The Media Today

Debate night in what’s left of America

September 29, 2020

On Sunday, President Trump demanded that Joe Biden, his Democratic opponent, take a drug test ahead of (or just after) their first debate, which is tonight. “His Debate performances have been record setting UNEVEN, to put it mildly,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Only drugs could have caused this discrepancy???” Biden initially declined to respond, but his campaign subsequently did decide to clap back. “Vice President Biden intends to deliver his debate answers in words. If the president thinks his best case is made in urine he can have at it,” a spokesperson said. “We’d expect nothing less from Donald Trump, who pissed away the chance to protect the lives of 200K Americans when he didn’t make a plan to stop COVID-19.”

Thus was the tone set for a debate that may prove to be up there with the most consequential in American history. In the buildup, mainstream media coverage has been more high-minded—though not always by much. Many reporters and pundits have, as is their wont, rushed to gamify the stakes—comparing them explicitly to sports, and babbling about winners and losers, offense and defense, expectations and tactics, narratives and polls. Moral considerations have often been secondary to optics, or shrouded in euphemisms or false equivalency. The New York Times referred to Trump’s despicable drug-test smear as evidence of “an absence of guardrails”; news outlets have cast the president’s debate “style,” as, variously, “unconventional,” “brash and unorthodox,” “say-anything,” “relentless and disciplined,” even “under-appreciated.” The Associated Press called the debate the “last chance” for Trump to “define” Biden—a cartoonish framing that I’ve objected to before. The dreaded g-word—gaffes—has come out, too. Last week, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Jill Biden, Joe’s wife, about her husband’s tendency to commit them. Jill, to her credit, shut the question down. “After Donald Trump, you cannot even say the word ‘gaffe,’” she said. Tapper grinned, somewhat sheepishly.

Related: A guide to Trump’s reality TV debate techniques

In light of the “pre-game” coverage, there’s reason to fear that, in the name of fairness, Biden will be grilled as hotly as Trump tonight, and that the answers of both will be let go, even if/when Trump launches into volleys of deranged lies. The debate will be hosted by Chris Wallace, of Fox News, who is not “of Fox News” in the same way that Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are, but does have a history of misplaced bothsidesism, rooted in a decidedly old-school journalistic philosophy. Wallace has argued that debate moderators should be “as invisible as possible” and should not fact-check the candidates, an approach that was endorsed, on Brian Stelter’s CNN show on Sunday, by Frank Fahrenkopf, a co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Nor does Wallace’s selection of debate topics uniformly inspire confidence. One of them is “race and violence in our cities”—a topline framing that, as many observers have pointed out, seems to channel a dishonest “law-and-order” talking point that Trump has placed at the center of his election pitch.

One of Wallace’s other chosen subjects—“the integrity of the election”—is more promising, given that it seems to channel the central, urgent concern that Trump plans not to accept the election result if he doesn’t like it. Wallace has put Trump on the spot about accepting the result before: during a debate in 2016, and again in an interview that aired on Fox over the summer. (On both occasions, Trump demurred.) Here too, though, I have questions. Will Wallace’s conception of fairness compel him to press Biden on accepting the result as much as he presses Trump, amplifying an increasingly-common Republican smear in the process? If/when Trump spews lies about mail-in voting, will Wallace intervene, seeing them not as a typical fact-checking matter, but as central to the “integrity of the election” itself? Or will he leave it to Biden to respond, thus turning the levelness of the playing field into the ball game itself?

Conceiving of election integrity as a debate “topic” implies, too, that the discussion about Trump’s threatened refusal to transfer power will be siloed, when we should think of it more as a basic democratic principle underpinning the debate as a whole—there is, after all, no point in having a debate at all if those watching at home won’t have their votes counted in a fair and transparent way. At a time of overlapping crises, it’s a tough ask for a moderator to cover all of them in a way that doesn’t feel siloed and respects linkages and nuance: the blocky debate format, after all, cuts against that. Still, Wallace should try. So, too, should the reporters and pundits covering the debate and its aftermath, who get to structure their coverage pretty much how they like. In recent weeks, Trump’s threats to the election have been treated as an urgent story. Yet they’ve mostly been disconnected from the pre-debate froth, when they should be central to it.

Sign up for CJR's daily email

As many good pieces of journalism—Barton Gellman’s terrifying recent essay in The Atlantic perhaps foremost among them—have made plain, if/when Trump tries to subvert the election outcome, he’s likely to exploit the myriad inadequacies of America’s existing institutions, rather than try to overthrow them by brute force. (Authoritarianism needn’t be jack-booted to be authoritarianism.) The press—while not directly involved in the counting of votes or the litigation thereof—is one such institution, since any subversion strategy relies in part on the rampant dissemination of disinformation and confusion. It’s our job to stand as a bulwark against even the possibility that that could happen. In many respects, we’re fighting back already; in others, though, we’re still allowing Trump to muddy our coverage. Treating tonight’s debate like a game isn’t commensurate with what’s required of us at this crucial historical juncture; nor is Wallace’s stated commitment to invisibility on stage. Let’s not piss away our democracy.

Below, more on debate night:

Other notable stories:

  • Last week, Daniel Cameron, Kentucky’s attorney general, announced that three police officers would not face charges over the death of Breonna Taylor, a Black woman who was killed during a police raid in Louisville in March. (One of the officers faces tangential charges.) Taylor’s family called on Cameron to release grand-jury records in the case; yesterday, an unnamed member of the grand jury echoed the demand, and accused Cameron of distorting jurors’ deliberations in his public remarks. Cameron’s office since pledged to publish recordings from the grand jury. Elsewhere, Teresa Wiltz writes, for Politico Magazine, about how Black families like Taylor’s are forced to reckon with “very public” trauma. “They’re shoved into the spotlight, against their will, as their loved ones, ordinary Black folks, become extraordinary,” Wiltz writes. “Icons. Martyrs. Frozen in murals, fossilized on magazine covers, their personal lives dissected in the media.”
  • For Slate, Ankush Khardori, a former federal prosecutor, lays out how Attorney General William Barr and his colleagues have turned the “once-staid public affairs apparatus” of the Justice Department—which previously kept official statements to a minimum—into “yet another partisan instrument of the administration.” Many members of the media, Khardori writes, have fallen for such tactics—“perhaps because, Barr aside, federal prosecutors still enjoy a large reservoir of credibility from the press and the public.”
  • Forty-three student journalists at New York University resigned from Washington Square News, a student paper, to protest their treatment by Kenna Griffin, an Oklahoma-based journalist who was recently appointed as their editorial adviser. In an open letter, the students accused Griffin of “unnecessarily harsh” criticism, “trivializing Black voices,” and “transphobic rhetoric and behavior,” and called on her to resign. Per the Times, Griffin has yet to comment. An NYU spokesperson called the claims “a complete surprise.”
  • In yesterday’s newsletter, I noted that Canadian police charged Shehroze Chaudhry with inventing a past life as an ISIS executioner. His claims featured heavily in Caliphate, an acclaimed podcast from the Times. Yesterday, the paper defended Caliphate, arguing that it centered “uncertainty” about Chaudhry’s story, especially in its sixth episode. The Post’s Erik Wemple disagrees: Caliphate, he writes, “heaped credibility” on Chaudhry, and “standing behind some fact-checking effort that arrives at episode No. 6 won’t cut it.”
  • Since the weekend, Azerbaijan and Armenia have engaged in renewed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory that is disputed by the two countries. Al Jazeera’s Robin Forestier-Walker writes that its residents have become “isolated from the narrative” around the fighting. Reporters don’t have easy access to Nagorno-Karabakh; in their absence, “official sources have monopolised the messaging,” and “internet restrictions in Azerbaijan have stifled conversations between its citizens on social media.”
  • And this week is Banned Books Week. To mark it, Ron Charles, a critic at the Post, read the “top ten most challenged books” in America, as listed by the American Library Association. While the US doesn’t ban books outright, “certain titles are effectively disappeared when they’re removed from public libraries and school shelves at the urging of offended individuals and frightened administrators,” Charles writes. Recently, “titles written for young LGBTQ+ people have dominated the list of most challenged books.”

New from CJR: True collars

Jon Allsop is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in the New York Review of Books, Foreign Policy, and The Nation, among other outlets. He writes CJR’s newsletter The Media Today. Find him on Twitter @Jon_Allsop.