Noah, Lahren, Annotating a Shit Show

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/m9ds7s/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-exclusive—tomi-lahren-extended-interview

Disclaimer. I’m not posting this to examine and assess ideology, I’m posting this to discuss news mechanics and the dangers of being blinded by one’s own intellectual bubbles. I’m tired of people saying this political figure destroyed that political figure while big questions go unanswered.  I’m tired of hearing the people I agree with fail to effectively challenge their ideological rivals. I’m tired of hearing the people I agree with fail to effectively challenge themselves. More than anything I’m tired of crappy news. Trevor Noah’s interview with Tomi Lahren came so infuriatingly close to excellence that I nearly had an aneurysm. Unfortunately, an interview that addressed the danger of news/ideological bubbles had an outcome that counted upon each figure’s viewer’s ideological bubbles.

Noah’s interview with Tomi Lahren is the closest thing I’ve seen to a worthwhile television interview since Tim Russert passed. The interview however, is profoundly flawed.  Today’s media is abuzz with people on the right and left crushed their puny foe, but both of these narratives can’t simultaneously be correct.  Both parties failed when it mattered most, but their respective audiences have failed to acknowledge their chosen avatar gave up the ghost.  If you as a conservative have ever wondered why the left casts your favorite sources as racist and intellectually bankrupt, Lahren answers the question.  If you as a progressive have ever wondered why the right casts your favorite news sources as cowardly and insufferably smug, Noah gives you the answer. Rather than my standard long form expository style I’m going to write timestamps for what I see as important points of analysis in the interview and I will discuss the importance of each moment. I don’t know how to link directly to points in the video because I suck at internet, please read with the interview playing in an adjacent window. I have links to the interview posted at the top and bottom of the post. I won’t even have the room or patience to cover more than the first 8 minutes of the 22 minute extended interview.  Even so, let’s get digging, cause this is serious sh*t.

1:15~ Noah, “Why are you so angry?” rather than address any of the points in Lahren’s opening Noah goes for the emotional content of her monologue.  This is dismissive and sets the tone for a pattern of sidestepping important points of contention.  After dismissing the substance of her argument he makes an Ellen quip, this is how one gets dismissed as smug and cowardly even one is correct.

1:18  Lahren, “There’s things that need to be said Trevor, and people are afraid to say them.”  Followed by “people need to be called on their shit.”  FIrst, these two statements are meaningless.  They’re the intellectual equivalent of saying you like adventure on a dating profile, unfortunately when Lahren tries to articulate why something is shit she falls on her face.

1:50~  Lahren, “When you protest a fair and free election… it’s time to move on, it’s time to make America great again.”  A Trump staffer is being convicted of voter fraud, Trump complained about media collusion the whole election, an MIT cryptographer and Berkley statistician say a recount needs to happen, and the Republican party has for years been using the spectre of fraud to get minorities purged from the voter rolls.  Both parties seem to claim the game is rigged.  Free and fair election is becoming a suspect phrase.  Lahren is only saying free and fair because her candidate won.  As for the nature of the protests, Trump has called Mexicans rapists and has an endorsement from the Klan, people are right to protest his election on moral grounds regardless of the fairness of the election.  If Hillary called white men rapists and had an endorsement from the Taliban, people would be right to protest her regardless of the fairness of the election.  If you as a consumer of right wing news have ever wondered why the left casts you as an intellectually bankrupt bigot, here’s the moment that explains it.

1:57 Noah, “You say make America Great again, what does that mean?”  Finally, this is the pivotal question that got totally ignored during the election, great job.  If she can’t articulate what made America great and what it takes to get there she is a fraud, if she nails it she’s brilliant.  This is what a good interview should feature.

2:04 Noah, “During the campaign, when Donald Trump had Pussygate.”  You just asked a question that cuts to the core of her political ethos and historical context, and before she gets to answer you pivot to pussygate, using her Twitter feed as evidence no less?  You just ran from a question of profound importance to identity politics.  The left lost because it assumed that Trump’s cartoonish and horrifying misogyny/xenophobia was more important than articulating policy and political ethos.  If you as a left winger want to know why you’re seen as out of touch, cowardly, and smug, this is the moment that should crystallize why.

2:04-2:40~ Semantics battle on both sides, largely and unfortunately useless.

2:50~ Noah, “Remove Hillary from the equation,”  Removing Hillary from the equation is an important thing to do.  For the Democrats, removing Trump from the equation was an important thing to do.  If you can’t discuss your candidate in the absence of your boogeyman of choice, then your candidate probably sucks.  One of the important features of ideological echo chambers is that each side begins debating a caricature of their opponent rather than assessing the merits of their own views and beliefs.  So how will she respond without the spectre of Hillary?

3:02-3:35~ Lahren, “I’m comparing Trump to Hillary Clinton, not the Pope, not God.”  She just dodged the question, and this time she didn’t even have Noah to help her do it.  She is even making sure to lower the bar for judging Trump heavily implying Trump can’t stand up without Hillary’s questionable ethics to lean on.  After she dodges she comes back with a genuinely good response.  Trump’s unsurprising misogyny doesn’t affect her core issues like taxes and national security.  She could have just said that instead of invoking Hillary.  It’s not perfect, but it’s a good start.  How will Noah respond?

3:35 Noah, “It may impact the way women are perceived in a country…”  Worthwhile point counterpoint!  The way people are treated and perceived in our society is an issue of profound importance.  Perception affects everything from payscales, to abuse, to social hierarchies.  We are getting dangerously close to a worthwhile argument.  Where does Lahren go from here?  Does she ride her core issues exposing an important ideological gulf, or does talk about the power of women to overcome the rhetoric?

3:46 Lahren, “You mean like Saudi Arabia which Hillary Clinton took money from?”  Dodged the question, invoked Hillary to compensate for the weakness of her argument, invoked a country with institutionalized rape is cool.  This is the sort of fallacious response that plays well to her bubble but is endemic to crappy news.  Moments like this are the reason the left claims Noah won despite his numerous fumbles.

4:05 Noah, “You don’t have to go far.. You say you call people out on their bullshit,”  Redirect back to the question at hand, is Trump defensible without invoking Hillary?  Good job Trevor, even if referencing Lahren’s earlier line about bullshit line could come off to some as smug, keeping the discussion focused is exactly what a good interviewer does.  Can Trump stand up to scrutiny alone?

4:12 Lahren, “Words to me are far less egregious than actions.”  This is it, both parties have hit an ideological impasse regarding Pussygate.  The left dislikes how a misogynist narrative imperils women, the right thinks other issues are of greater importance.  Moments like this are what good interviews are made of.  Regardless of my own feelings on the issue, this is what interviews are supposed to show us.

4:48 Noah, “Let’s not make it a Trump thing.”  Those past few minutes of worthwhile political dialogue happened because Noah hammered the importance of keeping the lense focused on Trump.  Now noah offers a sudden pivot after Lahren talks about the media ignoring Trump’s female campaign manager.  Noah just sidelined an important issue and torpedoed his own question.  Exceedingly poorly done on his part.  Moments like this are why the right claims Lahren won despite her numerous fumbles.

4:56 Noah, “People in their bubbles, that’s what fascinates me about your show.”  Are we on track for a serious question?

5:02~ Noah, “What do you see as your purpose,”  I’m not sure if Noah did this consciously, but opening with the bubble then sliding to a different question could be seen as poisoning the well.  He did the same thing with the make America great to pussygate slide. He’s dodging issues for her, and considering how hard he has to hammer her to keep her on topic he is doing her a serious favor.  She gets off easy while he looks shifty and duplicitous.  

5:20 Lahren “There is a segment of this country that is largely ignored,”  This is a myth that goes back to Nixon’s silent majority.  The rustbelt may be the most important swing region on the electoral map, the first caucuses are in Iowa, rural voters exert disproportionately high influence on the electoral map, and because of Republican dominance in middle America Republicans control both chambers of the legislature and the presidency.  Those flyover states are heard more loudly than anyone else, even when they lose the popular vote they carry the whitehouse and legislature.  She is parroting a demonstrably false narrative of victimhood, the very thing she claims to hate.  This is an ideological bubble that needs to be popped.  Does Noah, who opened with a question about bubbles go for it or deflect on her behalf?

6:26 Noah, “DC for a long time has been controlled by the Republicans” serviceable response, not as robust as it could be but totally inoffensive.

6:48~ Lahren, “We need someone to come in from the outside.. To come in and shake the cobwebs off..”  Fair, I never had faith in the Trump as an outsider narrative.  Washington is the home of finance pirates, and business elites, that’s Trump to a T.  Right here she is counting on what she idealizes Trump as, but she is ignoring the ways he behaves, easy opening.  

6:58 Noah, “He’s taken those cobwebs and seems to be making the whitehouse out of them.”  The substance of the argument is right, but he hasn’t brought any backup.  He relies on the humor of the metaphor to carry his point rather than real debate.  This is why the left is seen as smug and out of touch.

7:05 Lahren, “You’ve got someone at the top who says I’m not going to take any B.S. I’m not beholden to anyone, in D.C.”  That’s a softball if I’ve ever seen one.  Owing people bullshit is totally fine, as long as it’s not in D.C.?

7:10~ Noah, “Because he’s beholden to people in India, and Russia, and China, but carry on.”  He’s absolutely right, but his presentation can still come off as smug and dismissive.  If you agree with Noah, this registers as funny.  Yeah bubbles!  If you aren’t part of Noah’s natural viewership you’re probably going to tune out on an important point because of his presentation.  Boo bubbles.

7:23~  Lahren, “That’s capitalism, that’s the free market.”  You know what isn’t the free market?  The most powerful political figure on earth with private holdings in foreign countries that he can use his political influence to mobilize and enrich.  That’s the opposite of the free market.

7:45~ Lahren, “He said it, he said, ‘you know what I as a businessman I took advantage of it.’”  Are you seriously arguing that somehow a man who is admittedly crooked is going to reform when you give him power?  She knows her point on corruption is weak so she head fakes to Obamacare?  She followed nonsense with a non-sequitur, any competent interviewer would rip this fallacy sandwich to shreds.

7:53 Noah “And Donald Trump is the same person who’s going to keep Obamacare.”  She just handed Noah her head on a silver platter three times in a row without him doing any real work, and Noah bit on the Obamacare head fake.  The original question focused on the corruption endemic to the upcoming Trump Presidency.  People need to have a better understanding of the variety of conflicts of interest that Trump and people like “The Foreclosure King” Steve Mnuchin pose to the average American.  Noah’s duty as an interviewer is to stick to the important issue.  His response is to get caught up in a dick measuring contest about Obamacare.

I’m calling it quits for now.  If people request a longer analysis I’ll expand on it, but I think this segment of the interview shows exactly how each camp could think their respective chosen one emerged victorious.  Noah was often smug and dismissive, something that doesn’t challenge his natural audience’s inclinations.  He was at his best when her forced her to focus on the issues, but he let that go often and frequently gets wrapped up debating the least important thing she says.  He continues to drop important questions and eat fakes throughout the interview.  Lahren was at her best when she was talking about the issues vs. identity debate, but that narrative doesn’t have an unlimited shelf life.  She could defend what Trump represented to her, but she couldn’t defend Trump himself.  When pressed on his sexism she had to invoke Hillary, the Saudis, and God.  When pressed on corruption she had to throw an Obamacare headfake to dodge the question.  Luckily for her Noah bites on fakes.  

If we as citizens are to be more vibrant and effective participants in the republic it is essential that we use our critical faculties to evaluate the quality of all arguments, especially our own.  This was an interview that ultimately hinged on non-sequiturs, factually dubious claims, question dodges, and terrible topic segues.  The closest thing to a victory from either side was either poorly supported or only implied.  The problems only get worse when they refocus on Kaepernick and composition fallacies regarding Trump supporters and the BLM.  As I said, if you want more feel free to request it, and if this annotation thing is something yall are into I’d be happy to give it another shot for different interviews.  Going forwards I think it’s important to realize how we use our own bubbles to fill in reality.  Noah needed bubbles to fill in every time he bit on one of Lahren’s head fakes and left a vacuum.  Lahren needed bubbles to fill in the space between what Trump claimed to represent, and the rapidity with which he is showing himself to be the exact opposite of his supposed ideals.  Come on guys, let’s try to make news great again.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/m9ds7s/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-exclusive—tomi-lahren-extended-interview