How much coverage of Donald Trump is too much?

Over the past week, Donald Trump “worked” at a McDonald’s, made inappropriate remarks about the private parts of late golfer Arnold Palmer, and continued to spread debunked claims about kids getting sex changes at school and immigrants eating pets.

He continues to attack his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, with crude insults in language that is unbecoming of a presidential candidate in a civilized society. Just as disturbing, he keeps talking about the enemy within this country — his political opponents whom he has seemingly threatened with punishment if he becomes elected. And he repeatedly doubts that he’ll accept the result of the election if he loses.

All of these stories continue to get major media attention.

Harris? She seems laser-focused on speeches, interviews and the traditional things candidates do in the final sprint to the finish line of a race.

But is the unconventional and abnormal (excuse the pun) trumping the conventional and normal?

The Washington Post’s Hannah Knowles and Toluse Olorunnipa wrote, “Nine years after he rode down a golden escalator to launch his first campaign with a combative speech disparaging Mexican immigrants as ‘rapists,’ Trump is closing out his third consecutive White House bid with a loud, ostentatious campaign that has thrust his conduct to the center of a photo-finish battle for the presidency. He has often overshadowed his rival with gimmicky events, menacing warnings, vulgar insults and false or unsubstantiated claims — leading to a final fortnight that both camps say has positioned them for success.”

The question is: What is the media supposed to do in covering these two candidates, especially Trump?

Do they point out all the unhinged, dangerous and distracting things Trump says by putting them in context and giving the American people an accurate picture of a presidential candidate? Or do they ignore things like Trump’s Arnold Palmer remarks because they only draw attention away from the real issues of the race? (Then again, one could argue, these antics by Trump are a real issue of the race.)

Is covering Trump and these wild and wacky stories coming at the expense of coverage of Harris?

On Tuesday, Washington Post opinion columnist Eugene Robinson did a live chat with readers. He was asked a relevant question by one reader: “It appears that Trump's pictures and comments take over the news outlets. There are fewer pictures of Harris as well as content of her positions. Is the media fixated on the antics of Trump to draw more readership?”

Robinson’s response: “Damned if we do, damned if we don't. For every reader who writes me to say we give too much attention to Trump and the nonsense he spews at his rallies, there's another reader who writes to say we should put an even brighter spotlight on him and print his gibberish verbatim to show the nation how unfit he is. Reporters and editors won't please everyone with their decisions on how to cover Trump. They can only do what they believe is right.”

That’s the million-dollar question: What is right — showing Trump and all that he is about or ignoring his antics in favor of concentrating on policy issues? The latter could be considered a form of “sanewashing” Trump — ignoring the irresponsible talk and behavior and, perhaps, making him look like a normal candidate.

I’ve always come down on the side of showing a candidate mostly in full so that voters know exactly who a candidate is — the good, the bad, the ugly. That doesn’t mean airing lies without saying they are lies. That doesn’t mean showing dangerous speeches without pointing out why they are dangerous. That doesn’t mean showing abnormal behavior without saying it's abnormal behavior.

But, in the end, major news organizations cannot protect candidates by hiding what they are, how they talk and what they do.

And, frankly, the top news outlets do seem to be covering it all — Trump and Harris and everything their campaigns entail.

A NOTE FROM OUR SPONSOR

Don’t miss the 71st Scripps Howard Journalism Awards!

The winners are in! Celebrate the best in American journalism during the 71st Scripps Howard Journalism Awards. From groundbreaking investigative work to cutting-edge storytelling, the awards spotlight the news organizations and journalists who go the extra mile to uncover the truth and drive change. With $170,000 in prize money, the Scripps Howard Journalism Awards honor high-impact journalism across television, newspapers, podcasts and more. Don’t miss this showcase of excellence and impact!

Watch now.

Trump and Rogan

Donald Trump is scheduled to go on “The Joe Rogan Experience” — one of the most listened-to podcasts in the country. Joe Rogan, who has 14 million followers on Spotify, will interview Trump on Friday in Austin, Texas.

Rogan, who also is a UFC commentator, has a largely young male audience, and that’s clearly the demographic that Trump is hoping to attract with his appearance.

Politico’s Alex Isenstadt wrote, “Trump has never appeared on Rogan’s podcast and the two have had a complicated relationship. In August, Trump called out Rogan after the podcaster claimed that politicians on both sides are manipulative except for Robert Kennedy Jr., who at the time was running for president.”

Isenstadt added, “Rogan himself has been critical of Trump in the past. In July 2022, he called the former president an ‘existential threat to democracy.’ Yet Rogan has more recently been complimentary of Trump, saying last month that the economy under Trump ‘did really well and he really did try to cut some of the (BS) down that's going on in this country.’ Trump and Rogan have also had friendly moments in recent months, such as when they have greeted each other at UFC events.”

It should be noted that Kamala Harris reportedly has been in talks to appear on Rogan’s podcast, as well. But no update on that as of Tuesday.

Sitting this one out

In a somewhat odd decision, one of the biggest newspapers in the country, the Los Angeles Times, will not make an endorsement for president.

Semafor’s Max Tani reported that the Times’ editorial board was preparing to make an endorsement for president, but the paper’s owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, decided that the paper would not make one.

The Times’ editorial board recently wrote, “It’s no exaggeration to say this may be the most consequential election in a generation. And we’re not just talking about the presidential race.” It then made recommendations on various state propositions, as well as city, county, school board and judge races. It gave endorsements for congressional races, and it endorsed Democrat Adam Schiff for the U.S. Senate.

But no presidential endorsement. Why? A Times spokesperson told Tani, “We do not comment on internal discussions or decisions about editorials or endorsements.”

The Times has endorsed a Democrat for president in every election going back to when Barack Obama ran for his first term in 2008.

However, Tani writes, “it wouldn’t be the first time that the LA Times has declined to endorse candidates in a presidential general election. From the mid-1970s until 2008, the paper declined to endorse any presidential candidates following internal dissent over the decision to endorse Richard Nixon for reelection months after the Watergate break in, a decision the publisher Otis Chandler said he later came to regret. Before that, the Times had a near century-long streak of Republican presidential endorsements dating back to the paper’s founding in 1881.”

Big numbers

The most successful season in WNBA history wrapped up in spectacular fashion Sunday night when the New York Liberty won their first-ever championship with an overtime victory in a winner-take-all Game 5 against the Minnesota Lynx.

Despite going up against “Sunday Night Football” and two of the more recognizable teams in the NFL (the New York Jets and Pittsburgh Steelers), Game 5 attracted 2.15 million viewers on ESPN. That made it the most-watched WNBA Finals game of the 2000s.

The five games of the WNBA Finals averaged 1.57 million viewers, which was the largest audience the series has ever seen on ESPN.

Of course, before the finals, the WNBA had already had a spectacular season from a viewership standpoint, mostly thanks to Indiana Fever rookie Caitlin Clark.

Front Office Sports’ Margaret Fleming reported that Game 5 of the finals was the league’s seventh-most-watched program this season behind four Fever games, the draft (where Clark was the top pick) and the All-Star Game (which Clark played in.) In addition, Clark’s final playoff game drew 2.5 million viewers, still the most ever for a WNBA game on cable.

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER

Elevate your newsroom, accelerate your career

Designed to reinvigorate the often-unsung heroes of the TV newsroom, Peak Producing, a seminar for TV producers, will empower journalists with the practical and tactical skills to create compelling, engaging and informative newscasts, programs, and content while managing the complexities of local journalism.

Read more and apply now.

Media tidbits

• David Folkenflik for NPR and “All Things Considered”: “Could Trump's threats against news outlets carry weight if he wins the presidency?”
• And here’s The New York Times’ Michael M. Grynbaum and David McCabe with “Trump Ratchets Up Threats on the Media.”
• Also in The New York Times, Benjamin Mullin with “Meet the Florida Billionaire Who Wants to Be a Newspaper Baron.”
• My Poynter colleague, Nicole Slaughter-Graham, with “Hurricane season is nothing new to a 4th-generation Floridian. But navigating misinformation amid stronger storms complicates matters.”
• The Washington Post’s Nitasha Tiku with “More than 10,500 actors, musicians, authors protest tech’s AI data grab.”
• Former ESPN star Jemele Hill, who now podcasts and writes for The Atlantic, will host a show for TNT called “Above the Fold,” which will “delve into important stories and topics centered on the connection between sports and culture.” The Hollywood Reporter’s Alex Weprin has more.

Hot type

I wanted to set aside Hot Type today for the latest from Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. He writes, “Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had.’”

In the story, Goldberg writes, “Trump has frequently voiced his disdain for those who serve in the military and for their devotion to duty, honor, and sacrifice. Former generals who have worked for Trump say that the sole military virtue he prizes is obedience. As his presidency drew to a close, and in the years since, he has become more and more interested in the advantages of dictatorship, and the absolute control over the military that he believes it would deliver. ‘I need the kind of generals that Hitler had,’ Trump said in a private conversation in the White House, according to two people who heard him say this. ‘People who were totally loyal to him, that follow orders.’” (A Trump spokesperson, Alex Pfeiffer, said Trump never said this, and issued other statements and denials that are included in The Atlantic’s report.)”

That might not be the most outrageous statement Trump makes, according to Goldberg’s story.

It’s a must-read piece.

More resources for journalists

• Are you an up-and-coming newsroom manager?
• Encourage an outstanding colleague to apply for Leadership Academy for Women in Media.
• Ensure your newsroom is on the cutting edge of evolving criminal justice coverage.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected].