【close-up eroticism】

Donald Trump already proved he could close-up eroticismsteamroll an entire field of Republican presidential candidates. Matt Lauer wasn't much more of a challenge.

On Wednesday night, Lauer became the first member of the media to speak to each candidate in primetime. Now, he's suddenly the symbol of widespread frustration with how the press has covered the election.

Not that he hasn't earned it.

In what has become a widely panned pair of interviews, Lauer questioned Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump separately during an NBC News "Commander-In-Chief Forum." The televised event provided something of a warmup for the three upcoming presidential debates, the first of which happens on Sept. 26.

The media has been one of the biggest topics of debate this election season, rivaling immigration and national security. The press has been hit for pushing a false equivalency between the candidates, sexist treatment of Clinton and an unwillingness to confront outright falsehoods.

Lauer managed to pull off that trifecta easily, inspiring the hashtag "#LaueringTheBar" and providing the moderators for the upcoming debates with an example of what not to do.

His most blatant mistake came during the interview with Trump, when he declined to push back at the candidate's claim that he had always been against the Iraq war, an assertion that has been thoroughly debunked. The lack of the slightest pushback provided critics with an easy example with which to attack Lauer.

That's a bad mistake, but if it was the only problem with Lauer's performance, he might have been able to skate by on the strength of the rest of his effort. Instead, the Iraq lie served as a convenient soundbite for the wider issues with his interviews.

The easiest comparison came with the opening questions posed to each candidate. For Trump, Lauer lobbed a softball: "Why should you be commander-in-chief?"

For Clinton, Lauer spent the first 13 of his 30 minutes talking about her email scandal.

It was, front to back, pretty bad.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Even with the poor performance, it would have been hard to predict the fervor with which people raged against Lauer. The New York TimesTV critic aggressively panned the anchorman while numerous other print and TV outlets weren't much kinder. Lauer should definitely avoid Twitter for ... a while.

The vitriol with which Lauer was attacked hints at just how contentious the role of journalists -- and particularly those on a major national stage -- has become in this election, as well as the broad frustration with media negligence in how it has covered the candidates. That frustration boiled over on Thursday, with Lauer as the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And with the election just 60 days away and polls narrowing, stakes are only getting higher.

Indeed, as New York magazine's Jonathan Chait wrote, he didn't think Trump had a shot at winning until seeing Lauer's interview. He noted that NBC's forum is the kind of media that reaches a lot of Americans, particularly those who aren't feverishly consuming other forms of coverage.

That sentiment was echoed by CNN media reporter Dylan Byers.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Media critique tends to become overly broad, but in Lauer's case, it is tough to find legitimate defenses of his work. Among the few that have come to his defense is Chris Matthews, who said that calling out lies would sound like the journalist was expressing an opinion. You are not alone if you don't think that makes any sense whatsoever.

The notion that calling out a lie would be seen as a journalist overstepping their bounds strikes at the core of the media's struggles in this election. For members of the press accustomed to traditional candidates, the rise of Donald Trump has posed a near impossible puzzle, particularly for those who have to challenge him in real time as Lauer did. He is not used to calling people liars to their faces in front of a national audience.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

That could maybe be confusing, but Lauer's interview with Clinton was what really struck a deeper chord.

Lauer's willingness to spend almost half his time asking Clinton about the email controversy that has been mostly debunked (Cliff's notes: It was sloppy but not criminal, according to the FBI) didn't do him any favors. But it was his numerous interruptions of Clinton during answers on the substantive questions he eventually asked that provided the most direct comparison between how he treated Clinton and Trump.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Lauer did a bad job. That's an easy conclusion to draw. He's far from the first to do so in this election cycle, and he's not going to be the last. Considering the media's performance thus far, Lauer's new status as whipping boy feels overblown, but understandable.

That should put everyone on notice, especially anyone who ends up on television with either of the candidates. If any good can come from Lauer's performance, it may be serving as a warning for journalists.

Granted, some journalists don't appear to be ready to learn from those mistakes. Chris Wallace of Fox News, who will serve as a moderator in an upcoming debate, said recently he did not see a moderator's job as being the "truth squad" when candidates lie, arguing that candidates themselves need to do that.

As for Wallace and the other moderators: NBC’s Lester Holt, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper, they'll understandably be under a microscope during the debates. Lucky for them, Lauer has set the baseline for what they need to do.