still of Wallace, Angelo; chyron: Tomorrow: Harris, Trump to face-off in first debate

On MSNBC'S Deadline: White House, Angelo Carusone discusses the media’s responsibility to debunk Donald Trump’s debate lies

Carusone: "Do they let Trump sort of, you know, steal the stage and flood the zone with lies and distract the conversation? ... Or do they actually do their job well?"

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published

On September 9, Angelo Carusone joined MSNBC's Deadline: White House to discuss how the media should engage with the Harris-Trump presidential debate. Below is the entire conversation, with host Nicolle Wallace and guests Basil Smikle and former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

  • On MSNBC'S Deadline: White House, Angelo Carusone discusses how the media should engage with the Harris-Trump presidential debate

    From the September 9, 2024, edition of MSNBC's Deadline: White House

    NICOLLE WALLACE (HOST): So Angelo, how do you deal with this? I mean, there's -- there were a lot of things that died in the first Trump -- in sort of the first run and one of them was the fact checker, the Pinocchios. Dead and buried. What do you do on a debate stage?

    ANGELO CARUSONE (GUEST): Yeah, and I think it starts with the way that the moderators are sort of planning to engage, right? I mean, they're using some terms in part -- and they're not even calling themselves moderators, they're calling themselves facilitators -- and I know that there are some rules that are put in place by the campaigns. And even the way that the moderators sort of set the stage ahead of it, right? They're being very careful, talking about the fact that they don't -- you know, I think fact checking, I try not to use that word very much, only because I know people sort of don't like it. And that sometimes journalists see that that's not entirely their role and think of themselves as journalists, which often times requires follow ups. You know, misinformation is much broader than just the individual facts that you get, it's the story that the individual claims you make add up. And part of a good facilitation, good moderation is doing those follow-up questions, not letting people get away with sort of making things up out of whole cloth or steering the conversation into these rambling, meandering rants where you get to have narrative dominance and control of the floor.

    So I think, first, it starts with the actual journalists that actually have the mic the entire time. Do they let them dominate, do they let Trump sort of, you know, steal the stage and flood the zone with lies and distract the conversation in a way that sort of sets the bar so low that, as you noted, when he says a few things, people sort of applaud him for it? Or do they actually do their job well? Do they do follow up questions, vigorous follow up questions? Are they truth vigilantes? I don't think that the entire hour and a half needs to be about fact checking Trump, that could always happen later. But there are parts that do require a response and follow up. And I think those are the moments that are going to determine whether or not it's entirely in Trump's favor, whether or not it's neutral, or whether or not actually we get something out of this. And that is ultimately the difference maker. And this may be the only shot, so it's really on the journalist and that's where it begins. 

    WALLACE: Why not ask who won 2020? And, like, if that's as far as you get, who cares? I mean, like, because, if you can't -- I feel like we don't any more have barriers to entry. And to me, if your first question is, 'Madam Vice President, who won the 2020 election?' 'Joe Biden.' 'Donald Trump, who won 2020?' I mean, one, I think everyone would benefit from hearing the answer. There's a nexus with domestic violent extremism. He said to his own supporters in the last ten days that he, I quote, "I lost by a whisker." That was the quote. And what is his answer on who won 2020? And I feel like the other problem is that, like, who cares if that's as far as you get? If that takes 90 minutes. Wouldn't that be a service?

    CARUSONE: It is, extremely, it's a huge service. Because as you noted, he made this acknowledgment recently, "Well, I lost by a whisker." One of the effects of that, though, is that his people are mad at him for making that concession. Because up until that very moment, any sort of suggestion that Trump didn't win the election would be met with fierce attacks from his people, him, and his supporters. And they've sort of been programmed to not accept that reality. And so forcing Trump to be in a position where he either has to explicitly say, 'Yeah, I won,' which I know that's what he thinks and that's what he's going to say, and fine, say it, say it for the broader audience. Or to even concede something, will have a political cost to it. And that's where sort of these moments come in. That's why I try -- I think fact checking is important, but I think that broader discussion about truth and what comes out of these, is in many ways more important. That's the political calculation. And people will be reminded that they just don't want to see that, they don't want to experience that sort of hang wringing and it will disturb them. And I think that it's basic questions -- 'Well, that's old news, we don't have to deal with it' -- we actually do need to deal with it. We should ask him about the vaccine too, while you're at it, right? So, very basic things that we no longer talk about that are just as critical.

    And that's the stuff that I think is the difference maker, is being that truth vigilante. And it really does depend on the facilitators here. I'm very skeptical. I think ultimately there's a go along, get along mentality that is really set into journalism, into newsrooms. There are a few outliers and obviously you're one of them. But I think that is ultimately the thing that's going to set the course here, is who's going to be a truth vigilante. And these basic questions are, I think, more important than the, sort of the nuance about economic policy and which tax rate's going to be what. But the big picture stuff, and that's where ultimately Trump wins. These lies give him narrative dominance, they let him set the agenda. And so people sort of walk away with a generalized impression and I think the scales need to be flipped and balanced back in favor of evidence and truth. 

    From the September 9, 2024, edition of MSNBC's Deadline: White House

    NICOLLE WALLACE (HOST): Angelo, in sort of -- I was off for three months and I had a baby, but I also read everything I could find on autocracy and came back and started Autocracy Could Happen Here. And in the study of autocracies, the pro-democracy side splinters. And that's a boon to the wannabe autocrats. And so, what -- I feel like what can't happen is that the journalists who did the good reporting, who, you know, had their reporting put under this misleading headline, it cannot be viewed as sort of enemies within the pro-democracy coalition. How do you keep everyone interested in the country remaining a democracy rolling in the same direction? 

    ANGELO CARUSONE (GUEST): Yeah, I think that's the biggest challenge, right? Because you have to criticize the media and recognize those critiques are not necessarily coming from a place to diminish them or to weaken them or to hurt them, but actually because they're essential. They're essential to supporting and buttressing democracy. We need journalists. And I think at minimum, what we're asking for people to do is their job, to do journalism, to actually embody their profession and how you approach it. And that's largely why -- and I think this is sort of how we really reoriented a lot of work that we do, because we're a media watchdog, we're supposed to criticize -- we don't tend to go after one individual article. Not because they don't matter, but rather because the biggest problem here that we're talking about is not one article, it's about an orientation toward a subject matter.

    Even as you pointed out, like, as a baseline question, are we asking the most foundational question about democracy -- which is, "Did you win or lose the last election?" -- is somehow a thing that we don't consider a threshold. And I think that's something that every interview should start with in both Trump and other Republicans. They should constantly be forced to engage on that very basic threshold thing. 

    So, I think it starts with not focusing and hyperfocusing on one aspect, giving the benefit of the doubt and looking at the trends. Because if you can show where the trends are deficient, then you can actually get better coverage over time. I mean, it took The New York Times 231 days -- just before this show. But there were 231 days since The New York Times had a news report on Donald Trump's age or mental acuity. So, that's the issue here. We have to look at the big picture here. And that's how you avoid hurting the individual journalists and sort of reinforcing that splintering. 

    The full interview can be seen here:

    From the September 9, 2024, edition of MSNBC's Deadline: White House