Donald Trump is scheduled to be interviewed on Joe Rogan’s mega-popular podcast on Friday. He already has gone on podcasts with comedian and actor Theo Von, as well as Barstool Sports’ “Bussin with the Boys,” a sports podcast hosted by former NFL football players Will Compton and Taylor Lewan. Those are just two of the many podcasts Trump has done.

Kamala Harris also has done a bunch of podcasts, such as Alex Cooper’s “Call Her Daddy” and “All the Smoke” with former NBA players Matt Barnes and Stephen Jackson. She also did interviews with Howard Stern and Charlamagne tha God.

Unlike the campaign days of old when they toured the country giving campaign speeches and did TV and newspaper interviews and appeared on Sunday morning shows such as “Meet the Press” and “Face the Nation,” presidential candidates have another way to reach audiences: podcasts.

What sets podcasts apart from other mediums is they are often geared to a specific audience. For example, Trump’s appearance on Rogan’s show is an attempt to woo those who listen to Rogan’s pod — young, mostly white males.

Harris, too, was seeking to speak to men, particularly Black men, by going on “All the Smoke.”

Does it have an impact? That is unknown. So far, the numbers suggest maybe not.

A USA Today/Suffolk University poll asked 1,000 likely voters if they had seen or heard Harris or Trump on podcasts. Nearly 72% said they had not seen Harris on a podcast, and 77.5% said they had not seen Trump on a podcast.

So then why are podcasts such a big part of both campaign’s strategy for reaching voters? Well, in a race that all the polls suggest is a dead heat, any ears reached could help decide the election. It really could come down to a couple of thousand voters here or there, and maybe some of those voters listen to podcasts.

Natalie J Stroud, a professor of communications at the University of Texas at Austin, told Al Jazeera’s Stephen Quillen, “The presidential candidates are responding to a media environment where they cannot reach as much of the electorate as they once could via ad buys during national and local news programmes. By doing niche media appearances, the candidates are hoping to reach distinct audiences to not only shore up their base, but potentially convert voters or sway undecideds.”

Then again, sometimes the audiences aren’t that niche. Trump’s appearance on Von’s pod, for example, had 14 million views on YouTube alone. Rogan has a huge following. Many of the candidates’ appearances on podcasts also are cut up and then viewed by many more through social media clips on X, Instagram, TikTok and other platforms.

But whether the audience is big or small, the format of a podcast might help a candidate reach someone in a way that a formal TV interview might not.

Bryan Curtis, media writer and podcaster for The Ringer, told The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple, “Sometimes, I think it’s hard for journalists to process that podcast hosts think of interviews very differently than they do. CNN’s Dana Bash and CBS’s Bill Whitaker are asking Kamala Harris very specific questions — trying to push her off her talking points, trying to make news. Most of the podcasters she talks to have no agenda like that. They just want to talk to her about stuff that interests them.”

Wemple said, “Based on my own viewing/listening, it seems as if the candidates go on podcasts to show their personalities, and they go on traditional journalism outlets to flaunt their toughness via-a-vis accountability questions.”

Might the podcast strategy fade someday? Perhaps. But for now, it’s a platform that cannot be ignored.

There are reports that Trump’s youngest son, 18-year-old Barron Trump, influenced Donald, telling his father that podcasts are what many people his age listen to. The first podcast Trump did — with social media influencer, YouTuber and wrestler Logan Paul — was selected because it was one of Barron’s favorites.

Many podcast listeners don’t watch the evening news, or debates or TV interviews with the candidates. For them, podcasts are the only times they do hear from Harris or Trump. Well, that, and social media.

One of those polled by USA Today/Suffolk said, “As the culture and society in the United States starts to shift a little bit more, I think that there will be a bigger move to social media as a primary place of consumption for news. I have kids in a wide age range, from 15 to 29, and they all consume everything off of social media. Everything from Tiktok, Instagram, Snapchat, that’s where they get a lot of their information from.”

That’s why Harris and Trump have incorporated podcasts into their campaign strategy. And why, going forward, podcasts might be as important as sitting down on “60 Minutes” or holding three rallies a day in swing states.

My gut says …

In a piece for The New York Times, pollster Nate Silver — the founder and former editor of FiveThirtyEight — writes what his gut tells him about the election.

Silver writes, “So OK, I’ll tell you. My gut says Donald Trump. And my guess is that it is true for many anxious Democrats. But I don’t think you should put any value whatsoever on anyone’s gut — including mine. Instead, you should resign yourself to the fact that a 50-50 forecast really does mean 50-50. And you should be open to the possibility that those forecasts are wrong, and that could be the case equally in the direction of Mr. Trump or Ms. Harris.”

There’s more to his column, of course. And it’s worth the read.

But it is another example of you simply can’t believe anyone who says, at this moment, they know who is going to win the election. No one knows.

Having said that, here’s longtime Democratic strategist James Carville’s latest guest essay for The New York Times: “Three Reasons I’m Certain Kamala Harris Will Win.”

Stepping away in protest

(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)

The editor of editorials at the Los Angeles Times has resigned in protest over the paper’s owner blocking an endorsement of Kamala Harris for president.

The editor, Mariel Garza, told Columbia Journalism Review’s Sewell Chan that the editorial board had planned to endorse Harris, but was blocked by owner Patrick Soon-Shiong.

Garza told Chan, “I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

The paper won’t endorse Harris or Donald Trump.

Garza told Chan, “I didn’t think we were going to change our readers’ minds – our readers, for the most part, are Harris supporters. We’re a very liberal paper. I didn’t think we were going to change the outcome of the election in California. But two things concern me: this is a point in time where you speak your conscience no matter what. And an endorsement was the logical next step after a series of editorials we’ve been writing about how dangerous Trump is to democracy, about his unfitness to be president, about his threats to jail his enemies. We have made the case in editorial after editorial that he shouldn’t be re-elected.”

The Times has endorsed a Democrat for president in every election since Barack Obama ran for his first term in 2008. Soon-Shiong bought the paper in 2018. The Times has not given an official reason for why it won’t endorse a presidential candidate, even though it has given endorsements and for various state and local races and recommendations on propositions.

The Trump campaign, however, jumped on the Times not endorsing Harris, saying, “In Kamala’s own home state, the Los Angeles Times — the state’s largest newspaper — has declined to endorse the Harris-Walz ticket, despite endorsing the Democrat nominees in every election for decades. Even her fellow Californians know she’s not up for the job. The Times previously endorsed Kamala in her 2010 and 2014 races for California attorney general, as well as her 2016 race for U.S. Senate — but not this time.”

After news of Garza’s resignation broke, Soon-Shiong tweeted:

“So many comments about the @latimes Editorial Board not providing a Presidential endorsement this year. Let me clarify how this decision came about. The Editorial Board was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation. In addition, the Board was asked to provide their understanding of the policies and plans enunciated by the candidates during this campaign and its potential effect on the nation in the next four years. In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being President for the next four years. Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision. Please #vote.”

What Soon-Shiong said in his tweet is not how endorsements work at all. It even basically confirms Garza’s claim that Soon-Shiong blocked the editorial endorsing Harris. For Soon-Shiong to suggest in his tweet that it was the editorial board’s decision to remain silent is absurd.

In a text to The New York Times’ Katie Robertson, Garza said, “What he outlines in that tweet is not an endorsement, or even an editorial.”

In the end, it’s Soon-Shiong’s paper to do with what he pleases, but he comes out of this looking bad to both readers and, in particular, his own staff.

This is just the latest drama at the Times, which is how Garza became the editorial page editor in the first place.

Garza joined the Times’ editorial board in 2015, and became deputy editorial page editor in 2021.

In January of this year, Times executive editor Kevin Merida resigned from the paper, reportedly over clashes with Soon-Shiong. Less than two weeks later, two of the paper’s managing editors also resigned.

Eventually, editorial page editor Terry Tang replaced Merida as executive editor, and, in April, Garza became the editorials editor.

CNN journalists detained

Three CNN journalists, including chief international correspondent Clarissa Ward, were recently detained by a militia for 48 hours while reporting in the Darfur region of Sudan.

In a story for CNN, Ward wrote, “We had come to Darfur to report on the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, never intending to become part of the story. But months of planning came apart in moments when we were detained by a militia led by the man everyone called the general.”

The militia believed the CNN team — which included Ward, cameraman Scott McWhinnie and producer Brent Swails — were spies.

The Washington Post’s Jeremy Barr wrote, “The team was in Sudan to report a story about the plight of civilians fleeing violence and seeking aid. The intended destination was a town called Tawila, which has seen an influx of refugees seeking to escape nearby fighting.”

The three had arranged for access by the controlling militia, but were then confronted by a rival militia and questioned about why they were there. The CNN team was then detained outside for 48 hours by about 14 men. Ward wrote that she pleaded with one of the men, saying she had three children. The man assured Ward that she and her team would not be harmed. He also said he would call their families to assure their safety.

Ward wrote, “Later, we would find out that an English speaker had called my husband and Scott’s wife from the city of Port Sudan, thousands of miles away from where we were held, to say that we were safe and in good health but threatening that we would be imprisoned for many years if they spoke about it to anyone.”

Eventually, the CNN team was told, “We thought you were spies, but now you can go home.” And they were released.

Ward wrote, “A wave of relief crashed through my body. There were smiles and handshakes with our captors. We posed awkwardly for a photograph at the edge of the mat that had been our makeshift prison.”

She added, “As a journalist, one never wants to become the story. And yet our experience is instructive in understanding the complexities of the conflict in Darfur and the challenges of getting food and aid to those who need it most and getting the story out to the world.

Keep an eye on this

Wow, check out this ominous opening paragraph from Laura Wagner of The Washington Post: “The New York Times Tech Guild is threatening to go on strike during the frenetic time around Election Day, a move that could disrupt the newspaper’s ability to provide news updates, election results and forecasts.”

Benjamin Harnett, a principal software engineer and a shop steward for the Tech Guild, told Wagner, “Pretty much every aspect of the business is backed by digital systems that we’ve created.”

That includes mobile push notifications that deliver breaking news to readers and the Times’ well-known election-night needle, which provides up-to-the-moment voting results and projections.

Wagner wrote, “The Times Tech Guild, which comprises about 600 members, including software engineers, product managers, data analysts and designers, voted overwhelmingly in September to authorize the strike, as the Times and other media organizations prepared to ramp up coverage of the presidential election. The Tech Guild, which is represented by the NewsGuild of New York, has been negotiating its first contract with the newspaper’s management since 2022. Both sides have accused the other of bogging down negotiations, which have recently centered on job security and pay equity.”

Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha told Wagner, “We have robust plans in place to ensure that we are able to fulfill our mission and serve our readers.”

Media tidbits

• CNN’s Brian Stelter with “CBS News rebuffs Trump’s legal threat over ‘60 Minutes’ interview.”
• The Washington Post’s Catherine Belton with “American creating deep fakes targeting Harris works with Russian intel, documents show.”
• Vanity Fair’s Natalie Korach with “CNN Embraces Election-Night Uncertainty: ‘Nobody Has Any Idea How This Is Going to End.’”
• My colleague, Rick Edmonds, Poynter’s media business analyst with “The news desert problem continues to worsen with little relief in sight.”
• The New York Times’ Steven Lee Myers with “As Election Looms, Disinformation ‘Has Never Been Worse.’”
• Awful Announcing’s Ben Axelrod with “Pat McAfee: ESPN NBA analysts ‘impossible to work with’ to schedule interviews.”

Hot type

This is quite the story from The Washington Post’s Elizabeth Dwoskin, Ashley Parker, Meryl Kornfield and Aaron Schaffer about Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s former running mate Nicole Shanahan: “Her billionaire marriage broke up. Her VP campaign fizzled. Now she’s a Trump-world star.” One of the story’s reporters, Ashley Parker, tweeted, “When we began reporting on Nicole Shanahan, she offered us $500,000 to be ‘whistleblowers’ and share our sources. We declined — but kept reporting our profile.”

More resources for journalists

• It’s time to apply for the Leadership Academy for Women in Media.
• Consider this dynamic, in-person, five-day workshop for new newsroom managers.
• Reinvigoration for the unsung heroes of the TV newsroom.

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.