Where’s the official report of Trump’s injuries?

Isn’t it odd that five days after a would-be assassin’s bullet apparently grazed the right ear of former President Donald Trump at a rally, we have had no official statement, release, press conference, medical report or whatever stating exactly what kind of injuries that Trump suffered?

To be clear, this isn’t to question that Trump was injured. He had lots of blood coming from his ear in the moments immediately after we all heard the popping sounds of a gun and saw Trump wincing in pain and surprise. There is no proof behind the conspiracy theories that Trump was injured by anything other than a bullet.

This also isn’t to question the media, which seems to be trying to find out exactly what physically happened to Trump.

Veteran media reporter Paul Farhi tweeted Wednesday, “Still don’t know the extent of Trump’s injury(ies) since Saturday’s shooting. No briefing in 3 1/2 days.”

The day after the shooting, Trump wrote on his Truth Social that a bullet “pierced the upper part” of his right ear.

Trump has been seen this week at the Republican National Convention wearing a large bandage on his ear. Trump’s son, Eric, told “CBS Mornings” co-host Tony Dokoupil from the RNC on Wednesday that Trump did not get stitches.

Eric told Dokoupil, “You know, he was millimeters away from having his life expunged. … I’m sure the ear doesn’t feel well.”

Eric also said Trump had a “nice flesh wound” and the “greatest earache he has ever had.”

The New York Times’ Jonathan Swan reported on Tuesday that he spoke with Texas GOP Congressman Ronny Jackson, who was Trump’s White House doctor as president. Jackson was on the plane with Trump to Milwaukee for the RNC and told Swan that he changed the dressing on Trump’s ear.

Jackson told Swan, “The bullet took a little bit off the top of his ear in an area that, just by nature, bleeds like crazy. The dressing’s bulked up a bit because you need a bit of absorbent. You don’t want to be walking around with bloody gauze on his ear.”

All in all, Trump appears fine physically. He’s at the convention. He’s moving around as normal, and seems normal, other than having that big bandage.

But USA Today’s Rex Huppke wonders in a column if there is a psychological toll from almost being killed.

Huppke wrote, “… Trump may well not yet know the mental impact this horrific shooting had on him. It’s difficult to be self-reflective in the wake of something life-altering like that, and because of the timing of this week’s Republican National Convention, Trump chose to put on a tough face and move forward with his campaign. He’s showing up at the convention in Milwaukee with a huge bandage on his ear, yet nobody knows his exact medical condition.”

So why does this all matter? Huppke asks some questions that at least should be considered of someone who is running for president of the United States:

• What, specifically, was his injury, and how was it treated?
• What is his current medical condition in the wake of the injury, and has he been prescribed medication? If so, what kind?
• Will additional medical procedures be required?
• Has the former president had a psychological evaluation in the wake of the shooting?
• How is his medical team planning to address the possibility of PTSD or other psychological after-effects?
• Is he planning ongoing mental health counseling?

Huppke concluded with “A 78-year-old man just went through a traumatizing event few of us can even imagine. Voters deserve to know exactly what happened, and how Trump is doing, in body and in mind.”

Biden has COVID

Speaking of medical updates, can the news cycle get any busier? On Wednesday evening, it was announced that President Joe Biden tested positive for COVID-19. He had to cancel a speech he was supposed to make at a conference in Las Vegas.

Almost immediately, there were official medical updates.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement that Biden was experiencing “mild symptoms.” She said Biden would return to Delaware to self-isolate, but would continue to work.

Biden’s doctor also said in a statement that Biden’s “symptoms remain mild.” Those symptoms, according to the doctor’s statement, were a runny nose, a nonproductive cough and general malaise. The doctor said Biden was taking Paxlovid and that his respiratory rate, temperature and pulse oximetry were all normal.

The day had already been a bad one for Biden. Earlier, another prominent Democrat, California Rep. Adam Schiff, called for Biden to drop out of the presidential race.

Schiff said, “While the choice to withdraw from the campaign is President Biden’s alone, I believe it is time for him to pass the torch.”

The Washington Post’s Nicole Markus has more details about Schiff’s comments.

And then there’s more: There are reports that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer both had meetings with Biden last week, telling the president that staying on the ballot could negatively impact races that could cost the Democrats in both the House and Senate.

The Washington Post’s Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer have more.

And CNN’s Jeff Zeleny reported: “A new moment for Biden? One Democratic adviser says: ‘He’s being receptive.’” A senior Democratic adviser reportedly told Zeleny that when it comes to Vice President Kamala Harris, “(Biden has) gone from saying, ‘Kamala can’t win,’ to ‘Do you think Kamala can win?’ It’s still unclear where he’s going to land but seems to be listening.”

Tweets of the day

Niall Stanage, White House columnist for The Hill, tweeted, “President Biden has COVID. (The script writers are really trying to cram too much into this series.)”

CNN senior reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere tweeted, “We are nearing the point in the presidential race where aliens could land and that would not be big enough to keep up with news developments.”

How did you hear?

Where were you when you heard that Trump had been shot?

It was early on a Saturday evening, a time when many might not have been near their TVs. It’s a time when many of you might have been out — to dinner or taking a walk at the park or puttering around the house.

My Poynter colleague, Kelly McBride, wrote this piece: “How news avoiders got information about Trump’s shooting.” McBride said she reached out with a survey to friends, family and social networks to ask how they consumed the news of the shooting and how satisfied they were with the coverage.

She wrote, “This was not at all scientific. Journalists and Gen Xers were overrepresented, as were liberals. Despite the lack of rigor, the results revealed some clear divides. A small portion of the 126 respondents were nimble news junkies, bouncing between brands, platforms and devices. They could describe the relative strengths and weaknesses of different newsrooms and even individual journalists. They kept at it for hours and even though the news was unpleasant, they found the coverage engaging. But a much larger portion of the people who filled out the survey described a clear set of strategies that would limit their exposure to ongoing reporting. They talked of protecting their time and their emotional well-being, of needing to be informed and wanting to avoid feeling manipulated or disrespected.”

McBride asked what people did as soon as they learned what had happened. It broke down like this:

• One-third of the respondents went to a browser and mostly opened up a well-known news site, although some of them went to search.
• A quarter of them went straight to a news app.
• Fifteen percent went to a social media site. Several of the folks who opened up X pointed out that it used to be much better during breaking news.
• Just over 10% turned on the TV.
• Seven people did absolutely nothing to gather more information.
• One person phoned a friend.

McBride delves into much more about how people did (and did not) consume the news. So check out her story.

Coming in hot

I link to this comment on CNN from Jonah Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Times, because it’s so juicy and the exact kind of thing you want when watching hours long coverage of political conventions.

About businessman and failed GOP presidential wannabe Vivek Ramaswamy, Goldberg said, “I find Vivek Ramaswamy exhausting. Jesse Jackson once said of Bill Clinton that the problem with him is — he said, ‘I think I can work with him. But when you look into him, all you see is appetite.’ And I think that’s an unfair comparison to Bill Clinton compared to Vivek Ramaswamy, because Vivek Ramaswamy seems like appetite with a very large forehead to me. And I don’t believe his sincerity on anything. But he’s very good at telling people who want to like him what they want to hear. And he’s another one of these younger guys who is a very old person’s idea of what they want young people to be like. And he’s mastered that shtick. And I do think it’s shtick.”

Notable links surrounding the Republican National Convention …

A reporter says she was fired

Hong Kong-based reporter Selina Cheng has lost her job at The Wall Street Journal. Cheng said a supervisor told her it was because the Journal was restructuring. But Cheng says she believes it’s because she refused her supervisor’s request to withdraw as chair of the Hong Kong Journalists Association.

The Washington Post’s Shibani Mahtani explained in a story, “The HKJA, a press advocacy association, has been accused in recent weeks by state-backed and state-run media outlets in Hong Kong and China of destabilizing the city.”

Cheng has been on the board of the HKJA since 2021, but was elected as chair just last month. The day before the election, Cheng said, her bosses told her to not run for chair and to withdraw from the board. She refused.

In a press conference, Cheng said, “I am appalled that the first press conference I’m giving as HKJA’s new chair is to announce that I was fired for taking up this position in a press union.”

The Associated Press’ Kanis Leung reported that Dow Jones, which owns the Journal, confirmed it made some personnel changes, but refused to comment on individuals, adding, “The Wall Street Journal has been and continues to be a fierce and vocal advocate for press freedom in Hong Kong and around the world.”

Mahtani wrote for the Post, “The termination, if linked to Cheng’s position at HKJA, would be the latest indication of how even large, well-resourced international media organizations are wary about the risks of operating in Hong Kong, a once-freewheeling city that has increasingly come to resemble mainland China in its suppression of civil liberties, including press freedom.”

Leung wrote, “The Hong Kong Journalists Association has been criticized by local authorities and pro-Beijing media outlets in recent years. In June, Secretary for Security Chris Tang said the association lacks legitimacy and accused it of having stood with the protesters in 2019. The Wall Street Journal also has faced pressure from the government. Last July, it received three complaint letters from Tang over its editorial or opinion pieces.”

Leung added, “After she refused to withdraw from the HKJA’s election last month, she said, her supervisor told her that Wall Street Journal’s workers should not be seen as advocating for press freedom in ‘a place like Hong Kong’ because such advocacy would create a conflict as the outlet reports on incidents about press freedom in the city.”

Media tidbits

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.