It’s debate week.

On Thursday, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will meet for the first of two scheduled and highly anticipated debates.

But how weird is this?

We haven’t even reached the Fourth of July. The election is more than four months away. We haven’t even had the party conventions yet, meaning that, technically, neither candidate is the official party candidate.

Yet — and granted we say this all the time, but it really feels like it might be true this time — we are just days away from, perhaps, the most significant debate in presidential election history.

The New York Times Lisa Lerer, Shane Goldmacher, Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman wrote this debate, “… poses significant risks for the two men — both of them the oldest candidates ever to compete in a presidential race — who have been locked in a contentious rivalry defined by mutual hatred for more than four years. That animosity heightens the evening’s unpredictability. A notable misstep — a physical stumble, a mental lapse or a barrage of too-personal insults — could reverberate for months, because of the unusually long period until they meet again for the second debate in September.”

This debate also presents some other unusual wrinkles. There will be no live audience. Microphones, supposedly, will be cut off if a candidate talks when it isn’t his turn. It is scheduled for 90 minutes with two commercial breaks. Neither candidate is allowed to bring prepared notes or meet with staff during the breaks, but they can jot down their thoughts on paper during the debate.

This is believed to be the first time Biden and Trump have been in the same room since the last time they debated in October 2020.

The Times wrote, “Much has changed in the interim. The country has lived through a pandemic, an uncertain economy, a siege on the nation’s Capitol, the fall of federal abortion rights and become enmeshed in two bloody global conflicts. Mr. Trump is now a felon, convicted of 34 counts by a New York jury. And Mr. Biden has become an unpopular president, facing deep opposition not only from Republicans but among his party’s base. And yet polls have shown little movement between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden. Both men are widely disliked by broad swaths of the nation and locked in a tight race, though Mr. Trump had been largely narrowly ahead in national polls earlier this year.”

You might ask, who is this debate for? In these incredibly polarized times, are there actually voters out there who still aren’t sure who they will vote for? Isn’t everyone clearly on one side of the political line or the other?

Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster, told Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., “The most important slice of the electorate that will watch the debate is the low-engagement potential voter who hasn’t yet decided if it is even worth turning out to vote. This type of voter is generally not in love with either candidate, is very open to third parties and will tune into the debate because it has a strange boxing-match entertainment type draw to it. For this type of voter, both persuasion and turnout are important goals.”

While there is no question that there is intense pressure on both Biden and Trump, there also is pressure on the third part of this debate: the moderators. CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash will moderate in a job that has become increasingly more difficult. Having the ability for the microphones to be turned off certainly could help the moderators keep the debate civil and coherent. But their performance — including questions and real-time fact-checking — will be scrutinized for fairness and comprehension.

And with so many topics to choose from, which ones will be the focus of the moderators?

The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos wrote, “Predicting what might make the difference is more difficult. Will Trump confirm his vow to pardon followers jailed for violence on January 6th? Or his aim to gut the Justice Department? Will Biden defend abortion rights boldly enough to inspire young voters who recoil from his handling of the U.S. response to the war in the Middle East? Can he defuse criticisms about inflation and immigration?”

Will any or all of those topics even come up?

Meanwhile, it appears as if Biden and Trump are preparing differently for the debate.

The New York Times wrote, “Mr. Biden hunkered down with his aides at Camp David for formal debate sessions, with the part of Mr. Trump expected to be played by Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney.”

The Associated Press’ Steve Peoples wrote, “Trump, 78 and ever confident, will stay on the campaign trail before going to his Florida estate (this) week for two days of private meetings as part of an informal prep process.”

In the end, this will be a critical debate … until the next one in September.

Thanks, but no thanks

As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, Robert Winnett, the editor picked to lead The Washington Post’s newsroom after the November election, will not take the job after all. (Here’s my story for Poynter from last Friday.)

It has been a messy three weeks at the Post, with executive editor Sally Buzbee abruptly resigning and new publisher and CEO Will Lewis facing a storm of questions and criticism about his journalistic past. The intensity of heat around the Post grew even more when Lewis chose Winnett to lead the newsroom. Winnett, too, has been the subject of stories about his career in journalism.

As the Post’s Elahe Izadi and Isaac Stanley-Becker wrote, “Lewis and Winnett have faced accusations in recent days of using unethical newsgathering practices in Britain, where they previously worked together at the Telegraph and the Sunday Times — London newsrooms that sometimes operate by different rules than their American counterparts.”

The Post reporters added, “A Post investigation published Sunday revealed Winnett’s connections to a confessed con artist turned whistleblower who has admitted to using illegal methods to gain information for stories in Britain’s Sunday Times, a paper Winnett worked at before joining the Telegraph. The New York Times also reported that Winnett and Lewis had based some stories on stolen records, and raised new questions about a payment made to obtain information that led to a 2009 investigation into government corruption, which shook the British political establishment and led to several officials’ resignations.”

Before it was announced that Winnett would not take the job, there were questions about whether or not Lewis had enough credibility left to stay on as the Post’s publisher and CEO — positions he accepted only late last year. In fact, some inside the Post newsroom publicly called for Lewis to step down.

David Maraniss, the highly respected Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and editor at the Post, wrote on Facebook, “I don’t know a single person at the Post who thinks the current situation with the publisher and supposed new editor can stand. There might be a few, but very very few. Jeff Bezos owns the Post but he is not of and for the Post or he would understand. The issue is one of integrity not resistance to change.”

That prompted Scott Higham, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter at the Post, to write: “Will Lewis needs to step down for the good of The Post and the public. He has lost the newsroom and will never win it back.”

The feeling is Winnett not taking the job could buy Lewis a bit more time, especially if he hires an executive editor who is liked and respected among Post employees. Although NPR’s David Folkenflik wrote, “The move does not resolve the status of Lewis, who is also contending with allegations in Britain that he helped protect executives at Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids following a massive hacking scandal years ago.”

What’s next?

Matt Murray, the former Wall Street Journal editor who also has past ties to Lewis, was announced as Buzbee’s interim replacement after she resigned. Murray was supposed to take over as head of a “third newsroom” inside the Post (one focused on service and social-media journalism) after the election, when Winnett was to arrive. Lewis announced Friday that Murray will continue leading the newsroom after the election, although he also said the Post is beginning its search to replace Winnett.

Puck’s Dylan Byers wrote in his newsletter, “Murray, who is already installed at the helm of the Post newsroom, and much more well liked than his British contemporaries, may be on the list of candidates. And yet, it’s hard to imagine that Lewis would go through with another search if he was considering quelling this epic (bleep)storm by elevating an internal candidate. Also, for all his talents, it’s hard to imagine that Murray is capable of transforming the Post as Lewis and Bezos have designed, whatever they plan to do. (And by the way, whatever those plans are, Lewis is surely biting his tongue…) The ideal candidate for the role, after all, was always Winnett — not just for Lewis, but for his boss, too.”

Byers added, “Indeed, Bezos had met with Winnett prior to his hiring and signed off on the plan to install him as top editor. Bezos has also made clear that his first goal for the Post is profitability. Coincidentally, while the Post lost $77 million last year, The Telegraph, where Winnett has been described as ‘the engine of the newsroom,’ is on course to make a £65 million profit this year, or about $80 million.”

Speaking of all that …

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Byers, who writes a highly readable and very scoopy/juicy newsletter, is taking a bit of grief on social media for his newsletter following Winnett’s move to not take the job.

Byers wrote, “In early June, just days after Washington Post publisher and C.E.O. Will Lewis announced a surprise masthead restructuring that would replace executive editor Sally Buzbee with longtime Fleet Street veteran Rob Winnett, a group of Post journalists began scheming a plan to dig up dirt on their publisher and his new top editor.”

Byers also tweeted the same thing.

The phrase that has some upset: “began scheming a plan to dig up dirt.”

For example: Farnaz Fassih, the United Nations bureau chief for The New York Times, tweeted, “That’s not called scheming. That’s called top notch journalism and ace reporting.”

That was the general gist of the pushback, as well as accusations that Byers’ piece was pro-Post ownership.

Byers wrote in his newsletter, “The Post journalists’ attempt to investigate their own boss and future editor is their right and privilege — that’s how this business works, even if their work had an emotional agenda. The news media loves to cloak itself in a patina of strenuous nonpartisanship, but it is still the product of human beings.”

Let’s leave all the semantics out of it and get to the heart of the matter. Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos made a controversial hire in Lewis, who had plenty of baggage to investigate. Of course, the Post and every legitimate outlet that covers the media immediately began looking into Lewis’ past. It’s not as if the Post was alone in reporting on Lewis and, eventually, the new editor — and there apparently was and is plenty to report on.

What’s heartening to see is that as soon as Lewis was hired, the Post immediately began investigating him, and did the same with Winnett. I have no doubt they would have done the same had Lewis and Winnett been hired by, say, The New York Times or NPR instead. (In fact, those outlets reported aggressively on the Post.)

Did the Post staffers have a personal interest in the matter? Ultimately, yes, they did. But did they have a legitimate reason to report on those in charge and have they gone about that reporting in a fair and ethical way? Absolutely.

Still, Byers questioned if the “coup” to oust Winnett was a smart business move, writing, “Indeed, it’s hard to look back on the recent tumult at the Post and not feel as though, in setting out to save the paper, its reporters inadvertently set it back — which, given the current state of the business, they can hardly afford to do. For all their rage, the Posties seem to have an insufficient understanding of the gravity of their business challenges. The American news media landscape is actually quite oversaturated — between the Times, AP, Reuters, Insider, CNN, Politico, Yahoo, Axios, the Journal, FT, and Bloomberg, it’s hard to see where the Post fits in on any two-by-two grid. And, sure, the Post may be an institution, but it is foremost a business.”

I personally believe the Post staff did the right thing by making sure their journalism is beyond reproach — even if it might not align with the bottom line. Maybe Winnett would have been a fine editor. Maybe not. That’s why you look into his past.

Yes, these are scary financial times at the Post, but, in the end, nothing is more important than a newspaper’s ethics and credibility. And while Winnett might have been a good editor in terms of the business model, he surely isn’t the only one. Maybe the next candidate can have a smart business mind and a past with no ethical question marks.

Additional reading

Check out this story: The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum, a former editorial writer and columnist at The Washington Post, has a new piece out titled “Readers Don’t Trust Dirty Tricks.” The subhead is: “What worked for British tabloids won’t work for The Washington Post.”

Applebaum writes about some of the practices at some British news outlets, including those involved in the phone-hacking scandal, as well as the careers built in England by Lewis and Winnett.

Applebaum also writes, “I don’t have a formula for the future of newspapers and won’t presume to propose one. But if Lewis wants to build on The Washington Post’s reputation, using its existing journalists, he will find a less crowded market if he builds a higher-quality, more reliable, and more trustworthy newspaper — and finds readers who will pay for it, for exactly that reason.”

Media tidbits

• The New York Times’ Simon J. Levien with “Clippers Cut a Wide Swath Making Political Campaign Videos Go Viral.”
• Also from The New York Times, Natasha Singer with “How Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta Failed Children on Safety, States Say.”
• Puck’s John Ourand reports that ESPN has offered Stephen A. Smith a five-year deal worth $18 million a year, but that Smith is looking for more in the $25 million per year range. Ourand wrote, “ESPN should tread carefully. While Smith almost certainly wouldn’t jump to another TV network, there’s a big market for a bona fide star — including the streamers looking to break into sports, the gambling companies looking to stand out, and the satellite radio networks. One point that probably bears repeating: Stephen A. is represented by WME, the agency that convinced MSNBC to bump Rachel Maddow’s salary from $7 million to $30 million. Let’s see if they can work their same magic here.”

Hot type

• The Washington Post’s Tim Craig with “‘Too many old people’: A rural Pa. town reckons with population loss.”
• The Athletic’s Dan Pompei with “Football injuries nearly destroyed Jim McMahon. Somehow, he keeps coming back.”

More resources for journalists

• Got a story you’d like to write for Poynter? Email pitch@poynter.org with your idea, approximate timeline and word count.
• GlobalFact 11 — June 26-28. Get your virtual ticket to the world’s largest and most impactful annual summit for professional fact-checking.
• Are you an upcoming-and-coming newsroom manager?
• Will Work for Impact brings investigations to life.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

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