What a busy week. What a busy day.

Monday was the start of the Republican National Convention. Donald Trump officially secured the Republican nomination for president. Trump selected Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance to be his running mate. And, of course, we’re still trying to piece together all the events of Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania last weekend when a gunman fired shots that grazed the former president and killed one rallygoer.

But we start with NBC News’ interview with President Joe Biden that aired in its entirety — and, according to the network, unedited — Monday night.

There wasn’t a ton of new news to come out of it, but it wasn’t uneventful either. A defiant Biden pushed back against interviewer Lester Holt several times, and once again made it clear that he plans to stay in the race.

As far as Holt goes, it was an overall effective but occasionally spotty performance by the “Nightly News” anchor.

He did ask some pertinent questions: about the apparent assassination attempt on Trump, law enforcement’s performance at the Trump rally, the current divisive political climate in this country and Biden’s political future.

Holt asked if Biden feels that he has “weathered the storm” in terms of calls for him to step out of the race. He pressed Biden on whether he watched the debate, which led to one of Biden’s better moments when he said, “I didn’t have to see it. I was there!” He also called it a “bad, bad night.” And he even admitted the obvious: “I’m old.”

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin tweeted, “As interviews go, Holt is doing a cruddy job. Arguing over minutiae.”

That’s not unfair criticism. Holt interrupted Biden on more than one occasion while Biden was on topic in his answer and pressed him to answer questions that he already answered or, frankly, that didn’t seem all that important to answer.

Biden tangled with Holt several times, such as when Holt pressed Biden on his debate performance.

Biden leaned forward and said, “Lester, look, why don’t you guys ever talk about the 28 lies he told? Where — where are you on this? Why doesn’t the press ever talk about that? Twenty-eight times, it’s confirmed, he lied in that debate.”

Biden’s point seemed to be that the post-debate conversation has been almost exclusively about Biden’s performance and not about Trump. Although, to be fair, Biden had the opportunity at the debate to call out Trump’s lies, so to blame the media later might not be the best approach.

Biden closed the 18-minute interview by saying, “Sometime come and talk to me about what we should be talking about, OK? The issues.”

Holt could’ve asked more questions about policy and so forth, but to his credit, he did hit on many of the questions that were on the minds of those who tuned in to watch. And, one would assume, the questions changed drastically considering the events at the Trump rally.

So how did it all play out? NBC News’ Savannah Guthrie asked a smart question of MSNBC (and former Biden press secretary) Jen Psaki on air when she asked if Biden calmed Democratic concerns about his candidacy or prompted more doubts.

Psaki said, “It’s really hard to know in this moment.”

Psaki pointed out that the backdrop of the interview “massively changed” between the time Biden agreed last week to sit down with Holt and when he actually did sit down with him. What happened, of course, was the shooting at Trump’s rally on Saturday. The interview that was supposed to largely be about Biden’s political future also became about the political climate in this country.

Biden went through with the interview and Psaki said, “To me, that means the president — and you saw this in the interview — wants to continue to lay that contrast with Trump on who is going to represent and fight for democracy better. And he didn’t hold back when Lester Holt pushed him on that particular subject.”

Trump’s veep nominee

Trump picked his running mate Monday: It’s 39-year-old Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, who once called Trump “reprehensible” and “cultural heroin” — adding, “He makes some feel better for a bit. But he cannot fix what ails them, and one day they’ll realize it.” Vance wrote in a 2016 New York Times op-ed, “Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”

But he, obviously, has since changed his stance on Trump, backing Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election, among other Trump beliefs and policies. Trump called Vance the “person best suited” to be his running mate.

There are already tons of stories out there about Vance, and many will be coming in the days ahead. But a good place to start is his interview with The New York Times’ Ross Douthat from last month. It’s a lengthy and insightful look into Vance and his views of Trump and American politics.

Douthat wrote in his introduction, “The Vance of eight years ago was read with appreciation and gratitude by Trump opponents looking for a window into populism. The Vance of today is despised and feared by many of the same kind of people. His transformation is one of the most striking political stories of the Trump era, and one that’s likely to influence Republican politics even after Trump is gone.”

A kinder, gentler RNC?

Former President Donald Trump at the first day of the Republican National Convention on Monday in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

As the Republican National Convention was getting underway Monday, Gabriel Sherman wrote a piece in Vanity Fair about those in Trump’s inner circle who have noticed a change in the former president since he was the target of an apparent assassination attempt last Saturday at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. And that so-called change could lead to a different tone at the RNC.

Sherman wrote, “The Trump campaign is racing to reprogram the convention. What was originally going to be a four-day rage-fest is being positioned as a post-shooting showcase for unity.”

Sherman said one Republican source told him, “Trump put the word out that he doesn’t want any talk of revenge or retaliation in speeches or anywhere else.

On his flight to Milwaukee on Sunday, Trump told reporters that he is rewriting his nomination speech, saying, “I basically had a speech that was an unbelievable rip-roarer. It was brutal — really good, really tough. I threw it out.”

So, wait, is Trump now a changed man, at least in terms of his rhetoric and public approach?

Sherman wrote, “The fundamental question for the election, of course, is whether Trump has actually changed. Is his chastening a short-term response to a near-death experience? Or is it smart politics? Would a reformed Trump replace his extreme policies with a moderate agenda? And would Trump, who has spoken ominously of seeking vengeance and retribution if elected, suddenly temper those dark impulses? These are valid questions. Numerous times in the past, Trump modulated his tone to seem more ‘presidential,’ only to revert to his demagogic instincts. But the sources who spoke with Trump in private say he truly seems like a different man.”

Something to keep an eye on at this week’s RNC — and beyond.

Late Monday night, NBC News’ Matt Dixon, Allan Smith and Katherine Doyle wrote, “Republican convention aims for unity — but keeps some of the old red meat.” They wrote, “Most speakers stuck to the night’s theme — ‘Make America Wealthy Again’ — but interspersed through the night were mentions of the shooting and rhetoric that, at times, contradicted Trump’s own calls for unity.”

Trump, by the way, appeared at Monday’s first night of the convention wearing a bandage on his right ear.

‘Loud noises’: Republicans misconstrue media’s treatment of breaking news

Louis Jacobson of Poynter’s PolitiFact is in Milwaukee for this week’s Republican National Convention, and he filed this item.

U.S. Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., blasted the media for its coverage of the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. After her July 15 speech at the Florida delegation breakfast, Cammack thanked a TV reporter who was interviewing her for using the term “attempted assassination.”

“Members of the liberal media said (Trump) fell or that there were loud noises,” Cammack said.

This is a common talking point in conservative media. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., criticized initial headlines from CNN and other outlets that left out unconfirmed details of the shooting. “Really? No mention of the attempt to kill him?” Rubio posted about a CNN X post that said Trump was “rushed off stage by Secret Service” (and included a photo of Trump raising his fist).

This lacks context about journalistic procedure. Journalists are trained to report what they see personally or what they can confirm with official sources; they are not supposed to speculate.

In the chaotic moments after the shooting, reporters on site knew they had heard a loud noise and saw that the Secret Service moved Trump to safety. But in the confusion, it was impossible to immediately know precisely what had happened. Journalists are taught to proceed slowly and accurately rather than being speedy and wrong.

As soon as officials confirmed that there had been a shooting and that Trump was injured, media outlets began reporting that.

What happened to ‘Morning Joe?’

A day later and I’m still trying to make sense of this story. MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” was not on the air Monday morning — the first day of the Republican National Convention and what would have been the first show since the shooting at the Trump rally on Saturday.

In fact, the official reason “Morning Joe” was preempted was because of continuing coverage of the apparent assassination attempt on Trump.

In a statement, an MSNBC spokesperson said, “Given the gravity and complexity of this unfolding story, NBC News, NBC News NOW and MSNBC have remained in rolling breaking news coverage since Saturday evening. As we continue to cover this story into the week, the networks will continue to cross simulcast, alternating between NBC News, NBC News NOW and ‘MSNBC Reports’, so there is one news feed covering this developing situation.”

However, CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy reported, “A person familiar with the matter told CNN that the decision was made to avoid a scenario in which one of the show’s stable of two dozen-plus guests might make an inappropriate comment on live television that could be used to assail the program and network as a whole. Given the breaking news nature of the story, the person said, it made more sense to continue airing rolling breaking news coverage in the fraught political moment.”

Darcy also wrote, “Cesar Conde, the chairman of NBCUniversal News Group, made the decision in conjunction with Rashida Jones, the president of MSNBC, and hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, the person familiar with the matter told CNN.”

MSNBC denied the CNN report.

But something just doesn’t add up here. “Morning Joe” is one of MSNBC’s signature programs with a dedicated audience. After such a major story as the events at the Trump rally, as well as the start of the RNC, Monday’s “Morning Joe” should have been appointment viewing for MSNBC. To say it was preempted over a news story that was some 36 hours old at that point just doesn’t make sense. What, “Morning Joe” couldn’t pass along breaking news should there be any? And don’t “Morning Joe” viewers want to hear what the show has to say?

No question that “Morning Joe” has been highly critical of the former president, and has been sounding the alarm of what another Trump presidency might look like. But are we really to believe that executives couldn’t put the word out to all hosts and guests that they need to be especially careful with their word choices and to be respectful of what happened Saturday night in Pennsylvania? Plus, the show is going to be back on the air this morning, meaning any insensitive comments made today would be every bit as inappropriate as if they had been said on Monday.

Yet, clearly, there was a reason “Morning Joe” wasn’t on.

Odd. The whole thing is just odd.

Stop the presses!

Former President Donald Trump is surrounded by U.S. Secret Service agents at a campaign rally last Saturday in Butler, Pa. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Donald Trump was speaking at a rally near Pittsburgh last Saturday evening when, as you now know, there was a major development. A gunman fired at the stage, hitting Trump in the ear and killing a man who was attending the rally. This happened a little after 6 p.m. Eastern time.

Yet, for many Americans, the news was not in the print edition of their Sunday newspaper. How can that be?

Tampa Bay Times’ executive editor Mark Katches wrote a piece for the Times, saying, “It is a fair question.”

The Tampa Bay Times, which is owned by Poynter, prints just twice a week — Wednesday and Sunday — and the paper is printed at a plant in Lakeland, Florida, about 55 miles from the paper’s main office in St. Petersburg. So deadlines on Saturday evening are early. The Times sent the last page off to the Lakeland printing plant on Saturday at about 4:49 p.m. — an hour and a half before the shooting at the Trump rally.

Katches wrote about the Times, but he could have been speaking about many papers all across the country.

Katches wrote that it’s the first time since the papers started printing in Lakeland in 2021 that Times editors yelled out the famous newspaper phrase: “Stop the presses!”

But it wasn’t simple. The first Associated Press alert moved at 6:45 p.m. and very little was known about what had happened at the rally. Details, at best, were sketchy.

Katches wrote, “We went about remaking the front page to catch as many of the printed papers as possible. Even when the presses stop, time marches on. We pushed to get the news out as soon as possible to resume the press run. Instead of remaking multiple pages, which would have taken considerably longer, we removed the centerpiece photograph on a story about heat exposure at summer camps and prepared to substitute a photo from the Associated Press in Pennsylvania. By then, most of the printed newspapers were already off the presses, set to be sorted and prepared for delivery trucks for the drive back to Tampa Bay.”

In the end, the new front page — with a photo of Trump surrounded by Secret Service agents and blood on his cheek — caught about 12,000 papers, which is just a fraction of the Times’ print circulation. The only text was a caption under the photo that directed readers to the Times’ website for more coverage.

Katches wrote, “I commend the newsroom for doing what we could under the circumstances. But in hindsight, you always wonder if we could have done more. Some readers who didn’t get the final edition in print accused us of deliberate bias for ignoring a huge news story. Some who did get the remade front page still felt we underplayed such consequential news. It’s a legitimate criticism without the context of early print deadlines and a ticking clock.”

Let me just add one more thought to this. I grew up with newspapers — both reading them and then working at them. But this is 2024. Are people still really expecting breaking news to be in the print edition of a newspaper? Even if we still lived in an age of late deadlines, just imagine how much new information might come out between when a story was filed for print publication and when readers actually read their newspapers several hours later.

Many older generations still read newspapers. I get that. But it also must be acknowledged that the internet, not a print newspaper, is where most news consumers get — and should be getting — their up-to-date information.

But it’s good that Katches explained what happened, especially to those who might think the media simply chose to not cover the shooting.

My colleague, Poynter media business analyst Rick Edmonds, reports more about this topic for Poynter this morning in “Many print readers looking for Sunday coverage of the assassination attempt found ‘zippo’.”

Conspiracy theories

CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, Brian Fung and Marshall Cohen have an excellent new piece out: “Conspiracy theories spread wildly after the first assassination attempt on a US president in the social media age.”

They write that the shooting at the Trump rally had barely happened when the internet was flooded with all kinds of stories: “The moments of uncertainty created an information void that was quickly filled by speculation, misinformation and conspiracy theories. At the same time, the social media industry has broadly retreated from efforts to clamp down on misinformation. That retrenchment left the door wide open for false and misleading claims by both Trump supporters and opponents.”

And why does it matter that a bunch of knuckleheads spread misinformation on social media?

Well, the CNN writers explain, “The ease at which false rumors and conspiracy theories rapidly spread on social media threatens the public’s ability to sort truth from fiction. It sometimes influences their behavior and further divides an already fractured America. The deluge of disinformation surrounding the Trump shooting shows, once again, that this problem isn’t going away anytime soon. With less than four months until Election Day, the leading social media platforms appear resigned to let the status quo fester.”

Bayless leaving FS1

A sports stunner: Skip Bayless, the bombastic host of FS1’s “Undisputed,” is leaving the show and the network later this summer, according to the New York Post’s Ryan Glasspiegel.

After a successful stint alongside Stephen A. Smith at ESPN, Bayless left for FS1 and “Undisputed” eight years ago. Andrew Marchand reported in 2021 that Bayless had signed a four-year deal with FS1 worth $32 million. But while Bayless has been a well-known figure among sports media, the show really didn’t do that well in the ratings, especially of late.

A year ago, his “Undisputed” partner Shannon Sharpe left the program after he and Bayless had friction. After Sharpe left, the program went on hiatus and then returned with a rotating cast of sidekicks for Bayless, but the show really hasn’t found any footing.

Front Office Sports’ Michael McCarthy tweeted, “Skip Bayless was reduced to 50K viewers some days while competing with his former partner Stephen A. Smith. Fox is not going to pay him $6 to $8 million for that.”

There will be more on this story in the days to come.

Media tidbits

• For The Washington Post, Paul Farhi with “How the media’s wait for the facts in Trump shooting fed a backlash.”
• Columbia Journalism Review’s Jon Allsop with “The cynicism of blaming the media for the Trump assassination attempt.”
• For New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait with “The Democratic Party’s Strange Attraction to Defeatism.”
• For Rolling Stone, Andrew Perez and Asawin Suebsaeng with “Trump Allies Try to Bully Dems, Media to Shut Up About His Fascist Plans.”
• Chuck Todd’s latest column for NBC News: “The nation faces a stern test amid an election mired in whataboutism.” Todd writes, “The online political debate has turned almost purely into an exercise in whataboutism. The hard partisans want to believe they are righteous while pointing to the other side as the ones fomenting a violent atmosphere. Many hard partisans refuse to accept that their rhetoric has contributed to the dark atmospherics of today’s politics, noticing only the ugly rhetoric of their political foes. The fact is that we’ve all let political rhetoric get overheated in a fragmented information ecosystem in which the algorithms reward outrage and rhetoric that dehumanizes those we disagree with.”
• The Wall Street Journal’s ​​Tim Higgins with “Shots Fired, Elon Musk Heard a Call: Donald Trump.”
• Then came this breaking story Monday as The Wall Street Journal’s Dana Mattioli, Emily Glazer and Khadeeja Safdar wrote, “Elon Musk Has Said He Is Committing Around $45 Million a Month to a New Pro-Trump Super PAC.”
• A few days old: Analysis from The Washington Post’s Andrew Van Dam in “Wait, does America really still employ a ton of news reporters?”
• Longtime Houston columnist Ken Hoffman has died. Here are details from the Houston Chronicle’s Claire Hao. And Chron’s Brittanie Shey has more.

Hot type

• For The New York Times Magazine, Heidi Julavits with “I Put Up a Fence in Maine. Why Did It Cause Such a Fuss?”
• Emmy nominations for the best in television will be announced Wednesday. Los Angeles Times columnist Glenn Whipp has his predictions for the series and actors categories.

More resources for journalists

• Lead With Influence is for leaders who manage big responsibilities but have no direct reports.
• Investigative mind? We bet you Will Work for Impact.
• Are you an upcoming-and-coming newsroom manager?

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.