Donald Trump is making a mockery of TV debates just as he has trashed so many other norms of decent behaviour and democratic politics.
He has opted out of the first two debates between the candidates vying for the Republican nomination in next year’s US presidential election.
That does not mean that he is missing out on saturation coverage in the media. Rather than appearing on stage with the people competing against him, and who mostly refuse to criticise him anyway, he sat down for a rambling interview on his own terms with the former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson.
Trump is not the only leading politician doing his best to avoid meeting their opponents on the equal ground of a TV debate.
In the past decade, prime ministers David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson all opted out of properly organised and regulated debates.
The three leaders debates in 2010 between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, brought about by the Sky News campaign, are still the only time that British viewers have had the benefit of debates between potential PMs to match the presidential debates which have been a feature of US politics since Nixon v JFK in 1960.
Image: Cameron, Clegg and Brown faced off against each other in the 2010 debates
America’s presidential debates have provided the model for other countries to aspire to. Now Trump is undermining that example.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
2024 is set to be a double election year in the US and UK. Politicians and the media in both countries need to start considering how debates can serve the public – by informing them fairly about the democratic choices facing them – rather than contributing to the erosion of public confidence and respect for representative democracy.
Nobody can say that Trump is not media savvy. He built his public image as the boss on the US version of The Apprentice and by putting his name to ghost-written books about “The Art Of The Deal”.
Advertisement
His freewheeling conversation with Tucker Carlson revealed that he is as skilled as ever at manipulating the media to his own advantage.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:38
Trump skips Republican debate
During his interview he praised the medium he was appearing on – a pre-recorded interview released on X, formerly known as Twitter – and derided cable news.
“We will get better ratings using this crazy forum that you are using than probably the debate,” he jeered.
He rubbed further salt into the wounds of Fox News Channel – which hosted the Republican debate, which sacked Carlson, and which has been promoting alternatives to Trump – by describing Mike Wallace, Fox’s main debate moderator in the last two election cycles, as “a b***** little man”.
Wallace has since moved to CNN – a more frequent target of Trump’s animosity but which has also found it hard to resist the ratings he brings. Earlier this year there were ructions at the network leading to the departure of its CEO after it gave a platform to Trump, who appeared alone and unchallenged on a full-length TV “town hall” show.
Mainstream broadcasters are struggling to produce even-handed, non-partisan, election events. Unscrupulous candidates have an increasing number of invitations to appear on less rigorous outlets such as GB News or X instead.
Elon Musk, X’s proprietor, is trying to make it a forum for right of centre political discourse, as exemplified by his technically disastrous hosting of the Ron DeSantis campaign launch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:05
Trump: ‘We did nothing wrong at all’
Trump is boycotting the debates while his rivals attack each other and winnow out the field to his advantage.
Vivek Ramaswamy, 38, was widely seen as the winner in the Fox debate, but his policies are so close to Trump’s that they hardly threaten the original.
After they failed to make an impression there seems little point in the two least known candidates, Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum, staying in the race.
Trump’s biggest rival Ron DeSantis turned in a lacklustre performance, as did Tim Scott. Three critics of Trump – Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, and Chris Christie – are also still notionally in contention.
Their anti-Trump stances might appeal to the wider electorate but seem certain to cost them the support of the Republican party activists who vote in the primaries.
Trump is already hailing his fourth set of criminal charges, this time in the state of Georgia, as an opportunity to boost his support among Republicans and to rake in more donations to his campaign.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:19
Trump mugshot released
Carlson gave Trump the chance to say what he wanted without being challenged. He gloated that he had turned the convention on its head “that when someone gets indicted their numbers go down”.
Instead “I got indicted four times” and “I’m leading by 50 or 60 points” in the Republican nomination race. “Do I sit there [in a debate]… and get harassed by people who shouldn’t even be running for president?”. His answer is no.
As his rivals grappled with each other, Trump had the chance to get in some telling blows on his ultimate rival, Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee presumptive.
“I think he’s worse mentally than he is physically, and physically he is not exactly a triathlete.”
His cruel jibes about octogenarian Biden’s state of health raise important questions about presidential debates assuming Biden and Trump are the nominees.
The two men debated each other twice during the 2020 campaign under the auspices of the Presidential Debates Commission. A scheduled third debate was cancelled because Trump caught COVID-19.
Biden “won” both debates according to opinion polls. But Biden is now four years older and frailer. There is a danger that Trump could hijack debates between them to brutally expose Biden’s frailty – to the exclusion of all else.
Image: Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer lack charisma but the public needs to see them debate real issues at election time
In the UK, neither Rishi Sunak nor Keir Starmer have shown any enthusiasm for election debates.
Both men lack charisma but one or other of them will be the next prime minister.
The public needs to see them debate the real issues facing the country at election time – away from the awkwardly structured Punch and Judy at PMQs.
Broadcasters and regulators should be working together to hold a single head-to-head between the two to take place during the campaign.
One debate would surely not detract from the rest of the campaign in the way that it is claimed by some that three debates did in 2010.
There are some tough issues to be faced. The debate should not be “owned” by any network but rather staged in the public interest.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
There is no need for participation by any third force. The Liberal Democrats’ electoral performance over the past decade does not justify participation and the SNP are a single-issue party, not relevant to the vast majority of UK voters and without the capacity to nominate a prime minister.
The influence of broadcast television is waning but it is still the most powerful news medium in the world.
Properly managed TV debates are still the best way to inform the wider voting public about the democratic choices before them – by watching the debates themselves and through the comment and analysis which percolates through afterwards.
Carefully curated debates on both sides of the Atlantic in 2024 would prove that broadcasters can be part of the solution rather than, inadvertently, contributing to the further degradation of democratic politics.
Two survivors of a US airstrike, targeting what Donald Trump has described as a “drug-carrying submarine” in the Caribbean, have been repatriated to their home countries.
“It was my great honor to destroy a very large DRUG-CARRYING SUBMARINE that was navigating towards the United States on a well known narcotrafficking transit route,” Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“US intelligence confirmed this vessel was loaded up with mostly Fentanyl, and other illegal narcotics,” he added.
The US military staged a helicopter rescue for the survivors on Thursday after the strike on their semi-submersible vessel, suspected of trafficking illegal narcotics. They were then transported to a US Navy warship.
Two other crew members on board were killed.
Image: The semi-submersible vessel was struck by US forces on Thursday, leaving two dead and two survivors. Pic: @realDonaldTrump/Truth Social
President Trump confirmed the survivors would be returned to their home countries of Colombia and Ecuador “for detention and prosecution”. Both countries subsequently confirmed they had been handed over.
More on Colombia
Related Topics:
“America will not tolerate narcoterrorists trafficking illegal drugs, by land or by sea,” he added.
On Saturday, Colombian President Gustavo Petro posted on X: “We have received the Colombian detained on the narco submarine, we are happy he is alive and he will be processed according to the law.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:58
Trump sends CIA into Venezuela and threatens land attack
The Trump administration has said previous strikes in the Caribbean have killed 27 people, raising concerns among some about the legality of the military operations.
The strikes also come against the backdrop of a US military buildup in the Caribbean that includes guided missile destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, a nuclear submarine and around 6,500 troops as the US president escalates a standoff with the Venezuelan government.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:59
Venezuelan president: ‘We don’t want a war’
On Wednesday, Mr Trump disclosed he had authorised the CIA to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela, adding to speculation in Caracas that the US is attempting to topple Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
Mr Maduro has denied any connection to drug smuggling and claimed the US boat strikes are a pretext for regime change, and violations of sovereignty and international law.
Russia’s investment envoy has said research into the feasibility of a tunnel joining the US and Russia started “six months ago”.
Kirill Dmitriev first posted about the idea on Thursday, suggesting a “Putin-Trump” rail tunnel could connect the two countries under the Bering Strait, which separates Russia‘s vast and sparsely populated Chukotka region from Alaska.
Asked about the idea during a press conference with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday, Donald Trump called it “interesting”.
He also asked President Zelenskyy what he made of it, to which Mr Zelenskyy replied: “I’m not happy with this idea.”
This prompted laughter from the US side.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:49
What happened at the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting?
Overnight, Mr Dmitriev posted on X, saying: “We have started the feasibility study of the Russia-Alaska tunnel six months ago.
“Russian Direct Investment Fund with partners financed on a commercial basis the first ever railroad bridge between Russia and China.
“The bridge reduced cargo route by more than 700 kilometres,” he said.
He directed a post on X towards Elon Musk, suggesting the tunnel could be dug by the billionaire’s construction firm, Boring Company.
Image: Graphic of the proposed project. Pic: Kirill Dmitriev
“The dream of a US-Russia link via the Bering Strait reflects an enduring vision – from the 1904 Siberia-Alaska railway to Russia’s 2007 plan,” Mr Dmitriev wrote.
“RDIF has studied existing proposals, including the US-Canada-Russia-China railroad, and will support the most viable.
“Imagine connecting the US and Russia, the Americas and the Afro-Eurasia with the Putin-Trump Tunnel – a 70-mile link symbolizing unity.”
Volodymyr Zelenskyy has not ruled out the possibility that he can secure long-range Tomahawk missiles from the US, adding that he believes “Putin is afraid” of the consequences.
“It’s good that President Trump didn’t say ‘no’, but for today, didn’t say ‘yes’,” he said about the supply of the missiles, as part of a discussion which will air on Sunday.
He admitted the US president was concerned about a potential escalation with Russia, but Mr Zelenskyy told NBC, Sky News’s US partner, that the weapons are a genuine concern for Vladimir Putin.
“I think that Putin [is] afraid that United States will deliver us Tomahawks. And I think that he [is] really afraid that we will use them,” he said.
Image: Volodymyr Zelenskyy still hopes the US will supply Tomahawks. Pic: Meet the Press/NBC News
The weapons have a significantly longer range than any other missiles in Ukraine’s armoury and have the potential to be a game-changer in the war against Russia.
More on Russia
Related Topics:
While Mr Trump did not rule out providing the Tomahawk missiles, he appeared cool to the prospect as he looked ahead to a meeting with the Russian president in Hungary in the coming weeks.
‘US doesn’t want escalation’
Following the meeting with Mr Trump, who held a phone call with Mr Putin on Thursday, Mr Zelenskyy told reporters: “We spoke about long-range (missiles) of course. And I do not want to make statements about it.”
But he added: “We don’t speak about it because… United States doesn’t want this escalation”.
Image: Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s plans to secure new missiles had worried Russia. Pic: Reuters
Later in a post on X, Mr Zelenskyy said he was counting on President Trump to “bring this war closer to an end”.
“We discussed all key issues – our positions on the battlefield, long-range capabilities and air defence, and, of course, diplomatic prospects,” he said.
“Russia must end the aggression it started and continues to deliberately prolong. We count on the United States’ pressure.”
In a roundtable with journalists following the meeting, Mr Trump confirmed that hitting targets deep inside Russian territory would be an “escalation”.
Image: Donald Trump said hitting targets deep inside Russian territory would be an ‘escalation’. Pic: Reuters
He also said he was hesitant to tap into the US’ supply of Tomahawks, saying: “I have an obligation also to make sure that we’re completely stocked up as a country, because you never know what’s going to happen in war and peace.
“We’d much rather have them not need Tomahawks. We’d much rather have the war be over to be honest.”
Analysis: Is Trump being ‘played’ by Putin?
Before Donald Trump met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he hosted one of his favourite singers, Andrea Bocelli, in the Oval Office.
The Italian tenor serenaded him with the signature track Time To Say Goodbye, a song about hope and new beginnings.
But the next event on his agenda suggested antipathy between Trump and the Ukrainian president are firmly lodged in the past.
On the key issue of whether Vladimir Putin actually wants peace, the pair continue to fundamentally disagree.
Trump repeated several times his belief that Putin is committed to ending the war, which may come as a surprise to the people of eastern Ukraine, being pummeled by an expanded Russian offensive in the past few months.
Trump also spoke about “bad blood on both sides”, again inferring equal blame on Zelenskyy, whose sovereign nation was invaded, and Putin, who is doing the invading.
It’s in Putin’s gift to stop the fighting immediately, but that was glossed over.
Following Friday’s meeting at the White House, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer confirmed he had called Mr Zelenskyy to reiterate his support.
Ukraine has UK’s ‘resolute support’
A Downing Street spokesperson said: “The prime minister spoke to the president of Ukraine, European leaders and the NATO secretary general this evening following President Zelenskyy’s visit to the White House today.
“The leaders reiterated their unwavering commitment to Ukraine in the face of ongoing Russian aggression. A just and lasting peace for Ukraine was the only way to stop the killing for good, they agreed.
“Further discussions about how they could support Ukraine in the lead up to, and following, a ceasefire would continue this week, including in a Coalition of the Willing call on Friday, the leaders agreed.
“Following the call with world leaders this evening, the prime minister then spoke to President Zelenskyy bilaterally to underscore the United Kingdom’s resolute support for Ukraine.”