Donald John Trump is not normal. Normalization of Donald Trump means pretending that the usual reportorial task of describing and explaining what an interview subject says is valuable. Unless the reporter has enough information to confront Trump during an interview, Trump will evade and ignore the reporter’s questions. But mostly, Trump will lie. His lies are neither random nor aimless, although some reporters believe they are both. Also, Trump’s lies are not solely the result of a personality defect. Trump’s lies are a part of a tableau intended to achieve his goal. That goal must be exposed, explained, and tied to his lies. Trump’s “big lie” was that he won the 2020 election. But Trump’s big deceit was the reason for saying he won. He postured that he was fighting for the U.S. and the voters. He wasn’t. Despite what various pundits believe, Trump’s fight was not to assuage his bruised ego or because of his flawed personality. Instead, Trump’s big deceit provided the cover he needed to enable him and his followers to overthrow the U.S. government.
Kristen Welker’s interview with Donald Trump on her maiden voyage as host of Meet the Press was worse than a failure. It was an opportunity for Trump to damage this country further. Trump is attacking any institution that upholds the rule of law and democracy in this country. As a part of his attack on institutions that might hold him to account, he has lied about the media, the Department of Justice, Special Counsel Jack Smith, and Judge Tanya Chutkan. Welker has forgotten how, in 2016, the media, including her colleague Katie Tur, was nearly attacked by crowds incited by Trump. Welker does not know about Jack Smith’s motion to ensure that Trump’s statements do not bias a jury. Specifically, Smith points out in his motion that following his loss in the 2020 election, Trump “launched a disinformation campaign.” Now, on the run-up to his trial, Trump has used Meet the Press as a disinformation platform, with the complicity of Kristen Welker.
Welker’s biggest failure was not realizing she could not treat Trump like an ordinary interviewee. He was not there to provide her with answers to her questions. And he made that abundantly clear by not answering questions that did not further his purpose for being there. For example, when Welker asked Trump what he was doing during the January 6 insurrection, Trump said, “I am not going to answer you.” Welker took his direction and moved on. Welker could have asked if he had watched the insurrectionists breach the capital, and she could have asked if he’d taken any steps to stop the actions. She could have asked several questions about the day so that he would have to refuse to answer repeatedly, or he might show agitation or say something – anything about her question. But she moved on.
While Trump was unwilling to answer all of Welker’s questions, he did have points he wanted to make. First, as Smith stated in his motion, Trump used the NBC platform to taint the jury pool with lies. Also, he wanted to continue undermining those institutions that he viewed as threats to him. And finally, he wanted to show his followers that he was still someone to be reckoned with. Welker was especially helpful here by repeatedly referring to Trump and “Mr. President” and going for a stroll with him at the end of the interview. The visual was probably staged to show Welker’s “stature” as someone who could share a stage with a president. But this image was undermined by NBC. To refute some of the lies Welker could not counter in real-time, NBC recorded the interview and fact-checked Trump at the end of each segment and on a website—the need to fact-check Trump in this way instead of in real-time highlighted Welker’s inadequacy. When lies fester even for a few minutes, they can take root. And viewers were permitted to ignore that Trump was promising a time of retribution –when journalists of integrity, presumably including Welker, would be under serious threat.
Although many journalists have had problems interviewing Trump, Welker’s failure is unforgivable because we should all know Trump’s game now. Trump’s interview behavior has not changed; his answers are well-known, and there are examples of reporters who have credibly interviewed him or presented strategies for handling him. Jonathan Swan has perhaps done the best interview with Trump because he persisted in asking Trump the question he wanted answered and was able to discredit any of Trump’s deflection. And Mehdi Hasan has written a book on interviewing someone like Trump. One key point Hassan made is that the reporter needs to stick to the question and not allow the interviewee to move to another topic. Of course, a reporter must resist the need to ask every question on their list, regardless of whether it makes them look shallow because they did not pose a relevant follow-up.
Another point Hasan makes is that the reporter needs to know enough about Trump’s lies and dodges to counter them. Or, as Hasan puts it, the reporter must have the “receipts” necessary to show the interviewee and audience that there is a logical reason for what you are asking and that the failure to answer the question is meaningful. Jonathan Swan pressed Trump on his response to COVID while he was President. When Trump tried to evade Swann by moving on to another topic, Swan stopped him by asking follow-up questions about the previous answer. Welker should have been better prepared to press him on these issues after the January 6 insurrection and Trump’s indictments. By allowing him to avoid her questions and not asking follow-up questions, she projected a lack of understanding about the importance of this moment.
Serious people know we are facing a crisis that could end this democracy. We should be able to expect more competence from our leading reporters than reading from a warmed-over list of questions. We should also be able to expect more from our public affairs programming than a frantic grasp for profits at any cost. And the trope that “our job is to make sure that the American people understand who the people in power are, what they stand for and what they plan to do” does not excuse this interview. This cliche shows how deficient the interview was. Welker did not explain who Trump is, what he stands for, or what he plans to do. We will continue to hear plaintive queries from this very network about why Republican politicians do not stand up to Trump to prevent the damage he has done. We must ask NBC executives the same question: why did the network not insist on a reporter who could probe for better answers?
Kristen Welker’s interview with Donald Trump on her maiden voyage as host of Meet the Press was worse than a failure. It was an opportunity for Trump to damage this country further. Trump is attacking any institution that upholds the rule of law and democracy in this country. As a part of his attack on institutions that might hold him to account, he has lied about the media, the Department of Justice, Special Counsel Jack Smith, and Judge Tanya Chutkan. Welker has forgotten how, in 2016, the media, including her colleague Katie Tur, was nearly attacked by crowds incited by Trump. Welker does not know about Jack Smith’s motion to ensure that Trump’s statements do not bias a jury. Specifically, Smith points out in his motion that following his loss in the 2020 election, Trump “launched a disinformation campaign.” Now, on the run-up to his trial, Trump has used Meet the Press as a disinformation platform, with the complicity of Kristen Welker.
Welker’s biggest failure was not realizing she could not treat Trump like an ordinary interviewee. He was not there to provide her with answers to her questions. And he made that abundantly clear by not answering questions that did not further his purpose for being there. For example, when Welker asked Trump what he was doing during the January 6 insurrection, Trump said, “I am not going to answer you.” Welker took his direction and moved on. Welker could have asked if he had watched the insurrectionists breach the capital, and she could have asked if he’d taken any steps to stop the actions. She could have asked several questions about the day so that he would have to refuse to answer repeatedly, or he might show agitation or say something – anything about her question. But she moved on.
While Trump was unwilling to answer all of Welker’s questions, he did have points he wanted to make. First, as Smith stated in his motion, Trump used the NBC platform to taint the jury pool with lies. Also, he wanted to continue undermining those institutions that he viewed as threats to him. And finally, he wanted to show his followers that he was still someone to be reckoned with. Welker was especially helpful here by repeatedly referring to Trump and “Mr. President” and going for a stroll with him at the end of the interview. The visual was probably staged to show Welker’s “stature” as someone who could share a stage with a president. But this image was undermined by NBC. To refute some of the lies Welker could not counter in real-time, NBC recorded the interview and fact-checked Trump at the end of each segment and on a website—the need to fact-check Trump in this way instead of in real-time highlighted Welker’s inadequacy. When lies fester even for a few minutes, they can take root. And viewers were permitted to ignore that Trump was promising a time of retribution –when journalists of integrity, presumably including Welker, would be under serious threat.
Although many journalists have had problems interviewing Trump, Welker’s failure is unforgivable because we should all know Trump’s game now. Trump’s interview behavior has not changed; his answers are well-known, and there are examples of reporters who have credibly interviewed him or presented strategies for handling him. Jonathan Swan has perhaps done the best interview with Trump because he persisted in asking Trump the question he wanted answered and was able to discredit any of Trump’s deflection. And Mehdi Hasan has written a book on interviewing someone like Trump. One key point Hassan made is that the reporter needs to stick to the question and not allow the interviewee to move to another topic. Of course, a reporter must resist the need to ask every question on their list, regardless of whether it makes them look shallow because they did not pose a relevant follow-up.
Another point Hasan makes is that the reporter needs to know enough about Trump’s lies and dodges to counter them. Or, as Hasan puts it, the reporter must have the “receipts” necessary to show the interviewee and audience that there is a logical reason for what you are asking and that the failure to answer the question is meaningful. Jonathan Swan pressed Trump on his response to COVID while he was President. When Trump tried to evade Swann by moving on to another topic, Swan stopped him by asking follow-up questions about the previous answer. Welker should have been better prepared to press him on these issues after the January 6 insurrection and Trump’s indictments. By allowing him to avoid her questions and not asking follow-up questions, she projected a lack of understanding about the importance of this moment.
Serious people know we are facing a crisis that could end this democracy. We should be able to expect more competence from our leading reporters than reading from a warmed-over list of questions. We should also be able to expect more from our public affairs programming than a frantic grasp for profits at any cost. And the trope that “our job is to make sure that the American people understand who the people in power are, what they stand for and what they plan to do” does not excuse this interview. This cliche shows how deficient the interview was. Welker did not explain who Trump is, what he stands for, or what he plans to do. We will continue to hear plaintive queries from this very network about why Republican politicians do not stand up to Trump to prevent the damage he has done. We must ask NBC executives the same question: why did the network not insist on a reporter who could probe for better answers?