New York Magazine reporter defends timing of Biden’s ‘conspiracy of silence’ bombshell amid backlash

Journalist Olivia Nuzzi defended her viral bombshell about President Biden, telling critics she had been tracking rumors about the president’s fitness for office for months.

The timing of New York magazine’s July 4 publication, “The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden,” which detailed allegations that senior Democrats had long been aware of President Biden’s cognitive problems, drew sharp criticism.

“I work on most of my stories for months. This story is about a conspiracy of silence that has made people reluctant to talk. I’ve been researching what I’ve heard since January. That’s how long a story takes. The debate has changed people’s calculations about how candid they are, and even then, they haven’t done so publicly,” she wrote on X.

Nuzzi wrote a shocking article detailing how Biden’s “mental decline was like a dark family secret to many elite supporters.” She reported that Biden supporters have expressed doubts about his ability to run for reelection since at least January and said she witnessed it herself in April when Biden looked “like something not of this earth” during an appearance where he appeared so frail that last week’s disastrous debate actually exceeded her expectations.

Nuzzi also wrote that senior Democrats secretly agreed with Trump supporters who believed Biden “maybe wasn’t really the acting president after all,” but were afraid to call out Biden’s problems until they were fully exposed during the debate meltdown.

Wild New York Magazine Article Details ‘Conspiracy of Silence’ to Hide Biden’s ‘Mental Decline’ in US

The lengthy article drew widespread criticism, with many wondering why it took her seven months to report what she learned in January or three months to reveal what she witnessed in April. “Olivia Nuzzi” even became a trending topic on X.

Brit Hume, Fox News’ chief political analyst, said: “She wrote about it today, more than six months later and after numerous television episodes showing her senility and fragility. Now she’s writing about a conspiracy of silence. She should know.”

Mollie Hemingway said Nuzzi “has been participating in the ‘conspiracy of silence,’ by his own admission, since January. Interesting.”

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, wrote: “And to think that if it hadn’t been for this debate, they’d still be trying to get away with covering for a president who no longer reliably acknowledges his longtime friends.”

“In January, but I didn’t think to write this until July. Hmmmmm,” radio host Erick Erickson posted on X.

Author Bill Carter wrote: “Devastating: A scathing indictment of all those who facilitated this disaster, knowing for months (years?) how weakened it was. Olivia will be asked why she herself did not evacuate sooner, but she is not responsible for protecting the nation. Those who facilitated this disaster did. They failed us.”

BIDEN DEBATE DEBACLE: 10 REVEALING MEDIA RESPONSES, FROM MSNBC PANIC TO ‘THE VIEW’ CALLING FOR REPLACEMENT

Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson wrote: “A conspiracy of silence? You were part of it, Olivia. You saw Biden incoherent in April and you haven’t written about it until now. Every White House reporter must be considered either a terminal incompetent or an incompetent partisan.”

Jordan Schachtel asked: “Why didn’t your editors want this article to be published in January, February, March, April, May, or June?”

“Interesting, Olivia,” wrote journalist Andrew Tavani. “Serious question: if you’ve been hearing about this for months and even witnessed it months ago, why are you only bringing it up after the debate?”

Another reader posted: “Why didn’t you post anything sooner? The timing seems very suspicious. All the media outlets that knew and said nothing are complicit.”

NEW YORK ARTICLE CALLS ON DEMOCRATS TO USE 25TH AMENDMENT TO REMOVE BIDEN: WHAT IT WAS ‘DESIGNED’ FOR

John Podhoretz added: “When a journalist like Olivia Nuzzi says, ‘Oh yeah, I heard Biden was senile in January,’ is she even beginning to understand how she sounds?”

Nuzzi also defended his approach when asked for further comment.

“I’m made of steel, I don’t care about criticism, but I think this is a good opportunity to educate people about what goes into the reporting process. I’m known for being slow, all my reporting takes months, but with this one in particular, I felt the time it took fit the thesis of the story,” Nuzzi told Fox News Digital.

“The plan was to post before the debate, but I needed more time,” she continued. “I had no reason to believe and I didn’t believe that the liberal establishment, which had ignored Biden’s mental decline — which had been completely apparent for years — would suddenly change its tune after the debate.”

The publication also defended the article.

“This is a very detailed article that took time and attention to publish. We stand by our version of events,” a New York magazine spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP