Tuesday evening the Wall Street Journal published a story titled "Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping." As I described here, the story was balanced to the point of unreadable. A White House spokesman was quoted more than anyone else in the piece and plenty of other Democrats were given a chance (sometimes after being prompted to do so by the White House) that Biden was still as sharp as ever behind the scenes.

In response to the article, Democrats have unleashed a tremendous hue and cry over the unfairness of the media. They are absolutely outraged about the coverage of a story that a) most Americans say is a major concern and b) dozens of other news outlets have written about previously.

On Wednesday morning, Morning Joe added to the chorus, with Joe Scarborough calling it a “Trump hit piece.”...

“I have repeatedly stated on air that I am an avid reader and cheerleader for the WSJ,” Scarborough wrote on X/Twitter. “That is what makes this false, biased story so disappointing. It is underminded immediately by the massive weight on on-the-record contradictions.”

Elected officials got into the act too.

Surprise, surprise—everyone attacking @POTUS is a Republican with an agenda.

I made clear to the @WSJ regarding the January meeting on Ukraine that the President was absolutely engaged & ran that meeting in a way that brought everyone together.

I'm not quoted—I wonder why. https://t.co/vokfHWjk6p

— Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) June 5, 2024

Nancy Pelosi also complained that she had been interviewed but wasn't quoted.

Many of us spent time with @WSJ to share on the record our first-hand experiences with @POTUS, where we see his wisdom, experience, strength and strategic thinking.

Instead, the Journal ignored testimony by Democrats, focused on attacks by Republicans and printed a hit piece. https://t.co/aq5BWK8zhf

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 5, 2024

But the White House was the most outraged of all. Here's White House flak Ben LaBolt whining about the unfairness of it.

What a surprise - Republicans employing their election year messaging strategy that contradicts their own prior words about @POTUS. Gambling in Casablanca! https://t.co/Iz8cPNZPXg

— Ben LaBolt (@WHCommsDir) June 5, 2024

Yep. Complete and utter editorial fail by the @wsj. Makes you wonder who they’re taking orders from … https://t.co/akqlpuhGrG

— Ben LaBolt (@WHCommsDir) June 5, 2024

Notice the argument LaBolt is quoting here which says that no Democrats went on the record saying anything negative about Biden. That's true because of course no Democrats would do such a thing. They know what the response to them would be. This is like having a mob leader brag that none of his fellow mob members have said a bad word about him under their own names.

But the WSJ story did indicated that some Democrats had expressed concern about Biden's age off the record.

Some who have worked with him, however, including Democrats and some who have known him back to his time as vice president, described a president who appears slower now, someone who has both good moments and bad ones...

This article is based on interviews with more than 45 people over several months. The interviews were with Republicans and Democrats who either participated in meetings with Biden or were briefed on them contemporaneously, including administration officials and other Democrats who found no fault in the president’s handling of the meetings. Most of those who said Biden performed poorly were Republicans, but some Democrats said that he showed his age in several of the exchanges. 

Nevertheless, Politico reports the White House is seething over the story.

Inside the West Wing, staff interpreted the piece as a sign that the paper was reverting to partisan form ahead of the November election. There was some speculation that the paper’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, was showing his preference for a Donald Trump victory, according to two people familiar with the communications team’s thinking...

That The Journal was the outlet to print the item was a particular sore spot for the White House. According to three people familiar with the communications shop’s perceptions of the press corps, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal thinking, the West Wing has long viewed the paper’s White House reporters as both predictable and sober-minded, chief among them Ken Thomas. It also sees The Journal’s audience as one it needs to cultivate — the center-right electorate that Biden must gain ground with if he is going to make up for his current deficit with younger, liberal voters.

The response didn’t just indicate that Biden’s age remains a sensitive point for the White House and allied Democrats, but that the president’s team is still uncertain about how best to parlay scrutiny of it. Having downplayed these storylines early in the administration, aides have tried to use humor or even embrace the idea that Biden is old (and wise) as a response. On Wednesday, they tried fury.

The funniest reaction I saw today was this one.

every line of this piece was a cynical hit job and here's the receipts: https://t.co/cxeQvC4FWV

— Leah Greenberg (@Leahgreenb) June 6, 2024

Wow, so progressive insider Greg Sargent and progressive hack Aaron Rupar criticized the story and were given a pat on the back by the progressive co-executive director of Indivisible. That really proves the paper was biased...or something. A former Jill Biden aide suggested all of the carping might be counter-productive.

“I just don’t know if constantly complaining, and whining, and attacking the legacy media, or the media in general, is a winning strategy at this point,” Michael LaRosa said in an exclusive interview...

“As a supporter, it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence going forward,” LaRosa said of the response to the Journal story. “And I don’t think continuing to sour relationships with the media is helpful to the president.”...

“When you operate in a bunker like that, you constantly operate out of fear and angst. It has to do with this obsession for control,” LaRosa said, adding that it’s the job of staffers “to say, ‘Look, in the macro sense, nobody is going to care about this thing or that thing.’”

He's right but progressives are aware of this much. Shouting at the refs could be the key to this election for them. At this moment it seems to be all they have left. 

yes, and tho Fox flogged the heck out of the hit piece, Dems' loud pushback seemed to douse what had looked like the latest flashpoint for Biden smears, and all that's left is the smudge. so....what say, Dems? it worked, so pls do same in future. it may be decisive. https://t.co/QJX93SGG4n

— Lesley Gaspar (@zleegaspar) June 6, 2024

Could Dems better “work the refs” the way Republicans do? When liberals do criticize coverage, why do newsroom leaders shrug it off? Why do editors insult our intelligence with phony justifications for the overemphasis on Biden’s age?https://t.co/uU7mOr593x

— The New Republic (@newrepublic) June 6, 2024

We need to do more of this. https://t.co/0l31N5V2C6

— RR Edmonds (@rr_edmonds) June 6, 2024

As a result of all this shrieking, other outlets will hesitate to publish similar stories. Progressives are counting on it. That's not because the underlying story is false, we can all see Biden has lost a step, but because no one wants to deal with the combined fury of the White House and the professional left.

For its part, the WSJ says it continues to stand behind its reporting.