How Trump slithered past NABJ

A lot has been said and written about former President Donald Trump’s disastrous appearance last week before the NABJ (National Association of Black Journalists) Convention - an association of Black newspaper, television, radio and social media reporters (both general market and African-American-owned).

For the record, I am not currently a member, though I was a member of the local North Carolina affiliate, TABJ (Triangle Association of Black Journalists) back when it was founded during the early 2000s.

So when I heard that Trump agreed to make an appearance at their gathering in Chicago last week, and take questions from Black journalists, I was quite intrigued.

By the way, for this commentary, I’m going to turn down my normal outrage meter. I’m talking about a craft that I love - journalism, have seriously practiced for many years, and still take pride in. So I do not want to be misunderstood.

Rarely do Black journalists get the opportunity to interview presidential candidates about the issues important to our respective communities (yes, plural. We’re not monolithic). So when we do, we should try to make the most out of the limited opportunity with our best practitioners available.

That did not happen last week.

From what I gather, many in the NABJ membership were against the idea of Trump even being invited to an onstage sit-down for questions. Apparently, they felt that it only provided him an opportunity to tell more lies, and at their expense. They wanted no part of being used by him, or that they were doing anything to promote him, accidentally or otherwise.

I can understand and respect those feelings, but to my brother and sister colleagues of the media, in my view, that’s not why any of us should even be in this business.

If we are true journalists, and our job is to dig into the stories that matter to the Black community, then whether someone thinks politicians are “using” us or not, really isn’t our concern.

         As long as we know what we’re doing. Apparently NABJ did not!

Now if Trump was invited solely to make an unfettered speech to a group of Black journalists, like what happened with those ridiculous Black conservatives in South Carolina last February, that would have been very wrong. Indeed, unforgivable.

No, he was invited to answer questions, and that’s what should have happened, with factchecking.

At the very least, NABJ accidentally further exposed Trump for who and what he is. But the way NABJ managed the opportunity was horrendous!

My concern, again, is that if there are important questions of particular interest to the African-American and Black communities, that we use every opportunity to get the appropriate answers for our readers, listeners, viewers, etc.

Why? Because the people in our communities are American citizens for the most part, and are entitled to answers to the most pressing questions from those who say they want to represent, and govern us. If they're not willing to give us those answers, we should report why.

That’s it! What people like Donald Trump, or Kamala Harris, or anyone else seeking public office do with the opportunity we give them is on them, and we can’t control that. If they choose not to answer our fair questions, we report that. 

If they choose to mess around and waste our time, we report that.

If they choose to sincerely offer a genuine answer to help properly inform our communities, we gladly report that.

But our job is to give them the opportunity to answer, and then accurately and truthfully report what they say, and do, with that opportunity.

And we do so in a serious, no-nonsense, but respectful manner because we should always be professional in how we approach our jobs when it comes to reporting.

Period!

I’ll never forget one of my proudest moments as a journalist came many, many years ago when a Wake County commissioner told me privately that he respected me because, “ At least when you cut someone’s balls off, you’re fair about it, not like The News and Observer.”

I was proud because my reporting was nowhere near as prominent or influential as the N&O’s - the major newspaper in the Raleigh market - but I was respected from my perch for what I did, and that meant a lot to me.

In my professional judgement, after seeing the original NABJ stream of the Trump session last week, then rewatching it online, then reading everything I could about it afterwards, and listening to as much analysis as possible, NABJ was not wrong in inviting Trump to come to its convention to answer questions important to our communities.

Come on, this is a presidential election. Either we go to him, or he comes to us - those are the two choices. As reporters, if given the opportunity to get answers, it’s our job to take the opportunity afforded. Otherwise, we’re not doing our jobs. You either hold him accountable or you don’t if you get the opportunity. There’s no in-between.

Back in 2008, I arranged two NC Black Press Reporters Roundtables - one in Greensboro with Sen. Hillary Clinton, and then the next day with Sen. Barack Obama in Winston-Salem. Both were in a fierce battle with each other to win the North Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary, which was crucial towards winning the Democratic nomination. 

Now many of us were personally very upset with Sen. Clinton because of derogatory remarks she and her husband, former Pres. Bill Clinton, and their surrogates, had made about Sen. Obama. Some NC Black newspaper reporters didn’t even show up for Hillary’s roundtable because they were so angry with her.

But the rest of us did our jobs for our communities and readers without bias, and I’m proud of what we did as professionals for those two sessions. We put tough, but fair questions to both candidates, and felt good about it then, and still do to this day.

But the same can’t be said about the absolute mess NABJ perpetrated last week with Trump, thanks to poor planning, and not sticking to its guns.

For the record, every presidential election cycle, NABJ invites the nominees from the two major political parties to come to its convention to share their views on Black issues.

Wholly appropriate, in my opinion. However, the way NABJ fashioned its sit-down with Trump was raggedy.

The only shining, professional light of the three ladies up on stage interviewing Trump was Rachel Scott, senior congressional correspondent covering the 2024 campaign for ABC News. That lady is gold (and I still don’t understand why there were no men among the three participating journalists, or not even a reporter from the excellent local Black newspaper, The Chicago Defender)!

Ms. Scott knows how to ask tough questions of top politicos like Nancy Pelosi or Jim Jordan, get cussed out to her face when they don’t feel like answering, and never lose a beat or get flustered by their negative reaction. She sticks to her job until she gets an answer, one way or another. THAT’S professional!

After shaking hands and welcoming him, Ms. Scott started the questioning of Trump with a respectful, but no-nonsense-get-right-to-it-barnburner:

"I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room, sir. A lot of people did not think it was appropriate for you to be here today," Scott said. "You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals, from Nikki Haley to former President Barack Obama, saying that they were not born in the United States, which is not true. You have told four congressmen, women of color, who were American citizens, to go back to where they came from. You have used words like 'animal' and 'rabbit' to describe Black district attorneys. You've attacked Black journalists, calling them a 'loser,' saying the questions that they ask are, 'stupid and racist.' You've had dinner with a white supremacist at your Mar a Lago resort."

         "So, my question, sir, now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you, why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?" Scott asked.

Trump DID NOT like that question, and immediately attacked Scott, calling her “very rude.”

“I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner,” Trump growled, later adding that she was also “nasty.”

Hell no, Rachel Scott was neither “rude” nor “nasty.”  She was doing her job, asking tough questions based on the facts we all know about him. Fair game.

Then Trump attacked ABC News, calling it a “fake news network;”complained that he was lied to about the appearance arrangements; complained about some audio problems; and even complained about VP Harris not being there by Zoom (NABJ should have allowed that to happen).

Obviously the racist convicted felon and rapist was filibustering because Ms. Scott, with that blockbuster opening question, was giving him more than he came to NABJ to handle. 

He chose essentially not to really answer questions, even when pressed. Thanks to Ms. Scott’s keen skills though, his asinine remarks about “Black jobs;”  his “…doing more for the Black population than Abraham Lincoln;” and falsely claiming that Kamala Harris - a Howard University alumna and member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Black sorority -  only recently decided to be Black rather than Indian-American, have been thoroughly fact-checked now for the record.

A record Black voters can refer to when they decide in November whether to vote for, or against him.

The whole NABJ event pretty much went downhill from there, however. Harris Faulkner, a Fox News anchor, was obviously very friendly with Trump, since Fox News is always very friendly to Trump. She made it a point to pitch him rhetorical self-aggrandizing softballs he easily answered with relish.

     I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's team fed Faulkner her questions.

The third journalist on stage, Nadia Goba of Semafor, displayed very little presence or skill, and her youth and inexperience showed. Not ready for prime time.

        Watch the tape. Trump was extremely courteous to Goba and Faulkner because they posed no threat to him. He handled them.

ABC’s Rachel Scott was the only journalist of the three we could trust to do the job of holding Trump’s feet to the fire. Convicted Felon Man came there to cause trouble, so he obviously had an agenda. And when he saw he was failing - especially at the hands of at least one sharp Black female journalist he should be afraid of - he continued to blather and aimlessly attack, hoping to overturn the entire proverbial apple cart.

But regardless, NABJ’s agenda should have still been to confront Trump on his long history of racism, sexism and misogyny, in addition to his Project 2025 plans, and positions concerning the Black community on the issues of health, education and the economy.

The answers to those questions, if NABJ had been seriously about business, were what we should have gotten from that session. 

But instead, my colleagues (except ABC’s Rachel Scott) allowed Trump to, as I maintained earlier, slither away when they had him. What was supposed to be an hour session was cut to 34 minutes by Trump’s team, trying to save his hide before Scott really nailed him.

Reporting from Axios.com reveals the following about what went down before the event started - "Trump did not want to be fact-checked live and was refusing to go on stage, NABJ president Ken Lemon told Axios. '[Trump's team] said, 'Well, can you not fact check? He's not going to take the stage if you fact-check,' Lemon said.” 

Axios.com adds that there were audio problems, but they were quickly fixed. When NABJ Pres. Lemon decided to write a statement explaining to the 2,000 gathered and those watching on streaming why Trump was delayed getting on stage, Trump suddenly walked out and took his seat.

Some have said Trump went to NABJ not to truthfully answer any questions, but to show off to his predominately white MAGA base that he can stand up to Black people, and diminish his rival, VP Harris.

Let’s say all that’s true. Still,  a good journalist, regardless of color, can only professionally ask the well-researched questions, and then give the interviewee a fair chance to answer, or not.

If Trump couldn’t handle that, he exposed himself for what he really is. Which, essentially, is what he did.

I’ve heard folks in the aftermath say he shouldn’t have been invited because he’s proven he can’t be controlled, or behave like a normal presidential candidate.

NABJ, listen. If controlling Donald Trump was your goal, you failed miserably. The absolute best you could do was expose him, which you accidentally did only because he’s so full of himself.

In the end, NABJ, you allowed Donald Trump to, again,  slither past you. You should have fact-checked him on-screen for the audience, and if he didn’t like it, too bad. He was free to leave, proving he had no respect for either the process, or Black journalists.

According to Axios.com, "'The bigger problem was his threat not to take the stage when he had agreed to go on. He did not want to be fact-checked, but we could not let him on the stage without fact-checking,' Lemon said."

So why did you? 

You had a vital job to do NABJ, but you blinked, you blew it! If Trump wanted to fly to Chicago and chicken out when he got there, that would have been his problem to live with, and for you to report. Or you could have initially boxed him in by allowing VP Harris to appear via Zoom under the same set of rules, and start the program on time, so that the world would know that he chickened out. If he pouted and left early, she would have remained, displaying no fear of your questions, nor your fact-checking.

Instead, Trump, as many have now said, played you NABJ.

Now this Trump debacle, and all that comes with it, is forever part of your legacy.

Our community deserved much, much better, NABJ!

         Much better!