In a remarkable display of journalistic ineptitude, USA Today delivered a so-called "exit interview" with President Joe Biden that served less as an investigative dialogue and more as a fawning exercise in public relations. The piece, conducted by Susan Page, failed spectacularly in its duty to inform the public or hold power to account. Instead, it glossed over glaring ethical concerns, ignored falsehoods, and wasted precious access with inconsequential fluff.
Dodging Ethics and Accountability
The most glaring failure came with Page's approach to Biden’s controversial pardon of his son, Hunter. The ethical implications of this decision are profound. It represents not only a dramatic reversal from Biden’s earlier promises but also raises questions about integrity and fairness in presidential pardons. Yet Page framed her query in a sympathetic light:
“Every parent can understand why you would want to protect your son. Do you have any concerns that your pardon of Hunter sets a precedent for future presidents? One that might be open to abuse?”
No pressing on ethical concerns, no challenging the narrative—just a gentle nudge about "future abuses" while ignoring the clear present one. Her framing painted the president as a devoted father rather than a politician reversing course under mounting scrutiny.
Biden’s Deflections and Fictional Justifications
Biden’s response was an incoherent mix of excuses and inaccurate claims. He suggested that Hunter’s pardon was justified due to supposed legal technicalities and unfair prosecutions, all while downplaying the timeline and facts surrounding his son’s tax issues and gun charges. Yet Page offered no pushback or clarification.
Biden asserted: “No one’s ever been tried on that [gun charge].”
This is demonstrably false. Prosecutors routinely charge Americans under similar circumstances, yet this statement passed unchallenged. Hunter’s tax payments? Only made possible by a loan from a wealthy Democratic donor, a fact that goes unmentioned. And the plea deal? Collapsed due to judicial concerns about its unusual terms.
Avoiding the Tough Questions
Time and again, Page chose fluff over substance. Biden’s meandering, unintelligible responses were simply allowed to pass:
PAGE: “What’s the one thing you’re most disappointed about being unable to accomplish?”
Biden launched into a disjointed answer about Trump, stimulus checks, and vague failures to “get projects in the ground quicker.” Instead of pressing for clarity, Page pivoted: “You spoke with so much heart about Jimmy Carter when he passed.” The question was dropped without resolution, leaving readers in the dark about Biden’s true reflections.
Ignoring Key News and Misleading Claims
One particularly baffling moment came when Biden claimed polling showed him ahead of Donald Trump leading up to the election. This was factually incorrect, as internal and public polling consistently pointed to a looming defeat for Biden. Instead of challenging or probing this claim, Page skipped to an unrelated question about the president’s vigor for a second term.
Access Journalism at Its Worst
The interview's primary achievement was highlighting why USA Today no longer commands the respect it once did. This was not journalism—it was a public relations exercise devoid of scrutiny, accountability, or meaningful inquiry.
Ironically, Biden lamented in the interview that the media no longer fact-checks properly: “There are no editors out there to say, ‘That’s simply not true.’” In this case, Page and her editors exemplified that very problem by allowing the president’s inaccuracies to go unchecked.
Journalism Needs a Reckoning
Americans deserve better. They deserve interviews that challenge political spin, expose inconsistencies, and seek truth. Instead, this debacle served as a masterclass in what not to do when given the chance to interview the nation’s leader.
