The target is this USA Today story.
1. The quote everyone seems to be repeating is “It’s just strange that everyone’s accepting that this person who is the least popular vice president ever is now the solution to the problem and that the media machine in just a few days did this 180 and just sold her as the solution. And as long as they keep her from having these conversations where she’s allowed to talk, they’re able to pull this off. And the, the fact that it’s happening with no primary should be really concerning to people… because that’s never happened before…. they could have had a primary….”
It should tell voters everything they need to know to vote against Harris that even with the race so close, she refused to do an interview with Rogan for his massive audience of mostly young men unless he did it under her staff’s control and limited the interview to an hour rather than his usual three. This shows that she’s hiding her real nature, unsure of her abilities, a coward, a weenie, and a prop candidate. Why would anyone vote for someone like that to be President? There are no ethical reasons: the reasons that exist are all linked to unethical conduct and characteristics or non-ethical considerations like fear and hate.
2. USA Today’s #1 “Takeaway”: “Anti-trans rhetoric: Rogan and Vance spoke at length about transgender rights early in the conversation, specifically about gender-affirming care for minors and whether people should be allowed to play on sports teams that match their gender identity.” What a perfect example of incompetent and biased reporting. “Gender-affirming care” is deceptive euphemism: an ethical journalist has an obligation to be clear. That issue is whether children should be given hormones and have permanently body-altering operations because of their momentary doubts regarding their “sexual identities.” Opposing these practices is not “anti-trans.” I don’t think teachers should be allowed to turn my child into a Methodist, but that doesn’t mean I’m anti-Methodist. USA Today is playing the same unethical game regarding the controversy over biological men competing in women’s sports. It’s not an “anti-trans” position to regard this as unfair. The paper is using a popular progressive rhetorical trick; this is like the dishonest tactic of calling anti-illegal immigration “anti-immigrant.”
3. Mainstream media bias was injected repeatedly into the paper’s discussion of “takeaway” #2, “Biden ‘garbage’ comments.” USA Today repeated the Biden White House’s outright lie than Joe didn’t say what he said. The facts are clear, and an an ethical publication should say so. The we get: “Biden endorsed Harris after he stepped out of the 2024 race in July and has been a vocal supporter of Harris’ campaign ever since.” That language whitewashes the facts to the benefit of Democrats. We know—that is, those of us who have paid attention, a minority— that Biden did not “step out” of the race, but was forced out. It’s a material distinction that the news media avoid to help its favorite party. (In a caption to a photo, USA Today says, Biden “appeared” to call Trump supporters “garbage.” No, he said that, clearer, in fact, than he usually says anything. Did newspapers report that FDR “appeared” to say that we have nothing to fear but fear itself?
4. “During a prolonged discussion about the environment, Vance asserted that he ‘didn’t have a strong view about what the carbon footprint ultimately does,’ appearing to waffle about whether human-caused climate change exists.” Good for Vance: that’s the only ethical position a politician should take on climate change. He doesn’t have the expertise or data to have a strong view. The politicians (and just about everyone else) who express certainty about climate change are just parroting the opinions of others. The USA Today uses “waffle” as a sly way to impugn Vance. It isn’t “waffling” to state that you are not certain about a unsettled facts.
Ethics Alarms 
I see more articles in USA Today that, while they have problems and biases, are not just hit jobs on Trump or Vance, including this one.
I’m not trying to minimize your points, nor disagree with them. But think of how this article would have looked in WaPo or the NYT. Maybe USA Today didn’t go as far down the rabbit hole as most of the other national papers, or maybe they’ve pulled back. But I am finding that there are more stories there I can read without short circuiting my bs meter repeatedly.
I did not come away from this article feeling that Vance was ‘garbage’. And one shouldn’t.
So damning with faint praise certainly. But in comparison with other articles I am sure you’ve read — closer to Pulitzer worthy.
————–
One has to admit that Trump’s press conference from the garbage truck was inspired. Not as good as an afternoon at McDonald’s, but McDonald’s is higher on the cognitive dissidence scale.
It’s a fair point, except that I see those subtle, almost subliminal negative and misleading rhetorical spins as worse than the open, obvious bias. That’s the essence of “fake news,” it’s insidious, pervasive, and few even notice it.
Yes, this is typical of the less rabid coverage. Like Bari Weiss. From time to time she’ll do something critical of Harris and go on at some length, but will always conclude with, “of course, Trump is much, much worse.”
Jim Acosta of CNN beats them all in terms of bias. Trump commented that war hawks like Liz Cheney have no trouble sitting behind desks and sending the young out to war but she should be given a rifle and have nine rifles pointed back at her might change her opinion. (not the exact quote but very close) Acosta stated that Trump called for her execution and other networks spun it similarly.
Lets see. Bib Dylan, John Fogerty, et al said basically the same thing in their anti war lyrics. Liz Cheney is the ultimate Fortunate Son. It is absolutely ironic that the military industrial complex has allied itself with the left. I guess the Left figured out that war and killing overseas is a moneymaker.
After hearing a bunch of stuff about the interview, I finally watched the entire Rogan’s interview of Vance this morning, the whole 3 hours and 17 minutes! Personally I think Vance did a really good job in the interview. Even though he’s a DC politician, I think Vance came across as a down to earth individual that’s trying his best to make things better for the American people.
I think that’s only the second, or maybe the third, Rogan interview I’ve watched. I can see why people follow his interviews, they aren’t your typical interview, it’s more like a conversation. Maybe I’ll watch some more in the future.