Correction (10/16/24): This study erroneously omitted 2 relevant articles about Biden that we missed in our search of the Factiva archives: one article in The Wall Street Journal and one in The Washington Post. We have updated the data to include the missing articles and removed charts featuring the outdated numbers.

Media Matters has reviewed articles in five of the top U.S. newspapers by circulation – The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today – that focused on either or both Biden's and Trump's ages or mental acuities from January 15, when the Iowa caucuses were held as the first contest in the 2024 presidential election cycle, though June 17. We considered an article to be “focused on” a candidate’s age or mental acuity when it mentioned the candidate’s age or mental acuity in the headline or lead paragraphs; some articles mentioned both the candidates' ages or mental acuities in the headline or lead paragraphs.

We found 146 articles focused on either or both Biden’s and Trump’s ages or mental acuities in the period studied, with 68% focused just on Biden’s age or mental acuity and only 7% on just Trump’s.

President Joe Biden has long dealt with right-wing attacks on his age and supposed problems with his mental acuity. Media Matters has repeatedly found that national news media harp on Biden's age or mental acuity while largely failing to highlight former President Donald Trump's – despite his similar age, frequent gaffes, and incoherent ramblings.

Since the Iowa caucuses, as Biden continued his 2024 reelection campaign at age 81, this right-wing line of attack continued to proliferate throughout mainstream media. Conservative actors – followed by mainstream media – seized on special counsel Robert Hur’s classified documents report as well as any verbal stumbles or gaffes to argue that Biden is unfit for office even though his doctor declared him healthy and he has long been prone to similar missteps not uncommon for his age or a politician constantly required to speak before cameras.

In total, among the five major newspapers, nearly 10 times as many articles focused on just Biden’s age or mental acuity as focused on just Trump’s.

Broken down by paper:

• 80% of the Los Angeles Times' articles were focused on just Biden’s age or mental acuity but not Trump's while no articles were focused on just Trump's age or mental acuity and not Biden's. 20% of articles were focused on both candidates' ages or mental acuities.
• 78% of The New York Times' articles were focused on just Biden’s age or mental acuity but not Trump's while only 6% — 2 articles — were focused on just Trump's. 16% of articles were focused on both candidates' ages or mental acuities.
• 73% of The Wall Street Journal's articles were focused on just Biden's age or mental acuity but not Trump's while 2% — a single article — were focused on just Trump's age or mental acuity but not Biden's. 24% of articles were focused on both candidates' ages or mental acuities.
• 52% of The Washington Post's articles were focused on just Biden's age or mental acuity but not Trump's while 9% were focused on just Trump's age or mental acuity but not Biden's. The Post had the highest proportion (39%) of articles focused on both candidates' ages or mental acuities.
• USA Today had far fewer articles focused on either or both of the candidates' ages or mental acuities: 9 total. Of those, 5 were focused on just Biden's age or mental acuity and not Trump's while 3 articles were focused on just Trump's age or mental acuity and not Biden's.

When you add the “both” column to the separate tallies for each Biden and Trump, you get the total number of articles that focused on each candidate’s age or mental acuity, as separate individuals or jointly. Broken down by paper, those are:

• 100% of the Los Angeles Times' 20 articles were focused on Biden's age or mental acuity while 20% were focused on Trump's.
• 98% of The Wall Street Journal's 41 articles were focused on Biden's age or mental acuity while 27% were focused on Trump's.
• 94% of The New York Times' 32 articles were focused on Biden's age or mental acuity while 22% were focused on Trump's.
• 91% of The Washington Post's 44 total articles were focused on Biden's age or mental acuity while 48% were focused on Trump's.
• 6 of USA Today's 9 articles were focused on Biden's age or mental acuity while 4 were focused on Trump's.

On February 5, special counsel Robert Hur released his report on Biden's handling of classified documents, and shortly thereafter, media pounced on one line from the 388-page document, which baselessly speculated that Biden would present himself at a hypothetical trial as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Outlets continued to focus on the “elderly man” bit well into March when Hur testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

Articles often speculated about Biden's ability to handle the rigors of governing due to his age despite the specter of Trump's own mental challenges. The focus on age and mental acuity continued regardless of positive first-hand accounts from staff working closely with Biden surfacing. Newspapers also at times published articles that pushed back on criticism of Biden's age or the media's focus on the age issue.

Media Matters searched print articles in the Factiva database from the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post for any of the terms “Biden,” “Trump,” or “president” within the same headline or lead paragraph as any of the terms “age,” “mental,” “acuity,” “faculty,” “health,” “70,” “77,” “78,” “80,” “81,” “82,” “86,” “70s,” or “80s” or any variations of any of the terms “fitness,” “cognitive,” “old,” “elder,” “seventy,” or “eighty” from January 15, 2024, the date of the first caucus contest in the 2024 presidential election cycle, through June 17, 2024.

We included articles, which we defined as instances when Biden’s age or mental acuity, Trump’s age or mental acuity, or both Biden’s and Trump’s ages or mental acuities were mentioned in the headline or lead paragraphs (as designated by Factiva) in the A section of the paper. We included editorial and op-eds but not letters to the editor.

For articles that mentioned only Biden's age or mental acuity in the headline or lead paragraphs, we considered them to be focused on Biden's age or mental acuity; for those that mentioned only Trump's age or mental acuity in the headline or lead paragraphs, we considered them to be focused on Trump's age or mental acuity; for those that mentioned both Biden's and Trump's ages or mental acuities in the headline or lead paragraphs, we considered them to be focused on both Biden's and Trump's ages or mental acuities.