“It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS”
That quote is from a 2016 article in The Hollywood Reporter, where the writer was interviewing CBS boss man Les Moonves. I urge you to read it. I also want to point out that while Moonves took the heat, all of his fellow media bosses felt the exact same way. They just didn’t like one of their own saying the quiet part out loud. The fact is however that Trump was a huge boost for the revenues of media outlets, especially the biggest ones. And TV? It was “YUGE!”
It’s been estimated Trump got a billion dollars worth of free advertising from major news outlets, TV in particular. They just turned on the cameras at his rallies and let them roll. Over and over again they cut live to Trump holding forth and while the bosses and even some of the “talent” will hotly claim they “countered” Trump’s lies and bullsh*t with fact checking. To which I say it was at best weak pushback, and not nearly enough of it. Instead of doing what they SHOULD have as in recording that crap, picking out the “biggest moments” and fact-checking Trump’s distortions and outright LIES they ran him live. All too often. All they could think about (both the bosses and most of the “talent”) was the huge amounts of extra money going into their bank accounts! (Oh, and for the “talent” it was a twofer – more money AND getting to do nothing for long periods of time instead of actually working! They live for times/stories that allow them to say “Look! SQUIRELL!” and then if they have to be on camera spouting the same few lines of meaningless drivel over and over – instead of, you know being journalists and actually working!)
Tragically, the “news” coverage of Trump’s 2016 campaign was a sick and awful mashup of Jerry Springer, radio shock-jock and too many people’s craning their necks as they drove by to see the carnage (especially bodies) of a car wreck. But my-oh-my how the money rolled in, and the big media bosses LOVED it. Worse, Moonves nailed it. It WAS bad for the country. But it was more than damned good for CBS and other outlets, especially electronic media. They had month after month of proverbial capturing lightening in a bottle. Despite the damage they were doing (and they knew it, they KNEW it!) they milked the phenomenon for all it was worth.
Is there a person reading this who doesn’t believe they would do anything to capture that “magic” again?
So how does this relate to getting Trump’s trial in Florida started and finished in a timely fashion? It’s pretty simple actually. Yes, there are still MAGA goobers that will show up at his rallies. But not nearly as many. And even many of them leave before Trump is done. His act has gotten old and worn out. It did so quite a while ago, and to the point that Trump got all pissy with Fox for not carrying his events live anymore. The “magic” is gone. However as I’ve said the news bosses have wet dreams about creating it again.
The last thing the news bosses want is what’s depicted in the title pic – Trump sitting in court instead of out there on the stump doing his rallies!
I believe they think that if Trump can rage about “unfair” prosecutions, rail against having been indicted, being “persecuted” etc. then it will provide some “new material” for his act, generate the kinds of screaming, bug-eyed crowds we saw in 2016 and make them lots of money again. That however requires all those trials to be pending. To not even starting. (At least until after the election) A CRIMINAL conviction just might be the thing that shakes up the GOP, and Fox to finally and irrevocably Dump Trump. No Trump in the primaries or general election means NO repeat of magic money pouring into news outlet’s (and talent’s) coffers like it did in 2016!
It’s reasonable for you to have been asking “Ok dude, show us some evidence to back up your theory.” That’s a quite reasonable thing to bring up. So here it is.
Think back a few months. To the couple of months before the Florida Indictments were obtained and Trump got arraigned. And even for a few weeks afterwards. Tell me I’m wrong, that I’m misremembering but the general media narrative with legal talking heads saying so was that the National Security/Classified Documents case was Smith’s best bet to get Trump on trial and get a conviction before we were into, or at least very far into primary season. It was they said as close to a slam-dunk as you could get. Documents. Video. Witness testimony including some from Trump lawyers obtained via the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.
Best of all they said, it was narrowly focused. It seemed (which turned out to be the case) that Jack Smith was focusing on relatively few documents and specific dates or time frames, with emphasis on events after Team Trump gave the govt. an affidavit stating everything had been returned. The govt. knew immediately that wasn’t true, which is how they obtained that search warrant and went back to Mar A Lago with a team and collected over a hundred MORE classified documents. And MORE video evidence! The legal talking heads, with hosts of the shows they were on nodding in agreement and tossing in their own thoughts predicted that despite a whole lot more that Trump could be charged and tried for Smith would keep it simple and narrow. Turns out that was exactly what Smith did!
Got all that? Pre-indictment it was predicted Smith would file a fairly limited case so as to have a simple, straightforward trial that would take long. In large part because he’s always been aware of the election calendar next year. “Git er done” seemed to be the order of the day, and ONE trial at least concluded before the primary circus began, or got into full swing. Get Trump convicted of felonies before all that. And as I recall there was a good two or three weeks of the legal experts patting themselves on the backs after reading the “Speaking Indictment” that they’d been correct in their predictions. While mixing in discussion about Judge Cannon having been assigned the case and speculating on what she would or would not do to help Trump after getting slapped down by the appellate court last year.
Now consider what you’re hearing on news shows, and from those same legal talking heads that get nice paychecks for being regular “contributors” to this or that outlet. NOW there is all manner of hand-wringing (with most hosts agreeing with them) about the “complexities” of this case. We’ve gone from early comments that a December trial like the govt. asked for being doable, with January at the latest being almost a given absent shenanigans from judge Cannon to all kinds of questions about sorting through all the discovery Trump’s lawyers will have to do. And the issue of them being able to see the classified documents and questions about the jury doing so!
(In case you didn’t know – we HAVE had national security cases that have gone to trial where these very issues have been a part of things and protocols have long been established on how to deal with them!)
See what I’m saying? In a fairly short time frame we’ve gone from “talent” and legal talking heads talking about a December (or January) trial being quite doable to “OMFG! This is such a complicated case that it’s hard to see how anything before late spring or even summer of 2024 is even conceivable!”
I for one don’t believe for one f**king second that change came about on such a wide scale organically. Not only no, but HELL NO! News bosses do NOT want Trump tried and convicted before the primaries get rolling. (If at all, at least until after the election) It might be enough to knock him out of the race! THAT will kill their dreams of the megabucks rolling in like in 2016 and that simply won’t do.
i doubt they are worried about the NY trial by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. It’s financial stuff and complicated and for most folks boring and wouldn’t get any notice at all except for Trump. And he might well get that one pushed back anyway. Fani Willis’ case in Georgia is much more compelling, especially since by all appearances Trump will be part of a larger cast of characters being hauled up. But that too is a complicated case and with multiple defendants and fighting out joint or separate trials that too might get pushed back a long ways. Finally, even though federal indictment for Trump r.e. Jan. 6 is about to happen that too is going to be a complicated case. Since it will be in DC whatever judge gets it will be experienced and wise to Trump’s delay tactics. Still, it’s hard to see it going to trial quickly.
But the Florida federal case? There’s no reason, none why it can’t go to trial before the end of this year or in January of next year. With all the evidence the government has Trump’s only hope is jury nullification which given where the trial will be held is a possibility. Still, it’s not something he, or news bosses can count on.
So it’s my contention that word has been handed down to the “talent” and the paid legal consultants on contract – start talking up anything, anything that Trump’s lawyers could argue that makes what’s a straightforward case really, really, super-duper really complicated. Give the judge some cover. Because they don’t want to risk Trump getting convicted. At least not before he can make them a f**kton of money like he did in 2016.
Tell me I’m wrong.
If you’re right, the networks will discover that “Trump, the Sequel” won’t be nearly as entertaining as the original. Fortunately, Jack Smith doesn’t give a rip about what media “legal experts” think about the case.
Well said. It’s not going to work because Jack Smith has got more important things to take care of.
I’ve given it some more thought, and came up with an example. Let’s say a rock band like REO Speedwagon had gotten together six or seven years ago and did a renunion tour that did pretty well. Yeah, forty plus years ago they rose from playing proms and I remember places like the small bar at Merlin’s to being hot for a few (if that long) years. (If you know SIU-Carbondale and the infamous “strip” of bar after bar you know Merlin’s there was the big, main room with a DJ and the attached (very) small bar that would have live acts on a tiny stage – when I was under age I was one of many such people who would hop the low wall into the courtyard and that’s where I sometimes saw them) Like a Nova, they seemed to fade out as quickly as they ignited. But like I said they had some big hits on the charts and in the era of MTV (when it started it actually played rock videos! Imagine that folks) they were in the spotlight longer than they probably otherwise would have been.
But a tour some thirty years after their heyday would probably bring people out to hear them, even aged and showing that age performing some of the old hits. Enough they’d keep booking gigs, but unlike true superstar bands with iconic stars the novelty would wear off. Even if they were wise enough to only do smaller tours say once a year people would, if they showed up to smaller venues like county fairs during the summer months get bored and not even stay. Not when there was other stuff outside the venue itself to do!
So even if they added a few new songs, none of which would be all that compelling people still would get bored and leave after hearing a couple of them, especially when they were already tired of the old material they at one time felt nostalgic over. Let’s face it, some aging performers like some aging athletes sometimes need those closest to them to do an intervention and tell them to give it up. Not that some performers and athletes will listen. No, some turn into sad creatures indeed. Pathetic even.
Such I think would be the case with Trump even with “new material” in the form of talking about all his indictments and persecution and so on. It just wouldn’t be enough to recapture the old energy, or at least for very long. BUT, there’s almost always a sleazy agent out there who can convince the aging performer or athlete to give it “one more shot” and even willing to invest some effort into getting them a new gig/contract in the hopes it will pay off big. Like some ambulance chaser lawyer taking on routine auto accident cases on contingency, filing boilerplate crap and hoping for that ONE big case that will fund a comfy retirement.
That’s what these media bosses are thinking. I’m sure of it. “All he needs is some new material to spout off about and people will tune in again” is we both think wishful thinking. But it’s the kind of thinking that could I fear do even more damage to this country than what they did in 2016. And that’s why I wrote the article.
Whether it will be widely read, and get passed around remains to be seen. I’m not exactly known for being a compelling writer and even to political blog junkies most of the time my “byline” evokes a “Who’s that? Maybe later if I’ve got time I’ll check this article out but there’s plenty of stuff from people I know to read first.” But who knows? All I can do is write what I think and post it.
You are not wrong. Depressingly, the pursuit of filthy lucre is the be all and end all that will, in the end, render this current civilization a moot point in history books yet to be written. Funny how some people never learn.
The ACTUAL saying is: “The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.” Lot’s of truth in it.
I am not a media expert. Hell, I barely watch anything other than PBS. Thing is, I know whatever “magic” (and it wasn’t magic but rather a bunch of fools gathering with other fools to watch another fool onstage and on the tee-vee box– in other words, idiots watching idiots) former guy had is in the past and everything points to exactly that. However, the courtroom drama will be watched by likely everyone. Think about it-how many people who were adults at the time missed the blow job hearings of Clinton? How many missed the Ollie North show? Nixon’s? We’re talking about a court (s) hearings/trials of a former president F.F.S. what the eff could the heads of media outlets be thinking? People will be watching whatever they can about it and this one will be fans and those who want the f*cker in prison for the rest of his natural life. Moonie and the rest are not very bright and are making one of likely many bad decisions-probably the reason why television is going the way of the dinosaur.
Two things. Thanks for saving me the time of adding in an asterisk to your comment.
Second, and much more importantly I agree that FL trial or a DC one on J6 would be gripping. Forget Clinton/Lewinsky and blowjobs. I’m an old enough fart to remember the Watergate hearings! People watched them from work, college students skipped classes to congregate in areas that had TVs if they didn’t have small “rabbit ears” set in their dorm room or couldn’t squeeze into the room of someone else’s room on the floor of their dorm.
However, both down in Florida and in DC Trump will be tried in FEDERAL Court and cameras aren’t allowed. Even live streaming audio is seldom allowed! In a really rare instance photographers might be allowed to take a few pictures before the judge comes in but they get kicked out before anything actually happens. And one issue that’s been talked about with Cannon is her insistence in holding the trial in her own courtroom which is really, really tiny. From the time that tidbit got announced journalists have complained. It’s a tiny courthouse with almost no parking and not much parking nearby. Or places to grab coffee and breakfast, or to get lunch either. The courtroom itself is tiny. It seats forty spectators!
Cannon clearly intended to shut out as many people as possible to prevent the public from learning what things were like, all the nuances of a court proceeding that happen.
So while I agree completely the trial would dominate daytime TV and then evening news coverage for a few weeks, we’ll have to settle for what journalists, and sadly mostly “journalists” (there are nowhere near enough true, serious journalists anymore) deign us “mere mortals” worthy of hearing about.
I’m actually at best of mixed opinion on cameras in the courtroom. They do affect things. Still, a lot has been learned since the spectacle of the O.J. trial. And if as was indicated pre-trial by the legal eagles the case would take about three weeks if the jury were to be sequestered I’d be very much in favor of on this. Hell, given that the jurors are going to see at least some highly classified information, even if in some cases ‘sanitized” form they SHOULD be sequestered. And before being allowed to leave after rendering a verdict get a repeat of the lecture they’ll get prior to the case starting, and asked to sign their memo of understanding the penalties for ever, EVER speaking/writing about said classified information for the rest of their lives again.
Very perceptive observations — that’s why I read this blog!
Thank you. I just wish I was well known enough that this would “go viral.” I believe what I wrote with all my heart and I’m fearful of the damage these corporate media types are willing to again do just to make extra money. They and theirs will never, ever want for anything money can buy, or will their grandkids for that matter. How the f**k much more money do they need?