Dem
51
GOP
49
Consider the following headlines from yesterday:
These are just some examples from among the sites we check each morning (and then again later in the day), to get a sense of the lay of the land. And as we read all the debate headlines, we were very confused. The lingering issue, as we noted yesterday, was that the Harris campaign wants the microphones to be on at all times, and some people in the Trump campaign (possibly not including Donald Trump) want the microphones to be muted when the candidates are not speaking. So, the possible outcomes were: (1) the Trump campaign could agree to keep the microphones on, (2) the Harris campaign could agree to mute the microphones, or (3) the debate would be called off because the campaigns could not agree.
The headlines above are not consistent with any of those three outcomes. If the microphones will be muted, then Trump didn't actually agree to anything. No, in that case, he refused to budge. This means these headlines are somewhere between "unclear" and "toting Trump's water." And the stories, particularly the early-in-the-day versions, were generally no better, noting that Trump had accepted the same rules as for the June 27 debate without explaining that the Harris campaign is objecting to those rules. It makes it appear that everything is settled, thanks to Trump's being magnanimous, and that if there are any further issues, then someone else (e.g., Harris) is being unreasonable.
There was another example of this basic dynamic on Monday, one specific to The New York Times. National Review editor Rich Lowry wrote a pro-Trump/anti-Harris op-ed full of generalities that were unsupported, and are almost certainly unprovable, because they are almost certainly untrue. For example: "[Kamala] Harris is weak and a phony and doesn't truly care about the country or the middle class." Or: "She doesn't care if her tax policies will destroy jobs."
Ostensibly, a piece like this is supposed to give a different perspective, and to show a different way of thinking about things. But this piece is nothing other than unfettered propaganda. You could take Lowry's words, typeset them in a pretty font, and make a Trump campaign ad out of it. If you did, it would cost thousands of dollars to place that ad in the pages of the Times. That being the case, why should the Times run his words for free? And note that after we read that op-ed, and choked on it, we learned that Jonathan V. Last of the Bulwark felt the exact same way. Last's headline is "Why Did the New York Times Let Itself Be Used as a Mule?"
We continue to puzzle over the question of why the non-right-wing media treats Trump the way it does. Yes, they do cover his most scandalous moments, it is true. But they also seem to be in partnership with him on regular occasions. Or, if not in partnership, then they are at least fawning. Are they performing "balance"? Are they scared to make an enemy out of Trump? Does telling the story his way attract eyeballs? Are they secretly hoping he'll be reelected, and thus drive traffic to their newspaper/website/TV channel for the next 4 years? We've noted all of these theories before, and we still don't feel we know which explanations are paramount.
Incidentally, as it turns out, when the Harris campaign found out about Trump's so-called "agreeing" to debate terms, it promptly put out a statement that said there was no agreement on the microphones issue, and that negotiations are ongoing. Unfortunately for the Democratic candidate, the media has allowed Trump to seize control of the narrative, at least for now. Plus, because the Harris campaign's statement didn't come until the afternoon, the stories about the statement (which were fairly few in number) didn't come until the evening. So, they're going to get lost, coming at the part of the news cycle that gets the least attention. Thanks, media. (Z)