Will Donald Trump and Kamala Harris actually debate?

Will there be a presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris or what?

A debate is officially scheduled for September 10 on ABC, but Trump is already hinting that he may not want to participate.

First, Trump complained on Sunday night about ABC’s Sunday morning show “This Week” and openly asked why he should participate in a debate on ABC.

On his Truth Social, Trump wrote: “I watched ABC FAKE NEWS this morning, both lightweight reporter Jonathan Carl’s (K?) ridiculous and biased interview with Tom Cotton (who was fantastic!) and their so-called panel of Trump haters and I’m wondering why I should do the debate against Kamala Harris on this network? Will panelist Donna Brazil ask the Marxist candidate the questions like she did to fraudulent Hillary Clinton? Will Kamala’s best friend who runs ABC do the same? Where is Liddle’s George Slopadopolus hanging out now? Will he be involved? They have a lot of questions to answer!!! Why did Harris turn down Fox, NBC, CBS and even CNN? Stay tuned!!!”

This seemed to indicate that Trump might stay away from a debate hosted by ABC.

Then on Monday, at an event at Arlington National Cemetery, Trump again attacked ABC, calling the network “the worst network when it comes to injustice” and saying it “should really be banned from hosting a debate.”

Then another sticking point arose that apparently troubled Trump’s election campaign.

Harris’ campaign has suggested that the candidates’ microphones should remain on the entire time, unlike the debate between Trump and President Joe Biden in June. At the Biden-Trump debate, the candidates’ microphones were muted when it was not their turn to speak.

Harris’ campaign manager Brian Fallon said in a statement: “We understand that Trump’s advisers prefer the silent microphone because they do not believe their candidate can act as president for 90 minutes alone.”

When asked by a reporter on Monday, Trump said, “I don’t care. I’d probably rather have it on.”

But Jason Miller, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, reacted strongly in a statement, saying: “Stop playing games. We accepted the ABC debate on exactly the same terms as the CNN debate.”

In other words, the Trump team wants silent microphones.

It’s understandable that Trump’s team prefers that candidates don’t have open mics all the time, because frankly, their candidate gets into trouble when he doesn’t have guardrails. Think about his campaign rallies. When he sticks to the teleprompter, he stays on topic. When he starts improvising, he descends into personal attacks, ridiculous theories and outright lies that make him seem small and even unbalanced.

The same is true of debates. When Trump has a limited amount of time, maybe 30 seconds or a minute, to get his message across, he tends to stay on topic. If his microphone remained open for the entire 90 minutes of a debate, who knows what would happen?

Amber Phillips of the Washington Post wrote: “It’s clear that Harris’ campaign hopes Trump will make more mistakes the more opportunities he has to speak.”

Immediately after the first debate, Axios’ Sara Fischer wrote: “The muted microphones made it difficult for Trump to interrupt Biden, making him appear more level-headed than in previous debates.”

Muted microphones also mean Trump can say whatever he wants, whether it’s true or not, without being challenged by his opponent. Leaving the microphones on would allow Harris to fact-check his statements in real time.

In the end, Trump’s ego will not allow him not Debate with Harris. He doesn’t want to seem like he’s avoiding Harris or afraid of her. I also wouldn’t be surprised if he accepted the challenge of an open mic debate because, as I said, his ego wouldn’t allow it otherwise.

Trump reportedly doesn’t listen to his advisers when they tell him in campaign speeches to stick to the text and not to resort to lengthy personal attacks. He clearly doesn’t listen to them.

But when it comes to his campaign’s claim that debate rules require microphones to be muted, Trump would be better off listening.

For this point, I hand over to my colleague Rick Edmonds, media economics analyst at Poynter.

Gannett said Monday it is financing debt it took on when GateHouse Media and Gannett merged in 2019. Loans from private equity firm Apollo Global Management that would have been due in 2026 and 2027 have been pushed back to 2029.

As my colleague Angela Fu and I have reported in the company’s quarterly reports, the company’s strategy is to generate revenue from digital viewership and diversify into related product lines. While progress is being made, previous target dates for faster growth and higher profitability no longer appear to be attainable.

CEO Mike Reed commented on the complex details of the refinancing in a press release. He said: “This new financing provides the company with generous flexibility to repay its debt. … We believe this transaction announced today creates time and flexibility to continue investing in growth to achieve our transformation and fully realize value for our shareholders.”

Gannett has repaid the $2.2 billion it borrowed for the acquisition and paid interest. But those costs eat up much of the cash generated in the transaction. And market conditions for Gannett and other regional publishers have worsened rather than improved in 2024.

In other Gannett news, the company shut down product recommendation site Reviewed, as reported by The Verge’s Mia Sato and The Washington Post’s Jeremy Barr. Google’s algorithm changes made it difficult for the site to build an audience, the company said.

The debt restructuring seemed to be well received on Wall Street. Gannett shares closed at $5.73, up 17.2 percent on the day.

Big changes at ESPN.

Burke Magnus, ESPN’s president of content, outlined a new organizational structure for content and announced Mike McQuade as executive vice president of sports production – a new position created by Magnus.

Ben Axelrod of Awful Announcing stated, “While it’s not the same title that former editor-in-chief and head of events and studio production Norby Williamson held before he was fired in April, McQuade’s promotion effectively makes him the successor to the polarizing former executive.”

In other words, when it comes to ESPN content, McQuade is now No. 2 behind Magnus. McQuade has been with ESPN since 1987 and has overseen a variety of live events and studio shows.

There were also numerous other executive announcements, including the promotion of David Roberts to executive vice president and executive editor of sports news and entertainment, overseeing shows such as SportsCenter, Get Up, First Take and The Pat McAfee Show.

Axelrod wrote for Awful Announcing: “As with any restructuring, the question is not just who was promoted, but also who was demoted or fired. This was not addressed in Magnus’ memo, however, but will inevitably be a topic that will make its own headlines in the days to come.”

A few leftover thoughts from an article I had in Monday’s newsletter about University of Colorado football coach Deion Sanders. In case you missed it, Sanders has banned Denver Post columnist Sean Keeler from asking Sanders questions during press conferences. The university supports Sanders and says Keeler has “sustained and personally attacked” him. They pointed to columns in which Keeler called Sanders a “false prophet,” “Deposition Deion,” “Planet Prime” and “the Bruce Lee of BS,” among other things.

Then I added, “Sanders can’t be forced to answer questions from someone he doesn’t want to talk to, but it reflects badly on him, the football program, and the school, which is clearly too afraid of Sanders to do anything but support him. Sanders comes across as petty and tyrannical, and the school comes across as weak.”

Some of the reader responses I received agreed that Sanders came across as a little soft and petty, but also questioned whether Keeler had gone too far with some of his comments. Some wondered whether he threw a few too many unfair punches in his otherwise fair criticism of Sanders. One reader – a former sportswriter who had been in the business for a long time and had a stellar reputation – suggested that some of Keeler’s columns were over the top in their criticism of Sanders.

I understand their point. I was a sports columnist for the Tampa Bay Times for many years, and I don’t think I would have gone as far as Keeler with anyone I covered. But hey, maybe that just means we have different styles.

Nevertheless, it triggered a few more thoughts.

First, Keeler can continue to do his job covering Sanders and the Colorado agenda. He is a columnist and, unlike a local journalist, does not need quotes or insights from Sanders to write his columns. If Sanders does not allow Keeler to ask him questions, he cannot complain if Keeler writes something he does not like or that could have been clarified if Keeler had been allowed to ask questions.

Perhaps the most common—and entirely legitimate—complaint a columnist can get from someone he is covering is, “Why didn’t you ask me about that before you wrote that?” By banning Keeler from asking questions, Sanders can never say that again.

Finally, Sanders’ ban probably did the opposite of what he intended. It made Keeler more famous and, in many ways, made her a sympathetic victim in this case.

It seems like the whole thing could be resolved in a meeting between Keeler and Sanders. Frankly, Keeler is probably happy with the current situation. Sanders is the one who needs to resolve this.

• A major Chicago Tribune project on politics in Illinois: “Culture of Corruption.” The Tribune writes: “What makes Illinois so corrupt? In the coming weeks and months, the Tribune will investigate and try to explain why corruption continues to poison virtually every level of government in our state, wasting taxpayer money and robbing public service of its meaning.”

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected].

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