Welcome back to Infowarzel. It’s the summer so this edition is going to be pretty bare bones. I’m on a train down to D.C. for a big pro-Trump rally and will do a mid-week Infowarzel update on the rally and some things we can all learn from it. But for now, I’m keeping this short with a mini-essay on the thing I’ve thought most about this week.
The One Important Lesson From The Megyn Kelly/Alex Jones Interview
The big, crucial difference between the pro-Trump media and MSM is live vs. edited.
Kelly’s interview largely succeeded as a very basic, competent primer on Jones for a crowd that might not know him very well. It held Jones — who is deft at using circular logic and non-sequitur tangents to derail interviews — to account on a few of his more salacious viewpoints. The reason: editing. The Kelly interview which, according to Page Six, was recut to be tougher on Jones after the week of controversy, was masterfully edited to take out most of Jones’ digressions and spin. It distilled many of Jones’ arguments down to a sound byte, which is an effective way to see them for what they are: often inconsistent and unclear.
Which is precisely why it’s perfect ammunition for the pro-Trump media.
Jones’ immediate critique of the piece — which he did on set last week while watching the interview in real-time — was that Kelly interviewed Jones for an entire day to get a minute or so of his sound bytes. What if, he suggested, she aired the whole thing? Jones’ argument here is that releasing all the tape would vindicate him totally, showing him as a reasoned, nuanced thinker and a good person. But instead, the mainstream media — with their bias and pressure to make him look bad — constructed a hit piece to obscure reality and confirm what they wanted to believe: that Jones is a monster.
This is a compelling argument — especially for Jones' audience! And it’s one that the pro-Trump media use in full against the mainstream. Indeed, the biggest difference between the mainstream media and the pro-Trump media is the notion of editing versus raw content. Pro-Trump media personalities like Jack Posobiec, Mike Cernovich, Lucian Wintrich, and others are constantly taking to Periscope, upwards of five or six times a day. They do it everywhere — from sometimes comical locations like the back of a car or while walking down the street or while holding a sleeping baby. The idea is simple: they’re always on, always reacting, and they’re doing it live and unfiltered. Even more established personalities in this world are doing it live constantly. Alex Jones, for example, goes on the air for four-plus hours every day without a teleprompter.
And it's why many in the pro-Trump media only do interviews with the MSM if they can record them and post the full audio themselves. It's why many will only do written Q&A's over email (for the same reason — to be able to post themselves). For example, when Cernovich went on 60 Minutes, he later released a transcript of the entire interview on Medium.
There’s a few reasons why this 'always live' thing works for them. First, it builds a constant connection with their audience. They are always there and always counter programming whatever ELSE is on. Second: with their relentless, off-the-cuff commentary, it’s basically impossible for their enemies or even the MSM to capture and try to fact-check it all. Pro-Trump media personalities tell me this all the time. Their thought is, ‘sure, we’re going to go and make mistakes, say dumb things, etc. But by the time the mistake is caught and the shaming begins, we’ve moved on.’ And it’s true, they’re three outrages and six Periscope broadcasts past.
But the biggest advantage for the pro-Trump media is the idea that they can use the live vs edited gap to claim bias. The pro-Trump media can tell its followers — not necessarily incorrectly — that they are showing you everything. That, unlike the MSM, their bias is in the open (they’re the pro-Trump media, after all) and they’re willing to put it all out there, even at the risk looking like idiots. It’s what some, like Jack Posobiec, call ‘reality journalism.’
But reality journalism is a clearly meaningless term. It’s closer to some idea of populist punditry. Or the media equivalent of the politician never getting the $500 haircut. And it’s effective for their base — a group that’s grown entirely disenchanted with a media that they see as out of touch. And so the pro-Trump media livestream while half out of breath and hiking in the woods. No fancy lights or makeup. No chauffeured cars to the studio. The vibe they're going for is: just real people on the ground and in the world. It’s relatable.
What all of this forgets, of course, is the clarity, rigor, and journalistic integrity that editing (as well as research and responsible, meticulous reporting) brings. It forgets that editing allows for sometimes vital context and not *just* polish. It’s one reason why the pro-Trump media, for all its obsessive, relentless focus, doesn’t do longform work or investigative work. It’s too reactive, too fast-paced for that. But rather than admit to different standards in terms of rigor, the pro-Trump media spins its lack of editing as truth telling. No gatekeepers, here. In its own way, it's not wrong.
Things You Should Read:
My colleague Ryan Broderick on how far-right activists are borrowing their playbook from YouTube and social media influencers.
Sarah Palin has a shitty clickbait content farm!
Joe Bernstein’s review of a draft of Milo Yiannopoulos’s book. Spoiler: it’s bad!