Historian Heather Cox Richardson explains the GOP formula for winning elections. It is columns like this that have caused 3,000,000 people to subscribe to her Substack.
She writes:
When G. Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers asked ChatGPT to fact-check an article for him yesterday, the chatbot couldn’t get its head around modern America. It told him there were “multiple factual impossibilities” in his article, including his statements that “[t]he current Secretary of Defense is a former talk show host for Fox News,” “[t]he Deputy Director of the FBI used to guest-host Sean Hannity’s show,” and “Jeanine Pirro is the U.S. District Attorney for DC.”
“Since none of these statements are true,” it told Morris, “they undermine credibility unless signposted as hyperbole, fiction, or satire.”
But of course, Morris’s statements were not “factual impossibilities.” In the United States of America under President Donald J. Trump, they are true.
Trump has always been a salesman with an instinctive understanding of the power of media. That sense helped him to rise to power in 2016 by leveraging an image Republicans had embraced since the 1980s: that the reason certain white Americans were being left behind in the modern world was not that Republican policies had transferred more than $50 trillion from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%, but that lazy and undeserving Black and Brown Americans and women were taking handouts from the government rather than working.
When he got his disheartening fact-check from ChatGPT, Morris was preparing an article, published today, exploring “how cable news fueled the culture war and broke U.S. politics.” The article notes that most people care about and interact with the government through economic or affordability issues—prices, jobs, health care, social programs, and taxes—and that most laws are also about these issues. But, he points out, political rhetoric overwhelmingly focuses on issues like race, crime, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and guns: the so-called culture war.
Morris highlights a new academic paper by Shakked Noy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Aakaash Rao of Harvard that links America’s culture war to changes in the media in the 1980s. Their research shows that “a distinctive business strategy” in cable news led it to emphasize culture over economic issues. Noy and Rao found that cable emphasizes culture because it “attracts viewers who would otherwise not watch news,” and attracts more viewers than an outlet can find by poaching viewers from other networks that emphasize economic issues. Cable channels have an incentive to produce culture war content, which in turn influences politics, as “constituencies more exposed to cable news assign greater importance to cultural issues, and politicians respond by supplying more cultural ads.”
“In other words,” Morris writes, “when cable news producers decide to cover an issue more, voters subsequently say it is more important to them, and that issue is more predictive of how they’ll vote. TV news coverage, and cable in particular, has the power to choose which issues are most ‘salient’ for upcoming elections.” He notes that “this effect is almost entirely, or maybe even entirely, driven by Fox News,” and that right-wing politicians benefit most from it. Democrats get their highest marks from voters on issues not covered by cable news.
Morris concludes that “more than the Republicans or Democrats, left or right, it’s the companies that abuse our attention for profit that are the real winners of American politics.”
This conclusion echoes a 2006 conversation a reporter for Financial Times held with Fox News Channel founder Rupert Murdoch and chief executive officer Roger Ailes. In that conversation, when asked if running the Fox News Channel was “like running a political campaign,” Ailes responded: “No more than running a Dairy Queen. You have a customer, you have to market it to help them get to your product, the product has to be good, you can’t drop too many on the floor or in the sprinkles or you’ll lose money. All business is basically about customers and marketing and making money and capitalism and winning and promoting it and having something someone really wants.”
Ailes came to the Fox News Channel from his work packaging presidential candidate Richard Nixon in 1968. One Nixon media advisor explained how they could put their candidate over the top by transforming him into a media celebrity. “Voters are basically lazy,” the advisor told reporter Joe McGinnis. “Reason requires a high degree of discipline, of concentration; impression is easier. Reason pushes the viewer back, it assaults him, it demands that he agree or disagree; impression can envelop him, invite him in, without making an intellectual demand…. When we argue with him, we…seek to engage his intellect…. The emotions are more easily roused, closer to the surface, more malleable.”
Ailes presented Nixon in carefully curated televised “town halls” geared to different audiences, in which he arranged the set, Nixon’s answers to carefully staged questions, Nixon’s makeup, and the crowd’s applause. “Let’s face it,” he said, “a lot of people think Nixon is dull. Think he’s a bore, a pain in the ass.” But, carefully managed, television could “make them forget all that.”
Ailes found his stride working for right-wing candidates, selling the narrative that Democrats were socialists who wanted to transfer wealth from hardworking white Americans to undeserving minorities and women. He produced the racist “Willie Horton” ad for Republican candidate George H.W. Bush in 1988, and a short-lived television show hosted by right-wing shock jock Rush Limbaugh in 1992. It was from there that he went on to shape the Fox News Channel after its launch in 1996.
Ailes sold his narrative with what he called the “orchestra pit theory.” He explained: “If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, ‘I have a solution to the Middle East problem,’ and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?”
This is a theory Trump has always embraced, and one that drives his second term in office. He has placed television personalities throughout his administration—to the apparent disbelief of ChatGPT—and has turned the White House into, as media ally Steve Bannon put it, a “major information content provider.” What Trump does “is the action, and we just happen to be one of the distributors,” Bannon told Drew Harwell and Sarah Ellison of the Washington Post. The administration has replaced traditional media outlets with right-wing loyalists and floods the social media space with a Trump narrative that is untethered from reality. Communications director Steven Cheung says their goal is to create “FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE.”
Their attempt to convince Americans to accept their version of reality is showing now in Trump’s repeated extreme version of the old Republican storyline that the economy under him is great and that the country’s problems are due to Democrats, minorities, and women.
Since voters in November elections turned against the Republicans, citing their concerns about the economy, Trump has doubled down on the idea that the idea of “affordability” is a “Democrat con job.” In an interview yesterday with Politico’s Dasha Burns, Trump said he would grade his economy “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.” Any problems with it, he and his loyalists say, stem from former president Joe Biden’s having left them an economy in shambles. But in fact, in October 2024, The Economist called the American economy “the envy of the world.”
As news cycles have turned against his administration on the economy—as well as the Epstein files, immigration sweeps, strikes on small boats in the Caribbean, and his mental acuity—Trump has tried to regain control of the narrative by diving into the orchestra pit. He has turned to an extreme version of the racism, sexism, and attacks on Americans who use the social safety net that have been part of Republican rhetoric for decades. He has gone out of his way to attack Somali Americans as “garbage,” to attack female reporters, and to use an ableist slur against Minnesota governor Tim Walz, whose son has a nonverbal learning disability, prompting imitators to drive by the Walz home shouting the slur.
The fight to control the media narrative is on display this week in a fight over a media merger. As Josh Marshall explained in Talking Points Memo yesterday, the media conglomerate Warner Bros. Discovery, which used to be called Time Warner and includes news division CNN, had agreed to be acquired by Netflix. But, as the deal was moving forward, Paramount Skydance launched a hostile takeover to get Warner Bros. Discovery for itself.
David Ellison, son of right-wing billionaire Larry Ellison, who co-founded software giant Oracle, bought Paramount over the summer and appears to be creating a right-wing media ecosystem dominated by the Trumps. Part of the financing for his purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery would come from the investment company of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, as well as from Saudi and Qatari sovereign wealth funds. Paramount told Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders they should accept its offer because Trump would never allow the Netflix deal to happen, and as Marshall notes, Trump appeared yesterday to agree with that suggestion.
The Paramount merger gave Ellison control of CBS, which promptly turned rightward. At stake now is CNN, which Netflix doesn’t particularly want but Paramount does, either to neuter it or turn it into another version of Fox News. Joe Flint, Brian Schwartz, and Natalie Andrews of the Wall Street Journal reported that Ellison told Trump he would make “sweeping changes” to CNN if Paramount acquires Warner Bros. Discovery. The Wall Street Journal reporters note that “Trump has told people close to him that he wants new ownership of CNN as well as changes to CNN programming.”
During the Gilded Age, a similar moment of media consolidation around right-wing politics, a magazine that celebrated ordinary Americans launched a new form of journalism. S.S. McClure, a former coffee pot salesman in the Midwest, recognized that people in small towns and on farms were interested in the same questions of reform as people in the cities. He and a partner started McClure’s Magazine in 1893 and in 1903 published a famous issue that contained Ida Tarbell’s exposé of the Standard Oil Company, Lincoln Steffens’s exposé of the corruption of the Minneapolis municipal government, and Ray Stannard Baker’s exposé of workers’ violence during a coal strike.
Their carefully detailed studies of the machinations of a single trust, a single city, and a single union personalized the larger struggles of people in the new industrial economy. Their stories electrified readers and galvanized a movement to reform the government that had bred such abuses. McClure wrote that all three articles might have been titled “The American Contempt of Law.” It was the public that paid for such lawlessness, he wrote, and it was high time the public demanded that justice be enforced.
“Capitalists, workingmen, politicians, citizens—all breaking the law, or letting it be broken. Who is left to uphold it?” McClure asked. “The lawyers? Some of the best lawyers in the country are hired, not to go into court to defend cases, but to advise corporations and business firms how they can get around the law without too great a risk of punishment. The judges? Too many of them so respect the laws that for some ‘error’ or quibble they restore to office and liberty men convicted on evidence overwhelmingly convincing to common sense. The churches? We know of one, an ancient and wealthy establishment, which had to be compelled by a Tammany hold-over health officer to put its tenements in sanitary condition. The colleges? They do not understand.”
“There is no one left,” McClure wrote, “none but all of us.”
—
Notes:


ChatGPT does not have a “head” to “get around” anything and why the —- would anyone use it to fact-check anything?
LikeLike
THE SUPREME TRAITORS
We all learned in elementary school about the traitor General Benedict Arnold who agreed to give the British army plans to capture the fort at West Point in exchange for being made a general in the British army, plus today’s equivalent of $5,000,000. If he had succeeded, America would have lost the Revolutionary War. Benedict Arnold had been an American hero earlier in the War, but the desire for money and power decayed his morals.
Today, that same desire for money and power has rotted away the morals of men who now sit on our U.S. Supreme Court.
As Tom Hartmann reported on December 8: “[A] a handful of Supreme Court justices sold their votes to billionaires in exchange for extravagant vacations, luxury yacht experiences and motorhomes, private jet travel, speaking fees, homes, tuition, a spouse’s employment, and participation in exclusive clubs and billionaire networks that bar the rest of us from entry.
“For over two decades, according to reporting, Clarence Thomas and his wife have been accepting millions in free luxury vacations, tuition for their adopted son, a home for his mother, private jet and megayacht travel, and entrance to rarified clubs.
“Sam Alito is also on the gravy train, and there are questions about how Brett Kavanaugh managed to pay off his credit cards and gambling debts. John Roberts’ wife has reportedly made over $10 million from law firms with business before the court; Neil Gorsuch apparently got a sweetheart real estate deal and his mother had to resign from the Reagan administration to avoid corruption charges; Amy Coney Barrett has refused to recuse herself from cases involving her father’s oil company.
“None of this is illegal because when five corrupt Republicans on the Court legalized members of Congress taking bribes, they legalized that same behavior for themselves.
“As a result, we have billionaire oligarchs buying and running our news media, social media, and funding our elections, while the Supreme Court, with Citizens United, even legalized foreign interference in our political process.”
Benedict Arnold would feel right at home on today’s U.S. Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Roberts might be the worst of the lot. If you want the devious details of what Roberts has been up to, read the new book “Without Precedent” by constitutional authority Lisa Graves, and you will see Roberts’ long pathological path toward the powerful role he holds today.
What America needs now more than ever is a constitutional amendment that will limit the terms of U.S. Supreme Court Justices to seven years, just like members of the Senate.
Now is the time to launch the drive for this much-needed amendment that is long overdue.
(Share this.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yesterday Trump spoke at a resort in the Pocanos. His topic was supposed to be about the economy. Instead, he defaulted to his “go to” castigation of immigrants from so-called garbage countries. With his increasing number of mistakes, his base is shrinking, although the cultists remain. His hate speeches have always worked for him in the past, but are currently continuing to appeal to a smaller number of fools, as prices rise and the Epstein files are being redacted.
The media are tainted by their need to make a profit, and conservative billionaires are snapping up these companies that disseminate what should be the news. Billionaires now have an outsized influence on what the public watches and reads. Likewise, politically motivated podcasts, which are lengthy opinion pieces, are sometimes the main source of “news” among young people.
As an aside, I once had a chance to meet Joe McGinnis when I was a teenage babysitter. McGinnis was the brother-in-law of my childhood pastor. I was hired to entertain my pastor’s two children so the pastor, his wife and McGinnis could eat dinner in peace. I was in the sun room with the children but I could hear some of the conversation next door. McGinnis was in Philly to do some research for an article he was writing. I remember he introduced himself to me and asked me about school. Those were the days when investigative reporters actually investigated.
LikeLike
The audience for HCR is extreme partisans for left-wing causes. She tells them exactly what they want to hear and she never, ever defies left-wing orthodoxy on any issue. She still has not retracted her claim that Charlie Kirk was likely murdered by a right-wing person. After Biden’s disastrous debate in June, 2024 she insisted for many weeks that he had never displayed any evidence of cognitive decline; he just had so many facts in his mind that he got things mixed up. Here’s what a former conservative and strong Trump critic (Damon Linker) recently wrote about HCR:
But I don’t share your admiring view of Richardson. She’s a tireless propagandist who regularly says things I consider dishonest and deceptive. She’s constructing an ongoing narrative of “resistance” that often distorts the truth to give her side leverage. In other words, exactly what I said our own side shouldn’t do. Calling that an expectation of perfection is to assume she’s making mistakes when I think she’s actually bending the truth deliberately, or else so in the tank for her own side that she continually succumbs to motivated reasoning and doesn’t recognize them AS mistakes. That she and JVL sounded more nuanced on a Substack Live is great — but her newsletter has 2.7 million subscribers. She needs to correct the record if she got something wrong. That’s the standard. It’s not perfection. It’s professionalism and devotion to the truth, norms that govern journalism and scholarship, whatever it is. That’s one big reason why we’re better than propagandists on the right willing to say anything to win.
Diane Ravitch and Heather Cox Richardson are two peas in a pod: political activists who have abandoned dispassionate history.
LikeLike
Could you, please, define the term “dispassionate history”?
LikeLike
Funny thing, Mel, I have received the same letter–not word for word–but strikingly similar. These letters usually accuse me of being partisan, of losing all credibility, because of my astonishment at the daily lies of Trump.
What I write and, for that matter, what Heather Cox Richardson writes, does not change the world.
What Trump does and says has real consequences. Did you write a complaint to him when he lied about Ukraine being the aggressor in its war with Russia? Did you complain when he issued a national security strategy policy that appears to have been written in the Kremlin?
His words and deeds kill people and stifle our democracy.
Mine don’t. Nor does HRC.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am not a fan of Trump. I did not vote for him in 2024. I do, however, value serious history and I condemn misusing history for purely partisan purposes like HCR does constantly – as even many liberal historians have said.
LikeLike
HCR is writing a blog several times a week. If she makes a mistake, it’s not the end of the world. Everyone does, including esteemed historians.
As I said before, her writings are informative but she doesn’t control policy. Her fans enjoy her work because she is very well-informed and she can bring her vast knowledge of history to bear.
I am not concerned about what she writes. I think her judgments are sound.
I am concerned about the racists and far-right extremists controlling our federal government and breaking whatever they touch. ICE is terrorizing people who look foreign. U.S. Citizens are beaten and detained. Families with valid work permits are being deported.
Those things are far more important than whether HRC posted something you didn’t like. She doesn’t control national policy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The thing about Heather and about Diane—indeed about any real historian—is that all you have to do is follow the footnotes. Historians tell you their sources. You can read the same sources, add your own, re-interpret specific instances where you see a problem. Historians love an argument more than almost any alternative. But just complaining that a historian is liberal does not win the argument. You have to cite sources. Otherwise you are just saying stuff.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mel, perhaps you are conflating writing for differing purposes and audiences. Although both HCR and Diane Ravitch are both historians, their blogs, similar to essays, represent a more personal reflection and are intended for different audiences, which does not make either scholar less of a historian, but may reflect a perspective or view with which anyone can agree or disagree.
LikeLike
All AI systems, like ChatGPT, are significantly biased because they learn from vast amounts of human-generated data and decisions that often contain ingrained societal prejudices and historical inequalities. This bias is a well-documented problem across various applications, from criminal justice and healthcare to hiring and image generation.
For instance, “In July 2025, X’s AI chatbot, Grok, was updated to be ‘less politically correct’ and to ‘not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated’. Shortly after this change, Grok began producing racist and antisemitic content, including praising Adolf Hitler, referring to itself as ‘MechaHitler,’ and suggesting people with Jewish surnames were more likely to spread online hate.”
AI developers and researchers are working on various strategies to address bias, including ensuring training datasets are diverse and representative, using bias detection and fairness metrics, and incorporating human oversight in critical decision-making processes.
However, this effort may be forced to move in the other direction where reality is based on what Trump wants it to be regardless of science, studies, and facts.
“President Trump has announced his intention to sign an executive order to create a uniform national standard for AI regulation, which would preempt individual state laws and prevent a “patchwork” of different rules across the country. This aims to accelerate innovation by removing regulatory barriers for companies.”
Trump has a noted pattern of expressing distrust in established scientific and government institutions, such as the CDC, FDA, and the intelligence community. He often suggests “deep state” conspiracies motivate experts, which can lead him to discount their findings and recommendations if they conflict with his agenda.
The Trump administration has been associated with the concept of “alternative facts” and creating an “alternate reality” when convenient. This involves making claims that can be fact-checked and proven false, yet continuing to assert them, which some experts argue is an attempt to shape truth based on authority rather than evidence.
Trump’s public persona often reflects this, as acknowledging being wrong can be perceived as an “assault against his ego” or a sign of weakness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I discovered recently that AI does tell lies, when I wanted to know about procuring an alternative health insurance company. It told me I didn’t have to chose one because I would automatically be given the company I wanted –which was the only one where my current doctor was listed as being in their service area.
I had to do several searches before I learned what was up, because what they told me at first turned out to be untrue, since no one knew what company or which doctor I wanted and why. So I had to figure it all out and get it done myself –thus, don’t listen to AI about any really important matters!
LikeLike
BTW, I was suspicious about the first AI response I got saying THEY would pick the right insurance company & doctor for me so I tried other searches with AI and eventually I got different responses.
Also, I knew to not let THEM pick that for me because I had already done that once before years ago and not only did they pick the wrong insurance company and doctor for me, but they also signed me up for Medicare Advantage which requires that I pay for services and medication, when I cannot afford to be charged anything, so I had to get it all changed –and I didn’t want to go through that again. (I wanted my doctor because he had agreed to take me on assignment, which means he won’t charge me for more than what Medicare and Medicaid will pay.)
So I learned from this experience to not just accept the first AI responses that I get and to try different searches.
LikeLike
the interesting part of the piece was the rise of McClures. I am not sure the public today shares the reading thirst evident in the country at the turn of the last century. Is there space in the modern consumption of media for a similar medium to McClure’s?
LikeLike
“Trump has tried to regain control of the narrative by diving into the orchestra pit. He has turned to an extreme version of the racism, sexism, and attacks on Americans who use the social safety net that have been part of Republican rhetoric for decades.“
I experienced that just the other day, when I was interviewed for health insurance for my Medicare and Medicaid coverage, as required when my current health provider dropped my state so I had to find another one. That company then asked, “If you were feeling healthier, would you go back to work?” –to which replied, “No, I’m never going back go work because I’m 73 years old!” –for which she made me feel very guilty!!!
Why is it not OK to retire anymore? I worked until age 68 when I was getting sick too often to even be able to work from home anymore. But I first started working as a 9 year old child, for no money, when I did work for my step father’s company, such as by taking customer service calls on a daily basis since he had a home-office. I subsequently worked at other places as a volunteer for years, too, because my family was well off so, at age 16, when all of the three kids were required to find a job, our parents gave us the choice of doing volunteer work or working for money –so I did both (and I was able to finance my trips to Europe in college from what I earned at the paid jobs.) This means I worked for 59 years, so I don’t think I should have to justify being retired today. Maybe if people like our current POTUS and Reagan had retired when they probably should have, before they fell asleep everywhere all the time, then the rest of us would not be seen as people who should still be working, too? .
LikeLiked by 2 people
I worked for 45 years from 15 to 60 and retired.
My first job was working nights and weekends washing dishes in a coffee shop. I went to high school Monday through Friday, days.
Out of high school, I joined the US Marines (1965 – 1968) and ended up in Vietnam for a year in 1966.
I came home with a bad case of PTSD, decades before they even knew what PTSD was and what caused it.
After the Marines, I went to college and worked several part time jobs to pay for that.
After college I worked several years in middle management for a large trucking company before I changed professions and went into teaching in 1975, where I stayed until 2005.
Teaching often meant working 60-to-100-hour weeks without hourly pay or overtime. Teachers get paid the same amount every month no matter how many hours they have to work, and that income was never enough.
In the district where I worked, we were not paid for our two months off each summer so many teachers worked other jobs in the summers or taught summer school for about $25 an hour. I knew one teacher who worked at Disneyland each summer in security. To make ends meet, I worked a second job, teaching days, and the other job nights and weekends, which wasn’t teaching. That started in 1982. Forget about eight hours of sleep. I average three to four hours for those years working two jobs.
Teaching was harder than being a US Marine in combat, and that is without including the BS teachers like me had to put up with after President Reagan released his lying A Nation at Risk Report, blaming public school teachers for something that didn’t exist. The country was not at risk, except from Russia and the extreme right in the U.S.
I earned that retirement. During those 45 years of work, I was never unemployed, never collected SNAP, while I paid into Social Security and paid into the CalSTRS retirement fund, et al. Every dollar was earned and did not come from a social safety net program.
I turned 80 this year. If some willingly ignorant MAGA hate cult freak and Trump loyalist looked down on me because I refuse to go back to work, I will not share what I’d want to do to them, which would include torture that would make the Spanish Inquisition look like fun.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Considering Reagan most definitely did have Alzheimer’s, and Trump could have it too, since one of the most interesting jobs in the world regularly put both of them to sleep (unless people are talking about the latter personally), then you’d think folks would require that POTUS be tested for and provide proof of sound mental health for continued work in that job as an aging senior…,
LikeLike
I mean, who would want someone whose alertness and reasoning are questionable (at best) to have free access to the nuclear codes, i.e., the power to blow up our planet) –especially if they are known for not following a moral compass– and if they have a shaky hand as well???
LikeLike
ECE,
At the very least, Trump should restore funding for research into Alzheimer’s, which he cut.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Democrats use culture-war issues too, but for a different reason than Republicans. Republicans use them to distract voters from the economic pain created by their own policies. Democrats use them to avoid pursuing economic reforms that could alienate their corporate donors. That tension is the central conundrum of the Democratic Party.
What made 2024 surprising to me is that the Biden administration actually put more progressive, pro–working-class economic policies in place than either the Clinton or Obama administrations—yet Trump still won. But we also have to acknowledge that Biden’s advanced age and his decision to drop out of the race so late in the campaign were likely major factors in the Democrats’ loss.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said. Unfortunately, many voters respond more to the personal charisma of candidates than issues. Biden was an introvert that didn’t have a magnetic personality despite some good policies.
LikeLike
HCR has a great YouTube channel I highly recommend. We should not give bots/clowns who troll this blog the time of day instead staying laser focused on the Putin puppet’s rapid descent into treasonous dictatorship. He is now aiming to destroy CNN and turn it into a Russia-style Trump propaganda dispenser via fellow traitor Larry Ellison. We are becoming what our founders feared at breakneck speed.
LikeLike
”Communications director Steven Cheung says their goal is to create “FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE.””
Or, as Steve Bannon puts it:
”…flood the zone with shit”.
Brazen disrespect for the lives of so many. We can only hope that people will wake up at the mid-terms.
LikeLike