once dealt freely in their own observations and the words of anonymous insiders. Now the rule is often that until there are documents or on-the-record quotes, there is no story. That has frequently made the news feel more professional and reliable. But it has also set the public up for shocking surprises.

This is the editor's letter in the current issue of The Week magazine .