How much coverage of Donald Trump is too much?

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

He continues to attack his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, with crude insults in language that is not appropriate for a presidential candidate in a civilized society. Equally disturbing, he continues to speak of the enemy within this country: his political opponents whom he appears to have threatened with punishment if elected. And he repeatedly doubts that he will accept the outcome of the election if he loses.

All of these stories continue to attract media attention.

Harris? It seems focused on speeches, interviews and the traditional stuff that candidates do in the final sprint to the finish line of a race.

But does the unconventional and abnormal (pardon the pun) trump the conventional and normal?

The Washington Post’s Hannah Knowles and Toluse Olorunnipa wrote: “Nine years after descending a golden escalator to launch his first campaign with a combative speech disparaging Mexican immigrants as ‘rapists,’ Trump is closing in on his third consecutive bid to the White House with loud noise. , ostentatious campaign that has put his conduct at the center of a photo-finish battle for the presidency. He has often overshadowed his rival with misleading events, threatening insults and false claims or groundless, resulting in a final fortnight which, according to both camps, has positioned them for success.”

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

Do they point out all the baffling, dangerous, and distracting things Trump says by putting them into context and giving the American people an accurate picture of a presidential candidate? Or do they ignore things like Trump’s Arnold Palmer comments because they only draw attention to real issues in the race? (At the same time, one could argue, these Trump antics are a real race problem.)

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

On Tuesday, Washington Post opinion columnist Eugene Robinson chatted live with readers. A reader asked him a relevant question: “Trump’s images and comments seem to be taking over the media. There are fewer images of Harris as well as the content of his positions. The media is fixated on the antics of Trump to attract more readers?

Robinson’s response: “Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. For every reader who writes to say we’re paying too much attention to Trump and the nonsense he spews at his rallies, there’s another reader who writes to tell us we should take him even further and print his gibberish verbatim to show the nation how unfit reporters and editors are going to please everyone with their decisions on how to cover Trump that they think is right.”

Here’s the million dollar question: What’s right: show Trump and all he’s about, or ignore his antics in favor of focusing on political issues? The latter could be considered a form of “smartwashing” Trump, ignoring the irresponsible talk and behavior and perhaps making him look like a normal candidate.

I’ve always been in favor of showing a candidate mostly in full so voters know exactly who a candidate is: the good, the bad, the ugly. This does not mean spewing lies without saying they are lies. This does not mean showing dangerous speech without pointing out why it is dangerous. This does not mean exhibiting abnormal behavior without saying it is abnormal behavior.

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

And frankly, the mainstream media seems to be covering everything: Trump and Harris and everything their campaigns entail.

Donald Trump is scheduled to appear 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 is also a UFC commentator, has a largely young male audience, and that’s clearly the demographic Trump hopes to attract with his appearance.

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

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.'” However, more recently, Rogan has praised with Trump, saying last month that the economy under Trump “did really well and he really tried to reduce some of the (BS) that’s going on in this country.” Trump and Rogan have also had friendly moments in recent months, like when they’ve greeted each other at UFC events.”

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

In a somewhat strange decision, one of the largest newspapers in the country, the Los Angeles Times, will not endorse the president.

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

The Times editorial board recently wrote, “It’s no exaggeration to say that this may be the most consequential election in a generation. And we’re not just talking about the presidential race.” He then made recommendations on several state proposals, as well as on city, county, school board, and judge races.She supported Congressional races and endorsed Democrat Adam Schiff for the United States Senate.

But no presidential endorsement. Why? A Times spokesman told Tani: “We do not comment on internal discussions or editorial or endorsement decisions.”

The Times has endorsed a Democrat for president in every election since Barack Obama ran for his first term in 2008.

However, Tani writes, “it would not be the first time that the LA Times has refused to endorse candidates in a presidential general election. From the mid-1970s until 2008, the paper refused to endorse any presidential candidate after internal dissent over the decision to endorse Richard Nixon for re-election months after the Watergate break-in, a decision editor Otis Chandler said he later regretted. the Times had a nearly century-long streak of Republican presidential endorsements dating back to the paper’s founding in 1881.”

The New York Liberty hold the championship trophy after defeating the Minnesota Lynx in Game 5 of the WNBA basketball finals series last Sunday in New York. (AP Photo/Pamela Smith)

The most successful season in WNBA history ended in dramatic fashion Sunday night as the New York Liberty won their first championship with a winner-takes-all Game 5 overtime victory against the Minnesota Lynx.

Despite going up against “Sunday Night Football” and two of the NFL’s most storied teams (the New York Jets and Pittsburgh Steelers), Game 5 drew 2.15 million viewers on ESPN. This 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 an audience standpoint, mostly thanks to rookie Caitlin Clark of the Indiana Fever.

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

I wanted to leave Hot Type aside today for the latest from Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic. He writes: “Trump: ‘I need the kind of generals Hitler had.'”

In the story, Goldberg writes, “Trump has often expressed 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 the only military virtue he values ​​is obedience. As his presidency was ending, and in the years that followed, he became increasingly interested in the advantages of dictatorship and the absolute control over the military it would give him.” I need the kind of generals that Hitler had,” Trump said in a private conversation at the White House, according to two people who heard him say this. “People who were totally loyal to him, who follow orders.” (A spokesman of Trump, Alex Pfeiffer, said Trump never said that and issued other statements and denials that are included in The Atlantic’s report.)”

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

It is a must-read piece.

Do you have comments or tips? Email Poynter Senior Media Writer Tom Jones at [email protected].

The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To receive it in your inbox Monday through Friday, sign up here.