There’s a media conundrum for the age of gerontocracy. A few weeks ago, my POLITICO colleague Nicholas Wu and NBC’s Sahil Kapur ran into D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton in the Capitol. Like good congressional reporters, they jumped at the opportunity to pepper a lawmaker about the news of the day. In this case, one question concerned Norton herself, a civil rights icon who is now the oldest House member: Would she run for another term next year, by which point she would be 89 years old? “Yeah, sure,” Norton said.
Coming on the heels of multiple stories about Norton’s alleged cognitive decline, the statement made news. But a few hours later, Norton’s office began unmaking that news. The Democrat “wants to run again but she’s in conversations with her family, friends, and closest advisors to decide what’s best,” a spokesperson told Wu. There was still no final decision.
It was all awkward and embarrassing — and did little to buttress Norton’s insistence that she’s as sharp as ever. And then, amazingly, it happened again. Last week, Kapur once again approached the delegate and asked about her plans. Once again, she said she’s running: “Yeah, I’m going to run for re-election.” And once again, her spokesperson quickly walked back the comment, telling Axios that “no decision has been made.”
The spokesperson, Sharon Nichols, did not offer any explanation for the discrepancy. She also didn’t respond when I asked her for details of what happened or whether journalists should take future Norton statements at face value.
That question, however, is the crux of the ethical challenge reporters now face. Should they report on such discrepancies, potentially exposing the confusion or inconsistencies in a legislator’s mind, or should they avoid overstepping, as they might with a more subtle, yet equally important, legislative misstep? This tension lies at the heart of the media’s dilemma in covering aging legislators who may find themselves on the cusp of a decision — whether to continue in their elected positions or to retire.
For instance, in April, Norton made a comment suggesting she might seek the top Democratic seat on the House Oversight Committee, which prompted a flurry of Democratic internal reactions about the potential of aging leadership. But the comment was quickly followed by a statement from her office that she was no longer interested in the role. The episode, as one journalist noted, contributed to a sense of confusion rather than clarity. The media, in grappling with such moments, is forced to consider the balance between reporting on a legislator’s confusion and ensuring that their coverage does not inadvertently fuel an unnecessary public discourse about the legislator’s mental acuity.
This dilemma extends beyond Norton. As Brad White, who previously worked in the office of Sen. Thad Cochran, noted, there are often moments where an older legislator may simply have a good or bad day. It is not always about cognitive ability but about the language or expressions they use. The challenge is to accurately represent these moments without over-interpreting them or adding unnecessary bias.
Ultimately, the media’s role is to report on the legislative process and the individuals who shape it. This includes recognizing when a legislator may be grappling with decisions — whether about their re-election or their role in committee — and reporting that truthfully. However, there is an ongoing debate about the extent to which such moments should be reported, the potential impact on public perception, and the ethical boundaries that journalists must navigate. The question is not only whether to report on such statements but also whether such reporting serves the broader goal of informed public engagement with the political process.