Good Sunday to you all. Welcome to another Infowarzel. We had a really big week for new subscribers so welcome to you all. A reminder that — if you like what you see — you should tell your friends and share this and get them to subscribe. Forward into the fever swamp!What the pro-Trump media's reaction to the Don Jr. emails was *REALLY* about:
Over at BuzzFeed News my colleague Tanya Chen and I broke down how the world of the pro-Trump media handled the New York Times bombshell reports, which prompted Don Jr to release his emails regarding his meeting with Russian lawyers, etc. To recap the strategy looks mostly like this:
- Defend Don Jr.
- Dismiss the story altogether
- Change the narrative
- Discredit MSM
And make no mistake, the last point — the discrediting of the mainstream media — is what this is really all about. Eroding the public's trust in the mainstream media is the pro-Trump media's reason for being and the Don Jr. email debacle is a really great example to illustrate how every scandal (no matter the size) is really just an opportunity to attack and de-legitimize the legacy press.
Just look at the immediate reaction to the Don Jr. emails:
The first step for the pro-Trump media was to hit the New York Times with the spin that the paper was engaging in more media malpractice. The idea that the New York Times and the MSM are so desperate to attack and try to get rid of the President that they're working recklessly. They suggest to their audience that the NYT never had the Don Jr. emails and published their stories on a hunch. The hope is to convince their group that the MSM has reporters and editors whose judgement is clouded by partisanship and hatred for the President and that they cannot be trusted. 
Even Sean Hannity — who had the biggest media exclusive of the week with his Don Jr. interview — took 5 minutes before getting to his interview to excoriate the mainstream media. "You have zero credibility left and you've been caught time and time again spreading fake news stories," he said to camera, blaming the legacy press for what he called an ongoing "information crisis."
He called the MSM a bunch of "overpaid, lazy ideologues." (Note: this is a pitch perfect example of how the pro-Trump media takes every criticism leveled against itself and parrots it right back onto the MSM. For example: Hannity makes north of $29 million a year, doesn't do any original reporting, and is among the far-right's ideological leaders).
For the pro-Trump media, policy is secondary to the culture war.
The order of operations here is noteworthy. The substance of the emails is secondary to the on-going culture war at hand. That's a common theme with the pro-Trump media, which largely sidesteps issues of policy — or even just specifics — for the Greatest Hits (illustrations biased, corrupt, intolerant left and other fun conspiracy theories) that play well with the base.
It's useful here to think back to how the pro-Trump media's has defended major policy positions. Take the Republican health care bill(s). For a group that can make anything into a meme/trend on Twitter, have you seen super viral defenses of the Republican health care plan? I haven't (besides the 12-dimensional chess defense that Trump has Congress right where he wants it).
What about Net Neutrality? (I know Net Neutrality causes people to die inside but hear me out!)
The pro-Trump media's line is that — on the surface — Net Neutrality sounds like it's something they'd support but that they're afraid it's a trick of sorts. As one pro-Trump media personality told me: "When Soros, Obama, and Zuckerberg are all big-time behind something, I know better than to believe the sales pitch." This, of course, makes no sense. The pro-Trump media has used the open internet and its platforms to subvert traditional media and build their own followings.
By that logic, the pro-Trump be GUNNING for Net Neutrality which gives the control of who sees what to the audience, not big ISPs and telecoms companies. But particulars of policy aren't the strong suit of the pro-Trump media. What's easier is to simply suggest that its a Soros-backed leftist ploy by the crusading companies in Silicon Valley that will ultimately censor far-right voices. It's an argument the base wants to hear. But in reality, they're actually just supporting the groundwork for big companies —which probably don't LOVE the pro-Trump media's message — to have more power over who sees what. Oh well!
Spin it back on Hillary and the Dems!
Shortly after the Don Jr. email fiasco, the pro-Trump media started spinning — suggesting that Hillary's campaign was the group ACTUALLY involved in foreign collusion and hawking the conspiracy theory that the Russian attorney may have planted a listening device for the Obama administration. My colleagues at BuzzFeed News did an excellent job debunking this, which you should read.
The basic gist from the piece: "Right-wing outlets, pro-Trump media personalities, and conspiracy theorists are falsely claiming that the attorney who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the 2016 campaign was a left-wing operative trying to torpedo a future Trump administration."
If you pour over the entire conspiracy — from the first pro-Trump blogs that picked up, to when it reached President Trump's mouth — you'll notice just how sophisticated the pro-Trump media ecosystem has become.
Here's what I wrote in my notes about it this week: "It's kind of the perfect example of all these misinformation systems working EXACTLY as intended. Each new bit from every new actor plays off the last and each outlet lends its own brand of spin (from Gateway Pundit's total skewing of the truth to Drudge's incendiary headlines to Infowars' focus on set-ups and conspiracy). They're a well oiled machine at this point. And by the time a good debunk of all of this pops up, they'll simply ignore it and then say, 'meh, we don't care about that anymore' and manufacture the next false outrage.
What the pro-Trump media can tell us about Trump's actual legacy: Take a look at Trump's tweets. According to this helpful chart from Business Insider, he's tweeted 113 times about the media since taking office. Most of them are intensely negative tweets about how CNN/NBC/NYT etc are "fake news" or how anonymous sources are made up.
Trump's tweets are — in his own words — his "voice." They reflect what he really cares about. Which is the media. The last graf of NYT Don Jr email story almost perfectly illustrates this:
By this logic, Trump's only core ideology appears to be to discrediting the mainstream media. And the pro-Trump media is more proof of this. The pro-Trump media is essentially a megaphone to amplify the message of Trump's agenda (not the White House's) and the pro-Trump media stands for one thing above all. Destroying the MSM and cementing themselves as their successors. So what does it all mean? By the end of his tenure as president, Trump may not build a wall and he may not be able to deliver on a number of campaign promises. But he will have used the highest office in the land — and the media megaphone that comes with it — to spout anti-MSM rhetoric at every point. And he will have encouraged (through the briefing room, retweets, and winks and nods) the growth of an alternative media apparatus that will indoctrinate thousands upon thousands to the idea that the mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and CNN aren't just frequently wrong, but are deliberately trying to mislead the public. And in doing so, I think you can make a convincing argument that Trump's lasting legacy will be eroding the public's trust in the press for at least a generation.
Or, as pro-Trump media personality Jack Posobiec put it this week:
A little more about the two-universes theory I've been yakking about by Joshua Green in the NYT.A thought about the pro-Trump media nightmare scenario:
I was on WNYC's 'On The Media' talking about this crazy week and what it means when the subject of pro-Trump media loyalty came up. The question: if the Don Jr. emails were a big 'nothing burger' for this group, what would it take to get the pro-Trump media to bail?
And while there's no clear answer for that, it got me thinking about what would happen should things actually get serious in a legal or political sense for Trump. The nightmare scenario for those that are concerned about the pro-Trump media is that the institutions (be they the so-called deep state or the establishment) cause change in this presidency. Trump becomes the absolute martyr - somebody who tried to take down the establishment and because he got so close they took him down. Basically: it would give the pro-Trump media endless ammunition to exist well-beyond the 45th president.
Which brings up a weird, interesting point. It seems like one of the only ways the pro-Turmp media really loses steam is if the Trump presidency comes and goes and is semi-uneventful. Beset by both scandals and policy initiatives that don't really go anywhere.
Anyhow, you can hear me talk more about that and other stuff here.
How the pro-Trump media spent its weekend (one thing they have over everyone else...they NEVER stop working/trolling/tweeting)? Combing through CNN reporters' social media accounts and looking for dirt.
Things you should read: My colleague Joe Bernstein had a great scoop this week about the Mercer family's financial involvement with Milo Yiannopoulos. Bonus: it raises the question of how much money Milo has actually raised...
AI scientists are making it easier than ever before to create fake video footage of somebody speaking. Researchers hope it won't be abused but this is like the holy grail for the next level of fake news and the complete erosion of reality. Terrifying.
The Internet Is Fucked (Again). This is a long but very good and simple explanation of Net Neutrality and why it's important. And...how it's really NOT partisan! You should read it.
Oh, and OF COURSE, here's Alex Jones as Bon Iver: watch this shit.