Last Thursday’s presidential debate could not have gone much worse for President Joe Biden.

It went so poorly that the narrative of the past several days is asking if Biden, who will turn 82 in November, is up for four more years and whether he should seriously consider not running. Biden’s voice was weak and shaky and he stumbled through answers on more than one occasion. Before the night was even over, Democrats were legitimately freaking out, and the post-debate coverage was full of respected analysts questioning Biden’s future in the race.

A presidential candidate having an awful debate performance is not unprecedented. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama all had off nights, and very few reasonable voices suggested they be replaced on the ticket.

But that’s not the case here.

It’s hard to find any Democratic leaders willing to publicly question Biden. Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom gave full-throated endorsements of Biden in the hours after the debate despite admitting he didn’t have a good night.

But some influential voices are wondering if Biden can win. Joe Scarborough of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” a show that Biden reportedly watches, praised Biden’s presidency, but said, “We saw last night why this race has been close, and why I fear Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States, unless things change.”

That was Friday morning. By Friday afternoon, Scarborough tweeted about his wife and co-host, Mika Brzezinski: “Mika strongly disagreed with my opinion that the President should consider withdrawing from the race. She rightly believes that Joe Biden’s bad night is nothing compared to Trump’s terrible decade. Mika is also correct that Joe Biden’s life has been defined time and time again by picking himself up off the ground after being knocked down politically and personally. And yes. He could do it again.”

David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, wrote, “Biden has rightly asserted himself that the voters regard this election not only as a debate about global affairs, the environment, civil rights, women’s rights, and other matters of policy, but as a referendum on democracy itself. For him to remain the Democratic candidate, the central actor in that referendum, would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment.”

Remnick added, “It is entirely possible that the debate will not much change the polls; it is entirely possible that Biden could have a much stronger debate in September; it is not impossible to imagine that Trump will find a way to lose. But, at this point, should Biden engage the country in that level of jeopardy? To step aside and unleash the admittedly complicated process of locating and nominating a more robust and promising ticket seems the more rational course and would be an act of patriotism. To refuse to do so, to go on contending that his good days are more plentiful than the bad, to ignore the inevitability of time and aging, doesn’t merely risk his legacy — it risks the election and, more important, puts in peril the very issues and principles that Biden has framed central to his Presidency and essential to the future.”

The New York Times editorial board was blunt: “To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race.” The board wrote, “If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.”

The Washington Post editorial board suggested Biden spend this past weekend at Camp David doing some “soul-searching.”

But while major media voices, even those whose message actually might reach Biden’s ear, are calling for Biden to not run, the word is Biden and his campaign are plowing forward.

The New York Times’ Michael D. Shear wrote that Biden and those close to him are treating Thursday’s debate the way a police officer handles a crowd around a car crash: “Nothing to see here.”

Shear wrote Sunday, “According to the talking points being repeated by the president’s aides and surrogates, the debate was a 90-minute blip in a long campaign. Mr. Biden didn’t have ‘a great night,’ as he told donors Saturday, but fund-raising is going strong and he has already bounced back.”

The Washington Post’s Toluse Olorunnipa, Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer wrote, “Publicly, President Biden’s allies have spent the past several days aggressively downplaying his missteps in Thursday’s debate by assailing the ‘bedwetting brigade’ of nervous Democrats, highlighting a record influx of campaign donations and noting the long history of incumbents who stumbled during their first debates.”

And what about privately? The Post writes, “They have worked the phones to reassure nervous donors, pleaded with concerned lawmakers to keep their powder dry, and huddled with colleagues to commiserate — while steeling themselves for a battle that could determine not only whether Biden wins the election in November, but whether he will be on the ballot at all.”

Politico described it as Biden being in “damage control mode.”

However, The Wall Street Journal reported, “Over the weekend, some of the biggest Democratic donors in the financial world sent word to the Biden campaign that they would continue to back the president, and that they had little appetite to explore alternative candidates.”

Donors might have the most influence of all. Well, besides Biden’s family, which reportedly is fully behind him fighting on.

The New York Times’ Katie Rogers and Peter Baker wrote, “Mr. Biden huddled with his wife, children and grandchildren at Camp David while he tried to figure out how to tamp down Democratic anxiety. While his relatives are acutely aware of how poorly he did against former President Donald J. Trump, they argued that he could still show the country that he is capable of serving for another four years.”

Rogers and Baker added, “One of the strongest voices imploring Mr. Biden to resist pressure to drop out was his son Hunter Biden, whom the president has long leaned on for advice, said one of the people informed about the discussions, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations. Hunter Biden wants Americans to see the version of his father that he knows — scrappy and in command of the facts — rather than the stumbling, aging president Americans saw on Thursday night.”

Strong commentary

Former “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd was on Sunday’s panel of the NBC News’ Sunday morning program and had a blistering message for Democratic lawmakers who are backing Biden at this point.

Todd said, “Democrats want to lecture Republicans for putting party over country and how they have been enabling Donald Trump. Mitch McConnell is frequently criticized for that moment where he decided to prioritize not dividing his own party, and letting Trump off the hook by not voting to convict him during the impeachment. Can Democrats really sit there and say this is not about whether you think Biden can win the election? He might be able to win the election. It’s not because he’s Joe Biden. It’s because he’s not Donald Trump. The real issue is, is he telling the truth about whether he can serve a full four years? There’s a lot of challenges in the world. Do we want a president who could be incapacitated? This is one of those where you got to say to yourself, this is hard. There’s no doubt there’s risk, no matter what you do here. But you got to say to yourself what’s in the best interest of the country, not the party. What’s in the best interest of the country in the next four years?”

That is debatable

Veteran media reporter Brian Stelter went on Dan Abrams’ NewsNation show last week and said that the viewers upset that CNN debate moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash didn’t do more to push back on the lies that Donald Trump constantly told during the debate were actually frustrated with Biden’s lackluster performance.

Stelter said on air, “They’re ticked off by Biden, they’re disappointed by Biden — they’re frustrated by how poorly he did.”

Stelter added, “There should be live fact-checking philosophically. But as a practical matter, it’s almost impossible when you have these two men on stage who all want to talk, they all want their turns — to interrupt constantly, to try to point out their flaws and mistakes, it’s almost impossible for those moderators.”

I tend to agree with Stelter. Real-time fact-checking by moderators while the debate is might be too much to ask. The other candidate can call out lies, and there are plenty of fact-checking organizations, including Poynter’s PolitiFact, that are fact-checking in real time and after the debates.

The Hill’s Rashad Simmons has more.

A mag or a rag?

Taylor Swift fans pose with their bracelets in front of the “Swiftie Steps,” commissioned by London Mayor Sadiq Khan, before the first London concert of the Eras Tour on June 21 in London. (Scott A Garfitt/Invision/AP)

What in the heck is going on over at Newsweek? Awful Announcing’s Ben Axelrod (rightfully) blasts away at the outlet for a ridiculous op-ed last week in Newsweek from John Mac Ghlionn: “Taylor Swift Is Not a Good Role Model.”

Apparently what makes Swift such a poor role is she is 34 and isn’t married and doesn’t have babies. Ghlionn writes, “​​… I suggest, it’s crucial to consider what kind of example this sets for young girls. A role model, by definition, is someone worthy of imitation. While Swift’s musical talent and business acumen are certainly admirable, even laudable, we must ask if her personal life choices are ones we want our sisters and daughters to emulate. This might sound like pearl-clutching preaching, but it’s a concern rooted in sound reasoning.”

Actually, it sounds like pearl-clutching.

Go read it for yourself for more ridiculousness, including criticism that Swift has dated “numerous high-profile men” and questioning whether her relationship with football player Travis Kelce will last.

Axelrod writes, “In case you’re wondering how a nearly 100 year old publication has gone off the deep end, Newsweek has embraced far-right political opinion with senior editor Josh Hammer in place. And if you’re thinking that this insane Taylor Swift column is something that looks like it should have run on a far-right conspiracy website like the Epoch Times, you’re right! The author, Ghlionn, is a columnist there as well.”

Ghlionn also writes for the New York Post from time to time. Axelrod notes that Ghlionn wrote a column earlier this year for The Epoch Times titled, “What Dana White Can Teach the Men of America.” Axelrod notes, “This is the same Dana White that was videotaped striking his wife a year ago.”

Axelrod writes, “In what universe is Dana White a role model but Taylor Swift isn’t? Sadly, it’s the one we’re living in right now.”

And it’s one in which Newsweek allows such a thing to be written under its banner.

This isn’t new. Back in 2022, The Daily Beast’s Justin Baragona wrote, “How Newsweek Has Gone Down the Far-Right Rabbit Hole.” Baragona’s article was based on a study from the Southern Poverty Law Center: “Newsweek embraces the anti-Democracy hard right.”

Media tidbits

• Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon is going to prison for four months, but his “War Room” podcast will go on with a guest host: controversial GOP Congresswoman Lauren Boebert from Colorado. The Daily Beast’s Kate Briquelet has more.
• The Washington Post’s Aaron C. Davis, Greg Miller, Sarah Ellison and Isaac Stanley-Becker with “Post publisher’s role in hacking response comes into sharper focus.”
• Mediaite’s Joe DePaolo with “CBS’ Margaret Brennan Cuts Off JD Vance After He Attacks the Media in Tense Exchange: I’ve Been Told ‘Everything’s Our Fault.’”
• The Associated Press’ Joe Reedy with “There are 4.8 billion reasons why other leagues are watching the fallout from ‘Sunday Ticket’ case.”

Hot type

• A good idea, well executed and neatly designed: The New York Times goes behind the scenes of the Supreme Court. Literally. As in the rarely publicly seen actual courtroom. Reporter Abbie VanSickle (with photos from Amir Hamja) in “Behind the Curtain at the Supreme Court.”
• The Los Angeles Times’ David Wharton and Nathan Fenno with “The desperate hours: a pro baseball pitcher’s fentanyl overdose.”

More resources for journalists

• Vote Watch 2024: Is your newsroom ready?
• 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.