Back in September 2023, The New Yorker wrote a story about comedian and actor Hasan Minhaj. What followed was a controversy that ended up costing Minhaj his dream job and one of the coolest gigs on TV.

The New Yorker had fact-checked some of the stories Minhaj told in his stand-up act. They found that they weren’t exactly 100% true. Minhaj even admitted some of his act was embellished or exaggerated.

So, you might ask, what was the big deal? Does anyone really believe or expect that everything a comedian says during his or her act is true?

The New Yorker’s Clare Malone wrote in the story, “In Minhaj’s approach to comedy, he leans heavily on his own experience as an Asian American and Muslim American, telling harrowing stories of law-enforcement entrapment and personal threats. For many of his fans, he has become an avatar for the power of representation in entertainment.”

That’s where things got a little sketchy for some. Minhaj was talking about serious issues, even if they did have a comedic spin.

He told the New Yorker at the time, “Every story in my style is built around a seed of truth. My comedy Arnold Palmer is seventy percent emotional truth — this happened — and then thirty percent hyperbole, exaggeration, fiction.”

As filmmaker Assia Boundaoui, an American Muslim, wrote at the time in an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times, “Minhaj was one of the first Muslim comedians who unapologetically talked about being the target of surveillance on a national platform. It was refreshing as hell. There’s something very powerful that happens when you talk out loud about something that we usually only whisper about. And yet the damage done by his lies will be borne not by Minhaj alone, but by the 3.5 million Muslims in this country. It makes it harder for people to be believed, and for those of us trying to tell true stories about what our communities have endured.”

Despite defending himself against the New Yorker story in a 21-minute, very detailed video on YouTube, Minhaj was on the receiving end of plenty of backlash, and he ended up paying a price. In a new profile in Esquire by Michael Sebastian, Minhaj said the controversy ended up costing him a chance to become the host of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”

Minhaj said, “We were in talks, and I had the gig, and we were pretty much good to go.” Then, he said, “It went away.”

He added, “That’s a part of showbiz.”

About the whole New Yorker story and all the criticism, Minhaj said, “It was painful, there’s no doubt about it. It was the first time I saw the speed and velocity of the Internet, how quickly a story can take off. That part of it was very new to me and disorienting.”

He also said he had plenty of support during that time, especially from others in the business, including Jon Stewart — the longtime host of “The Daily Show” who now is hosting the show once a week through the election.

Minhaj said, “I remember Jon called, and he said, ‘Why the (expletive) are they doing this? And who does this benefit?’”

The new Esquire story goes way beyond last year’s controversy and is a good profile of Minhaj that is worth your time.

Harris’ one-on-one interview

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, left, interviews Vice President Kamala Harris. (Courtesy: MSNBC)

Vice President Kamala Harris has received criticism during her campaign for not doing enough one-on-one interviews. On Wednesday night, she did a major one, sitting down with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle. The interview took place in Pittsburgh, where Harris delivered a 40-minute speech centered on the economy.

Now, it should be noted that just last week, Ruhle appeared on Bill Maher’s HBO show and, in a back-and-forth with New York Times conservative columnist Bret Stephens, seemed to show support for Harris. Stephens was saying he was not voting for Trump, but added he was unsure about Harris because he wasn’t clear on what her positions were on many topics.

Ruhle responded by saying, “Kamala Harris is not running for perfect. She’s running against Trump. We have two choices. And so there are some things you might not know her answer to, and in 2024, unlike 2016 for a lot of the American people, we know exactly what Trump will do, who he is and the kind of threat he is to democracy.” (Trump responded by calling Ruhle a “bimbo” on Truth Social.)

However, given her extensive experience covering the business world, Ruhle was fully qualified to discuss the economy with Harris. And she did a commendable job in the Harris interview, asking Harris to give specifics of her economic plans. At no point did it ever feel like a friendly interview with softball questions, and Ruhle asked many of the questions that low- and middle-income Americans are thinking when it comes to taxes, affordable housing and the cost of living.

Ruhle also asked about corporations, American manufacturing, unions, tariffs, price-gouging and myriad other economic issues. She then moved on quickly to other topics, including immigration and reproductive rights.

You can decide for yourself how Harris handled her answers in the 25-minute interview, but Ruhle’s questions were solid.

Afterward, in a conversation with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, Ruhle took a jab at Trump by describing the interview with Harris as “normal.”

The View from Biden

President Joe Biden joins ABC’s “The View” for a live interview in New York on Wednesday. With the president are Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin, Sara Haines, Alyssa Farah Griffin and Ana Navarro. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

President Joe Biden appeared on ABC’s “The View” on Wednesday, and called Donald Trump a “loser,” saying he would have beaten Trump had he stayed in the race.

But, Biden said, he is “at peace” about not running for a second term.

Biden has appeared on “The View” 10 times before, but this was the first time a sitting president appeared live on the show. (Barack Obama sat for a taped interview with “The View” in 2010.)

Biden also gave a ringing endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, saying, “She has the energy. She has the intelligence. She has the grit. She has the stamina. And she has the guts to do the right thing.”

How the decision desks will work

For this item, I turn it over to Rick Edmonds, Poynter’s media business analyst.

Six weeks out from Election Day, Benjamin Mullin and Michael M. Grynbaum of The New York Times addressed a compelling question, at least for math nerds: How will networks, national newspapers and The Associated Press call state-by-state winners as returns come in?

The big news is that little has changed since four years ago when competing approaches made for big differences in how and when the calls got made. That was especially true for Arizona, where Fox News was ahead of its rivals by days in calling the state for Biden.

That sort of discrepancy could happen again. The key players have their own political teams massaging the data, but a crucial core of information comes from AP VoteCast for some, Edison Research for others.

Fox News continues to employ vote guru Arnon Mishkin, who provided an early call on election night, drawing howls of protest over the following days from Trump and his camp.

Other nuggets from the comprehensive Times piece (with light additions from a conversation I had with AP executive editor Julie Pace):

• The new thing for the AP this cycle will be much more emphasis on transparency, Pace said. That means explainers in advance, during and after the exercise. Pace conceded in our conversation, however, full success could prove tough. Even the basics of projections get tricky. How can a race be called with just a small fraction of the vote counted — sometimes with the “winner” running behind so far?
• Pace and others from major networks the Times interviewed anticipate disputes, challenges and slow counts. Take races that are close in the first place, combined with the Trump camp openly primed to turn over rocks in search of fraud, and the seed has been planted.
• To the extent possible, Pace told me, she nonetheless hopes to keep that potentially huge story separate. Decision desk operations have been largely isolated, and she hopes they can continue to do their work the same way, but maybe with slower calls as vote totals are delayed.

Back in the day, an authoritative call from the AP was typically accepted without question, Pace said. That’s not how it works anymore.

Sponsored content controversy in Maine

Once again, I turn this item over to Poynter media business analyst Rick Edmonds.

The nonprofit Maine Trust for Local News has found itself on the receiving end of sharp criticism for accepting more than $100,000 in sponsored content advertising from the state’s department of education.

The Maine Wire, a small rival with a conservative viewpoint, reported on the ads and accused the trust — and its lead outlet, The Portland Press-Herald — of unethically carrying water for Democratic Gov. Janet Mills.

The first in a series of six sponsored pieces is fluffy as can be — headlined “Maine teachers share their excitement for the new school year.” However, it also is clearly and prominently labeled as sponsored in several places.

The Wire chose to ignore that article-style pieces became a staple of digital advertising more than a decade ago. The Federal Trade Commission has taken the position that as long as sponsorship is disclosed, it’s not deception (though violations, especially among influencers, are not uncommon).

The format is typically employed by companies burnishing their image, but there is no obvious reason the door should be slammed shut on a self-promoting government placement.

This one is objectionable, the trust’s critics say. “Imagine being the statehouse reporter who now has to talk with conservative Republicans who are critical of the Democratically controlled state government,” a tipster emailed me.

Lisa DeSisto, the Maine Trust’s CEO, sent me an opposite take. She wrote, in part, “Branded content is a growing piece of our advertising product offerings. We’ve attracted new customers to the Maine Trust by offering branded content products, and we think they’re an important part of our revenue goals. In developing these products, nothing has been more important to us than creating a clear distinction between branded content advertising and our journalism.”

The Maine Trust is the largest of several state nonprofits created by the four-year-old National Trust for Local News. Unlike other startups addressing community news shortfalls, it acquires outlets directly. I wrote about the National Trust’s expansion and complex structure earlier this summer. A secondary issue in the current controversy is whether the trust has been transparent in saying who’s in charge and where primary funding comes from.

Alex Jones must pay

A federal judge in Houston ruled Tuesday that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones will have his InfoWars media platform and all of its assets auctioned off piece by piece this fall to help pay the $1 billion he owes to the families of those murdered in the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012.

The New York Times’ Elizabeth Williamson wrote, “The auction, set for mid-November, will include Infowars’ website, social media accounts, broadcasting equipment, product trademarks and inventory owned by Free Speech Systems, Infowars’ parent company. Mr. Jones’s fate as a broadcaster most likely depends on who buys his business. Though the Infowars name and assets are potentially of interest to a range of entities on the far right, under the terms of the sale anyone can bid.”

For years, Jones said that the shooting that killed 20 first-graders and six educators at the school was a hoax and that the grieving families of the victims were actors. It was all part of a plot, Jones theorized, to gain support for gun legislation in the United States.

Many of the victims’ families were harassed online and in person, and received death threats from those who believed Jones’ false theory. In 2022, Sandy Hook families won nearly $1.5 billion in defamation and emotional distress lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas against Jones. Although he has since admitted the shootings were real, Jones is appealing those civil trial verdicts.

Williamson wrote, “The Connecticut and Texas sides divided sharply over how to go after Free Speech Systems. Lawyers for the families who sued Mr. Jones in Connecticut — the relatives of eight victims — favored shutting down the company and liquidating its assets, with the money distributed among the family members. Lawyers for families who sued Mr. Jones in Texas favored a settlement in which he would pay them a percentage of his income over the next decade, most likely netting more money for each relative. As a condition of the latter deal, Mr. Jones would have had to agree never to mention the shooting again. The asset sale is probably the least lucrative option for the family members, though its potential for shutting down Infowars appealed to some.”

The Poynter Report Podcast

If you haven’t heard it yet, be sure to check out the debut episode of “The Poynter Report Podcast.” It’s hosted by me, and the first episode is a conversation with the always thoughtful and smart Eric Deggans, the media analyst and TV critic for NPR. We talk about media coverage of the presidential race, the future of CNN and the latest in television, including the 50th season of “Saturday Night Live.”

It is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Amazon Music. If you enjoy it, please subscribe on your platform of choice and leave us a rating and review — it helps a lot.

A new episode of the podcast comes out every two weeks.

Media tidbits

• For Nieman Lab, Joshua Benton with “What would Project 2025 do for (or to) journalism?”
• The Associated Press’ Sarah Parvini with “X releases its first transparency report since Elon Musk’s takeover.”
• And for more on that, The Washington Post’s Cristiano Lima-Strong with “Musk decries government ‘censorship.’ His X has been more compliant.”
• Unsettling story about the Mississippi Today’s Anna Wolfe, who won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the $77 million welfare fraud scandal that involved Hall of Fame football star Brett Favre. Wolfe and Mississippi Today are now being threatened with jail and serious financial hardships if they don’t give up their sources. ESPN’s Mark Fainaru-Wada, who was once threatened with jail time while working for the San Francisco Chronicle for not giving up his sources during baseball’s steroids scandals, with “Threatened with jail over a scandal headlined by Brett Favre.”
• The Chicago White Sox are going to go down with the worst record in modern baseball history. So here’s a fun piece by The Washington Post’s Ben Strauss: “How to cover the worst MLB team ever without going (too) insane.”
• Front Office Sports’ Michael McCarthy with “Return of ‘The Sports Reporters’: Jeremy Schaap on Reimagining a Classic.”

Hot type

• The latest episode of PBS’s “Frontline” is a good one: “The Choice 2024: Harris vs. Trump.”
• NBC’s “Dateline” premiered — get this — 32 years ago. As it prepares for its 33rd season, check out this cool video narrated by “Dateline” correspondent Keith Morrison.

More resources for journalists

• Understand critical aspects of the swiftly evolving AI landscape at Level Up.
• Free webinar: The journalists’ guide to debunking health misinformation
• It’s time to apply for the 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.