Harris’s team says she’d do another. Trump’s team is trying to spin that as proof that she lost the first one. Trump himself is sending mixed signals. Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]


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


** Will there be another presidential debate?
------------------------------------------------------------
Former President Donald Trump, left, and Vice President Kamala Harris during Tuesday night’s presidential debate in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

So when is round two? Will there even be a round two? Or has there already been a knockout?

Moments after Tuesday night’s presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, the question turned to whether they would debate again.

Harris’ team almost immediately said it was up for another go. Harris campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon said in a statement after the debate, “Under the bright lights, the American people got to see the choice they will face this fall at the ballot box: between moving forward with Kamala Harris, or going backwards with Trump. That’s what they saw tonight and what they should see at a second debate in October. Vice President Harris is ready for a second debate. Is Donald Trump?”

While most observers thought Harris dominated the debate (more on that in a moment), Trump’s team tried to immediately spin Harris welcoming a second debate. Trump campaign adviser Chris LaCivita said in a statement, “Of course. They need clean up.”

But what about Trump himself? As always, he’s sending mixed signals.

In the spin room after the debate, he told reporters, “We’ll look at it, but they want a second debate because they lost.”

On his Truth Social on Wednesday, Trump wrote ([link removed]) , “In the World of Boxing or UFC, when a Fighter gets beaten or knocked out, they get up and scream, ‘I DEMAND A REMATCH, I DEMAND A REMATCH!’ Well, it’s no different with a Debate. She was beaten badly last night. Every Poll has us WINNING, in one case, 92-8, so why would I do a Rematch?”

Speaking on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday morning, Trump said, “I don’t know that I want to do another debate.”

The “Fox & Friends” hosts told Trump that the network had reached out to both camps and proposed a debate on Fox with Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum serving as moderators. Trump didn’t like that idea.

“Well, I wouldn’t want to have Martha and Bret,” Trump said, complaining about their post-debate analysis. “I’d love to have somebody else other than Martha and Bret. I’d love to have, frankly, Sean or Jesse or Laura.”

Trump was referring to Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham — all who have been very sympathetic to Trump.

Then later in the day on Wednesday, Trump said he would be willing to do an NBC debate and/or maybe a Fox debate. But that, of course, could change any minute or it may have already changed by the time you’re reading this.

Some might ask why Harris would want a second debate after most agreed she was the big winner in Tuesday’s showdown.

Speaking on MSNBC after the debate, former Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill said Harris should always welcome a chance to stand next to Trump to show the country the contrast between the two.

As far as Trump goes, another debate would give him a chance to give a better performance than he did Tuesday night when he was baited by Harris into losing his cool. The two Trump moments that seemed to linger most after the debate were an unhinged rant about people eating cats and dogs, and then saying about health care, “I have concepts of a plan.” Those are not the phrases you want to be remembered for.

For Trump, a second debate against Harris could wash out the bitter aftertaste of the first debate. Or, if it could be another chance to get knocked around by Harris. And with Trump, you never know what he thinks from one moment to the next.

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER
[link removed]


** Are you a new manager? Here’s a primer.
------------------------------------------------------------

Whether you’re a few years into your first management position or just starting your journey, this popular in-person workshop will help you build a strong foundation and give you the tools to help your teams excel and succeed.

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


** More griping
------------------------------------------------------------

During his Wednesday morning appearance on “Fox & Friends,” Trump continued to complain about ABC News, which hosted the debate, and moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis.

Trump said, “I thought it was terrible from the standpoint of ABC. They are the most dishonest, in my opinion, the most dishonest news organization.”

He added that ABC had “lost a lot of credibility” and “should be embarrassed.”

Trump said he won, even though it was “three-on-one,” suggesting he was fighting against Harris and the two ABC moderators. He also suggested ABC should have its FCC license taken away, saying, “They are a news organization — they have to be licensed to do it — they ought to take away their license for the way they did that.”

But ABC is drawing overwhelming praise in media circles for in-the-moment fact-checking of Trump on several occasions and keeping the debate moving along without too much interruption from the candidates. One complaint is that both candidates dodged and didn’t directly answer some of their questions, but it never devolved into chaos with Harris and Trump talking over each other.

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin wrote ([link removed]) , “As for the ABC debate moderators, their performance should be graded on three criteria: Did they refuse to treat Trump as a normal candidate? Did they provide as much fact-checking as possible to counter his nonstop lying? Did they help voters understand the basic views of the two candidates? On all three, Davis and Muir did well.”

Naturally, there were lots of complaints from Trump supporters about the ABC moderators fact-checking Trump.

But MSNBC media columnist and critic Brian Lowry summed up how most saw the moderators when he wrote ([link removed]) , “The hours of pregame coverage ahead of Harris and Trump’s first high-stakes meeting inevitably resembled a sporting event, which provides a useful point of reference: In the Super Bowl or some other big game, referees often say they want to ‘let the players play,’ and thus not open themselves to accusations of determining the outcome. Still, when someone steps over the line, they have to make a call, or throw a flag, and let the chips fall where they may. Muir and Davis seemed to recognize that assignment, letting Trump go on for long stretches but periodically providing a check at the end of his monologues.”


** Christie cooks Trump’s debate
------------------------------------------------------------

Former New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie, on ABC after the debate, blasted away at Trump’s performance, calling it a “huge fail.” He said, “(Harris) was exquisitely well prepared. She laid traps, and he chased every rabbit down every hole. Instead of talking about the things that he should have been talking about. This is the difference between someone who’s well-prepared and someone who’s unprepared. Whoever did debate prep for Donald Trump should be fired. He was not good tonight at all.”

Christie added, “Donald Trump spent more time talking about people eating pets, people at his rallies and whether he had more or less than she did, about the economy. And that is a huge fail tonight. I think what we’re going to see is that Kamala Harris is now being seen by a lot of voters as a potential president. That’s what she needed to accomplish tonight. Trump had better get to work, or he’s going to lose this election.”


** The ratings game
------------------------------------------------------------

We shall see if Tuesday’s debate shifts the polls in any meaningful way, but this much is true: There was interest in it. Lots of interest.

The debate drew 67.1 million viewers — a whopping 31% increase from the 51.3 million that watched the June debate between Trump and President Joe Biden. And the actual number of people who saw it, when you take in those who watched clips on YouTube, social media and other streaming platforms, is probably even higher.

ABC hosted the debate, but it was simulcast on at least 16 other networks. ABC News led all networks with 19.1 million viewers. Fox News, with 9.1 million viewers, led all cable networks.


** More reaction from Tuesday night’s debate
------------------------------------------------------------
* From The Washington Post: “‘This was plain and simple a rout’: 3 columnists discuss the Harris-Trump debate.” ([link removed])
* Time magazine’s Brian Bennett, Eric Cortellessa and Philip Elliott with “How Kamala Harris Knocked Donald Trump Off Course.” ([link removed]) (And this includes a magazine cover that you just have to see.)
* The New York Times’ Shane Goldmacher and Katie Rogers with “Harris Dominates as Trump Gets Defensive: 6 Takeaways From the Debate.” ([link removed])
* From The New York Times’ opinion section: “‘Trump Brought Darkness; Harris Brought Light’: 14 Writers on Who Won the Presidential Debate.” ([link removed]) (By the way, 13 of the 14 writers thought one person in particular won the debate.)
* The Wall Street Journal’s Ken Thomas and Alex Leary with “Republicans Frustrated With Trump’s Debate Performance, ABC Moderators.” ([link removed])
* For Politico, Jeff Greenfield with “It Was Donald Trump’s Night — in the Worst Possible Way.” ([link removed]) Greenfield wrote, “Fundamentally, there are three key takeaways from the debate. First, Harris did herself a world of good; second, Trump confirmed the most serious doubts of anyone not firmly in his corner. But the third conclusion is yet to be determined: If Trump does not suffer any political damage from this debate, it means he is even more invulnerable to the traditional ebb and flow of politics than we have imagined.”
* If nothing else, this is a fun read. For Politico, Joe Navarro with “9 Body Language Tells From the Presidential Debate.” ([link removed])
* And New York Times’ chief television critic James Poniewozik with “Kamala Harris Produced the Show She Wanted.” ([link removed])


** A Swift endorsement
------------------------------------------------------------
Singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, shown here at an event earlier this week. (Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)

Moments after Tuesday night’s debate, pop star Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris for president on Instagram. And Instagram only.

Business Insider’s Peter Kafka tweeted ([link removed]) , “Four years ago Taylor endorsed Biden using Instagram and Twitter. This year, just Instagram. I have a pretty good guess about what’s changed. You do, too.”

Yeah, what changed between 2020 and now is that Elon Musk bought Twitter and changed the name to X.

And speaking of Musk, he had an odd and, many thought, creepy response to Swift endorsing Harris. He tweeted ([link removed]) , “Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life.”

I will give you a child? What is that supposed to mean? Musk was slammed on his social media platform for what certainly seemed like a cringy and creepy response.


** Media tidbits
------------------------------------------------------------
* Rick Edmonds, Poynter’s media business analyst, with “The American Journalism Project takes on its biggest initiative yet — covering underserved LA communities.” ([link removed])
* A really strong column for Awful Announcing by Lyndsey D'Arcangelo: “WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert fails to meet the moment.” ([link removed])
* Sports Illustrated’s Jimmy Traina with “Al Michaels on His Broadcasting Future, Tom Brady’s Debut, Calling the NBA and More.” ([link removed])


** Hot type
------------------------------------------------------------
* This story is a couple weeks old, but in case you missed it, it’s a lot of fun: The New York Times’ Steven Kurutz with “His Parents Are Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. That’s the Joke.” ([link removed])
* Another stellar story from ESPN senior writer Don Van Natta Jr., “'Winners write history': Inside Robert Kraft's 12-year Hall of Fame quest.” ([link removed])


** More resources for journalists
------------------------------------------------------------
* Webinar today! Climate change stories on any beat. ([link removed])
* Build a framework for ethics and standards around AI in Level Up ([link removed]) .
* Lead With Influence ([link removed]) is for leaders who manage big responsibilities but have no direct reports. Closes tomorrow!

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]) .