Think this past weekend’s assassination attempt – and Donald Trump’s defiant fist-pumping reaction to it – won’t help the ex-president? Think again. The Globe reports, anecdotally, that undecided voters in New Hampshire are breaking for Trump. They admire how he forcefully reacted to nearly getting killed. And Biden? Well, you already know what they’re thinking. …

The Globe’s Jeff Jacoby wonders if the nation can cool down the apocalyptic rhetoric following the Trump assassination attempt. He doesn’t provide an answer. But the NYT’s Peter Baker does: No. … My own reaction? No, too. Why? The media. 

The media is not the sole cause of today’s apocalyptic political environment. But it is a major and often overlooked cause, stretching back decades when “Point/CounterPoint” (CBS) and “Crossfire” (CNN) first started treating political differences as political theater and entertainment. Political conflict was built into these shows. Even when they tried to be civil (“Firing Line”), political conflict was at its implied core.

Fox News Channel took this to an entirely new level when it was founded in 1996. Its business model is built on promoting and profiting from divisiveness. Does anyone seriously doubt this after reading the internal Fox emails tied to the infamous Dominion libel case?  Here’s the Fox formula for profiting off of conflict: Find the divisive issue of the day, hammer into it relentlessly, generate outrage, create us-vs-them viewer loyalty, attract advertisers, generate profits. It’s worked. Fox News is the most-watched cable TV news channel in the U.S., generating hundreds of millions of dollars in profits per year.

Do you really think Fox News will simply give up this mega-profitable conflict franchise, ceding its top conservative media status to right-wing upstarts like Newsmax? What about lefty us-vs-them imitators like MSNBC? Again, conflict is built into their business models. They rely on viewers who watch programs to confirm their political beliefs, not to have them challenged. Ditto many of those using Substack, podcasts and other social-media outlets to profit (hopefully) from their political views.

What about other media outlets, such as old print/digital stalwarts like the New York Times, the Washington Post, Boston Globe etc.? Only recently have some media critics and other industry observers acknowledged that, well, okay, the MSM has long had a liberal-leaning bias stretching back decades. I’d argue that that bias only got worse after Trump won the presidency in 2016, with many outlets, officially or unofficially, adopting (or being pressured to adopt) anti-both-sideism approaches to news coverage while pronouncing “objectivity” dead. I.e., they used anti-both-sideism as a fig leaf to take sides. They drifted left. And they reaped the rewards in terms of the huge Trump bump in digital subscriptions, even as journalists like Marty Baron bemoaned the shift away from objectivity. Many MSM outlets have clearly benefited from anti-Trump conflict.

To be clear: I’m not saying there aren’t stark ideological differences that are contributing to today’s polarized political environment. Extremism and political polarization existed long before the advent of radio, TV and social media etc. 

But I am saying the modern media is at least partly to blame for today’s politically toxic, apocalyptic environment – and the media isn’t going to suddenly change for the good of the country. Their business models won’t allow it.

The immediate reaction of an acquaintance to Donald Trump’s fist-pumping defiance after yesterday’s assassination attempt: ‘It’s over.’ … He was referring to a now probable Donald Trump victory in November, propelled partly by yesterday’s dramatic events and the former president’s display of angry determination. The event will generate more than a sympathy vote for Trump. It will generate a vote of admiration among some, if not many, toss-up voters. The past few weeks’ debate over Biden’s age now seem utterly inconsequential. …

This is a somewhat weird NYT piece on Trump’s physical reaction to the assassination attempt yesterday. Its initial tone and language seemed to suggest the ex-president was more concerned about mugging for the camera while he was collectively bear-hugged by the secret service agents. Then it backs off and non-judgmentally refers to his “instincts” and “visceral connection with his supporters.” No mention of possible admirable traits displayed by Trump, such as presence of mind and actual courage, mixed with understandable confusion, shock, normal weird thoughts (“Let me get my shoes”) etc. …

… Personally, I’m anti-Trump for many, many reasons. I’m one of those who thinks he’s a threat to our democracy. If elected to a second term, he will deliberately set out to test the strengths and durability of our democratic institutions, I’m convinced. But yesterday he shattered one notion of mine – that he was a physical coward. Yesterday proved that notion wrong. … 

President Biden’s brief post-shooting comments were OK. Mildly reassuring. But that’s about it. Nothing lofty. No Peggy Noonan-like eloquence capturing the shock and sadness of the moment. He appears to have appeared merely because he was supposed to appear. 

One example doesn’t make a trend. Still, Steve Adams at Banker & Tradesman reports (sub.) how The Fallon Co. has secured a big construction loan for a new luxury residential tower on Boston’s Fan Pier. Is this the end of Boston’s high-end residential construction drought? I’ll believe it’s part of a trend when work resumes at Suffolk Downs and other sites.

Here are two interesting NYT pieces that play off each other (though I don’t think they were planned to play off each other). One is by David Brooks on how Trump’s right-wing campaign has turned into a left-wing version of identify politics, complete with political victims (conservatives, Christians, etc.) and their evil-doer oppressors (secular liberals). The second is a piece on how Trump is literally profiting off of playing the martyred victim, electorally and financially (selling Bibles, swaths of his mug-shot clothing etc.). 

Btw – Re selling the mug-shot clothing: It reminds me of the hilarious “The Shoe is the Sign” scene from ‘The Life of Brian.’

Maybe President Biden’s letter didn’t work – or at least not with Chuck, Nancy and George. And then there’s the small band of disgruntled Congressional Democrats who think Biden should withdraw from the race. … Re Chuck: It may be, and probably is, a case of him telling nervous donors what they want to hear. But if Drudge is giving it credence, I’ll give it credence! … Re George: You know coup backers are getting desperate when they attribute great importance to what a Hollywood celebrity thinks. … Re Congressional Dems: Among them is U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, who doesn’t have a good track record of backing the right horse during attempted coups.

Boston is leading the nation in year-over-year growth of workers returning to the office, reports the BBJ’s Grant Welker, citing new data from Placer.ai.

Good news, right? Well, yes, and no. An increase is an increase. Demand is demand. But Boston’s office building “foot traffic,” which is a loose way of saying ‘occupancy’ without getting into hybrid-work complications, is still down 32 percent compared to pre-pandemic 2019. So there’s still a one-third oversupply of office buildings. 

One measly letter is all it took for the revolt to collapse. … From NBC: “There’s no way out’: Democrats feel powerless as ‘elites’ fall in line behind Biden.” …

Meanwhile, the Globe’s David Scharfenberg has an excellent piece on why, Biden or no Biden, Dems are in a tough spot. I know Democrats can’t out-populist Trump. But can’t they at least come up with compelling commercials about the economy (low unemployment rate, record high stocks, increased manufacturing jobs — conveniently leaving out inflation) or infrastructure work (showing lots of photos with hard-hat construction workers at outdoor road-and-bridge sites etc.)? Why haven’t I seen any commercials about abortion? Project 2025? January 6? Forget Biden’s age and physical limitations. He’s running a mediocre campaign in almost every regard.

After the letter he just sent, you have to wonder: Will he get booed at the convention? … The letter sounds like it was written by a committee led by Hunter.

France just proved that it’s possible to desperately throw together a last-minute strategy solely aimed at stopping a particular party from obtaining power. The problem is we’re not talking about parliamentary elections in America. We’re talking about a one-on-one presidential matchup. The dynamics are different. But the results in France must still be somewhat intriguing, if not encouraging, for those Dems desperately hoping to replace Biden with another candidate who can stop Donald Trump.

Update — Not that any of this matters.