Shoot Matt Lauer

I was appalled by Matt Lauer’s performance last evening.

Lauer is not a journalist by any stretch of the imagination, but last night it became obvious he’s an overt shill for the Trump campaign; take him out behind the barn and put two in his head. Okay okay okay – that would be illegal (notice I didn’t say “wrong”), but the moron should be banned forever from covering anything more serious than the insipid drivel he usually presents early mornings. I mean, WTF – was Maddow not available? 1

It was so bad I wondered at exactly how much money was Lauer paid to fix the forum for Trump? Seriously, someone should be checking Lauer’s bank accounts right now…

Obviously I am not alone in my assessment of Lauer’s lack of adult judgement:

I had not taken seriously the possibility that Donald Trump could win the presidency until I saw Matt Lauer host an hour-long interview with the two major party candidates. Lauer’s performance was not merely a failure, it was horrifying and shocking. The shock, for me, was the realization that most Americans inhabit a very different news environment than professional journalists. I not only consume a lot of news, since it’s my job, I also tend to focus on elite print news sources. Most voters, and all the more so undecided voters, subsist on a news diet supplied by the likes of Matt Lauer. And the reality transmitted to them from Lauer matches the reality of the polls, which is a world in which Clinton and Trump are equivalently flawed.

Lauer focused a third of his questioning time on Clinton’s private email server. Her decision to follow Colin Powell’s advice is a legitimate blot on her record. But Lauer did not move the ball forward on the question in any meaningful way . . .

Lauer followed up with four more email-related questions. The impression an uninformed or even moderately informed viewer would receive from this interview is that the email issue represents a sinister crime, perhaps completely disqualifying from office, rather than an unjustifiable but routine act of government non-transparency.

The email exchange would not by itself be so alarming except when viewed in juxtaposition with Lauer’s hapless interview of Trump. Trump began the interview by boldly insisting, “I was totally against the war in Iraq. You can look at Esquire magazine from 2004. You can look at before that.” This is a lie. Trump has been quoted supporting the invasion beforehand and even afterward. Nobody has produced any evidence of Trump contradicting his support for the war before it started. His line to Lauer was transparently ridiculous – how could a 2004 interview supply evidence of having opposed a war that began in 2003? But Lauer did not try even a single follow-up.

Trump went on to make a series of wild and dangerous statements. He praised Russian President Vladimir Putin as a strong, effective, and popular leader. Lauer did press him on this point, and when he did, Trump offered the astonishing rebuttal, saying President Obama had done equivalently brutish things. Lauer did not press Trump on his claim that the president of the United States behaves in a fundamentally similar way to a dictator who imprisons and kills political critics and journalists. Trump likewise reiterated his belief that “to the victor go the spoils” is the proper basis for American foreign policy, specifically with regard to his longstanding lament that the United States failed to steal Iraq’s oil after the 2003 invasion.

Lauer’s attempt to press Trump was the completely ineffectual technique of asking repeatedly if he is ready to serve as commander-in-chief. Lauer probably believes the answer is no, but nothing about this question would drive home Trump’s extraordinary lack of knowledge. Instead it allowed him to performatively demonstrate his confident, alpha-male reality show character as a prospective chief executive.

Both of these beliefs stun and appall foreign policy experts in both parties, as readers of the Washington Post or the New York Times know. But the average undecided voter isn’t reading those newspapers. The average undecided voter is getting snippets of news from television personalities like Lauer, who are failing to convey the fact that the election pits a normal politician with normal political failings against an ignorant, bigoted, pathologically dishonest authoritarian…

Is it just me, or is this presidential election starting to feel a lot like 2000 redux?

When the Times and the WaPo go out of their way to spike any stories that present Trump as he is, no embellishments mind you, just Trump’s unabashed self, and have instead decided Hillary’s emails have damned her to Hell, well…perhaps the powers-behind-the-Iron-Throne may not have to call in Florida and SCOTUS to rig the vote (again.)

Wake up, people.

Shoot Matt Lauer

Show 1 footnote

  1. And don’t get me started on the Times of the WaPo – both papers have been less than honest concerning Trump.

Something to say...?