Over at Newsbusters, Jorge Bonilla argues that “the act of dubbing President Joe Biden in Spanish is tantamount to an act of election interference.”
He cites as evidence Biden’s interview this week about guns as aired on Univision and Unimás this week. Here is what the President said (so far, I haven’t found a YouTube video):
“The idea we don’t have background checks for anybody purchasing a weapon, the idea that we’re going to be in a position where he says that he famously told the NRA that don’t worry, no one’s going to touch your guns if I… From the very beginning, I used to teach the Second Amendment in law school, from the very beginning, there were limitations. You couldn’t own a cannon. You couldn’t… You could own a rifle or a gun.”
This is off the topic a bit, but did you know Donald Trump lies all the time? We require background checks for most gun purchases; the idea that “we don’t have background checks for anybody purchasing a weapon” is a false idea, and communicating it as if it isn’t is called “a lie.” Biden means that people making private purchases of firearms don’t currently have to get background checks. Then he again, as he has repeatedly for years, makes the absolutely untrue statement that “You couldn’t own a cannon.” No, Joe you could, and even lackey fact-checkers like the Post’s Glenn Kessler have called out this favorite piece of anti-Second Amendment fiction. Biden just keeps on repeating it, as interviewers nod their heads like those plastic German Shepherds in the back rear window of cars in the 80’s.
Back to Bonilla’s point: He says that listening to Biden’s weak and hesitant delivery should set off “Oh-oh…this guy is President?” alarms, but the President is protected from that legitimate realization when Spanish-language outlets dub his voice:
Those who watched the TelevisaUnivision interview of Joe Biden on Unimás (as I did, primarily) got English with subtitles. We heard the president in his own voice, speech pattern and mannerisms. We got to hear him trail off several times, and made assessments of his lucidity and cognition. Based on this feed we were able to speculate as to the efficacy of the (alleged) White House medical cocktail team…Those who watched the Spanish-dubbed interview on Univision were deprived of that perspective because of the stellar job done by the interpreter. When dubbed into Spanish, Biden sounds 40 years younger and without cognitive decline. The interpreter’s rich baritone, when transposed onto Biden, leaves viewers with the impression of a president far more vigorous than he actually is.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is dubbing Biden voice in Spanish for Spanish-speaking voters unethical “election interference”?
It certainly helps Biden, but what’s the alternative? Bonilla admits that “this has always been the custom when covering [US] Presidents in Spanish-language media. Each network has their on-call contract interpreter that handles presidential addresses.” These guys are experienced, highly skilled, and have worked through several administrations.” But, he argues, “none of those presidents had the structural challenges that Joe Biden possesses. One can accurately convey the words of what Joe Biden is saying, but not the trail-offs and blank stares. Cognitive decline becomes impossible to convey to the viewing audience.” Bonilla’s solution: present Biden to a Spanish-dominant audience in English with Spanish subtitles.
But that’s not fair, is it? Having a different policy for Biden than other Presidents and politicians because he’ll come off worse that way? Heck, why not just use translators who sound like addled, dementia-ridden Spanish speakers?
I’d much prefer to see minimal proficiency in reading and understanding English be made a legal prerequisite of voting; also for 20 dollar bills to grow on trees, the Red Sox to have a healthy and competent shortstop, and for Donald Trump to wake up tomorrow as a normal human being.

Without opining on the post and to take the thought further, what of English-speaking news outlets that edit for time and clarity?
Yes, same problem. Also print sources that edit and clean up grammar, “ums” and stammering in quotes when they like a pol, and publish what he said verbatim when the don’t.
How is this different from the press hiding other presidents’ problems/negative physical issues… FDR, JFK,…?
It’s not quite a good analogy. It would be if the audience for FDR et al were blind.
“I’d much prefer to see minimal proficiency in reading and understanding English be made a legal prerequisite of voting…”
It’s supposed to be part of the Citizenship and Naturalization testing (but probably ignored now, just like our border):
“…In all cases, the applicant must demonstrate the ability to speak English at the time of the naturalization examination, unless the applicant meets one of the age and time as resident exemptions of English or qualifies for a medical waiver.”
I believe the ability to speak English is required for becoming a citizen and being a citizen is a requirement for voting.
Unless non citizens can vote, it should not make a lot of difference. The election interference is manifest in many more places affecting far more of the electorate than some who no habla English. That is where we should concentrate our attention.