For weeks now, the Donald Trump campaign has called out Vice President Kamala Harris for not doing enough one-on-one interviews with major news outlets.

But on Tuesday, it was Trump who decided to withdraw from a significant interview. CBS announced that after initially agreeing to appear on the network’s iconic “60 Minutes,” Trump is now declining to be interviewed.

The show will interview Vice President Kamala Harris in a special that will air next Monday, but Trump will not participate.

In a statement, “60 Minutes” said, “For over half a century, ’60 Minutes’ has invited the Democratic and Republican tickets to appear on our broadcast as Americans head to the polls. This year, both the Harris and Trump campaigns agreed to sit down with ‘60 Minutes.’ Vice President Harris will speak with correspondent Bill Whitaker. After initially accepting ‘60 Minutes’ request for an interview with Scott Pelley, former President Trump’s campaign has decided not to participate. Pelley will address this Monday evening. Our election special will broadcast the Harris interview on Monday as planned. Our original invitation to former President Donald Trump to be interviewed on ‘60 Minutes’ stands.”

In a post on X, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung wrote, “Fake News. 60 Minutes begged for an interview, even after they were caught lying about Hunter Biden’s laptop back in 2020. There were initial discussions, but nothing was ever scheduled or locked in. They also insisted on doing live fact checking, which is unprecedented.”

Has Cheung never seen “60 Minutes?” I’m not sure that it’s unprecedented for the gold standard of news shows to fact-check someone.

In addition, CBS claimed that Trump was the first candidate to accept the invitation to be interviewed for the one-hour special. Trump and Harris each would have been given equal time during the program.

If you remember, “60 Minutes” was the host of one of Trump’s most famous (or infamous) interviews. In 2020, he abruptly walked out of an interview with “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl, claiming that she was negative.

Trump gave a rambling answer Tuesday when asked about not appearing for the “60 Minutes” interview. At one point, he did reference the interview with Stahl and said he felt “60 Minutes” owed him an apology.

In the end, it’s interesting that Trump and Republicans criticize Harris for ducking major appearances when it’s Trump who is refusing to debate Harris for a second time, and now is apparently bailing on a “60 Minutes” interview that has become something of a tradition in American presidential politics.

Looking back at Tuesday night’s VP debate

Vice presidential candidates JD Vance, left, and Tim Walz shake hands following Tuesday night’s VP debate. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Hey, a substantive debate.

Vice presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz debated Tuesday and, dare I say, it was a decent debate. They shook hands (twice) before it started and shook hands again after it was over.

In between, they agreed some, they disagreed a lot, they sort of stayed on topic, and were overall civil and respectful. Vance landed some good jabs against Kamala Harris. Walz landed some good jabs against Donald Trump. Commentators praised Vance’s first half and Walz’s second half. Both sides, surely, will claim victory.

So let’s cut to the chase and answer the question that you want to know: Who won the debate?

I’d give the slight edge to … moderators Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell of CBS News.

They did their jobs, as far as the jobs they were assigned.

Now, some people might have a legitimate complaint over the job the moderators were asked to do. Most notably, there is fair criticism that the moderators were not going to vigorously fact-check the candidates. Instead, they facilitated the debate by asking, and occasionally prodding, the candidates to fact-check one another.

However, there were moments when the moderators did a little fact-checking. They called out Vance on a climate change claim and then, in the most provocative moment of the night, angered Vance by talking about how Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, were in the U.S. legally. That led Vance to go into an explanation of how the law worked that didn’t end until Brennan told both candidates, “The audience can’t hear you because your mics are cut.”

She was mainly talking to Vance.

After the debate, MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace said, “(The moderators) did a great job, and they also used their mic muting power. And I actually think if you’re a woman that might be the worst moment JD Vance had, because he was going to mansplain right over that mute button.”

But there wasn’t much on-air fact-checking beyond that. (CBS hosted a live blog that included fact-checking.) Again, you can question CBS for that decision, but the moderators followed their assignment.

In addition, Brennan and O’Donnell hit most of the big talking points: immigration, health care, women’s rights, child care, climate (including Hurricane Helene), guns, the economy and democracy, including Jan. 6 and the peaceful transfer of power. They talked about Vance’s flip-flopping on past Trump statements, and Walz’s past comments about being in the military. They asked about Israel, but oddly did not ask about Ukraine in perhaps the one major omission of the night.

But, overall, it was a good night for Brennan and O’Donnell. Think of it this way: When the candidates are the stars of the night, and the conversation is remembered for what the candidates say, and the moderators essentially stay out of the way, then the moderators usually have given a good performance.

After the debate, the networks weighed in, some saying Vance won, others claiming it was Walz’s night. And there were the usual pointless and hard-to-believe, cliched interviews with people claiming to be undecided voters. (Really? There are still undecided voters who might be swayed by a vice presidential debate?)

Which brings me to this point: As substantive, informative and entertaining as it was, did Tuesday night’s debate even matter?

In a piece where four New York Times’ opinion columnists weighed in before Tuesday night’s debate, David Brooks wrote, “As for debate performances, I genuinely don’t think it matters electorally. V.P.s scarcely matter even in the most volatile of campaigns. This year voters are locked in. The election is being shaped by basic demographic and economic realities, not the day-to-day doings of the candidates. Harris did a total beat-down on Trump in the debate and it helped her in the national polling a bit, but not by much. I’m struck by how few people I meet want to talk about the campaign.”

Tressie McMillan Cottom added, “I agree that this debate will not matter electorally. No one chooses a president based on a vice-president debate.”

CNN’s David Axelrod summed up the night after the debate was over, saying, “I don’t think it changes the race at all. It was an interesting night, but I don’t think it changes the race at all.”

CNN’s paywall

Last week, word came that CNN would experiment with a paywall on its much-read website.

Well, CNN’s Brian Stelter reported the details of that Tuesday, writing that some visitors to the CNN website will be asked to pay $3.99 a month for access.

Those who read only a few stories a month won’t be asked to pay anything at this time. The paywall is meant for those who read more than that.

Alex MacCallum, CNN’s executive vice president of digital products and services, wrote to staff in a memo, “Only after users consume a certain number of free articles will they be prompted to subscribe. In addition to unlimited access to CNN.com’s articles, subscribers will receive benefits like exclusive election features, original documentaries, a curated daily selection of our most distinctive journalism, and fewer digital ads.”

Check out Stelter’s story for more details.

Covering disaster

Be sure to check out this story by my Poynter colleague Angela Fu: “Through widespread outages and collapsed infrastructure, North Carolina journalists hustle to cover Helene’s aftermath.”

Fu writes, “When Helene tore through western North Carolina last week, it triggered floods and mudslides that smashed away neighborhoods and took out vital infrastructure. Already isolated communities became information black holes, cut off from the world and each other. Local journalists have spent the days since trying to reach those communities and fill in information gaps — all the while dealing with storm-wrought damage in their own lives.”

Fu spoke with Blue Ridge Public Radio senior regional reporter Lilly Knoepp, Asheville Watchdog managing editor Keith Campbell and Poynter faculty member Tony Elkins, who lives in Asheville.

Elkins said because of the conditions, including power outages, radio has become a key source of information. He added, “We’re in the mountains, we’re remote. And radio has just come through. I can’t describe it. It feels so good to hear another human’s voice.”

The latest Nuzzi news

New York magazine’s Washington correspondent Olivia Nuzzi at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in Washington, in April 2023. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

The big gossipy scandal in journalism these days is New York magazine placing star political journalist Olivia Nuzzi on leave while they investigate her personal, although apparently not physical, relationship with a person she covered: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The story took another twist Tuesday when Nuzzi accused her former fiance, Politico journalist Ryan Lizza, of harassment and blackmail, according to court filings.

In her complaint, which was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Nuzzi accused Lizza of hacking her devices and said that he “explicitly threatened to make public personal information about me to destroy my life, career, and reputation—a threat he has since carried out.”

That would suggest that it was Lizza who leaked the Nuzzi-RFK story, which was broken by media reporter Oliver Darcy.

Lizza denied the allegations, saying, “I am saddened that my ex-fiancée would resort to making a series of false accusations against me as a way to divert attention from her own personal and professional failings. I emphatically deny these allegations, and I will defend myself against them vigorously and successfully.”

So now Lizza is on leave from Politico. A spokesperson for Politico said, “Politico and Ryan Lizza have mutually agreed that it is in everyone’s best interest for him to step back and take a leave of absence while an investigation is conducted.”

A hearing has been set for Oct. 15, where Lizza can respond to the judge in the case.

CNN’s Katelyn Polantz has more on this story.

Lorenz’s next move

Tech culture columnist Taylor Lorenz is leaving The Washington Post to start her own publication on Substack. Her new venture, called User Magazine, will “cover technology from the user side. It’s about who has power on the internet and how that power is being wielded.”

Lorenz joined the Post in 2022 after working at The New York Times and, before that, The Daily Beast.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter’s Alex Weprin, Lorenz said, “I just wanted to get out of legacy media. I feel like it’s just really, really difficult to do the kind of reporting that I want to do on the internet within these kind of older institutions as a primary job. I like to have a really interactive relationship with my audience. I like to be very vocal online, obviously. And I just think all of that is really hard to do in the roles that are available at these legacy institutions.”

Lorenz added, “I think also legacy institutions generally have just really struggled to cover the internet in any meaningful way, I think that they often sort of shy away from the internet. I write about the attention economy, and I write about the content creator industry, and I just want complete autonomy to write and do and say whatever I want, and engage a little bit more directly with my readers, with the public, when it comes to my work.”

For now, User Magazine will just be Lorenz, but she hopes to add contributors and expand to other mediums.

In her introductory post for User Magazine, Lorenz wrote, “I will be reporting on the people and movements that are steering tech and internet culture, from weird online phenomena, to under-the-radar trends, to content creators, platform developments, policy initiatives, and the powerful forces that shape our online world. It’s about who has power on the internet and how that power is being wielded.”

She added, “User Mag will arrive via email 1-3 times a week, and paid subscribers will have commenting privileges, access to subscriber-only chats, and will receive exclusive, deep-dive analysis pieces among other benefits. It will include a mix of originally reported articles, interviews, and links to what I’m reading and watching online.”

Other media news, tidbits and interesting links …

• The Washington Post’s Jeremy Barr with “Tucker Carlson is filling arenas, but does he have anything to say?”
• New York Times opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg with “How Trump Tore One Family Apart.”
• Pete Rose, Major League Baseball’s all-time leader in hits and one of the most controversial figures in sports history, died Monday. He was 83. The cause of death was not immediately made public. What made Rose so controversial was that he was banned from the sport (and the Baseball Hall of Fame) in 1989 for betting on baseball when he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds. Here are a couple of worthwhile pieces about Rose: Longtime Sports Illustrated writer Rick Reilly writes for The Washington Post: “Pete Rose finally stopped.” For his The Morning After column on Substack, Mark Whicker with “Rose’s only home was at the plate.”

More resources for journalists

• Convene tomorrow with CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta
• Are you an upcoming-and-coming newsroom manager?
• Encourage an outstanding colleague to apply for Leadership Academy for Women in Media

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.