Did Donald Trump The Media Once Again?

Two days ago, in the midst of the Democratic National Convention, Trump held an extended press conference – it lasted over an hour – that once more showcased his uncanny ability to run circles around the media.   Trump began the conference by pointedly noting that “It has been 235 days since Crooked Hillary has held a press conference” – an observation not lost on the press.  Say what you will about Donald – he’s not shy about mixing it up with journalists.  Thereafter the press conference turned into Donald performance art – he took all questions, and responded in his usual rambling, bombastic, speak-first-think-later mode.  And, as is generally the case, he made news that led most of the major media outlets that day.  In this case it was his response to a question regarding whether he had any knowledge of Russians hacking DNC emails.  I want you to listen to his response to this question. This is the portion, particularly the last 17 seconds, which was replayed endlessly on television and radio for the next 48 hours.

After this statement, Trump went on to say, “”They probably have them. I’d like to have released. ..Now, if Russia or China or any other country has those e-mails, I mean, to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.”  However, this follow up remark didn’t get as much press coverage.

Almost as soon as he finished the last sentence in the video about the media, my twitter feed exploded in righteous indignation.  According to the denizens of my twitterverse, Trump  had just invited the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s email account!   How could any real American countenance such an act?  In the hothouse environment of social media, the ramifications of Donald statements expanded wildly.  Had he committed treason? Was this a felony?  Could he be prosecuted?  According to many commentators, The Donald’s statement immediately disqualified him from receiving national security briefings – if not from running for the Presidency at all. (Senator Harry Reid suggested Trump be given false security briefings.) Mainstream media outlets joined the fray running stories with headlines proclaiming Trump had invited Russians to meddle in U.S. politics.  Clinton’s campaign was only too happy to pile on, claiming that Trump’s statement was a clear indication of his disloyalty to America.  During his speech at the Democratic Convention, former CIA director Leon Panetta made direct reference to Trump’s remarks as evidence that he was unfit to be president.

Meanwhile, Donald’s campaign put out a statement arguing that Trump was merely asking the Russians to release Clinton’s missing emails if they had them.  This excuse went nowhere with Trump’s critics, who dismissed it out of hand and continued their full-throated prosecution of what they viewed as his clear invitation for the Russians to conduct an illegal act and hack Clinton’s emails. As is his wont, rather than roll his comments back, Trump used twitter to double down on his initial comments:

He later claimed that he was being sarcastic when he made the comments, but the denizens of my twitter feed were having none of it.

At first glance it would seem that this type of negative coverage would prove damaging to Trump’s campaign.  But I don’t think that’s the case – in fact, I think it probably helped him. Here’s why.  If you are wearing partisan blinders, remove them now, and then go back and listen to the video excerpt I posted above. Try to listen to it as if you were my neighbors, Joe and Jane Sixpack – a hardworking couple who have only a mild interest in politics, use social media just to keep up with their kids and religiously avoid cable news talk shows.  Their political leanings run moderate, they love watching The Big Bang Theory and Love It or List It, and they are only now beginning to tune into the presidential race.  My guess is that this excerpt is not going to trigger a deep conversation on their part about whether Trump broke treason laws.  Instead, to the degree that it triggers any response at all, I think Joe and Jane Sixpack will be reminded of Hillary’s missing emails and will link that back to her email server problems.  And that probably will be the end of the conversation about this event – they will file it away as one more data point regarding her untrustworthiness and move on.

I understand the need for hard-core partisans to frame media events, like Trump’s press conference, within a preconceived world view.   But for most Americans who only tangentially pay attention to politics, Trump’s excerpted comments will likely be viewed for what it appears to be on first listening, without any effort at deeper analysis: a straightforward question referring to Hillary’s missing emails. Yes, I realize that partisans don’t see it this way – but their views on Trump are already baked in.   It is the less ideologically committed voters who both sides need to appeal to, and my guess is they aren’t going to see Trump’s statement as a sign of disloyalty.

I long ago gave up trying to decide whether Trump consciously thinks through his media strategy, or he is simply acting on instincts honed through years of being in the media spotlight.  But whatever the motivation, this most recent press conference, and the ensuing debate over his remarks, is the latest reminder of how he has successful parlayed overblown media coverage into his current position as the Republican nominee for president.  Months ago, when Trump first announced his candidacy and it was clear his polling numbers were on the rise, I made a gentle plea for pundits  to try to cover him as just another candidate, rather than giving him the outsized exposure they had been prone to do, and that he so craves.  Alas, as always, my voice went unheard, and here we are.

Next up: how Trump’s four-point post-convention poll bump proves the event in Cleveland was a total disaster.

6 comments

  1. It’s certainly true that observers will filter the message through their own pre-existing beliefs, and it’s not exactly like the Russians were waiting for Donald Trump to say it’s okay before they spy on anyone. Still it’s a bit weird for a U.S. politician to call on a foreign power to spy on his rival and share what it finds with the press. (By the way, speaking of interpretation, I think some will say that the tweet was a form of backing off rather than doubling down, since he said to share it with the FBI rather than the press.)

    Unfortunately, the Russian have almost certainly got Clinton’s e-mails, without having to hack her server. She has noted, in other contexts, that most of her communications were with people using the State Department system. In the New York Times the other day (buried under 10 paragraphs of how the Russian “probably” hacked her server), David Sanger noted that the Russians were inside the regular State Department system–the one she was supposed to be using–from “at least 2007” until the end of 2014. So they most likely have most of her e-mails and all of everyone else’s.

  2. Scott,

    I’m operating under the assumption that Trump believed the Russians already had Hillary’s missing emails – something you indicate is quite plausible. (By the way, I didn’t see Sanger’s story – do you have the link?) Yes, it’s strange for a candidate to request a foreign power to release another candidate’s emails, whether to the media or to the FBI – but then Trump’s entire candidacy is based on breaking the mold, so I guess I’m not surprised. Here’s the question – since Putin has already shown a willingness to meddle in the U.S. elections – can we expect him to release the missing emails?

  3. Here’s the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/hillary-clintons-email-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html

    Yes, weirdness has lost its capacity to surprise lately. Regarding Putin: My guess is that by releasing them now, he would risk eroding his plausible deniability. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wanted us to suspect that he had done it, if just to rile things up a bit, but not to know it for sure. (I’m assuming here that Putin decided to do this, and not some underling for reasons of his own.)

  4. As to the Americans who avoid news / political affairs programming as well as social media – the Sixpack family – how exactly were they going to hear about this? They presumably weren’t present at the press conference and Trump wasn’t speaking loud enough to be heard across the contiguous 48… More to the point, how could the Sixpacks find out if not through the frame of reference presented by a news medium? CBS didn’t interrupt it’s broadcasting of Big Bang Theory to treat it’s audience to some undiluted Trump stream-of-consciousness, did they?

    My personal suspicion is that those outside the (non-)partisan news echo chambers, those not within reach of the noise it produces, likely completely missed the event just as much as they missed the conventions happening this early in the year, during the height of summer. Those who don’t track the news unless it piques their personal interest wouldn’t have found much in either. As you have often written in these pages, news cycle moments don’t affect outcomes this far out. Why would this – a press conference no less – be any different?

    Which reminds me of another question: are people who take no interest in non-popular news media (your Sixpacks) less likely to vote, and if they are, by how much? How well do we understand hiw these people form political opinions on which to base their vote? Punditry has produced countless mechanisms, none of which seem terribly likely to have data substantiating them.

  5. Peter – My sense is that most of the Six-pack clan heard only the audio clip that I included in my post – it was played pretty regularly on mainstream media outlets on radio and television, often as the lead story. So research into media agenda-setting effects would suggest that people will have concluded that the statement was important. My point, however, is that they won’t view the statement the way much of the punditocracy is – as an indication that Trump is soliciting illegal hacking by the Russians. Instead, to the extent that it has any influence, it will be to remind people that Hillary has a bunch of missing emails.

    You are right that no single media event, particularly this far out, will be determinative. At best, this one incident will be filed away by potential voters as a possible data point – one of many – to be utilized when they choose their candidate. My sense, however, is that it will be utilized, if at all, in a way that will more likely help Trump – exactly the opposite of what most pundits are saying. But you are right to caution not to overreact to any single event, such as a Trump press conference.

    Finally, yes, partisans are more likely to vote than non-partisans. We actually have lots of data on this, and I’ll try to present some in future posts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *