Hey there, this is Oliver Darcy filling in for Brian Stelter. As I always say, I really enjoy your feedback, and especially your tips. Get in touch via email or find me on Twitter! Now, onward to the news...
"DID THE PRESIDENT CONVINCE YOU?"
That is the chyron on "CNN Tonight" as I'm writing tonight's newsletter -- and it's the big question heading into Wednesday. Did Trump's speech move the needle? Or, as John King put it earlier in the night, "Did the president win over any Democrats?" It's hard to imagine he did.
The brief Oval Office address didn't include any new arguments or information that would prompt anyone to be persuaded one way or another. As Fox's Chris Wallace bluntly summed up, "The President tonight was making an offer the Democrat's can't accept."
Trump's private admission to TV anchors
Earlier in the day, Trump hosted television news journalists for an off-the-record lunch at the White House where he reportedly made a huge admission. NYT's Peter Baker reported via sources in the room that Trump privately told the journalists he wasn't inclined to deliver the prime time address, but had been persuaded to do so by advisers.
One source told Baker that Trump conceded the speech was "not going to change a damn thing." The source said Trump went even further, saying his trip to the border was just a big photo op. Then he pointed to Bill Shine and Sarah Sanders and said, "But, these people behind you say it's worth it." In other words, even Trump didn't think he would persuade anyone with his speech.
>> Publicly, of course, Trump played up his speech, tweeting late Tuesday night, "Thank you for soooo many nice comments regarding my Oval Office speech. A very interesting experience!"
So were the networks played?
Before the networks made the decision to air Trump's address, a debate raged in media circles: Should the channels turn over their valuable air time for what was almost certainly going to be a political speech? After some deliberation, every broadcast and cable news outlet decided to do so. Ted Koppel told NYT prior to the speech, "When the president of the United States asks for airtime, you've got to do it." And look, at the end of the day, networks were put in a difficult position.
But now, in hindsight, I'm wondering: Are TV execs comfortable with their decision? Bill Carter tweeted, "Networks should feel totally burned. Shouldn't they come out + tell WH: That was a fraudulent request; forget asking for platform for your political posturing ever again?" And Erik Wemple noted, "Looks like the White House secured major network TV time for an address that repeats all of the president's arguments on immigration, only, this time, through a TelePrompTer."
Stelter's view
Brian Stelter emails from Las Vegas: I'm here at CES, where I can report that... umm... almost no one watched the speech or the Democratic response. Here's my sense: The cable newsers are almost always going to carry a big prime time presidential speech. The broadcast networks are inclined to say yes, as well, though it's more complicated for them.
The broadcast execs noted that this was Trump's first time asking for airtime for an Oval Office address. They also noted that the country is in the midst of a partial government shutdown. Given the newsless nature of this address, they are likely to be a bit more skeptical the next time Trump requests time... But this is the bottom line: One of the powers of the presidency is the power to address the nation.
Fact-checks galore
TV networks did air Trump's speech in the most responsible manner in which they could, fact-checking his claims immediately after it concluded. NBC "Nightly News" anchor Lester Holt noted that the president repeated "some of the dubious claims he's made in the past." ABC's Cecilia Vega helped check facts with George Stephanopoulos. "Just because you say it's a crisis, doesn't necessarily make it one," Vega said. Fox's Shep Smith listed off a number of areas on which Trump misled the public during his speech. And CBS "Evening News" anchor Jeff Glor told viewers the he hoped to "fact check any inaccurate assertions."
>> That said, Tom Kludt flagged a a salient point from Glor who said, "There is some nuance to some of these arguments that unfortunately [due to] time, sometimes gets lost."
...even in the chyrons | | CNN and MSNBC not only spent much of the evening checking Trump's claims against the facts on-air, but they did so aggressively in the chyrons. Throughout the night, I noticed various fact check's (like the one above) being employed by both of the networks.
All that said, are we fact-checking the right way?
Alex Koppelman emails: One argument we've heard frequently during the discussion over whether or not networks should take Trump live is that we all provide comprehensive fact-checks, both on air and online, of what he says after he says it, or sometimes during. That's a good thing, no question -- but when it comes to justifying taking him live, there's a major caveat that I haven't seen discussed: We don't really know if fact-checks work, or whether we're doing them the right way.
A 2011 CJR article noted that one study showed that the more effective way to fact-check the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama is a Muslim would be to state the fact -- Obama is a Christian -- rather than state and correct the falsehood. The same researchers also explored the effect that the race of the people conducting the research survey had on respondents' answers about these facts, and concluded, "our findings suggest that the context in which corrective information about sensitive topics is delivered affects how people perceive and respond to them."
This is not settled science by any means -- but there are people studying it. And if we as an industry are going to rely on fact-checking as our shield when we choose to give over our space to words we know will contain misinformation, we should be talking to those researchers, providing funding for their work, even bringing them in-house to help us test and improve our approach. We owe our audiences more than just going with our guts and hoping it works out.
Highlights from cable
CNN: Hosts Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon featured analysis and fact checking from reporters and contributors. Lemon opened up his show with a thorough fact-check of Trump's speech.
Fox News: After Bret Baier signed off Fox News' special coverage, Sean Hannity spent much of the evening unsurprisingly advocating for Trump's position on the wall. Guests included Lindsey Graham and Mark Levin, both of whom were supportive of the president.
MSNBC: Rachel Maddow scored a big guest, interviewing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who slammed Trump. "The one thing the president has not talked about is the fact he has systematically engaged in the violation of… human rights on our border," Ocasio-Cortez said, according to Mediaite. "He has separated children from their families."
Trump took his talking points from right-wing media?
This should come as no surprise. The Daily Beast reported that ahead of his Oval Office address, Trump "leaned on a number of advisers for how to navigate the government shutdown he'd waged over funding for his border wall." The advisers, per The Beast, included Sean Hannity, and Lou Dobbs who encouraged Trump to continue demanding funding for the wall.
>> Related: Tomi Lahren noted in this tweet that Trump's Oval Office address used similar rhetoric to commentary she had delivered on Hannity's show. "Something @realDonaldTrump said in his #OvalOfficeAddress tonight sounded familiar 😉..."
An ongoing conversation
Stelter emails: The accumulation of daily deceptions and fear-mongering matters a LOT more than a single speech. But this episode has sparked some smart discussions about the media's Trump coverage. Hopefully it'll continue. I talked with The New Yorker's Isaac Chotiner about these issues... Here's the Q&A... | |
FOR THE RECORD, PART ONE
-- Stephen Colbert's "Late Show" lampooned Trump's speech with a "Bird Box" parody... ("Late Show")
-- Bret Baier has signed a new multi-year deal with Fox News. He will co-anchor Fox's election 2020 coverage and continue serving as the network's chief political anchor... (Deadline)
-- Sumner Redstone and his family have settled a legal dispute with his former companion Manuela Herzer... (WSJ)
-- Ben Shapiro responds to Tucker Carlson's monologue on populism: "In truth, his brand of populism isn't particularly new....It's an attempt to rally government behind preferred conservative causes..." (National Review)
"The lede on any other night"
As Anderson Cooper said during the 8pm hour of "AC360," there was one story that broke Tuesday that would have been "the lede on any other night," had Trump not delivered an address on border security. Parts of a court filing that were meant to be redacted by Paul Manafort's lawyers, but really were not, indicated on Tuesday that Mueller believes Manafort shared polling data in 2016 with Konstantin Kilimnik, a person the United States believes is linked to Russian military intelligence.
While the story was overshadowed by Trump's prime time address, it did receive a significant amount of attention. On CNN, it was being covered even in the moments leading up to Trump's speech. Pamela Brown characterized it on "The Situation Room" as the "biggest window yet" into Manafort's investigation into possible collusion. And NYT's story stated bluntly, "The document provided the clearest evidence to date that the Trump campaign may have tried to coordinate with Russians during the 2016 presidential race."
Toobin's message to viewers: "This is a big deal"
Jeffrey Toobin told Cooper that he has "a lot of sympathy for ordinary civilians trying to follow the Russia story" and determine what bits of news are important, and which other ones are not. But he had one message for them about Tuesday's revelations: "I promise, this is a big deal."
Expect to see a lot more coverage on this Wednesday...
FOR THE RECORD, PART TWO
-- Can your phone's location information end up in the wrong hands? Motherboard's Joseph Cox reports T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T (which owns CNN) "are selling access to their customers' location data, and that data is ending up in the hands of bounty hunters and others not authorized to possess it, letting them track most phones in the country..." (Motherboard)
-- Cheddar's Alex Heath comments, "Imagine if this story was about Facebook. Would be BREAKING on cable news throughout the day. But telecoms sooo..." (Twitter)
-- Mathew Ingram writes about how a Grindr lawsuit "could open the door for similar claims against Facebook..." (CJR)
Facebook and Twitter ask conservative figures & orgs for feedback
| | WSJ published a lengthy investigative piece on Tuesday revealing that Facebook and Twitter have privately sought advice from organizations and individuals in the conservative movement. The story noted Facebook has contacted the Family Research Counsel and its president Tony Perkins. Jack Dorsey, per WSJ, has hosted dinners with conservatives, including Grover Norquist. The story noted that when Twitter faced questions about whether to remove Alex Jones from its platform, Dorsey "privately sought counsel" from right-wing activist Ali Akbar. Facebook and Twitter both told WSJ it consults with individuals with a wide-range of perspectives...
Zuckerberg's 2019 resolution
Get ready to see more of Mark Zuckerberg in 2019. The Facebook founder and CEO said Tuesday -- in a Facebook post -- that his New Year's resolution is to "host a series of public discussions about the future of technology in society." He said the discussions would include "leaders, experts, and people in our community from different fields," though he didn't mention any specific names. Zuckerberg acknowledged speaking publicly is not something he's the most comfortable with, but said it "doesn't cut it anymore" to "build out my ideas and hope they'd mostly speak for themselves." CNN's Seth Fiegerman has the full story here...
>> Worth noting from Fiegerman: "If his other resolutions are any indication, however, expect Zuckerberg's public debates to be fairly scripted events, rather than a raw and unfiltered window into the CEO's mind."
FOR THE RECORD, PART THREE
-- Jim Swift writes about how "chaotic change creates the most dramatic opportunities for the most unsavory actors," and how that "same dynamic has taken place in the media sphere..." (The Bulwark)
-- A German man has confessed to hacking the data of politicians, journalists, and YouTube personalities... (NYT)
-- Kyle Pope offers his "8 tips for covering the 2020 presidential race..." (CJR)
NYT publisher: World needs less hot takes, more reporting
NYT publisher A.G. Sulzberger's 2019 "State of The Times" address was uploaded online Tuesday. One theme that repeated itself throughout the address was the need for less hot takes, and more journalism. As Sulzberger said, "Many of you have heard me say that the world doesn't need more 'content.' There are enough hot takes, chat podcasts, and YouTube videos to sustain us through the apocalypse. What the world needs more of is great journalism." Sulzberger later underscored that point, saying, "At a moment when everyone on the internet has an opinion, great beat reporting is more important than ever -- because it offers real expertise and depth of understanding."
Conway's snide remark to Acosta
The White House continued its attacks on Jim Acosta Tuesday. When Acosta asked Kellyanne Conway on the White House lawn whether Trump would "tell the truth" during his prime time address, Conway quipped back, "Yes Jim, and can you promise that you will? The whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Am I allowed to mention God to you?"
Acosta replied that Conway was the one with the "alternative facts problem" -- a comment that seemed to trigger Conway. Conway responded by calling Acosta a "smart ass." The video aired in a CNN package later in the evening, with Acosta characterizing Conway's comments as her sounding "defensive." Mediaite has video of the contentious exchange here...
Hulu says it added eight million subscribers in 2018
Jill Disis emails: Hulu announced Tuesday that it added eight million new subscribers last year, bringing its total to 25 million. That's a sizable increase for the streaming service, which offers customers a live TV option in addition to its standard on-demand plans. Still, it's nowhere close to overcoming Netflix, which had about 58 million subscribers in the United States as of last fall.
Hulu also said Tuesday its ad strategy is working. The company announced that it grew advertising revenue to nearly $1.5 billion in 2018, the most in the service's history. It also increased its advertiser base by 50%.
Chloe's new series
Chloe Melas emails: My series "Side Hustle Success" premiered Tuesday on HLN featuring women who turned their hobbies into multimillion dollar businesses. Each morning at 10:30am this week you'll hear the stories of the following women: jewelry designer Kendra Scott, Venus ET Fleur founder Seema Bansal, The Mane Choice founder Courtney Adeleye, and fashion designer Misha Nonoo. Here's the first episode featuring Kendra Scott...
| | By Lisa Respers France:
-- Fiji Water Girl had a favorite photobomb from her famous night at the Golden Globes...
-- Celebs have been celebrating Cyntoia Brown's clemency decision...
-- Lil Wayne's lil weird outfit was the talk of the football championship halftime show...
-- The Bonnaroo 2019 lineup was announced Tuesday...
"Surviving R. Kelly" spurs follow-up calls from DA
Lifetime's "Surviving R. Kelly" documentary series may have landed the singer in some legal hot water in Georgia. According to Gerald Griggs, an attorney for one of the women featured in the series, the Fulton County district attorney is conducting an investigation. Griggs said the DA contacted him a few days ago. CNN's Sandra Gonzales and Emanuella Grinberg have the full story here...
>> Related: Lifetime announced Tuesday that the documentary had reached 18.8 million total viewers.
Nielsen shines a light on "Bird Box"
Frank Pallotta emails: There were a lot of questions surrounding Netflix's eye-popping claim that more than 45 million accounts watched "Bird Box" over the holidays. Now there's data from Nielsen that backs up that number. Nearly 26 million viewers watched the film over the first seven days of its release, according to the measurement company. That's pretty impressive, but what's even more of an interesting data point is that the horror film also brought in a young and diverse audience. Nielsen said that 36% of the film's viewers were 18 to 34 years old, 57% were female and almost half were either African American or Hispanic.
TV revisits familiar concepts
Brian Lowry emails: We've moved into the "Everything old is new stage" of reality TV, with the recycling of familiar formats. USA will bring back "Temptation Island" later this month, and Fox announced that it will revive another one of its old concepts, "Paradise Hotel," from the producers of "Jersey Shore."
"Lindsay Lohan's Beach Club" isn't worth visiting
Lowry adds: Meanwhile, tonight also marks the premiere of another unscripted series that trades off a tabloid-friendly name, "Lindsay Lohan's Beach Club," a highly conventional, pretty banal fun-in-the-sun, "I'm not here to make friends" formula, set at Lohan's new beach club in Mykonos. In a Variety interview promoting the show, Lohan became somewhat prickly discussing her past, and the controversies surrounding it. But that's a bit disingenuous, given that it's the main reason MTV chose to slap her name on what otherwise could be any other Bravo-type series.
Amazon's docs-series
Lowry sends one more: Amazon is seeking to make its mark on the docu-series format with "Lorena," a four-part series about Lorena Bobbitt. Jordan Peele is producing the project, which will screen in advance of its debut at the Sundance Film Festival. | |
That's a wrap on today's letter. Hope you enjoyed it. Brian will be back on Wednesday! | | | |
Post a Comment