The nation wishes Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) the best of luck and wellness. According to a senior aide’s statement, it is anticipated that Fetterman will require hospitalization due to severe depression for over a month. We send healing wishes and prayers during this difficult time.
Given the magnitude of Senator Fetterman’s health issues and their effects on his ability to perform his duties, a review of the entire situation must occur. We must evaluate the role of most media outlets in shielding Fetterman during his successful Senate campaign and, even after taking office, hiding his impairment from public view. It is essential to consider these more significant implications in any further evaluation.
From the corporate media, there has been a positive attitude towards Senator Fetterman’s first weeks in office. The reports have mainly discussed how he and his colleagues manage while accommodating his medical restrictions due to his stroke recovery. The focus has been on his physical well-being rather than on health-related difficulties.
The New York Times noted that Senator Fetterman’s recovery from the stroke he suffered just days before winning the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary last May was hampered because he insisted on continuing his campaign routine instead of taking the medical team’s advice and allowing himself to rest. At the same time, an optimistic report underlined how important it is for patients in a similar situation to listen to their healthcare provider and put their well-being first.
Fetterman faced Republican Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz in a debate that raised questions about Fetterman’s health. It is still being determined how much of an effect the debate had since 700,000 votes were cast before the event; voter loyalty in this hyper-partisan environment may have been firm enough for Fetterman to keep his lead. Ultimately, it had little impact on the race’s outcome as Fetterman secured a 51%-46% victory.
The media’s positive portrayal of Fetterman’s condition was a significant factor that prevented scrutiny of his fitness. As The New York Times highlighted, Fetterman has been put forth as an example of inclusivity, comparable to Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who requires special accommodations on Capitol Hill because of her war-related injury.
A clear distinction must be defined between elected officials who are physically impaired, such as those in need of a wheelchair, and those whose mental capability is significantly compromised. This was a significant factor behind the Democratic Party’s call for California Senator Dianne Feinstein to retire. There was ample evidence that her cognitive abilities had declined over time.
Fetterman relies heavily on digital technology to perform routine Senate work, as he needs to speak effectively in a standard conversational manner. He requires assistance when engaging with the press, colleagues, and constituents and is typically accompanied by aides who are there to assist as necessary.
Fetterman’s supporters have argued that his medical issues are short-term, but recent events, including hospitalization and a new diagnosis of depression, suggest otherwise. These developments make it difficult to view his place in the Senate as a rebuttal against ableism.
Now is a timely reminder that the corporate media failed to assess Fetterman’s fitness for office during his campaign adequately. Multiple liberal reporters interviewed Fetterman after his stroke and consistently relayed that he was ready to continue his candidacy. However, the public needed to be given an in-depth overview of the effects of his stroke on his health and ability to serve.
Dasha Burns of NBC News was the only journalist to dissent in pre-debate interviews with Pennsylvania lieutenant governor John Fetterman. She later commented that he had difficulty understanding their exchange when his closed-captioning device wasn’t on.
In response to Burns’ words, several prominent Team Blue journalists collectively criticized her statement. Molly Jong-Fast of The Atlantic and Vogue attested to the insensitivity of the report, calling it “B.S.” Other voices joined in the chorus of disapproval, denouncing Burns for seemingly validating GOP ideology.
The media landscape seems divided in its evaluations of the situation at hand. Rebecca Traister, Kara Swisher of New York Magazine, and Vox weighed in on this issue, expressing that Fetterman’s comments were appropriate. Additionally, NBC host Savannah Guthrie seemingly questioned Burns’ journalistic credibility.
Gisele Fetterman, the candidate’s wife, was adamant that NBC issue an apology, and she expected that there would be repercussions for Burns’ comments. With support from multiple people, her demands were made clear.
Before the debate, much of the press coverage regarding Fetterman could have been seen as credible. However, anyone who watched him, unable to answer questions and understand concepts, was aware of the apparent discrepancies between reality and what had been reported. Burns did an excellent service by informing the public about the facts.
Senate Democrats and their supporters sought to maintain control of the legislative body, prompting them to try to hide or fabricate evidence regarding Fetterman’s health status. Ultimately, their motives for doing so were clear: keep other Democratic contenders from competing in the election. To this end, good quotes were disseminated by Senate Democrats and certain media outlets, even after Fetterman’s apparent issues became beyond obvious.
It is understandable to express concern that Fetterman may have suffered long-term damage due to the partisan considerations that lead to neglect of his health. Although we remain optimistic about his recovery, these issues must be considered to ensure similar situations do not occur in the future.
This situation illustrates the need for greater journalistic integrity and impartiality when reporting the news. Fetterman’s story serves as a reminder of the danger of allowing political bias to overshadow the pursuit of accuracy in journalism. The tragedy offers an important lesson that must be taken seriously by all stakeholders involved in news media.
Feinstein’s ability to appeal to moderate audiences may have blinded the media from covering her health issues. Similarly, wanting a reliable party-line progressive in office caused an oversight in covering Biden’s healthcare issues until it became too late to hide it.
The events surrounding Fetterman’s election are an unfortunate illustration of how mainstream liberal media has shifted away from its obligation to provide impartial journalism, favoring biased advocacy instead. This shift is unsustainable, as it harms the public trust in a free press and renders any reporting by these outlets unreliable.
The article first appeared on ournationstands.com
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
“We must evaluate the role of most media outlets in shielding Fetterman during his successful Senate campaign”
What’s wrong with you? Oz’s election was stolen like Trump’s was. Fetterman didn’t win. How gullible can people be!
The Democrats would have placed a 2X4, just to get hold over the seat. Fetterman just happened to be the one to be the 2×4. Now, that he is hospitalized, the Democrats are ready to get him gone.
It was always about the seat. And they stole the seat, with the help from the media.
Pray for Fetterman, and remember that he was only a placeholder. They ran him as another way of mocking every voter in the state of Pennsylvania, because those in control of the vote count don’t care about the vote. They care about having control over you and I.
It doesn’t, and probably never mattered what Fetterman did, in his life, just that he would be on the left side of the turnpike.
The media played a part, but the part was an illusion to make everyone think he “won” that election.
Nothing will happen to the media. They just provide distractions and illusions for the real wickedness to go about their way.
What can we do about the media? Only thing I can think of, is as Justice Clarence Thomas suggested, several times: revisit Sullivan. Other than that, the media is protected like you and I are protected, concerning speech, except that the media can shout “fire” in the proverbial theater. Sullivan might go somewhere to help with that.
Those idiots would have voted for him anyway because he wore a hoodie and looked like abum they can relate to that.