Why aren’t there more calls for Trump to drop out like there are for Biden? There’s a simple answer. Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]


** OPINION
------------------------------------------------------------


** How come the media isn’t asking ‘What about Trump?’
------------------------------------------------------------
Former President Donald Trump, at the June 27 debate against President Joe Biden. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Over the past couple of weeks, my newsletter has been dominated by one burning topic:

President Joe Biden and his political future.

His frail performance in the June 27 presidential debate against Donald Trump and a few instances since then have led to an incredible moment. And it has sparked one of the most astonishing questions in the history of presidential politics.

Should the current president of the United States drop out of the race just four months away from the election?

As this story has gained steam, I’ve had plenty of reaction from readers of The Poynter Report, spanning across the political spectrum. Two types of responses, however, have stood out.

One is, who is driving this conversation about Biden stepping away?

And, two, why aren’t more people — i.e. those in the media — asking that Donald Trump, and not Joe Biden, withdraw from the race for the good of the country?

Let’s tackle the second question first. The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote an editorial on June 29 headlined “To serve his country, Donald Trump should leave the race.” ([link removed]) Other than that, and perhaps a few comments made by some cable and network news commentators, that’s been about it for the most part.

In her latest column for Guardian US ([link removed]) , longtime media journalist Margaret Sullivan wrote that, of course, coverage of Biden is important. However, Sullivan adds, “The media coverage is overkill — not only too much in quantity and too breathless in tone, but also taking up so much oxygen that a story even more important is shoved to the back burner. That bigger story, of course, is the former president’s appalling unfitness for office, not only because he tried to overturn a legitimate election and is a felon, out on bail and awaiting sentencing, but because of things he has said and done in very recent weeks.”

That includes throwing more lies on a pile of lies that Trump has been stacking for years.

No argument here. Trump’s record and the ramifications for his return to the White House are the bigger story. It should be discussed and analyzed in detail.

However, to get to the question of why aren’t more media outlets asking that Trump leave the race, there’s a simple answer.

It isn’t going to happen. It’s an unrealistic proposal. Trump is not going to leave the race, and his party doesn’t want him to. Barring something unforeseen and despite whatever threat he might pose, Trump will be the Republican nominee come November.

It might feel right and honorable for a news outlet or commentator to point out the danger of Trump and opine about why he shouldn’t be a candidate for president. But because there should be no serious expectation that he actually would step down, such calls often come off as grandstanding. To seriously ask him to do so is a waste of time. It’s really just another way of saying Trump isn’t fit for office, and you don’t have to ask him to walk away to make that point.

In addition, asking Trump to step aside does something even more potentially dangerous: It puts Trump on the same plain as Biden. Simply asking the same question of Trump that many are asking of Biden creates a false equivalency. It suggests that Trump’s threats and menace are in the same ballpark as Biden’s vitality and acumen. It suggests that Trump and Biden pose similar hazards, and even those who desperately want Biden to walk away wouldn’t and shouldn't mean to suggest that.

Maybe that’s why more haven’t done so.

Again, one can, and should, make their points about Trump without getting tangled up in asking him to do something he would never do — leave the race.

When it comes to who is asking and urging and begging Biden to not run for president, there’s no question that it starts where most political stories start: inside the Washington Beltway and spreading up to New York City.

Biden had barely walked off the debate stage when The New York Times editorial board said he should leave the race ([link removed]) . Only certain CNN commentators, immediately after the debate, beat the Times to the punch.

That opened the floodgates. Other news outlets, as well as plenty of Democratic lawmakers, followed.

On Monday, the Times editorial board published another piece ([link removed]) , this one stronger than the first. In its second editorial (which was rather lengthy for an editorial), the Times again wrote that Biden should not run and that Democratic leaders need to step up and convince him of that.

The latest editorial, to its credit, did talk at length about the dangers of a Trump presidency, writing, “Mr. Trump is manifestly unfit to serve as president, and there is reason to believe a majority of the American people still can be rallied against his candidacy.”

But it focused on forcing Biden out, saying, “President Biden clearly understands the stakes. But he seems to have lost track of his own role in this national drama. As the situation has become more dire, he has come to regard himself as indispensable. He does not seem to understand that he is now the problem — and that the best hope for Democrats to retain the White House is for him to step aside.”

In one particularly damning remark, the Times editorial board wrote that Democratic leaders “need to tell him that he is embarrassing himself and endangering his legacy.”

This follows news stories in the Times about Biden and his health, including one ([link removed]) about an expert in Parkinson’s disease visiting the White House eight times in eight months.

That led to a contentious press conference with White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre battling the media — from many outlets — over Biden’s health.

In her column, Sullivan wrote, “Of course, the problem certainly is not just the New York Times, despite its agenda-setting influence. It’s also TV news, both network and cable. And, to a lesser extent, it’s other major US publications.”

Sullivan is correct. It’s not just the Times. Pick any national and/or political website and you don’t have to scroll too far to get to a Biden headline. Turn on just about any news broadcast and you won’t have to wait too long to hear a story about Biden and his future.

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER
[link removed]


** Understanding voting systems is critical for newsrooms.
------------------------------------------------------------

Poynter is ready to help your newsroom support a fair and democratic voting process. Drawing on guidance from top election reporters, our next Beat Academy session gives you the strategies to be ready for election day. Join us for a resource-rich, action-packed 90-minute session tomorrow, July 11, at 1 p.m. Eastern.

Read more and register now ([link removed]) .


** It is a story
------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of who is driving the story, Biden’s candidacy for November is still being questioned — by the media, by those in his own party and, polling shows, by American voters.

Biden blames it on the “elites” in Washington.

House Democrats met Tuesday to talk about Biden, but that resulted in lukewarm support for Biden to stay in the race.

Regardless, it will continue to be a story until either Biden drops out or Democrats reach a point of no return when it will be too late to replace him.

Derek Thompson of The Atlantic tweeted out ([link removed]) Tuesday one of the smartest things I’ve read the past few days on all of this:

Where I am:
1. Biden is running consistently behind not only Trump but also swing-state Democratic senators, suggesting he faces not only an R vs. D problem but a Biden-specific problem.
2. The Biden problem is clear: Voters think he's too old.
3. There's no plan to fix it. The underlying problem itself is unsolvable: Time is an arrow. The consequence is obvious: Every unscripted Biden TV appearance these days has viral moments of scrambled thinking, aborted sentences, and logical inconsistencies, which testify and solidify the age thing.

So the campaign (which I feel some real sympathy for) is left with a strategic Catch-22. All efforts to reduce the salience of Biden's age ironically do the opposite: keeping him away from reporters raises questions, and putting him on camera creates moments.

Replacing Biden with Kamala is incredibly risky. Holding a mini primary is ludicrously risky. There's no point in downplaying the risks here. But high-risk high-reward strategies become more rational as you become more confident in your disadvantage.

I think the main difference between where I am vs. where Biden defenders are is that I've become really, really, really confident that Biden's age—not Trump, not Project 2025, not January 6, Biden's age—is the durable centerpiece of this election. It is a profoundly losing issue. And it's not a solvable problem.


** A daily plea
------------------------------------------------------------
“The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart, shown here in September 2023. (Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)

Part-time “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart is, first and foremost, an entertainer. But that doesn’t mean his political commentary lacks merit. His mini-rant Monday night ([link removed]) about whether or not Democrats have time to at least consider replacing Biden as the Democratic nominee had humor and validity.

Stewart first took on those who think the election is too soon to make such a drastic change.

“Four months is for-(expletive) ever!” Stewart said.

Stewart went on to say, “Can’t we stress test this candidacy? Can’t we open up the conversation? Do you understand the opportunity here? Do you have any idea how thirsty Americans are for any hint of inspiration or leadership, and a release from this choice between a megalomaniac and a suffocating gerontocracy?”

Stewart joked that he was just spitballing, but maybe the Democrats could get together in a place like, say, Chicago and talk it out for four days to see if it should be Biden or another candidate to run for president. (In case you missed that joke, Stewart was talking about the Democratic National Convention later this summer.)

Stewart closed with, “So, feel free to ignore any obvious weaknesses in your team’s existential fight for freedom and democracy, and then just white-knuckle this thing till November. Or take the advice of your own candidate …”

He then showed a 2023 clip of Biden telling reporters “probably 50 of them” when asked if any Democrat could beat Trump in an election.


** Trump speaks … sort of
------------------------------------------------------------

The one person you would think would be banging the drum the loudest about Biden’s uncertain political future has been uncharacteristically reserved in his comments: Donald Trump. (Although, with Trump being Trump, that might have changed between when I wrote this and when you’re reading it. He was scheduled to hold a rally Tuesday in Florida.)

Trump appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show Monday night. Hannity asked about Biden, and Trump answered. But Trump hasn’t gone out of his way to talk much about Biden’s debate performance and what it might mean for Biden’s future.

Hannity asked Trump if he wanted Biden to drop out of the race.

Trump said, “Well, we prepared for him, but I don’t think it’s going to matter. We had a great four years, our border was the strongest ever, our economy pre-COVID was incredible, the best ever. But then when we got hit with the gift from China, the China virus, that came and we did a fantastic job.”

Trump has said that if Biden does drop out, he would expect Vice President Kamala Harris to be the nominee. But he also said he doesn’t expect Biden to drop out.

“It looks to me like he may very well stay in,” Trump told Hannity. “He’s got an ego, and he doesn’t want to quit. He doesn’t want to do that.”

Trump also gently criticized Biden’s debate performance before going back to his usual “Biden is the worst president ever” talking points.

Appearing on CNN, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said Trump “doesn’t like being out of the news cycle.”

Haberman added that Trump has been very active on his Truth Social, it’s just that he doesn’t want to spend time talking about Biden.

Haberman added, “I think that he just wants the narrative to be back on him. And I think that he’s feeling better about the idea that the race is going to be him versus Biden.”

If Trump is seeking more media attention, he is likely to get it if he soon announces his running mate, which could happen at any time now.


** Tessitore joins WWE
------------------------------------------------------------

ESPN’s Joe Tessitore, who calls college football and boxing for ESPN, is joining the WWE this summer as a play-by-play announcer. However, according to the New York Post’s Ryan Glasspiegel ([link removed]) , Tessitore will continue to work at ESPN, too. Glasspiegel reports ESPN has signed Tessitore to an extension.

Tessitore is the former play-by-play announcer for “Monday Night Football,” and usually gets one of the marquee games of the week for ESPN’s college football package. So this is a good get for WWE to land a known announcer.

Tessitore will work with commentators Corey Graves and Wade Barrett. The other WWE team is Michael Cole and Pat McAfee, another announcer with ESPN ties.

Awful Announcing’s Ben Axelrod wrote ([link removed]) , “Tessitore is the latest figure from the sports world to move to WWE, which has leaned into a more sports-like presentation under the company’s president and former sports media power agent Nick Khan. In addition to McAfee being a full-time commentator (and occasional wrestler), former ESPN executive Lee Fitting oversees the company’s production. At the same time, TNT Sports NHL reporter Jackie Redmond is a backstage interviewer on the Raw brand.”


** Media tidbits
------------------------------------------------------------
* NPR’s David Folkenflik with “Wall Street Journal sued by star reporter for discrimination.” ([link removed])
* Media writer Paul Farhi’s latest piece in The Washington Post is: “USA Today transformed the media world for good. What’s its legacy now?” ([link removed]) There’s a lot about USA Today’s past, present and future, and it included this stunning paragraph: “Print circulation has plummeted at all newspapers. But USA Today, which once could boast that it was the most-read general interest newspaper in the country, with 2.3 million daily copies, is now just the fifth, with 113,228 at the end of last year.”
* The New York Times’ Brook Barnes writes about the man who is soon to be in charge of Paramount Pictures in “A Diminished Hollywood Welcomes a New Mogul.” ([link removed])
* Speaking of which, the Los Angeles Times’ Josh Rottenberg with “With Skydance merger, Paramount Pictures begins an uncertain new chapter in its storied history.” ([link removed])
* Poynter’s media business analyst Rick Edmonds with “An ambitious news philanthropy makes a sharp turn after just two years.” ([link removed])
* For LateNighter, Bill Carter with “Biden’s Late Night Reckoning Has Arrived—and It’s Not Pretty.” ([link removed])
* Axios’ Sara Fischer with “Chalkbeat expands to public health, hires media veterans to run new parent organization.” ([link removed])
* Front Office Sports’ Michael McCarthy with “Stephen A. Smith Could Get a $100 Million Payday, Thanks to Pat McAfee.” ([link removed])


** Correction
------------------------------------------------------------

In Tuesday’s newsletter, I wrote about media comments made by former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson. She was executive editor of the Times from 2011 to 2014. I listed different dates for her tenure.


** Hot type
------------------------------------------------------------

Just one story today because it’s powerful and an important read. No one writes with more expertise and a better tone about the topic of guns and young people than The Washington Post’s John Woodrow Cox. You might recall that earlier this year, the parents of a school shooter in Wisconsin were convicted of charges related to the actions of their son, who murdered four students. They were the first U.S. parents to be criminally charged in a mass shooting committed by their child.

Cox embedded with Michigan prosecutors as they pursued the controversial cases against the parents. The result was Cox’s must-read story: “Guilty: Inside the high-risk, historic prosecution of a school shooter’s parents.” ([link removed])

In a note, the Post explained, “For the past two years, Post reporter John Woodrow Cox has had behind-the-scenes access to an unprecedented effort by a Michigan prosecutor to charge the parents of a 15-year-old school shooter with involuntary manslaughter. As a condition of his access, The Post agreed to wait until the cases against Jennifer and James Crumbley were resolved to publish what he witnessed. The Post assigned another reporter to cover the trials in real time. Cox was not involved in the news coverage.”


** More resources for journalists
------------------------------------------------------------
* Vote Watch 2024 ([link removed]) : Now FREE! Ready yourself and your newsroom with tomorrow’s webinar.
* Work-Life Chemistry ([link removed]) six-week newsletter course: Ditch work-life balance for a more sustainable approach.
* Manage big responsibilities without direct reports? Try Lead With Influence ([link removed]) .

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) .
[link removed]
I want more analysis of the news media to help me understand my world. ([link removed])
GIVE NOW ([link removed])

ADVERTISE ([link removed]) // DONATE ([link removed]) // LEARN ([link removed]) // JOBS ([link removed])
Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here. ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20for%20Poynter
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
© All rights reserved Poynter Institute 2024
801 Third Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
If you don't want to receive email updates from Poynter, we understand.
You can change your subscription preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe from all Poynter emails ([link removed]) .