The Fox News/Trump Ororboros
To what degree is right wing media shaping Trump's view of Harris?
Yesterday, James reviewed some of the reporting about how former President Trump and Vice President Harris are preparing for this week’s debate. Part of the New York Times reporting James cited has been bouncing around in my brain since then:
“While he respected Ms. Clinton as “smart” and a hard worker, Mr. Trump plainly believes that Ms. Harris is unintelligent, advisers and allies say.”
I don’t think many of our readers will be surprised that Trump thinks poorly of Harris. I suspect that most of those folks will chalk this up to Trump’s long record of racial bigotry and misogyny (in fact, I expect to get a lot of that in comments responding to this post). While I am sure that those characteristics play a role in his assessment, I think there is another significant influence on the former President. After all, if the answer was as simple as misogyny, then why would Trump hold some respect for Hillary Clinton?
One possible explanation for Trump’s view of Clinton is that they had several past in-person interactions before the 2016 Presidential race. Given Trump’s emphasis on forming opinions through direct interaction, it wouldn’t surprise me if those meetings, however limited, shaped his perception of Clinton. The fact that their interactions started in the nineties, when Trump leaned more towards the Democratic party may also influence his assessment.
The debate will be the first time Trump and Harris will be together in a small room. To date, they have never spoken to one another. The closest physical proximity they have previously been in was when Harris attended Trump’s State of the Union address as a Senator. Unlike with Clinton, Trump has no direct interactions to use in building his opinion of Harris. So he is working from second-hand assessments. The question then becomes whose secondhand assessments?
Given Trump’s famous lack of interest in reading, I think it makes sense to assume he’s using other sources of information. Using Occam’s Razor, one of the most likely shapers of his opinion (beyond his advisors) is Fox News. It’s been well established that during his time in office, Trump often watched Fox News. For example, back in 2017, the Washington Post’s Phillip Bump did an analysis of the Former President’s tweeting habits and found:
He has tweeted about the Fox News show 88 times as president, including retweets of its account. Often, though, it’s clear that he’s watching the show because he tweets about what he saw shortly afterward. Both CNN and Matthew Gertz of the liberal group Media Matters have mastered the art of tying Trump’s early-morning tweets to the things he has seen on television. [source]
During that same period, Bloomberg news also reported that Trump was watching a lot of Fox News:
Long a voracious consumer of cable news, Trump has cut back how much he watches CNN and MSNBC in recent weeks, having sworn off the latter network’s Morning Joe after criticism from its hosts, according to a senior White House aide privy to the president’s viewing habits.Instead, the president now spends hours some mornings watching Fox News, switching occasionally to CNBC for business headlines, along with a daily diet of newspapers and press clippings, said the official, who asked not to be identified discussing private information. On the evenings when he doesn’t have a dinner or briefing, Trump will spend most of his TV-viewing time watching Fox News shows hosted by Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity, the aide said. [Bloomberg via The Week]
PBS also reported in 2019 about the connection between Fox News and the Trump White House. In that report, Jane Meyer was asked to respond to a critical question: Is Trump driving Fox, or is Fox driving Trump?
So, that was one of the things I was hoping to find out, as a reporter, because I couldn’t tell. Who’s driving this train?
And on any given day, it’s very hard to tell. What you will often see is something that’s on Fox then echoed by a tweet from the president. Then Fox is encouraged to do more of it.
It’s kind of — someone said to me, it’s — you could call it either a vicious circle or cycle or a virtuous circle or cycle. It’s a loop. It’s a feedback loop. And somewhere in there, in some ways, among the most important dynamics is the audience, because Fox is trying to capture the audience and make it constantly watch Fox.
And the president is trying to capture the same audience and make them vote for him. This is a segment of the American population. And the way they do it is the same. They try to make that segment of the American population angry.
So, they’re both playing really towards the audience. [source]
Now that Trump has been out of office for four years, it feels helpful to revisit this question. On the one hand, for a brief period post-Dominion settlement and 2022 elections, Fox News seemed like it was going to distance itself from Trump. For a bit, it seemed like the Murdoch media empire was throwing its weight behind DeSantis. But then DeSantis failed to launch. And, perhaps even worse, Trump demonstrated that Fox News needed him far more than he needed Fox News (even skipping and counterprogramming against the Republican Primary Debate they hosted).
In the end, like old lovers falling back into past habits, they reconciled and worked through all the drama. Today, the symbiotic relationship is back on, for better or worse. Trump has become a regular fixture on Fox News, regularly calling into Fox and Friends to vent and being interviewed by Fox Hosts, including Sean Hannity and Mark Levin (in an interview in which Trump proclaimed he has every right to interfere in Presidential Elections… cool… cool). Without a doubt, Donald Trump is influencing the direction of Fox News. But regarding that PBS question, what about the reverse?
Call me a Soros-Funded-Anti-Free-Speech-Radical-Leftist-Writer, but it seems to me that Trump’s views on Harris are strongly shaped by Fox News opinion. It’s striking how the view that the Vice President is “not smart” (despite her noted accomplishments and ability to speak coherently on her policies) echoes what our conservative commenters write. More importantly, it tells how much those viewpoints echo the Fox News party line. For example, Fox News programming and guests have recently attacked Harris for having “nothing beyond ‘joy’,” for being “a big fake”, and, of course, being an avowed Bernie Sanders Marxist (except when she is trying to be more MAGA than Trump).
I think it’s clear to regular readers (or even readers of this post) that I’m not a Trump supporter. I find myself wondering, given his advanced age (he is the oldest candidate to be still running for President), what it means to elect a President so profoundly influenced by right-wing media. Some commenters will ask how this would differ from 2016 to 2020. It seems to this writer that the Former President’s susceptibility to media influence has only grown during the intervening years.
“Mr. Trump plainly believes that Ms. Harris is unintelligent…”
Uhhh. Gee. Try: Venn diagrams. Cackle. School buses. Cackle. Border assignment. Bupkis. First out in last Dem primary. Ukraine is a country next to Russia….. Gawd. Anything accomplished as VP? Ohh, last person in room on Afghanistan. Any real accomplishments? Um. Er.
Quite the towering intellect and policy guru.
You are one of the few here who make sense, Matt. But word of advice. There is no greater credibility killer than referencing Phillip Bump. None.
Can someone translate Jack’s gibberish into English? Thanks in advance.
@Jack:
Thanks as always for supporting my point about the lack of day light between those who follow right-wing media and Trump’s views when it comes to a perception of Harris.
It also gets to the power of “he thinks just like me.”
BTW you never confirmed how you feel about Trump’s “tariffs are not taxes” position. Still curious about that.
@Jack:
Great to know you thought I made sense in the past Jack.
Given all your comments calling me niave, biased, or worse, I have to confess I am a bit surprised you actually believe that versus that you think saying that might be more about making yourself trying to make yourself seem reasonable.
That said if you want to share what you liked about post posts, I would appreciate it.
Also still waiting to hear what you think it’s ok to criticize Trump about.
“After all, if the answer was as simple as misogyny, then why would Trump hold some respect for Hillary Clinton?”
With all due respect, I think you’re falling for standard Trump bullshit. If he were about to debate Hillary, he’d be calling her stupid. He pretends to respect a former adversary to trash his current one and it’s not nothing to do with what he actually “thinks” about anyone or anything.
A VP seldom accomplishes anything as their role is to carry out what the POTUS wants. However, prior to VP she was a prosecutor, State AG of CA and a senator. Pretty good. I dont think she is a genius and probably isn’t as bright as Clinton or Obama but is likely at least on par with Bush 1 and 2 and ahead of Trump who is in decline. Probably a second rate, but still good intellect, combined with a near first rate temperament. As opposed to Trump who had a second rate intellect before slipping (first rate when it came to marketing) and a third rate (or whatever is lowest) temperament.
Steve
Steve
@Jack: Harris can speak in coherent sentences. That alone puts her parsecs beyond Trump, whose mental decline is now evident for all but his drooling worshipers to see.
Also, being the first to drop out of the 2020 primary was far from stupid. She wouldn’t be where she is now had she dragged it out.
As far as credibility killers, you support Trump.
‘Nuff said.
It ain’t just Trump. I’ve said for years in these threads that modern American conservatism is a positive feedback system. Instead of tending toward some point of stability, each element of the system, voters, pols, and media, tends to push the other elements to further extremes. FOX used to be a place where pols lied to voters. Now we have pols who were lied to by FOX and believed it. FOX made the voters crazier. The primary voters forced the pols to move right. Pols need to say crazier and crazier stuff on FOX. When FOX tried to moderate a bit after 2020 the voters pulled them back. Positive feedback systems run hotter and hotter until they run out of fuel or something breaks. I hope it’s the Republican Party, not the country.
Well, this means he will likely way underestimate her, so fine.
I mean, her father didn’t have to ship her off to military school (like Trump’s did), or pay her way into college (like Trump’s did), and she hasn’t lost money selling vodka, cheap steaks, and driven several casinos into the ground (like Trump did). On the intelligence scale, I’m not really sure he should be commenting. He’s always been a conman and a bullshit artist, which he thinks translates to being smart (it does not).
@steve:
This. I think most people forget that while CA Democrats have an inherent advantage in the general statewide election they still have to make it through a very competitive primary.
Going into who is “smarter” doesn’t feel productive. That said, I generally agree with your assessment. I also don’t think “smartness” is or should be the primary evaluation of a Chief Executive (out anyone else).
Personally I appreciate Harris’s clear demonstration of growth.
I often wonder where people hear stuff. I mentioned in the last week meeting two people in the dog park who both claimed to be undecided voters, but both had some takes that I’m scratching my head about. One claimed that Harris had said she was going to cancel student loan forgiveness; I couldn’t find anything in the news about that. The other said that she’s a drunk, and he can tell because he’s a former drunk. Again, a headscratcher.
I also had a conversation on Facebook with someone I don’t know who responded to a pro-Harris image on a mutual friend’s timeline. He said Harris is out to destroy people who look like him (he was a white guy). I asked him how exactly was she doing that, past, present or future? He said inflation was hurting his family. I agreed that inflation had been rough, but it was affecting everyone except the super rich, and it’s come down. So again, I asked, what was Harris doing to destroy people like him? No response, of course.
So I really do wonder where people get this stuff: Fox? TikTok? Podcasts?
With all due respect, Matt, I think you are trafficking in another version of sane-washing for Trump. I’ve seen no evidence of a coherent worldview from Trump in forever.
@Scott F.:
Ok, this really surprised me. Can you unpack this a little more? Why do you think it’s sane washing to suggest that Trump is being influenced by what he sees/hears via Fox News?
@Jack:
Speak English, please.
@Jack:
Is it not?
I assume this is some kind of weird catechism in certain wingnut circles that doesn’t mean what it means.
Are we going back to the 1300s, when Moscow hasn’t been founded, and the Kiev Rus was the predecessor to the Russian people we know and love, but centered in what would eventually become Ukraine? In that case Russia is a breakaway province.
Are we going back further to the Rus Khaganate that may or may not have existed and which is tied to various weird claims about Jews and Khazars?
There’s nothing new about Trump calling other people stupid; it’s been one of his commonest insults throughout his career. As one 2018 article notes:
But did he ever call Hillary stupid? At least indirectly.
You want to know who wrote that piece? Philip Bump.
And here is a list of the many people Trump has described as having a low IQ.
@Matt Bernius:
I think the implication is that Harris is dumb because she is a Democrat, presents as both black and Indian, and, fundamentally isn’t “American” in a way those folks recognize.
Rs assume the people who disagree with their understanding of the world are dumb, naive, indoctrinated – that their understanding of the world is dismissable just by declaring it so. DEI. Affirmative action hire.
They respond as if their political opponents have no brains and no agency and wouldn’t really disagree on policy if they were smarter.
@Jack:
Cut the bullshit, Drew. Kamala is a woman and she’s Black and she’s not your cult leader. That’s the beginning, middle and end of your reasons. You used to be cleverer at hiding your nastiness. Senility creeping up you?
@Not the IT Dept.:
Not the whole thing*, but here’s a summary: Duh, Kamabla unsmart, duh.
*For the whole thing, I need to dig up the Unabridged Dictionary of Nonsense and Incoherence.
I think it’s time to admit that Boomers are aging badly. Like milk. Going sour and bitter and insecure. We’re not doing any better than earlier generations, which is galling given the high opinion we’ve generally had of ourselves.
@Matt Bernius:
Who said “primary”?
While I agree that it is more important that a public official be sane, benevolent, and well-informed, I also think “smart” is important. As in, “not smart” should be disqualifying. The office of President is too important to let not-smart people like W and Trump wield its powers. Prior to them, the last not-smart President we had was… Harding? It had been a while.
@Michael Reynolds:
Boomers are fine in my book unless they act the fool. Some do, some don’t.
I was born in very late 1963. Technically a Boomer. Functionally, Gen X.
Generational swathes are way too wide. 18 years is technically a generation but who decides the declination point?
The whole business of assigning personalities and traits to age cohorts just strikes me as dumb and reductive.
I’m not saying people don’t change based upon birth year, but the concept of a cohort 18 years in length behaving the same way is just fucking stupid. There are no “generations”. That’s not how it works. Certainly not an 18 year long one.
The entire concept of “generations” is flawed. Especially the boundaries. Just because you born in a year does not align you to the extremely reductive belief of what you are, who you are, how you’ll behave is determined by that year you were born.
Assigning boomers, x’ers, millenials, zoomers, alphas into slots is fucking stupid.
@Matt Bernius:
What I’m trying to say is that I believe you are (naturally) trying to make sense of the verbal vomit that Trump spews and you are applying a normal (or sane) lens to do so:
A person thinks a certain way.
That certain way of thinking comes from sources of influence that resonate with that person.
That resonance is a susceptibility to the way of thinking of the source.
Ergo the way the person thinks becomes aligned with the way the source thinks.
Trump isn’t normal. He is stream of consciousness combined with burlesque performance. Take the Hannibal Lector crap. Somehow he saw some part of Silence of the Lambs on the campaign plane, so he drops a reference into his rally speech that night. The reference gets a rise out of his crowd and it triggers libs, so the reference becomes part of his “set list” for every rally. At no point, did Trump think he was drawing a philosophically or politically relevant point from a great movie. He was just riffing off whatever random garbage was floating around in his head and seeing what “works” with the mob.
So, it is possible that Trump is watching more Fox News, so more of their sound bites are rattling around Trump’s head. And it’s possible that with Trump’s age, whatever filters he once had to mitigate his stream of thought have degraded. But, Trump’s “thinking” hasn’t changed, because he doesn’t think like sane people do. He responds.
@Scott F.:
Thanks for taking the time to do that. I appreciate it. I see we are coming at this from two different directions.
One thing I’ll note, recently Trump has been bringing up Hannibal Lector in a way that finally “makes sense.” He appears to be equating/free associating immigration asylum with a mental health asylum.
@Jack: So, your rebuttal is to cite the right-wing media trope about Harris’ laugh?
You are making Matt’s point.
@Matt Bernius:
@Scott F.:
NMMNB did a piece recently on Trump’s huckster/ con man speech patterns;
“NMMNB”
@Jack:
Ukraine? You know, or maybe you don’t, that’s the country Trump and most MAGA supporters in Congress want to sell out.
@Jack:
OK, I’m clearly missing something here. Harris knows what a Venn diagram is, and geeks out over them. Trump has no idea what a Venn diagram is, and never will. How, exactly, does that show that Harris is dumb?