The New York Times and Los Angeles Times published editorials saying Trump is unfit to be president. Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]


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


** Editorials blast Trump while questions about Biden remain
------------------------------------------------------------
Former President Donald Trump, left, and President Joe Biden in photos taken this year. (AP Photo)

And here they come.

As various news organizations’ editorials and commentators continue to beat the drum that President Joe Biden should drop out of the 2024 presidential race, a common refrain among many is “What about Donald Trump?”

As in “How come no one is calling Trump unfit?” And “Why isn’t anyone saying Trump should drop out?”

I wrote about the possible reasons why earlier this week ([link removed]) , as very few, including The Philadelphia Inquirer ([link removed]) , ran editorials or commentaries suggesting that it was Trump, and not Biden, who should walk away.

The chief reason why is that it's an unreasonable request. Trump is not going to drop out, and his party doesn’t want him to. In addition, one couldn’t help but ask if it was grandstanding to say that Trump should drop out now when there were no such editorials until after it was suggested that Biden drop out.

But here we go: Two major newspapers published editorials on Thursday saying Trump was unfit to be president.

First, The New York Times’ editorial board wrote, “Donald Trump is unfit to lead.” ([link removed])

The board wrote, “Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him. He is, quite simply, unfit to lead.”

The Times’ editorial board broke it down into five areas that “matter,” including moral fitness, principled leadership, character, a presidents’ words and the rule of law.

They wrote, “When someone fails so many foundational tests, you don’t give him the most important job in the world.”

Also, on Thursday, the Los Angeles Times editorial board wrote, “One candidate is patently unfit for the White House. It’s not Biden.” ([link removed])

Along the way, the Los Angeles Times board slammed, well, somebody by writing, “It’s unbelievable that the nation is spending so much time on the question of Biden’s verbal acuity, when the greatest concern ought to be that his challenger is a self-aggrandizing felon and twice-impeached election-denier. Trump fomented the Jan. 6 insurrection, shows contempt for the rule of law and shamelessly lies in pursuit of more power. He’s an authoritarian who admires murderous despots, wants to jail his political enemies and has publicly flirted with declaring himself a dictator on his first day back in office.”

The board added, “Trump is the only man in the presidential race manifestly unworthy of holding a position of power, and has no business ever returning to the White House. If the GOP had any decency left, its members would be discussing whether to dump Trump for a candidate who isn’t out to bulldoze democratic institutions in favor of autocracy.”

Again, these editorials came after there were calls for Biden to drop out. The New York Times has written two editorials on Biden. And while the Los Angeles Times has not written any editorials saying Biden should drop out, it did write one with the headline, “For the sake of the nation, Biden must reassure Americans he is up to a second term.” ([link removed]) And Los Angeles Times columnist Jackie Calmes wrote, “Step aside, Joe. It’s time.” ([link removed])

In the end, editorial boards, columnists and commentators should be allowed to give their opinions whenever they feel like giving it. There’s no statute of limitations for writing what they think is right. And they can only deal with the information they have at the time that they have it.

I’m just saying, these Thursday editorials saying Trump is unfit to return to the White House might have carried a bit more oomph had they been written a month or two ago.


** Another radio issue
------------------------------------------------------------

Just days after a Philadelphia radio host agreed to part ways with her radio station over an interview with President Joe Biden comes another radio controversy involving a Biden interview.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Jessie Opoien and Molly Beck reported “Milwaukee radio station says it agreed to edit interview with Joe Biden.” ([link removed])

Civic Media, a Wisconsin-based progressive talk-radio network, said Thursday that it made two edits to an interview with Biden at the request of the Biden campaign.

The interview with Biden, which took place on July 3 and aired on July 4, was conducted by WAUK-AM host Earl Ingram. Civic Media, which owns the station, put out a statement saying the Biden campaign called and asked for two edits following the interview. The statement went on to say, “Civic Media management immediately undertook an investigation and determined that the production team at the time viewed the edits as non-substantive and broadcast and published the interview with two short segments removed.”

Civic Media listed the two edits made.

The first one was: “At time 5:20, the removal of ‘…and in addition to that, I have more Blacks in my administration than any other president, all other presidents combined, and in major positions, cabinet positions.’”

The second: “At time 14:15, in reference to Donald Trump’s call for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, the removal of ‘I don’t know if they even call for their hanging or not, but he — but they said […] convicted of murder.’”

Civic Media then wrote, “With a high-profile interview comes a listener expectation that journalistic interview standards will be applied, even for non-news programming. We did not meet those expectations. Civic Media disagrees with the team’s judgments in the moment, both with respect to the handling of the interview questions and the decision to edit the interview audio.”

Civic Media CEO Sage Weil said in a statement, “Given the gravity of the current political moment, the stakes in this election, and the importance of public scrutiny of public officials in the highest office, we believe it is important to share this information.”

But Civic Media backed the interviewer, Ingram, writing, “Civic Media unequivocally stands by Earl Ingram and his team. Earl is an invaluable voice for Milwaukee and Wisconsin, and remains a crucial member of the Civic Media organization. The decision to make the requested edits to the interview was made in good faith. While we disagree with the decision, we stand by our team. This has been a learning experience and we will do better moving forward.”

This comes less than a week after Andrea Lawful-Sanders, host at radio station WURD in Philadelphia, admitted to asking questions of Biden that Biden’s camp had sent. She told CNN, “The questions were sent to me for approval; I approved of them.”

After that comment, Lawful-Sanders and the station mutually agreed to part ways.

And now for more media news, tidbits and interesting links for your weekend review …
* Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle with “How the media sleepwalked into Biden’s debate disaster.” ([link removed])
* The Atlantic’s always excellent Tim Alberta with “Trump is planning for a landslide win.” ([link removed]) Alberta writes, “Biden quitting the race would necessitate a dramatic reset — not just for the Democratic Party, but for Trump’s campaign. (Trump advisers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita) told me that any Democratic replacement would inherit the president’s deficiencies; that whether it’s Vice President Kamala Harris or California Governor Gavin Newsom or anyone else, Trump’s blueprint for victory would remain essentially unchanged. But they know that’s not true. They know their campaign has been engineered in every way — from the voters they target to the viral memes they create — to defeat Biden. And privately, they are all but praying that he remains their opponent.”
* Semafor’s Max Tani with “Why Democrats’ favorite podcast turned on Joe Biden.” ([link removed])
* CNN’s Steve Contorno with “Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved.” ([link removed])
* For his “Second Rough Draft” media newsletter on Substack, Richard J. Tofel with “What's Really Needed at the Washington Post.” ([link removed]) It’s a smart look at where the Post is, how it got here, and how it can go about trying to catch up to The New York Times.
* The Associated Press’ David Bauder with “Some smaller news outlets in swing states can’t afford election coverage. AP is helping them.” ([link removed])
* Variety’s Brian Steinberg with “Veteran Media Critic Brian Lowry to Exit CNN Amid Layoffs.” ([link removed])
* For Poynter, Elizabeth Djinis with “What will get Americans interested in international news?” ([link removed])
* The Guardian’s Sophie Elmhirst with “Chortle chortle, scribble scribble: inside the Old Bailey with Britain’s last court reporters.” ([link removed])
* Wall Street Journal sports columnist Jason Gay with “She’s the Boss at Wimbledon — From Centre Court to the Strawberries.” ([link removed])
* For Nieman Lab, Neel Dhanesha with “The Copa, Euro, and Wimbledon finals collide on July 14. Here’s how The Athletic is preparing for its ‘biggest day ever.’” ([link removed])
* Former Daily Beast media writer Justin Baragona has started a media newsletter for Mehdi Hasan's new site, Zeteo. The newsletter, called “RageBait,” ([link removed]) will focus on right-wing media. Baragona is one of the good ones, so check him out. In his introductory newsletter, Baragona writes, “As a longtime St. Louis, Missouri native who had a whole other career in mortgage banking, I decided to make journalism a full-time profession after covering the Ferguson protests. Eventually, this led to my obsession with the way our political media operates and covers the news, especially the right-wing press. Since then, whether it’s through enterprise reporting, in-depth analysis, or just mocking the latest dumb moment of cable news punditry, I’ve devoted myself to shedding light on the propagandistic nature of this industry, including at the Daily Beast where I was their senior media reporter. It is not only important for news consumers to be
exposed to this information, but it is imperative to understand how it impacts our politics and culture as a whole.”
* Pamela Colloff, a reporter at ProPublica and a staff writer at The New York Times Magazine, with “He Was Sent to Prison for Killing His Baby. What if He Didn’t Do It?” ([link removed])


** More resources for journalists
------------------------------------------------------------
* Vote Watch 2024 ([link removed]) : Now FREE! Ready yourself and your newsroom with today’s webinar.
* Get an AI ethics framework for your newsroom. Start here. ([link removed])
* 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]) .