| From | Tom Jones | Poynter <[email protected]> |
| Subject | A wild night on CNN ends with a guest’s permanent ban |
| Date | October 30, 2024 11:30 AM |
Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
On ‘NewsNight,’ a show that stokes heated debate, one panelist crossed the line with a grossly inappropriate ‘joke’ that led to an uproar Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]
** OPINION
------------------------------------------------------------
** A wild night on CNN ends with a guest’s permanent ban
------------------------------------------------------------
(AP Photo/Mike Stewart, File)
A verbal brawl, sparked by a grossly inappropriate remark, broke out on CNN on Monday night. In the aftermath, the commentator who made the remark has been banned from the network.
It all happened on “NewsNight,” hosted by Abby Phillip. During a panel discussion, there was a contentious exchange between former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan and commentator (and Donald Trump supporter) Ryan Girdusky. The discussion had been about the various offensive remarks made at the Trump rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday.
At one point, while Hasan and Girdusky were going back and forth, Hasan said he was used to being called an antisemite because he supports “Palestinians.”
Girdusky said, “I hope your beeper doesn’t go off.” (Here’s ([link removed]) the exchange.)
The beeper line was a reference to the thousands of pager explosions in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah militants on Sept. 17 — an attack believed to be carried out by Israel.
It took a brief what-did-he-just-say second for the comment to sink in, but then there was an angry backlash from across the astonished panel. Hasan said, “Did you just say I should die?”
Then things really spiraled out of control, with Hasan and Girdusky and other panelists all talking at once, and Phillip trying to regain some sense of decorum. Girdusky then claimed to have misheard Hasan, saying he thought Hasan said he supports “Hamas.”
When Hasan told him that he said “Palestinians,” Girdusky said, “Then I apologize.”
As a clearly offended Hasan continued to talk, Girdusky looked at Phillip, who said, “Ryan, that is completely out of pocket. You know that.”
When Girdusky said, “Then I apologize,” Phillip responded by saying, “Don’t say, ‘Then I apologize.’ You literally accused him …” before trailing off.
A few minutes later, after the show returned from break, Girdusky was no longer on the panel.
Philip said on air, “There was a line that was crossed there and it’s not acceptable to me. It’s not acceptable to us at this network. We want discussion. We want people who disagree with each other to talk to each other. But when you cross the line of a complete lack of civility, that is not going to happen here on this show.”
In a statement, CNN said there is “zero room for racism or bigotry at CNN or on our air.” It said Girdusky was no longer welcome back on the network, adding, “We aim to foster thoughtful conversations and debate including between people who profoundly disagree with each other in order to explore important issues and promote mutual understanding.”
After the show, Phillip posted CNN’s statement on X ([link removed]) and added a video of herself saying that Hasan continues to be welcome at CNN.
Girdusky appeared rattled in the moment as he continued to apologize for his remark, but then after the show, he doubled down by criticizing CNN in a tweet that said ([link removed]) , “You can stay on CNN if you falsely call every Republican a Nazi and have taken money from Qatar-funded media. Apparently you can't go on CNN if you make a joke. I'm glad America gets to see what CNN stands for.”
So the beeper line was a joke? Maybe someone can tell me what’s funny about it.
So who is Girdusky?
The Washington Post’s Ben Brasch wrote ([link removed]) , “Girdusky has written for American Conservative magazine, founded by paleoconservative Pat Buchanan, and is a conservative political consultant from New York. He also founded the 1776 Project PAC, whose website says it is ‘reigniting the spark and spirit of that revolution by reforming school boards across America.’”
Girdusky also has appeared regularly recently on CNN to talk about Trump.
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]) .
** A recipe for drama
------------------------------------------------------------
So, a few thoughts on the CNN drama from Monday night.
It’s good that CNN has banned Girdusky for his comment and made a public statement about it. In the end, Girdusky is responsible for what he said and should be admonished for it. It was a disgusting thing to say. Phillip did an admirable job, both on the show and after.
This is not a criticism just of CNN. All cable news networks do this. But these things happen when you put together a panel, invite a hot-take commentator to represent an opposing point of view from the rest of the group, all in the name of so-called “balance,” and then toss in a provocative topic. That’s a tried-and-true recipe for what cable news thinks is good TV, especially because it’s cheap and easy to produce. Gather a bunch of strong personalities, turn on the cameras and microphones and go.
But here’s the thing. When you are encouraging passionate debate, you cannot be surprised when someone crosses a line. To be clear, I’m not making an excuse for Girdusky and his remark. I’m just saying it shouldn't shock anyone.
It’s interesting to note that, back in September, Variety’s Brian Steinberg wrote ([link removed]) , “‘NewsNight,’ which launched in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Israel in October of last year, looked at first like most other programs on CNN and its main rivals, Fox News Channel and MSNBC. Phillip sat alone on set, always spoke directly to the audience and interviewed experts, analysts and newsmakers about the most important headlines of the day. Earlier this summer, CNN remade the program — which shares its title with a primetime show anchored by Aaron Brown on the network in the early 2000s — and it has quickly become the loudest thing on the schedule. The program operates at a volume that has almost become unrecognizable in these days of ownership under risk-averse Warner Bros. Discovery.”
“NewsNight” is hardly the only show with guests sometimes getting loud and heated.
But, Mediaite’s Colby Hall wrote ([link removed]) , “The difference with ‘NewsNight’s’ format is that it encourages sharp, sassy and personal insults from one panelist to another. The spicier the fight, the more attention the show gets, and as a result, more viewers tune in. Judging by an increase in viewers, it’s working from a business standpoint. But let’s not be surprised when things go so far off the rails that a guest must be removed from the show, and the anchor needs to apologize to their viewers.”
Again, I don’t believe “NewsNight” is alone in this kind of cable news show. You see it on Fox News, MSNBC, HBO, and others. And, when you think about it, sports networks, especially ESPN, have been using this formula forever. It even has a name: embrace debate.
But it’s one thing when it’s an argument over what’s wrong with the Dallas Cowboys or if LeBron James is better than Michael Jordan. It’s another when you’re talking about wars and race and the future of the United States.
** More Washington Post fallout
------------------------------------------------------------
Semafor’s Max Tani reports ([link removed]) that Washington Post editor Matt Murray held a meeting with staff on Tuesday and thanked them for their hard work, while also apologizing for hardships caused by the paper’s nonendorsement in the presidential election.
Owner Jeff Bezos blocked the Post’s editorial board from endorsing Kamala Harris for president. “Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” he said in an op-ed. He added, “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.”
The backlash was swift and harsh. Two columnists quit the paper, two more left the editorial board and, reportedly, more than 250,000 digital subscriptions have been canceled.
Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple wrote ([link removed]) , “Many others have eloquently described the sudden endorsement outage as a cowardly and unprincipled act. Agreed. I have little to add to the condemnations that have already piled up, other than to say that the decision falls in that column of watershed Post moments. A lot of people would have forgotten about the Harris endorsement slated to run in the newspaper; few will forget about the decision not to publish it.”
(I encourage you to read Wemple’s piece, which actually goes much deeper and offers more nuance than the part I quoted.)
In his meeting with staff, Murray said, “The core mission of the Washington Post … has not and will not change.” Tani also reported that Murray told staff that Bezos has a 10-year track record of supporting the newsroom, and that no non-newsroom figures will interfere with the paper’s journalism.
Tani also reported that, when asked by staff, Murray didn’t know how many subscribers the Post had lost, and that staffers were not pleased that he didn’t know. Tani added that Murray said even if he did know the number, he would be afraid to share it for fear of it leaking.
Meanwhile, in a satire column, The Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri poked the nonendorsement decision with “It has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to endorse Harris for president.” ([link removed])
Petri wrote, “As recently as the 1970s, The Post did not endorse a candidate for president. As recently as centuries ago, there was no Post and the country had a king! Go even further back, and the entire continent of North America was totally uninhabitable, and we were all spineless creatures who lived in the ocean, and certainly there were no Post subscribers.”
She added, “But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them.”
** Another nonendorsement
------------------------------------------------------------
Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)
A bunch of papers all over the country decided to not make an endorsement for president, including USA Today ([link removed]) . The list also includes the Poynter-owned Tampa Bay Times. In the wake of the controversies involving The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times not making endorsements, the Tampa Bay Times editorial board decided to address why it was not making a recommendation for president in an editorial ([link removed]) this week.
The board wrote that they made the decision “months ago” to not endorse anyone for president. Instead, they decided to concentrate on local races and amendments, adding, “We tried to select the contests where our readers would need the most help.”
With a limited staff, the board made recommendations for 30 partisan races, six nonpartisan races and 17 state and local ballot referendums. There is no question it was an immense workload for a very undermanned board.
The board also wrote, “We cannot think of a single reader who has told the Editorial Board over the past election cycle that they needed our help deciding on how to vote for president. Not one.”
OK, a couple of things.
The Times’ decision “months ago” not to endorse anyone for president is a flimsy excuse for not doing so now. It doesn’t change this fact: In the most consequential presidential election of our lifetime, maybe in the history of the country, the Times decided to sit this one out — the first time in memory that the editorial board isn’t making a recommendation for president. In addition, so much has happened in the past few months, including the unprecedented rise of Kamala Harris, that defaulting to, Oh, we decided months ago that we weren’t going to make a recommendation for president feels like a way to avoid taking a stand that could potentially anger some of their readership.
Meanwhile, the idea of not writing a recommendation because they don’t believe anyone needs help selecting a president seems to miss the point of endorsements. It’s not about telling readers who they should vote for. It’s about telling them why one person deserves to be president over another, including reasons specific to their local audience. For Tampa Bay residents and Floridians, that might include issues such as climate change and immigration.
But there’s more to an endorsement than that.
Ray Roa and Colin Wolf of Creative Loafing, an alternative publication in Tampa Bay, summed it up well in their column ([link removed]) : “An editorial board — while independent of the work a newspaper’s reporters do — often serves as the conscience of a publication. It is a reminder that there are humans there who think about intentions, character and conduct. The board gives readers a glimpse of a paper’s values, its principles.”
Look, in the end, there’s a reason why Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos killed that paper’s endorsement of Harris. There’s a reason why Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong blocked that paper’s endorsement of Harris. There’s a reason why USA Today, the Tampa Bay Times and a bunch of other papers are not, for the first time in a long time and all at the same time, are bailing on the tradition of recommending a president. And you cannot convince me it’s anything other than worrying about angering Trump and his supporters. They made business decisions.
Are all these publications punting on an endorsement because they were worried about losing readers who support the nominee the editorial board wouldn’t have endorsed?
Any editorial board out there that won’t make an endorsement because it is afraid of angering a candidate or a portion of its readership should maybe think about not doing endorsements and recommendations at all — for anything.
And if any editorial board is worried about making people angry, perhaps they should get out of the journalism business and, instead, sell vacuums.
** Have you heard the one about …
------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major controversies to come out of the Trump rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday was a racist remark made by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who said, “I don’t know if you guys know this, but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.”
The joke went over like a lead balloon and even the Trump campaign distanced itself from it. (Although Trump said he didn’t know the comedian and hadn’t heard the “joke,” while running mate JD Vance said at a campaign stop, “Maybe it's a stupid, racist joke as you said, maybe it's not. I haven't seen it. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the joke. But I think that we have to stop getting so offended at every little thing in the United States of America. I'm just — I'm so over it.”)
Apparently, it wasn’t the first time Hinchcliffe told the joke. NBC News’ Nicole Acevedo and Ignacio Torres reported ([link removed]) that Hinchcliffe workshopped his line the night before at a comedy club in New York City. Apparently, and not surprisingly, it bombed.
Acevedo and Torres wrote, “The joke did not draw laughs, just a handful of awkward chuckles. Hinchcliffe told the audience that he would be performing at the Madison Square Garden rally the next day and said multiple times during his routine that he would get a better reaction ‘tomorrow at the rally.’”
Also, check out Poynter’s PolitiFact with ”Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally, fact-checked.” ([link removed])
** Speaking of fact-checking
------------------------------------------------------------
This was interesting. Fox News aired a Trump speech on Tuesday. When it was over, Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner told the audience, “At the very beginning you heard the former president talk about a stolen election. And while he may feel a certain way, the facts remain Joe Biden was declared the winner with 51% of the vote. States certified those results in the 2020 election and Congress accepted those results.”
Good on Fox News for fact-checking Trump like that. And also for having a good memory about having to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million to settle a case over the network’s coverage of the 2020 election results.
** Wait, what?
------------------------------------------------------------
Podcaster Joe Rogan, shown here in August of 2023. (AP Photo/Gregory Payan, File)
Joe Rogan, who hosts the hugely popular podcast “The Joe Rogan Experience,” interviewed Donald Trump for three hours last week. The interview took place at Rogan’s podcast studio in Austin, Texas.
There had been reports that Kamala Harris also was considering going on Rogan’s podcast.
On Tuesday, Rogan tweeted ([link removed]) , “… for the record the Harris campaign has not passed on doing the podcast. They offered a date for Tuesday, but I would have had to travel to her and they only wanted to do an hour. I strongly feel the best way to do it is in the studio in Austin. My sincere wish is to just have a nice conversation and get to know her as a human being. I really hope we can make it happen.”
So let me get this straight. A podcaster was offered an hour with the Vice President and Democratic nominee for president a week before one of the biggest elections in history — and he turned it down because he would have had to travel?
I am genuinely astonished by that.
That is the laziest thing I’ve heard in a while, or else Rogan really has no interest in interviewing Harris.
** Andrea Mitchell news
------------------------------------------------------------
Legendary NBC/MSNBC journalist Andrea Mitchell will move from her daily MSNBC show after next January’s presidential inauguration to continue reporting across all platforms on NBC News and MSNBC. She will remain NBC News’ chief Washington correspondent and chief foreign affairs correspondent.
“Andrea Mitchell Reports” has been on the air since 2008 and is MSNBC’s longest-running dayside program. Mitchell, who turns 78 today, has been with NBC News for more than 45 years.
Mitchell said on air, “After 16 years of being in the anchor chair every day, I want time to do more of what I love the most: more connecting, listening and reporting in the field, especially as whoever is elected next week is going to undertake the monumental task of handling two foreign wars and the political divisions here at home.”
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
------------------------------------------------------------
* Read this piece. The New York Times’ Neil Bedi, Lazaro Gamio, Ishaan Jhaveri, Devon Lum, Haley Willis and Karen Yourish with “Inside Trump’s Truth Social Conspiracy Theory Machine.” ([link removed])
* The Washington Post’s Drew Harwell and Jeremy B. Merrill with “On Elon Musk’s X, Republicans go viral as Democrats disappear ([link removed]) .”
* The Wall Street Journal’s Jack Gillum, Alexa Corse and Adrienne Tong with “X Algorithm Feeds Users Political Content—Whether They Want It or Not.” ([link removed])
** Hot type
------------------------------------------------------------
Actress Teri Garr, shown here in 1987. (AP Photo/Mark Terrill, File)
One of my favorite actresses, Teri Garr, has died from complications of multiple sclerosis. She was 79 and had not acted on TV or film for years. However, she was a big star in the 1970s and 1980s, appearing in such superb comedies as Mel Brooks’ “Young Frankenstein,” “Tootsie” with Dustin Hoffman and “Mr. Mom” with Michael Keaton. She also was a regular favorite guest of David Letterman. Here’s Anita Gates’ remembrance ([link removed]) for The New York Times.
** More resources for journalists
------------------------------------------------------------
* Are you an up-and-coming newsroom manager ([link removed]) ?
* Encourage an outstanding colleague to apply for Leadership Academy for Women in Media ([link removed]) .
* Ensure your newsroom is on the cutting edge ([link removed]) of evolving criminal justice coverage.
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]) .
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]
** OPINION
------------------------------------------------------------
** A wild night on CNN ends with a guest’s permanent ban
------------------------------------------------------------
(AP Photo/Mike Stewart, File)
A verbal brawl, sparked by a grossly inappropriate remark, broke out on CNN on Monday night. In the aftermath, the commentator who made the remark has been banned from the network.
It all happened on “NewsNight,” hosted by Abby Phillip. During a panel discussion, there was a contentious exchange between former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan and commentator (and Donald Trump supporter) Ryan Girdusky. The discussion had been about the various offensive remarks made at the Trump rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday.
At one point, while Hasan and Girdusky were going back and forth, Hasan said he was used to being called an antisemite because he supports “Palestinians.”
Girdusky said, “I hope your beeper doesn’t go off.” (Here’s ([link removed]) the exchange.)
The beeper line was a reference to the thousands of pager explosions in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah militants on Sept. 17 — an attack believed to be carried out by Israel.
It took a brief what-did-he-just-say second for the comment to sink in, but then there was an angry backlash from across the astonished panel. Hasan said, “Did you just say I should die?”
Then things really spiraled out of control, with Hasan and Girdusky and other panelists all talking at once, and Phillip trying to regain some sense of decorum. Girdusky then claimed to have misheard Hasan, saying he thought Hasan said he supports “Hamas.”
When Hasan told him that he said “Palestinians,” Girdusky said, “Then I apologize.”
As a clearly offended Hasan continued to talk, Girdusky looked at Phillip, who said, “Ryan, that is completely out of pocket. You know that.”
When Girdusky said, “Then I apologize,” Phillip responded by saying, “Don’t say, ‘Then I apologize.’ You literally accused him …” before trailing off.
A few minutes later, after the show returned from break, Girdusky was no longer on the panel.
Philip said on air, “There was a line that was crossed there and it’s not acceptable to me. It’s not acceptable to us at this network. We want discussion. We want people who disagree with each other to talk to each other. But when you cross the line of a complete lack of civility, that is not going to happen here on this show.”
In a statement, CNN said there is “zero room for racism or bigotry at CNN or on our air.” It said Girdusky was no longer welcome back on the network, adding, “We aim to foster thoughtful conversations and debate including between people who profoundly disagree with each other in order to explore important issues and promote mutual understanding.”
After the show, Phillip posted CNN’s statement on X ([link removed]) and added a video of herself saying that Hasan continues to be welcome at CNN.
Girdusky appeared rattled in the moment as he continued to apologize for his remark, but then after the show, he doubled down by criticizing CNN in a tweet that said ([link removed]) , “You can stay on CNN if you falsely call every Republican a Nazi and have taken money from Qatar-funded media. Apparently you can't go on CNN if you make a joke. I'm glad America gets to see what CNN stands for.”
So the beeper line was a joke? Maybe someone can tell me what’s funny about it.
So who is Girdusky?
The Washington Post’s Ben Brasch wrote ([link removed]) , “Girdusky has written for American Conservative magazine, founded by paleoconservative Pat Buchanan, and is a conservative political consultant from New York. He also founded the 1776 Project PAC, whose website says it is ‘reigniting the spark and spirit of that revolution by reforming school boards across America.’”
Girdusky also has appeared regularly recently on CNN to talk about Trump.
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]) .
** A recipe for drama
------------------------------------------------------------
So, a few thoughts on the CNN drama from Monday night.
It’s good that CNN has banned Girdusky for his comment and made a public statement about it. In the end, Girdusky is responsible for what he said and should be admonished for it. It was a disgusting thing to say. Phillip did an admirable job, both on the show and after.
This is not a criticism just of CNN. All cable news networks do this. But these things happen when you put together a panel, invite a hot-take commentator to represent an opposing point of view from the rest of the group, all in the name of so-called “balance,” and then toss in a provocative topic. That’s a tried-and-true recipe for what cable news thinks is good TV, especially because it’s cheap and easy to produce. Gather a bunch of strong personalities, turn on the cameras and microphones and go.
But here’s the thing. When you are encouraging passionate debate, you cannot be surprised when someone crosses a line. To be clear, I’m not making an excuse for Girdusky and his remark. I’m just saying it shouldn't shock anyone.
It’s interesting to note that, back in September, Variety’s Brian Steinberg wrote ([link removed]) , “‘NewsNight,’ which launched in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Israel in October of last year, looked at first like most other programs on CNN and its main rivals, Fox News Channel and MSNBC. Phillip sat alone on set, always spoke directly to the audience and interviewed experts, analysts and newsmakers about the most important headlines of the day. Earlier this summer, CNN remade the program — which shares its title with a primetime show anchored by Aaron Brown on the network in the early 2000s — and it has quickly become the loudest thing on the schedule. The program operates at a volume that has almost become unrecognizable in these days of ownership under risk-averse Warner Bros. Discovery.”
“NewsNight” is hardly the only show with guests sometimes getting loud and heated.
But, Mediaite’s Colby Hall wrote ([link removed]) , “The difference with ‘NewsNight’s’ format is that it encourages sharp, sassy and personal insults from one panelist to another. The spicier the fight, the more attention the show gets, and as a result, more viewers tune in. Judging by an increase in viewers, it’s working from a business standpoint. But let’s not be surprised when things go so far off the rails that a guest must be removed from the show, and the anchor needs to apologize to their viewers.”
Again, I don’t believe “NewsNight” is alone in this kind of cable news show. You see it on Fox News, MSNBC, HBO, and others. And, when you think about it, sports networks, especially ESPN, have been using this formula forever. It even has a name: embrace debate.
But it’s one thing when it’s an argument over what’s wrong with the Dallas Cowboys or if LeBron James is better than Michael Jordan. It’s another when you’re talking about wars and race and the future of the United States.
** More Washington Post fallout
------------------------------------------------------------
Semafor’s Max Tani reports ([link removed]) that Washington Post editor Matt Murray held a meeting with staff on Tuesday and thanked them for their hard work, while also apologizing for hardships caused by the paper’s nonendorsement in the presidential election.
Owner Jeff Bezos blocked the Post’s editorial board from endorsing Kamala Harris for president. “Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” he said in an op-ed. He added, “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.”
The backlash was swift and harsh. Two columnists quit the paper, two more left the editorial board and, reportedly, more than 250,000 digital subscriptions have been canceled.
Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple wrote ([link removed]) , “Many others have eloquently described the sudden endorsement outage as a cowardly and unprincipled act. Agreed. I have little to add to the condemnations that have already piled up, other than to say that the decision falls in that column of watershed Post moments. A lot of people would have forgotten about the Harris endorsement slated to run in the newspaper; few will forget about the decision not to publish it.”
(I encourage you to read Wemple’s piece, which actually goes much deeper and offers more nuance than the part I quoted.)
In his meeting with staff, Murray said, “The core mission of the Washington Post … has not and will not change.” Tani also reported that Murray told staff that Bezos has a 10-year track record of supporting the newsroom, and that no non-newsroom figures will interfere with the paper’s journalism.
Tani also reported that, when asked by staff, Murray didn’t know how many subscribers the Post had lost, and that staffers were not pleased that he didn’t know. Tani added that Murray said even if he did know the number, he would be afraid to share it for fear of it leaking.
Meanwhile, in a satire column, The Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri poked the nonendorsement decision with “It has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to endorse Harris for president.” ([link removed])
Petri wrote, “As recently as the 1970s, The Post did not endorse a candidate for president. As recently as centuries ago, there was no Post and the country had a king! Go even further back, and the entire continent of North America was totally uninhabitable, and we were all spineless creatures who lived in the ocean, and certainly there were no Post subscribers.”
She added, “But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them.”
** Another nonendorsement
------------------------------------------------------------
Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)
A bunch of papers all over the country decided to not make an endorsement for president, including USA Today ([link removed]) . The list also includes the Poynter-owned Tampa Bay Times. In the wake of the controversies involving The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times not making endorsements, the Tampa Bay Times editorial board decided to address why it was not making a recommendation for president in an editorial ([link removed]) this week.
The board wrote that they made the decision “months ago” to not endorse anyone for president. Instead, they decided to concentrate on local races and amendments, adding, “We tried to select the contests where our readers would need the most help.”
With a limited staff, the board made recommendations for 30 partisan races, six nonpartisan races and 17 state and local ballot referendums. There is no question it was an immense workload for a very undermanned board.
The board also wrote, “We cannot think of a single reader who has told the Editorial Board over the past election cycle that they needed our help deciding on how to vote for president. Not one.”
OK, a couple of things.
The Times’ decision “months ago” not to endorse anyone for president is a flimsy excuse for not doing so now. It doesn’t change this fact: In the most consequential presidential election of our lifetime, maybe in the history of the country, the Times decided to sit this one out — the first time in memory that the editorial board isn’t making a recommendation for president. In addition, so much has happened in the past few months, including the unprecedented rise of Kamala Harris, that defaulting to, Oh, we decided months ago that we weren’t going to make a recommendation for president feels like a way to avoid taking a stand that could potentially anger some of their readership.
Meanwhile, the idea of not writing a recommendation because they don’t believe anyone needs help selecting a president seems to miss the point of endorsements. It’s not about telling readers who they should vote for. It’s about telling them why one person deserves to be president over another, including reasons specific to their local audience. For Tampa Bay residents and Floridians, that might include issues such as climate change and immigration.
But there’s more to an endorsement than that.
Ray Roa and Colin Wolf of Creative Loafing, an alternative publication in Tampa Bay, summed it up well in their column ([link removed]) : “An editorial board — while independent of the work a newspaper’s reporters do — often serves as the conscience of a publication. It is a reminder that there are humans there who think about intentions, character and conduct. The board gives readers a glimpse of a paper’s values, its principles.”
Look, in the end, there’s a reason why Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos killed that paper’s endorsement of Harris. There’s a reason why Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong blocked that paper’s endorsement of Harris. There’s a reason why USA Today, the Tampa Bay Times and a bunch of other papers are not, for the first time in a long time and all at the same time, are bailing on the tradition of recommending a president. And you cannot convince me it’s anything other than worrying about angering Trump and his supporters. They made business decisions.
Are all these publications punting on an endorsement because they were worried about losing readers who support the nominee the editorial board wouldn’t have endorsed?
Any editorial board out there that won’t make an endorsement because it is afraid of angering a candidate or a portion of its readership should maybe think about not doing endorsements and recommendations at all — for anything.
And if any editorial board is worried about making people angry, perhaps they should get out of the journalism business and, instead, sell vacuums.
** Have you heard the one about …
------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major controversies to come out of the Trump rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday was a racist remark made by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who said, “I don’t know if you guys know this, but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.”
The joke went over like a lead balloon and even the Trump campaign distanced itself from it. (Although Trump said he didn’t know the comedian and hadn’t heard the “joke,” while running mate JD Vance said at a campaign stop, “Maybe it's a stupid, racist joke as you said, maybe it's not. I haven't seen it. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the joke. But I think that we have to stop getting so offended at every little thing in the United States of America. I'm just — I'm so over it.”)
Apparently, it wasn’t the first time Hinchcliffe told the joke. NBC News’ Nicole Acevedo and Ignacio Torres reported ([link removed]) that Hinchcliffe workshopped his line the night before at a comedy club in New York City. Apparently, and not surprisingly, it bombed.
Acevedo and Torres wrote, “The joke did not draw laughs, just a handful of awkward chuckles. Hinchcliffe told the audience that he would be performing at the Madison Square Garden rally the next day and said multiple times during his routine that he would get a better reaction ‘tomorrow at the rally.’”
Also, check out Poynter’s PolitiFact with ”Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally, fact-checked.” ([link removed])
** Speaking of fact-checking
------------------------------------------------------------
This was interesting. Fox News aired a Trump speech on Tuesday. When it was over, Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner told the audience, “At the very beginning you heard the former president talk about a stolen election. And while he may feel a certain way, the facts remain Joe Biden was declared the winner with 51% of the vote. States certified those results in the 2020 election and Congress accepted those results.”
Good on Fox News for fact-checking Trump like that. And also for having a good memory about having to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million to settle a case over the network’s coverage of the 2020 election results.
** Wait, what?
------------------------------------------------------------
Podcaster Joe Rogan, shown here in August of 2023. (AP Photo/Gregory Payan, File)
Joe Rogan, who hosts the hugely popular podcast “The Joe Rogan Experience,” interviewed Donald Trump for three hours last week. The interview took place at Rogan’s podcast studio in Austin, Texas.
There had been reports that Kamala Harris also was considering going on Rogan’s podcast.
On Tuesday, Rogan tweeted ([link removed]) , “… for the record the Harris campaign has not passed on doing the podcast. They offered a date for Tuesday, but I would have had to travel to her and they only wanted to do an hour. I strongly feel the best way to do it is in the studio in Austin. My sincere wish is to just have a nice conversation and get to know her as a human being. I really hope we can make it happen.”
So let me get this straight. A podcaster was offered an hour with the Vice President and Democratic nominee for president a week before one of the biggest elections in history — and he turned it down because he would have had to travel?
I am genuinely astonished by that.
That is the laziest thing I’ve heard in a while, or else Rogan really has no interest in interviewing Harris.
** Andrea Mitchell news
------------------------------------------------------------
Legendary NBC/MSNBC journalist Andrea Mitchell will move from her daily MSNBC show after next January’s presidential inauguration to continue reporting across all platforms on NBC News and MSNBC. She will remain NBC News’ chief Washington correspondent and chief foreign affairs correspondent.
“Andrea Mitchell Reports” has been on the air since 2008 and is MSNBC’s longest-running dayside program. Mitchell, who turns 78 today, has been with NBC News for more than 45 years.
Mitchell said on air, “After 16 years of being in the anchor chair every day, I want time to do more of what I love the most: more connecting, listening and reporting in the field, especially as whoever is elected next week is going to undertake the monumental task of handling two foreign wars and the political divisions here at home.”
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
------------------------------------------------------------
* Read this piece. The New York Times’ Neil Bedi, Lazaro Gamio, Ishaan Jhaveri, Devon Lum, Haley Willis and Karen Yourish with “Inside Trump’s Truth Social Conspiracy Theory Machine.” ([link removed])
* The Washington Post’s Drew Harwell and Jeremy B. Merrill with “On Elon Musk’s X, Republicans go viral as Democrats disappear ([link removed]) .”
* The Wall Street Journal’s Jack Gillum, Alexa Corse and Adrienne Tong with “X Algorithm Feeds Users Political Content—Whether They Want It or Not.” ([link removed])
** Hot type
------------------------------------------------------------
Actress Teri Garr, shown here in 1987. (AP Photo/Mark Terrill, File)
One of my favorite actresses, Teri Garr, has died from complications of multiple sclerosis. She was 79 and had not acted on TV or film for years. However, she was a big star in the 1970s and 1980s, appearing in such superb comedies as Mel Brooks’ “Young Frankenstein,” “Tootsie” with Dustin Hoffman and “Mr. Mom” with Michael Keaton. She also was a regular favorite guest of David Letterman. Here’s Anita Gates’ remembrance ([link removed]) for The New York Times.
** More resources for journalists
------------------------------------------------------------
* Are you an up-and-coming newsroom manager ([link removed]) ?
* Encourage an outstanding colleague to apply for Leadership Academy for Women in Media ([link removed]) .
* Ensure your newsroom is on the cutting edge ([link removed]) of evolving criminal justice coverage.
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]) .
Message Analysis
- Sender: Poynter Institute
- Political Party: n/a
- Country: United States
- State/Locality: n/a
- Office: n/a
-
Email Providers:
- MailChimp