‘Racist, sexist, crude’: The tone of Sunday’s Madison Square Garden rally was angry and offensive, and that’s how many chose to describe it Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]


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


** ‘Racist, sexist, crude’: Media outlets use strong language to describe Trump rally
------------------------------------------------------------
Comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, appearing at Donald Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City on Sunday. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Who would’ve guessed that the October surprise of the 2024 presidential election might turn out to be a disgustingly racist joke from a comedian who most people have never heard of?

Donald Trump’s big rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City on Sunday featured a who’s who of Republican and MAGA leaders — from vice presidential candidate JD Vance to House Speaker Mike Johnson to right-wing media star Tucker Carlson and many, many more.

But it’s a so-called comedian named Tony Hinchcliffe who is the talk of the election after several racist comments that he claimed were jokes. Among them, saying that he and a Black man celebrated Halloween by carving watermelons.

Then there was this line from Hinchcliffe: “There’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. Yeah. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.”

The Trump campaign has tried to distance itself from that comment. Trump senior campaign adviser Danielle Alvarez said in a statement, “This joke does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign.” But the fact is, he was put on stage at a Trump rally.

Perhaps if that was the only offensive line of a very long day of speeches, the Trump statement might be enough to thwart any controversy. But the damage has been done partly because the offensive comment merely seemed to set the tone of an angry and offensive rally.

It also was interesting to see that that’s how many major news organizations described the Trump rally.

The headline in The New York Times called the remarks at the Trump rally “misogynistic, bigoted and crude.” The Times’ Maggie Astor wrote ([link removed]) , “By the time former President Donald J. Trump took the stage at Madison Square Garden on Sunday, a parade of speakers had already spent hours disparaging Latinos, Black people, Palestinians and Jews; directing misogynistic comments at Vice President Kamala Harris; and echoing language used by the Ku Klux Klan.”

The Washington Post’s Sabrina Rodriguez and Hannah Knowles wrote ([link removed]) that the rally featured speakers who made “sexist, racist and other demeaning insults.”

Los Angeles Times columnist Anita Chabria wrote ([link removed]) , “Donald Trump’s rally Sunday at Madison Square Garden should go down in history as a seminal event of the 2024 campaign, a valedictory of hate, racism and misogyny that has become the entirety of his campaign and of the MAGA movement, and a terrifying symbol of where our politics are headed.”

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and called it ([link removed]) a “hate rally” and said “these are mini Jan. 6 rallies” and “mini Stop the Steal rallies.”

Ocasio-Cortez added, “These are rallies to prime the electorate into rejecting the results of an election if it doesn’t go the way that they want.”

Now before conservatives dismiss the comments of a liberal Congresswoman such as Ocasio-Cortez, know this: The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan and Michael Gold reported even though Trump and his allies are confident about the election, “there are signs, publicly and privately, that the former president and his team are worried that their opponents’ descriptions of him as a racist and a fascist may be breaking through to segments of voters.”

Those concerns were exacerbated because of Sunday’s rally. The Times reporters wrote, “The backlash among Puerto Rican celebrities and performers was instantaneous across social media, prompting the Trump campaign to issue a rare defensive statement distancing themselves from offensive comments. In a tight race, any constituency could be decisive and the sizable Puerto Rican community in the battleground state of Pennsylvania was on the minds of Trump allies.”

What was especially notable, however, was how the rally was portrayed. I mentioned above how The New York Times, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times described it. They were far from alone in their descriptions and it wasn’t because of one “joke.”

Here are some other headlines:
* NBC News: “Trump's Madison Square Garden rally overshadowed by his allies' crude and racist remarks.”
* Axios: “Trump's MSG event draws comparisons to 1939 Nazi rally.”
* The Associated Press: “Trump’s Madison Square Garden event features crude and racist insults.”
* NPR: “Off-color jokes, vitriol take over Trump Madison Square Garden rally.”

You can find a dozen more headlines that basically say the same thing.

And the Harris campaign wasted no time seizing on all the divisiveness that came out of the Trump rally. Harris, herself, called the rally “that nonsense last night at Madison Square Garden” and added that America wants “a president of the United States who is about uplifting the people, and not berating, not calling America a garbage can.”


**
------------------------------------------------------------

A NOTE FROM OUR SPONSOR
[link removed]


** 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 ([link removed]) .


** Post bleeding subscriptions following controversy … and Bezos responds
------------------------------------------------------------
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

The exodus at The Washington Post continues. Both from staff and readers. Two more Post writers have resigned from the editorial board in protest of owner Jeff Bezos blocking the board from writing an endorsement of Kamala Harris for president.

And in what is an absolutely stunning number, NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik reported ([link removed]) the Post had more than 200,000 digital subscriptions canceled as of midday Monday. That would be about 8% of the paper's paid circulation of 2.5 million subscribers, which includes the print product. That 200,000 number is expected to rise.

Meanwhile, Molly Roberts and Pulitzer Prize winner David E. Hoffman both announced Monday that they have resigned from the Post’s editorial board. (Both will remain at the paper.)

In a lengthy post on X ([link removed]) , Roberts wrote, “To be very clear, the decision not to endorse this election was not the editorial board’s. It was (you can read the reporting) Jeff Bezos’s. By registering my dissent, I don’t intend to impugn the conduct of any of my colleagues, all of whom were put in nearly impossible positions.”

Roberts would add, “I’m resigning from The Post editorial board because the imperative to endorse Kamala Harris over Donald Trump is about as morally clear as it gets. Worse, our silence is exactly what Donald Trump wants: for the media, for us, to keep quiet.”

In his resignation from the editorial board letter, Hoffman wrote how, for decades, Post editorials have been “a beacon of light, signaling hope to dissidents, political prisoners and the voiceless.” After more examples, Hoffman wrote, “Under our watch at The Post, no one would be lost in silence.”

He then added, “Until Friday, I assumed we would apply the same values and principles to an editorial endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris. I believe we face a very real threat of autocracy in the candidacy of Donald Trump. I find it untenable and unconscionable that we have lost our voice at this perilous moment.”

This has turned into a public relations nightmare for the Post.

CNN’s Brian Stelter wrote, “Thousands of perturbed and disappointed customers continue to cancel their Washington Post subscriptions as a result of Jeff Bezos's decision to block the publication from endorsing Kamala Harris. Post leaders are shook-up — but unable to stop the proverbial bleeding since Bezos is the one in charge.”

As I wrote in Monday’s newsletter, one can understand readers being upset and looking for some form of protest. The easiest is canceling their subscription to the Post. But that likely only hurts Post staffers, who are just as angry as the readers. Other than folks saying rotten things about him, the person behind the decision to not endorse — owner Jeff Bezos — isn’t going to really feel the impact of canceled subscriptions, even if they run into the hundreds of thousands. (Although, I must admit that number is way more than I could have imagined.)

The resignations and public objections by journalists at the Post do, however, help take the onus away from the paper and put it squarely where it belongs: on Bezos. The Post’s reputation might be taking a hit over this, but the journalists at the papers are doing their best to say how much they disapprove of the decision and, perhaps, helping the newsroom and editorial board maintain some integrity.

And Hoffman made it clear that he is not giving up on the Post.

In an interview with the Post’s Manuel Roig-Franzia ([link removed]) , conducted before Hoffman announced his resignation from the editorial board, he said, “It’s extremely difficult for us because we built this institution. But we can’t give up on our American democracy or The Post.”

In a column over the weekend ([link removed]) , Washington Post opinion columnist Dana Milbank wrote that he understands the anger from readers and he shares it. But he’s not quitting and he hopes readers don’t quit on the Post either.

He wrote, “Of course, if Friday’s non-endorsement announcement is followed by other demands from our owner that we bend the knee to Trump, that’s a different matter. If this turns out to be the beginning of a crackdown on our journalistic integrity — if journalists are ordered to pull their punches, called off sensitive stories or fired for doing their jobs — my colleagues and I will be leading the calls for Post readers to cancel their subscriptions, and we’ll be resigning en masse.”

Milbank went on to write, “ … for the past nine years, I’ve been labeling Trump a racist and a fascist, adding more evidence each week — and not once have I been stifled. I’ve never even met nor spoken to Bezos. The moment I’m told I can no longer report the truth will be the moment to find other work. Until then, I’ll keep writing. I hope you’ll keep reading.”

But, The New York Times’ Benjamin Mullin reported ([link removed]) that in an “intense” meeting involving Post opinion editor David Shipley and staff on Monday, one staffer said the damage done was “incalculable.”

Mullin also reported that Bezos had reservations about an endorsement for president as far back as September, but that Shipley was trying to get Bezos to move off that position.


** Bezos responds
------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, shown here in March of this year. (Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)

After several days of upheaval, Jeff Bezos finally responded to all the criticism in an op-ed for the Post ([link removed]) published Monday evening.

Bezos wrote, “Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

That feels like a lame excuse. By that standard, a paper should never write an editorial about anything.

The timing of the announcement, Bezos admitted, could have been better, writing, “I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.

Bezos also wrote, “I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally.”

Bezos admitted that Dave Limp, the chief executive of Bezos’ aerospace company Blue Origin, met with Trump on the day that Post announced there would be no endorsement.

Bezos wrote, “I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision. But the fact is, I didn’t know about the meeting beforehand. Even Limp didn’t know about it in advance; the meeting was scheduled quickly that morning. There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false.”

Bezos wrote that he is not the ideal owner of the Post. That’s because executives at his companies, such as Amazon and Blue Origin, are always meeting with government officials. However, Bezos defended his ownership of the Post, writing, “I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled, and I believe my track record as owner of The Post since 2013 backs this up. You are of course free to make your own determination, but I challenge you to find one instance in those 11 years where I have prevailed upon anyone at The Post in favor of my own interests. It hasn’t happened.”

There’s much more to Bezos’ op-ed and I encourage you to read it in full. But I doubt that his words will placate angry readers or tamp down the resentment inside the Post.


** More about all this Post stuff
------------------------------------------------------------

Jon Allsop has a worthwhile piece for the Columbia Journalism Review: “Jeff Bezos just proved the value of the newspaper endorsement.” ([link removed])


** Laying the groundwork
------------------------------------------------------------

Many in the Trump world, particularly those in right-wing media, are thoroughly convinced that Trump is easily going to win the election and become president.

If Harris was to win, which is certainly a real possibility, two things would happen:

One, conservative media and MAGA types will be flabbergasted.

Two, and more consequently, there will be an outpouring of cries of a rigged election.

Media Matters Matt Gertz writes ([link removed]) , “Whether or not this is a deliberate strategy, the result is that right-wing audiences — which generally trust information only when it comes from right-wing sources — are not being prepared for the possibility of Trump’s defeat. That makes it more likely that they will disbelieve such an outcome and rally to a Trumpian effort to overturn it.”


** One more year
------------------------------------------------------------

Jon Stewart made a triumphant return this year as the Monday host of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”

Originally, he was supposed to do it just through the election. But Variety's Ethan Shanfeld reports ([link removed]) Stewart will stick around through the end of 2025. He will continue to host just on Monday nights and other special occasions.

In a statement, Stewart joked, “I’ve truly enjoyed being back working with the incredible team at ‘The Daily Show’ and Comedy Central. I was really hoping they’d allow me to do every other Monday, but I’ll just have to suck it up.”

Stewart hosted “The Daily Show” from 1999 to 2015. Trevor Noah replaced Stewart until 2022. After he left, the show used rotating guest hosts and, apparently, will continue to do so as long as Stewart is doing one show a week.


** Stick to sports?
------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s be clear about something (and I used to write this all the time when I was a sports columnist at the Tampa Bay Times): There is nothing wrong with athletes publicly expressing their political views. I wrote several columns supporting San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s right to silently kneel in protest during the national anthem.

Interestingly, another 49ers player, star defensive end Nick Bosa, made a political statement during the postgame of “Sunday Night Football.”

Bosa crashed an interview that NBC’s Melissa Stark was doing with 49er players Brock Purdy, George Kittle and Isaac Guerendo. Bosa squeezed behind Stark and Purdy and pointed to his hat that had Trump’s slogan of “Make America Great Again.”

Now, I had a bit of an issue that Bosa interrupted his teammates' interview to make his political statement, but as far as the statement itself, that’s Bosa’s right.

After the game, however, Bosa met with the media and was wearing a different (nonpolitical) hat. He told reporters, “I’m not going to talk too much about it, but I think that it’s an important time.”

So, it was important enough to interrupt his teammates on national TV, but not important enough to elaborate when asked about it?

Let’s see what happens next. Kaepernick never played for another team after his political statements. Bosa, assuredly, will continue playing for a long time. One could argue that Bosa is a better player now than Kaepernick was when he parted ways with the 49ers in 2017 when he was only 29 years old.

But with 32 NFL teams carrying at least two quarterbacks, Kaepernick certainly was among the top 64 quarterbacks in the world.

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER
[link removed]


** A forward-minded look at the state of journalism
------------------------------------------------------------

Poynter recently brought together a wide array of media experts, leaders and thinkers to discuss the state of the news media industry and themes. You can find the results in Poynter’s recently published OnPoynt report ([link removed]) , which highlights current industry trends in areas such as local news and content creators, misinformation and AI innovations.

Read the report now ([link removed]) .


** Media tidbits
------------------------------------------------------------
* The New York Times’ Michael M. Grynbaum profiles the woman who might have the most difficult job on TV: “Jessica Tarlov Is the Liberal That Fox News Viewers Love to Hate.” ([link removed])
* As I wrote about recently, Amazon is bringing former longtime NBC/MSNBC anchor Brian Williams to host its first-ever election night coverage. The Associated Press’ David Bauder takes a closer look: “Brian Williams and Amazon are asking election night news-seekers to take a leap of faith with them.” ([link removed])
* Haunting from The Associated Press: “Images capture the exact moments an Israeli bomb strikes a building in Beirut.” ([link removed])
* Semafor’s Max Tani with “Inside the Wall Street Journal, recriminations over Evan Gershkovich’s arrest.” ([link removed])


** Hot type
------------------------------------------------------------
* This deserves its own spot in the newsletter. Dave Jorgenson, who heads up The Washington Post’s TikTok team, with this awesome video ([link removed]) about the Bezos-nonendorsement kerfuffle.


** More resources for journalists
------------------------------------------------------------
* It’s time to apply for the Leadership Academy for Women in Media ([link removed]) .
* Our OnPoynt ([link removed]) report offers a forward-minded look at the state of journalism and the news industry.
* 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])
Thanks to our sponsor [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]) .