The Drudge Revolution: The Untold Story of How Talk Radio, Fox News, and a Gift Shop Clerk with an Internet Connection Took Down the Mainstream Media

From the 2020 book by Matt Lysiak:

* For those who had accompanied the Republican nominee to the debate, the sense of anticipation came with the full knowledge that the moments to follow in the debate would forever change the trajectory of each one of their lives. Perhaps no one understood that more than Steve Bannon, who had left his position as executive chairman of Breitbart.com when he was appointed chief executive of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. A Trump defeat would very likely relegate Bannon to a footnote in history, but a victory would vault him into one of the most consequential positions of power in the world. And Bannon knew it. He also understood that the chances of a Trump victory appeared to be more rooted in fantasy than political reality. RealClearPolitics polling showed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton with a seemingly insurmountable seven-point lead.
Still, the campaign wasn’t without hope. Internal polling showed a much tighter race with hopes resting on the belief that non-college-educated white voters were being underrepresented in major national polls.
Donald Trump was minutes away from going onstage. His advisers needed to pull Matt out of the audience right away for a quick one-on-one with their candidate, but there was a slight problem: Did anyone even know what Matt Drudge looked like?
Over the past decade, Matt had disappeared from the public eye. He openly brags that it’s been years since anyone has managed to snap his picture. If someone does pull out a phone in his presence, Matt covers his face with his hands.
His mysterious persona was consciously cultivated in the belief that the Drudge Report would be more powerful without a public face attached to it. “Let the Drudge Report be,” he told a friend before going dark. “Remove the face. Remove the target. Just let the Drudge Report stand for itself.” And Matt’s instincts would be proved right.
By October 2016 the site’s power had reached new levels. Only weeks earlier, during a radio interview, Texas senator Ted Cruz placed the blame for his electoral defeat on Matt Drudge. And Cruz wasn’t alone. Jared Kushner, who had forged a relationship with Matt months earlier, knew from his time as publisher of the New York Observer that the support of the Drudge Report was crucial to his father-in-law’s electoral chances.
But with only minutes to go until Trump hit the stage for what was expected to be one of the most consequential debates in American political history, a senior staffer asked, “Is there anyone who can pick him out of the crowd?”
David Bossie spoke up. “I know what he looks like.”
Bossie had met Matt several times in the late 1990s. The two had formed a mutually beneficial relationship over common enemies—Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bossie raced through the underground labyrinth of tunnels beneath the stadium until he emerged through an opening facing the audience. He scanned the crowd. Several rows up he spotted an unshaven man in his early fifties wearing dark glasses and a brown fedora.
It was Matt Drudge.

* Matthew Nathan Drudge was born on October 28, 1966, the only child of two liberal Democrats, Robert and Deborah Drudge.

* Matt grew up a latchkey kid. He was a contemplative child who was naturally drawn to meditation. Radio was an early passion for young Matt, and at night he narrated his own personal radio shows into a tape recorder before falling asleep to the talk radio voices crackling through the AM stations on his transistor radio.

* Matt would later describe his mother proudly as a “pioneering lawyer”; however, her career stalled just a few years after passing the bar. Following the divorce, Deborah Drudge fell ill, and in January 1980 she was forced to leave her job owing to “severe illness.”
She became a patient of Dr. Norman E. Rosenthal, who would later become prominent for having been the first to describe seasonal affective disorder and for pioneering the use of light therapy. Dr. Rosenthal prescribed a “radical new treatment” for Deborah that appeared to worsen her condition.

* Court papers reveal that the young man’s issues extended far beyond a rebellious attitude. Matt had been dealing with “emotional problems” since the divorce.
“Physically he’s in good shape, but emotionally he has problems and he’s getting treatment for that,” Claire told the court. On June 18, 1981, Matt was arrested for making “annoying phone calls.” He was taken to Montgomery County Juvenile Court, where his issues were blamed on his father, who resented him for being “disturbed.” Coupled with his mother’s health troubles, it was suggested Claire send Matt to a foster home.
The agonizing situation was described to the court by a relative testifying in support of Claire:
After he went to his diagnosis well he got is a problem of making annoying phone calls to a girl, so that’s what precipitated the testing, and as a result of the testing the diagnosis was that the boy was disturbed. Not that he has a mental illness but because of his life situation of his mother’s sickness and his father resents him that he is disturbed and needs treatment, and their recommendation was a boarding school if we could afford it or possibly a foster home if one could be found, that is one of the reasons we are here is for more money to hopefully send him through boarding school and if not the last choice will be a foster home.

* In the early ’80s, the American media landscape was dominated by the network newscasts and a burgeoning print newspaper market. Newspaper circulation was on an upward trajectory that would continue for the next eight years, with many big-city publications putting out multiple editions per day. The influence of print spread to the network newscasts, with headlines from that morning’s New York Times, Chicago Tribune , and other prominent dailies often used as crib sheets for the producers at ABC, NBC, and CBS, and would later feature as the lead stories for the nightly newscasts. And the Big Three were enjoying a wave of success of their own, riding a formula of viewer trust and familiarity. But a cloud of uncertainty was also hovering forebodingly over this balance of power.

* Newcomer Ted Turner’s twenty-four-hour news station CNN had launched on June 1, 1980.
Meanwhile, across the ocean, Australian newspaper tycoon Rupert Murdoch was spreading his media empire, having just put in bids to purchase the Times and the Sunday Times newspapers in the UK, all the while closely watching the experiment unfolding at CNN.

* The new decade also delivered exciting new advances in technology.
In San Francisco, a 1981 KRON newscast told the story of a radical experiment happening at the San Francisco Examiner that had the potential to revolutionize how the public gathered news.
“Imagine, if you will, sitting down to your morning coffee and turning on your home computer to read the day’s newspaper,” the newscast began. The story continues with a print newspaper subscriber named Richard Halloran, identified by the segment as a “home computer owner.” By placing a simple phone call, Halloran was able to access most of the newspaper without stepping foot outside his front door. “When the telephone connection between these two terminals is made, the newest form of electronic journalism lights up Mr. Halloran’s television with just about everything the Examiner prints in its regular edition—that is, with the exception of pictures, ads, and the comics.”
Eight newspapers, including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, had already joined the computer network, with more joining every week.
“This is an experiment,” said Examiner editor David Cole. “We are trying to figure out what this will mean to us as editors and reporters and what it means to the home user . . . And we are not in it to make money. We are probably not going to lose a lot but we are probably not going to make much either.”
The segment concluded with KRON newscaster Steve Newman presciently saying, “Engineers now predict the day will come when we get all our newspapers and magazines by home computer, but that’s a few years off.”

* Matt didn’t participate in extracurricular activities. He didn’t do his homework or go to football games or homecoming dances. He also didn’t join the school newspaper, but a few fellow students recall him reading the morning announcements broadcast over the school loudspeaker, including leading the Pledge of Allegiance. He said stuff to raise eyebrows and be provocative so that he could watch how teachers and other students reacted.

* After school the two usually ended up at Matt’s. His house was striking for its lack of personality and warmth. “There were no pictures on the wall. There were a few pieces of furniture, but no throw pillows on the couch or anything extra. Just the bare essentials,” Michelle recalls. Matt explained that his mom just hadn’t felt compelled to brighten the house up, telling Michelle that his mother was sad.
Matt’s mom was rarely home, but when she was, Michelle could tell that something was off. Michelle remembers Claire as a smallish, attractive woman with long brown hair parted down the middle, who looked like a hippie but without “that warm, easygoing hippie vibe.” There was something different about the cadence of her voice and the look in her eye. “She didn’t seem all there. She seemed to be struggling with something very serious.” When Michelle asked what was wrong, Matt just shrugged his shoulders, explaining that she was “still upset about the divorce.”
The other thing Michelle noticed was Matt’s strained relationship with Claire. “Matt didn’t like his mom,” says Michelle. “He talked down to her. He would sometimes just look at her and say dismissively, ‘That’s my mother.’”

On top of not feeling connected to his mom, Matt rarely saw his dad. “Except for me, Matt was a loner,” says Michelle.

As the relationship evolved, Matt began to use the notes to open up about his sexuality and his relationships with men. It hardly came as a revelation to Michelle.
“Most of the school thought of Matt as gay, so I wasn’t surprised at all. It was really no big deal to me,” says Michelle. “He was just so out there and never dated any girls, and the way he behaved and the things he would talk about . . . People just weren’t like that back then, especially in a football-oriented school like Northwood.”
While unfazed by Matt’s sexuality, Michelle was taken aback by how explicit the notes were in describing the details of his intimate relationships. On the bus rides home from school at the end of the day, Matt demanded that Michelle give him his notes back so he could destroy them.

Matt never dated classmates, but by the age of eighteen had already made himself a staple at the Washington, DC, gay club scene. Matt knew all the doormen, and even though Michelle wasn’t yet of age, he could get her in without a problem.

* At the clubs, Matt met men from all across the country. “Matt always dated older men,” Michelle remembers. “I remember him going down to North Carolina to meet with some man in his fifties. Even though he was still in high school, Matt would fly or take Amtrak to various destinations around the country and even Canada one time. Every year he would travel somewhere. He never told me how he paid to get there, but I always assumed the other person he was meeting was paying.”
Matt never drank or did recreational drugs at the clubs, but his dancing was epic. “Matt would dance the whole time nonstop. It was really remarkable. He would dominate the whole floor. He was that guy on the dance floor that you couldn’t turn your eyes from,” remembers Michelle. “Matt danced in a way I had never seen anyone dance before. He would go from side to side in these huge sweeping motions. He demanded space on the dance floor. You couldn’t stand next to him because he would knock you over. He was incredible. He would dance for hours and hours and come off the floor sopping wet from head to toe.”
One night Matt left a club late at night to meet up with Michelle, showing up at her door with his left shoe missing.
“Matt, where is your shoe?” she asked.
Matt looked down at his bare sock, then looked back up at her, smiling. “I lost it dancing.”

* Behind the scenes, Matt Drudge’s high school years were marked by increasing instability. Matt’s parents had become aware of his sexuality. Matt later confessed to a friend that they didn’t accept his lifestyle, and that they thought something was wrong with him.

* Matt’s “mental health issues” corresponded with the continual deterioration of his mother’s health, according to the Maryland Court Archives. In April 1982 Claire suffered a severe toxic reaction to a medication that caused her to be hospitalized. In June, Claire told the court, “I returned home, where I remain under doctor’s care. I have no financial means with which to meet Matthew’s special and urgent needs.”
With nowhere left to turn, Claire sent Matt to live with his father in Tyaskin, Maryland, on a soybean farm with his father’s new wife and her two sons. But after three weeks, the teenager was sent back to live with his mom.
According to Claire, “Robert Drudge rejected his natural son, Matthew, and returned him to my home, knowing that I am under doctor’s care and unemployed. His reason for returning Matthew to me after three weeks was that his wife comes first; her two boys come second, and Matthew comes third, that he did not assume any responsibility for him as his father because he has a new family; that he hopes everything turns out all right. Robert Drudge has not communicated with his son or me since that time.”
She continued, “As a result of these experiences, I believe that Matthew will require special attention in the form of psychiatric and social services as well as social educational services.”
After returning back to his mother’s care, records show that his treatments increased. In 1982 Matt received a “psychological evaluation,” a “psychiatric evaluation,” and at least twelve “individual psychotherapy sessions” at the Jewish Social Agency in Rockville, Maryland.
By September 15, 1982, Matt’s “emotional problems” had escalated. This time Matt was admitted into the facility for an extended stay as part of a psychological evaluation. It concerned Matt’s dad enough to provoke a rare visit.
“Matt told me he had pneumonia and that was the reason he was away,” remembers Michelle.

* Matt would later sum up his time in public education: “I don’t like authority and I didn’t like structure. My expertise in high school was cutting classes. Boy I knew how to do that. I never got caught. I got suspended a few times.”
In 1984 Matt graduated from Northwood High School ranked 341st out of 355 students.

* One of the female roommates had developed a crush on Matt, and the feelings weren’t mutual. And as tensions in the apartment began to rise, Matt found himself in a relationship with a man he had met in New York City, and it had turned abusive.
“Matt kept what was going on to himself, but we knew it wasn’t good,” a friend remembers.
Matt had nowhere to turn. His mom was struggling with mental illness, and his dad had all but disowned him. Michelle hadn’t heard from Matt in several months. She had become worried and decided to reach out. Matt answered the phone, sounding panicked.
“Hey, I’ve been trying to reach you. How are you doing, Matt?” she asked.
Matt answered, “Well, I’m getting my ass beat by my boyfriend, and I have no place to go. So that’s about it, so, bye.”
He hung up on her.
After just a few months, Matt fled the New York City apartment in the middle of the night. He didn’t tell anyone, not even Seymour, where he was going.
Seymour recalls, “We just woke up and Matt was gone.”

* In 1987 Matt moved again, this time leaving Takoma Park for Los Angeles, where he found a small one-bedroom apartment for $600 in a section of Hollywood “they’re always promising to clean up but never do.” He adopted a six-toed cat named Cutie. From his ninth-floor apartment at the corner of Hollywood and Vine, Matt found himself in the entertainment capital of the universe . . . with a view of CNN’s local headquarters and the high-rise where E! Entertainment’s offices were located.
Matt’s goal in Los Angeles was the same as it had been in New York City. He knew he had ability. He believed he understood more about the entertainment agency than the writers covering the beat, so now all he needed was for someone to notice.
He walked the famed Sunset Strip, sometimes stopping at Ronald Reagan’s brass star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame to wipe the epithets off, or at World Book & News at the corner of Hollywood and Cahuenga to note any interesting tidbits. One day, while perusing the news rack, Matt spotted an advertisement in Variety for a job as a runner for the game show The Price Is Right. He interviewed and got the job. The pay was five dollars an hour.
The job proved fortuitous. Not only did it earn him enough money to pay his rent and afford his steady diet of thirty-nine-cent tacos, but it also gave him his first real glimpse into Hollywood. And Matt was finally being noticed. He soon impressed his bosses at the game show and was promoted to the CBS Studios gift shop. Once there, he was bumped up the ladder again, this time to assistant manager, where he became responsible for all the books and purchasing. The higher-ups were so enamored of his work ethic that they flew him from Hollywood to New York City to show CBS’s New York employees how to expertly manage their store.

* Matt’s father, Robert, had married for a third time in 1989, this time to a woman named Rita Foust, also a Maryland native. Rita recalls that during their two years of marriage Robert didn’t have a single interaction with Matt. She says she never asked Robert why the two never spoke, only that “it was a very strange family. Very reclusive.”
But Robert did have a fixation that he would soon share with his son—computers. He had bought one in 1991 and had “spent hours messing around on it,” according to Rita. “He got very into it,” she says. “He took up programming and writing code and became very good at it.”

By early 1994 Robert Drudge had reconnected with his son, paying a visit to his Los Angeles apartment. He became convinced that Matt was spinning his wheels at his gift shop gig. Robert hoped to jump-start his son’s career, and possibly provide an outlet for him to focus his seemingly boundless energy and intellect.
“Matt’s mind goes a thousand beats a second and then the next second there’s something else,” Robert would later say.
On the drive back to the airport after his visit, “sensing some action was needed,” Robert made a detour to a strip mall off Sunset Boulevard. It was there that he purchased his son his first computer, a $1,500 486 Packard Bell. He thought it would be good for Matt to apply his mind to something new and different.
“Oh yeah,” Matt thought. “What am I gonna do with that?”

* But it was 1920s-era columnist Walter Winchell who would become Matt’s biggest influence. Winchell had made a name for himself by printing private, often salacious, information about famous people for the struggling New York Evening Graphic.

* Matt would later acknowledge the columnist’s influence, but with a caveat: “To me it’s only the Winchell spirit that I’m gravitating toward, as opposed to the man. He put himself in the center of situations. I do just the opposite. I remove myself from the fray and monitor everything from above.”

* In July 1997 Matt stopped by Brock’s house to celebrate his thirty-fifth birthday holding a bouquet of yellow roses. “Jesus, I thought, Drudge thinks we’re going on a date,” Brock would later write of the incident in Blinded by the Right, which detailed his departure from the conservative movement.

Brock’s account continued, “After dinner at the famed West Hollywood restaurant Dan Tana’s, he suggested we go bar hopping along the gay strip on Santa Monica Boulevard, which Drudge navigated like a pro. At a bar called Rage I accepted his invitation to dance, but I was much more interested in checking out two guys who were dancing nearby. When the couple disappeared, I asked Drudge if he had seen where the pair had gone. ‘Yeah,’ Drudge quacked, ‘I saw what was going on and I stepped on one of their feet really hard to get rid of them.’ The gesture was sweet, in a way, but also scary, and I quickly called it a night.”

Brock claimed he soon received an email saying, “Laura [Ingraham] spreading stuff about you and me being fuck buddies. I should be so lucky.” Brock decided it was time to unceremoniously end his relationship with Matt.

* Longtime conservative operative Barbara Ledeen couldn’t believe her eyes when the man showed up at her door with an order for her to appear in court as a witness in a lawsuit between Sidney Blumenthal and Matt Drudge.

“I didn’t know Matt Drudge,” said Ledeen. “But I knew enough to know that we needed help.”

Ledeen and her husband, author Michael Ledeen, may have never met Matt, but they had more than enough experience with Blumenthal, whom they described as “vicious” and “vindictive” for his attacks on their conservative advocacy work. After receiving the subpoena at their home asking them to turn over “all kinds of information,” Leeden called her friend, libertarian activist David Horowitz.

“You have to help Matt Drudge,” she said to Horowitz.

Horowitz, who had founded the libertarian Individual Rights Foundation, had never met Matt, either, but after being contacted by Ledeen, Horowitz believed it was a noble cause. Horowitz agreed to allow his foundation, which mainly fought speech codes on college campuses, to represent Matt’s defense.

Horowitz remembered, “Matt and I had breakfast. At the time I don’t think he realized or appreciated the real danger he was in with this lawsuit. The goal was to destroy Drudge, and even if Blumenthal knew he couldn’t win the case, he could easily drain Drudge dry.”

“He grudgingly accepted our help,” added Horowitz.

With Matt’s permission, Horowitz went to work creating a defense fund, which raised money through direct mail and internet appeals to pay the lawyers’ fees. He then set up a meeting with Matt and Individual Rights Foundation lawyers Manny Klausner and Patrick Manshardt. Manshardt was excited to take the case, seeing Matt Drudge, and all the Drudge Report represented, as important for the future of internet freedom.

* On October 8, 1997, [George] Conway reportedly emailed Matt again, introducing himself as “a friend of Laura” with an “exclusive” about Paula Jones’s claim (which was later dropped) that the “distinguishing characteristic” of the president’s anatomy was a curvature caused by a malady known as Peyronie’s disease.

* Lucianne Goldberg advised Linda Tripp to reach out to Michael Isikoff in late September, asking him if he would be willing to meet at the walk-up condo of Goldberg’s son, Jonah. Isikoff showed up at the Manhattan apartment on October 6, where he found Goldberg and Tripp waiting with a tape player in hand. Goldberg told him they had the Lewinsky tapes and suggested that Isikoff listen.

Isikoff politely declined, answering, “As a journalist, it would put me in a bad position to do that.”

In point of fact, the seasoned reporter was worried that by listening to part of the tapes he would be inserting himself into the story. Isikoff remembers, “There were pretty strong guidelines that you don’t get involved. That is a violation. There were strict guidelines handed down. That was the culture I was raised in. It was a sort of seat of the pants split second. It was pretty clear this was an ongoing process—they were trying to get me to coach them. It appeared to be an effort to make me a part of something that I was ethically obligated to stay out of.”

They spent the next hour talking and then gave Isikoff the name of the other woman: Monica Lewinsky. Again, Goldberg insisted he listen to the tapes. Tripp reached for the recorder and pushed the play button.

“Wait,” said Isikoff. “I’m not sure I should be doing his. It probably isn’t a good idea for me to listen.”

Tripp hit stop on the tape player. Whatever was on the tapes, Isikoff told them, he would need more corroboratory documentation if he was going to write an article alleging that the president of the United States was having an affair with an intern. He assured them he would keep working, and then left the apartment.

“He ran out of there,” recalls Goldberg. “I think he had a car waiting for him outside to take him to appear on Hardball.”

Over the next several weeks, Tripp and Goldberg continued to stay in touch with Isikoff, feeding him information and waiting for the story to break. But as the days went by, Goldberg’s crew was growing impatient.

Since the first day of his presidency, conservatives had been trying to prove Clinton was corrupt and unfit for office, but every time they thought they had him, the football would be yanked back and they would be left tumbling through the air catching nothing but wind. But this time, they believed it would be different.

The day before Clinton was to give a sworn deposition, Paula Jones’s legal team was notified of the tapes and their content. On January 17, 1998, Clinton gave a sworn deposition denying having a “sexual relationship,” “sexual affair,” or “sexual relations” with Lewinsky.

The president’s sworn testimony directly contradicted the information on the tapes. They finally had him, they thought. Now they needed to get the information out. And fast.

On the evening of January 17, Isikoff called Moody and Goldberg to let them know the story wouldn’t be running. The editors at Newsweek made the decision that the taped conversations amounted to hearsay and were not enough to publish a story that could lead to the impeachment of the president.

“Isikoff was very excited,” recalls Goldberg.

For Goldberg, it was more evidence of the leftist media protecting their own. She was determined to make sure the story wouldn’t get squashed. A friend suggested she call Matt Drudge.

Matt had been following the Clinton case closely with a member of Goldberg’s inner circle having already leaked bits and pieces of the story, but now, for the first time, he was hearing the entire story—along with Newsweek’s role.

“I did know Matt Drudge, but I hadn’t met him. And I was with friends who trusted him. And there was no other place to go. Isikoff had been fiddling for months. My friends told me, ‘Hey, you should call Drudge.’ So that is what I did. I picked up the phone, called Matt Drudge, and gave him the story,” says Goldberg.

It was shortly before 10:00 p.m., eastern time, when Goldberg picked up the phone to dial Matt in Los Angeles.

In Goldberg’s words, “I began to tell Matt the story and he was like a kid in a candy store. Drudge loved it. He was like, ‘Oh, boy this is great.’”

Less than an hour later, Goldberg got a call that the story had been posted on the Drudge Report. “I couldn’t believe how quickly it went up. I said, ‘You watch, this will change journalism forever.’”

* Having published [the Clinton-Lewinsky story], Matt Drudge sat alone in his Hollywood apartment. He began sobbing. He realized that from that moment forward his life was never going to be the same.

* In the months that followed, the historic weight of what he had done set in on Matt. He began to believe that he was in danger and that something nefarious could happen to him. If ever the Clinton deep state, which he had spent years obsessing over, had a reason to spring to life—this was it.

Was he being followed? At times he believed he was.

Had his computer been hacked? He didn’t think so—but he told friends that he was sure someone had tried.

Maybe, he thought, the police would come barging into his Hollywood apartment with a warrant for his arrest for some trumped-up charges? He told friends he worried that one day he would arrive at his car to find it surrounded by police after someone had planted a bag of cocaine in the trunk.

His attorney Patrick Manshardt remembers, “Drudge seemed more worried that the powers that be would do something terrible to him—arrest him, eliminate him, frame him. That seemed to be his concern. He was concerned there was some sort of deep state action that would be used against him. He was serious.”

* After the speech and Q&A had concluded, [Doug] Harbrecht [of the Washington Press Club] retreated to his upstairs office where he quickly discovered how the public had felt about his job performance.

“It immediately began,” recalls Harbrecht, who for the first time had found himself being labeled unfair and biased for his treatment of Matt. “We started getting emails from all over the country. That was when I found out what the meaning of the word ‘troll’ was. I got slammed, right down to my aunt and uncle. Rush Limbaugh spent time on his radio show laying into me. I would prove a perfect elitist foil.”

“Matt Drudge’s speech became the most commented event that the Press Club had ever had, but it wasn’t until five years later that I read that speech and realized how brilliant it was,” Harbrecht adds.

As members of the news media slowly filtered out of the room, they were accompanied by a cascade of murmurs and sly grins. These were men and women with journalism degrees from some of the most prestigious schools in the country and working for some of the most hallowed media institutions in the world. For generations, they had built their reputation as guardians of information who sought accountability from the powerful, and in their eyes, had more than proved their worth several times over. From Watergate, to the Pentagon Papers, to the Iran–Contra affair, they took their oath to uphold the public trust as sacrosanct.

Now, in a single speech, this Matt Drudge, an uneducated interloper, had looked them in the eye and rendered their entire world irrelevant. To those assembled, the speech and Matt’s vision of the future was as arrogant as it was obnoxious. And most important, it was wrong. As far as they were concerned, the newspapers and network news were at the top of their game, and they weren’t about to go anywhere. If anything, they were growing. However, this new fad of internet news was nothing but a flash in the pan, most believed.

“Enjoy your fifteen minutes,” a Washington Post reporter was heard laughing before walking out the door.

* New opportunities begat more new opportunities. In one example, a New York brokerage firm offered to put up millions of dollars to finance an online venture with Matt and former Clinton pollster Dick Morris. Matt refused, telling friends he was already financially comfortable. He had moved on from his old Packard Bell to a new black Fujitsu laptop, traded his beat-up Geo Metro for a Corvette, and upgraded his cramped ninth-floor Hollywood apartment for a luxury apartment on Whitley Avenue between Highland and Vine.

Heading for dinner one night, Matt handed Ann Coulter two hundred-dollar bills to pay the taxi driver and told her to keep the change.

“He’s constantly giving money away,” the conservative columnist said in an interview with the Washington Post. “He doesn’t know what to do now that he’s making money. It’s hilarious . . . He’s simultaneously larger than life and sort of childlike,” said Coulter. “When you ride in the Drudgemobile, he’ll play tapes of himself on the radio, and he’ll laugh uproariously at his answers. You end up laughing at him laughing at himself.”

* More bad news came after Matt learned that MSNBC reporter Jeannette Walls had begun research for an upcoming book that promised “a comprehensive, serious exploration of gossip and its social, historical, and political significance,” and a look into the major players, including Matt Drudge.

For years, Matt’s private life had become the subject of online “rumor campaigns” in internet chat rooms. “They’re spreading that I’m a child molester, I’m gay, I’ve been mentally institutionalized . . . even rumors of drug use and pornography,” he told the Washington Post. “All the charges and counter charges on me at some point become just a blur.”

A source had informed Matt that Walls’s book planned to out him to the public and his conservative audience. Matt fired off a preemptive attack on March 3, 2000, posting an all-caps headline: “MSNBC REPORTER: DRUDGE HAD SEX WITH EGGS.”

The article continued, “MSNBC reporter Jeannette Walls is telling associates that she has obtained information linking Matt Drudge with a sexual preference for eggs. ‘He likes to have sex with eggs,’ Walls told an insider. ‘He likes them smeared all over naked male bodies.’ Yet another MSNBC exclusive, Walls is also reporting to MSNBC associates that Drudge likes to ‘have sex, with his clothes on, in the shower.’ Do you have any other Drudge sex stories?”

On March 7, 2000, Dish: The Inside Story on the World of Gossip was released with the opening chapter, “Citizen Reporter,” divulging modest details of Matt’s homosexual lifestyle, albeit without any mention of eggs.

New York Daily News gossip columnist George Rush called Matt for comment. “You are in this book and the author suggested that you are gay,” Rush told Matt.

“He was quite defensive and denied it,” said Rush, who had first met Matt in March 1997 at a party at the Chateau Marmont.

Rush called Walls to let her know that Matt denied the claims made in Dish. In response, the author forwarded Rush an email thread she had obtained between Matt and one of his alleged lovers that showed proof of a physical relationship. Rush reached back out to Matt with the evidence, but when confronted with the email, Matt went into overdrive to discredit the reporter.

“Oh, that’s fake,” said Matt. “Anyone can fake an email by copy and pasting.”

He then changed the heading on Rush’s email and sent it back to him.

“See,” he said. “Easy.”

Matt went on to claim Walls’s entire account was fabricated. “Jeannette, dear, slow down and come up for some air,” he wrote on his site. “You are becoming a laughingstock. Even by MSNBC standards.”

Replied Walls, “I’m not passing judgment. But I think his duplicity is relevant to his character as someone who has built his career on exposing others’ private lives.”

“I go to bars,” he later told the Miami New Times. “I go to straight bars, I go to gay bars. [Walls] never said there was sex; she said there was dating. She never had enough to go that far.”

Asked if it bothered him to be portrayed as gay, Matt answered, “No, because I’m not . . . It’s not an issue with me . . . I think I told the Daily News something like, “My youth is a blur. That’s a good out.”

Matt again found himself on the defensive after an avalanche of negative reviews greeted the October 2000 publication of his book, Drudge Manifesto. It had been hyped as “the most sensational, the most outspoken, behind-the-scenes story of the year,” but critics gleefully slammed the 247-page book, which included forty blank pages, thirty-one pages of fan mail, and nine pages of poetry.

A particularly brutal Wired reviewer wrote, “Drudge spends so much time assuring us that he deserves to be taken seriously, it’s only natural to come to the opposite conclusion. He deserves to be taken as seriously as the crud on the bottom of your shoe.”

Jack Shafer wrote for the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Drudge attempts to chronicle his pioneering internet life and times in Drudge Manifesto. But I can’t really recommend. His collection. Of sentence fragments. To anybody seeking an intelligible account of. How Drudge. Gave American journalism. A much-needed kick in the tuchas. Besides Mr. Drudge’s sentence-fragment tic, he RunsWordsTogetherForDramaticEffect as if under the spell of Lawrence Ferlinghetti, making readers struggle to follow his tale.”

* But Matt’s friends began to wonder [by 2001] if something was wrong. They worried that what used to be small glimpses of paranoia were taking a greater hold of Matt’s psyche. It didn’t help that the Drudge Report tip box had become riddled with hate. He claimed some people wanted him dead. Other messages referenced his sexuality.

After an eavesdropper spotted him in a Los Angeles coffee shop and fed an item on his private conversation to the New York Post, Matt began to think there were spies everywhere.

In another example, a camera crew took to the roof of an adjacent building to shoot into Matt’s apartment. Matt vented to friends that the Clinton people would never let it go.

* After spending the two years following his Lewinsky scoop frequenting the interview circuit, friends at the time recall a difference in Matt. His need to be reclusive intensified. He had cut down on his public appearances. He was slower to respond to longtime friends on AOL Instant Messenger. On the increasingly rare occasions Matt did talk to the public, he refused to divulge any details about his life. What started off as a quirk in his personality was now becoming his personality.

Picking up on the changes, Paglia asked, “You’ve been guarded about your personal life, and rarely make the usual media rounds. Why do you stay so mysterious?” Matt deflected from the question. “My private life would make my public persona a lot less interesting . . . Once you take the mask off Batman he seems a bit diminished.”

Andrew Breitbart was also starting to ask questions. He was helping to run one of the most influential websites in the world, still helming the nine-to-three shift like clockwork, but months would pass without any communication from his boss.

Breitbart’s friend, conservative talk show host John Ziegler, recalls the confusion. “Andrew was both mystified and amazed. Here he was, one of two people running one of the most incredibly powerful enterprises in the world, and they never spoke,” says Ziegler. “It was very, very rare for Drudge to communicate.”

Sometimes Breitbart would get an out-of-the-blue message from Matt that he would be gone for several days. When he asked where Matt was traveling to, he would be met with radio silence. “At one point Andrew thought he was in Europe. But he was always guessing,” adds Ziegler.

The one surefire way to get Matt’s attention was to miss a big breaking news story. Ziegler reflects, “If Andrew ever fell asleep at the wheel, Drudge would get really pissed at him and fire off a curt message.”

Despite the lack of communication, Breitbart continued working his morning shift with a religious fervor, waking up most days at 6:00 a.m., and then furiously alternating his attention between television news and the wire services, bouncing between different websites, all the while staying on top of emails and the Drudge Report tip box.

Breitbart once explained to Roger Simon, the author and creator of PJ Media, the conservative opinion and commentary blog, that he always needed to be plugged in because the secret to the Drudge Report’s success was speed. Even seconds mattered.

“Andrew had figured out how to get the early line for AP,” said Simon. “When AP was breaking, Andrew and Matt were jumping on AP faster than other people. That was part of their original plan. Speed was very important to them.”

However, the tension from always having to be plugged in was taking its toll on Breitbart, recalls Ziegler: “It was incredibly stressful. He felt like a goalkeeper. Just making sure nothing got past him. Andrew had to be wired in all the time. If he was going into his sports bar, he would be watching the Dodgers game while monitoring news.”

Stress over finances was also beginning to take its toll on Breitbart. He had long recognized the mistake he had made in turning down Matt’s offer to be a partner in the Drudge Report. It cost him millions of dollars, but the monthly personal checks from Matt were barely enough to cover Andrew’s expenses.

A friend of Breitbart’s remembers, “Andrew couldn’t figure it out. There was no reason for it. Sometimes he’d be killing it with traffic and the site would be making millions and millions of dollars and a check for just a few thousand dollars would show up in the mail.”

His friends encouraged him to confront Matt to demand an increase in pay and a contract, but Breitbart was reluctant. Matt’s increasingly reclusive behavior had made him nearly unapproachable. According to Ziegler, “In Andrew’s mind, it was as if Drudge had become this Howard Hughes kind of character.”

* By the mid-2000s, South Florida had become a small enclave for conservative leaders. In 2003 Matt’s circle of friends had continued to dwindle, but one relationship he kept was with conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who became his neighbor, moving into a penthouse in the same building.

Matt and Coulter would sometimes visit Rush Limbaugh’s gated oceanfront compound in Palm Beach, staying in one of his five guest-houses. Limbaugh’s brother, David, would occasionally help Matt with legal work.

Chris Ruddy, who had become inspired by Matt during their dinner together in the mid-1990s, had also planted his growing conservative media empire in Florida. After hearing Matt describe the scope of the Drudge Report’s readership during their dinner together in 1994, Ruddy went to his boss, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review publisher Richard Mellon Scaife, and proposed starting an internet newspaper.

“I saw the power and influence that he [Matt] had developed on the internet. He was a genius. I thought I could turn it into a business model,” says Ruddy. Scaife declined. Ruddy left the Tribune-Review and took stories that were not published online, printed them out, and began setting up an email list for distribution. Before long, he had ten thousand subscribers paying thirty dollars a year. That success led him to begin the conservative website Newsmax in 1998. Five years later, Newsmax was flourishing. Ruddy set up headquarters in West Palm Beach with a massive $8.55 million, 61,900-square-foot office building.

Ruddy was joined in South Florida by conservative headliners such as former secretary of education Bill Bennett, former Reagan adviser Larry Kudlow, and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Gay Gaines, a longtime GOP political operative, would host fundraisers where Limbaugh, Bennett, Kudlow, Gingrich, and other GOP bold names would stay up until two in the morning partying. Matt was always invited, but never came.

* In August 2002, actor Alec Baldwin told the Howard Stern Show that Matt had hit on him in a “creepy” way after a chance meeting in a hallway at ABC Studios.

“He came right up to me and he looked like he had a fork and knife in each of his hands. He said, ‘Do you have any Tabasco sauce? I want to drizzle it all over you,’” said Baldwin.

* A revealing New York magazine piece written by Philip Weiss, published on August 24, 2007, further stoked Matt’s paranoia. In the article, Weiss used quotes from Matt’s radio show, giving the story the feel of an interview. Twenty-four hours after the story hit the web, Matt removed the link to his radio show entirely from the Drudge Report. Ten days later, it was announced that a new anchor had been hired for the 325 stations that broadcast his Sunday night show and that Matt would soon be quitting.

A few days after the story was published Matt met up for drinks with a work-related acquaintance and confided that he was ready to go completely off the grid. “I’m thinking of just going dark. So there is no longer a face to the Drudge Report,” he said. “This page would do better if I disappear. If I don’t exist. If there is no target.”

* After arriving at the building, Matt first stopped at his mailbox in the lobby and pulled out a thick pile of mail. He told [Tracy] Sefl it was all lawsuits. He couldn’t care less. It was such a constant for him. “That was his life: come home, open the mail, chuck the lawsuits over on the counter,” said Sefl.

The apartment was sparse, sleek, and modern, with a refrigerator filled with cases of Diet Pepsi.

“I was very flattered that he invited me into his home. That spoke volumes. He once told me I was only the third woman, the first being his mother, the second being Ann Coulter, who had ever been inside,” says Sefl. “That’s not a list I ever thought I’d be on.”

* Breitbart’s morning shift for the Drudge Report was all consuming. Even while on the road for the book tour, Breitbart had to stay plugged in to the website. Matt was even more obsessive than he was, according to Breitbart, but shared that he did have at least one vice.

“Matt was a big gambler,” says Ebner. “He liked to go down to the seediest casinos, the ones that were off-strip. He would go and play the high-end slots. The hundred-dollar slots. He would sit there for hours pulling the lever.”

* Hollywood, Interrupted had further launched Breitbart’s profile into the public sector among the conservative base. But his growing name recognition and his bestselling book weren’t enough to pull him out of the financial debt he had accumulated from a series of costly home renovations and other expenses. The personal checks sent monthly from Matt’s personal checking account no longer sufficed.

After the 2004 election Breitbart was approached by Arianna Huffington to be one of four partners to help launch a new website, the Huffington Post.

* A friend of Breitbart’s recalls the conflicted feelings Breitbart had over the thought of parting ways with the Drudge Report: “Breitbart had high anxiety about going to the Huffington Post, but he needed the money.”

Breitbart rationalized that if he handled the blog side and stayed away from news aggregation then he wouldn’t be directly competing with the Drudge Report, and would, in turn, manage to avoid Matt’s wrath. Breitbart held his breath and took the plunge, telling friends, “I think it will be okay with Matt.”

On April 25, 2005, the New York Times ran a piece that stated, in part, that the Huffington Post was a direct challenge to the Drudge Report. “In fact,” the story stated, “she has hired away Mr. Drudge’s right-hand Web whiz, Andrew Breitbart, who used to be her researcher.”

The reporter reached out to Matt, who emailed back that he was “excited” for Huffington. “The internet is still in its infancy,” he said. “It’s wide open.” But privately, Matt was seething.

* Shortly after the Huffington Post launched on May 9, 2005, the website not only took a leftward tilt but also heavily relied on news aggregation, making it a clear and direct competitor to Drudge. The relationship soured. By that June, Breitbart was out. He made another disastrous business decision when he decided to take a small buyout instead of the percentage he was originally promised, which would have been worth millions if Breitbart had waited.

Breitbart went back to work for Matt, knowing that he wasn’t going to pay him more, but offering “four or five ideas on how to make money.” Idea number one was to buy a subscription to the newswire services. To Breitbart, it made perfect sense. On any given week the Drudge Report would link to hundreds of wire stories, sending traffic, along with the advertising revenue that accompanied it, to third parties. If they bought into the wires, Breitbart reasoned, that money could be kept in-house.

“The idea was to have ten wire services and have them all under Breitbart.com,” says a friend of Breitbart’s. “If you were someone who wanted to be inside the news, this would be the ultimate news junkie page.”

Matt shot the idea down, telling Breitbart, “Then the Drudge Report would become a business, and the Drudge Report will never be a business.”

But Breitbart came back with a counteroffer: What if he fronted the money himself to buy the wires under his name? Would Matt then agree to allow him to link to the wires he owned?

Matt signed off on the deal. Breitbart moved forward with purchasing a subscription to the wire services, telling friends he took out loans totaling $150,000 for the subscription. In the summer of 2005, he launched Breitbart.com, “providing up-to-the-minute wire service stories.”

Publicly, Breitbart said that he “wanted to create the single best place where I could go as an avid news reader to get headlines the second they hit the internet so I don’t have to go to forty sites.” When asked if there had been an agreement with the Drudge Report, Breitbart told reporters, “I’m grateful for the traffic that is sent my way.”

The new arrangement would dramatically change the composition of the Drudge Report. On August 17, 2005, Breitbart.com went live. On August 29, 2005, Breitbart peppered the Drudge Report with links from Breitbart.com forty-eight times, according to an analysis by Kalev Leetaru, a researcher at the University of Illinois Cline Center for Democracy. By flooding the Drudge Report with links to Breitbart’s wire page, Breitbart.com went from obscurity to boasting 2.64 million unique visitors in its first month of operation, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.

Publicly, Matt said he was happy to assist his friend, telling CNET News, “For the wire stories, I’ve always looked for places with low graphics, without a lot of spinning Java tops on them . . . When I send my readers someplace, I want it to be convenient for them to get there.” He added, “I want to help him out. He has always wanted to do this. This is his idea and hopefully he can make a living from it.”

Breitbart had other revenue ideas. He entered into a pay-per-click financial arrangement with Reuters that further altered the page. From January 1, 2005, to October 14, 2005, the Drudge Report linked just twenty-nine times to Reuters. In the period following the deal, from October 15, 2005, to December 31, 2005, the Drudge Report linked to Reuters.com 229 times.

Each Reuters link was embedded with an HTML tag that allowed the news agency to track how much revenue Breitbart had been generating by the traffic sent their way. While Matt never explicitly said that Breitbart wasn’t allowed to use the coded links, he voiced his displeasure in other ways.

“Drudge didn’t like it,” says Ziegler. “He would go on and replace the coded links with links that had no code. It made Andrew furious. Matt was so passive-aggressive. Breitbart would be like, ‘That bastard did it again! That bastard took down my links!’”

It wasn’t the only pay-for-play arrangement. On January 26, 2006, Breitbart and his wife were sued by the Minnesota-based internet advertising firm Gen Ads for $75,000 for allegedly being in violation of their own agreement to take advantage of Drudge Report traffic. The court papers outlined a process of how Breitbart was able to manipulate the Drudge Report website to line his own pockets. According to court documents, after the August 2005 launch, Breitbart.com almost immediately became one of the most trafficked sites on the internet, with 2.64 million visits in its first month of operation. Nearly all the traffic originated from his own referrals while helming the Drudge Report.

The advertising agency was happy with the traffic until it learned that Breitbart had broken the agreement by promoting a third party: “In November 2005, Gen Ads learned that BL had entered into an advertising agreement with Reuters, a third party, for the placement of multiple links on the Breitbart Site to promote the Reuters site.

“Indeed, Andrew was negotiating the agreement to place Reuters Advertising at the time he was negotiating the Advertising Agreement and LLC Agreement with Gen Ads.”

In other words, financial arrangements for posting a story on a news site raised ethical concerns.

Journalist Greg Beato describes the arrangement as a black eye for Matt. “Drudge really used to emphasize his editorial independence. So the fact that there were these seemingly paid editorial links to Reuters.com on DrudgeReport.com looked like an ethical breach to me. Basically, it was pay-to-play.”

Breitbart had expected to cash in on the deal, but instead, he told friends the legal battle put him $300,000 in debt.

* However, in a conversation with Chris Ruddy, a despondent Breitbart opened up about why he left the website he had helped build. “He said he had broken a lot of stories for Matt and never felt he got the full credit he deserved,” recalls Ruddy.

Unbeknownst to Matt, Breitbart had been privately plotting to directly compete with his mentor. He had been thinking about an idea to create a home page that could not only gather views independent of Matt but would also confront the conservative kingpin head-on. “Matt will never allow another home page to be created in a conservative space that could actually compete with Drudge,” Breitbart would tell friends. “Never.”

* In May 2011, Matt brought veteran journalist and Washington Times reporter Charles Hurt into the fold. The trio had the website humming like never before. During his five- to six-hour shifts, Curl would replace 50 to 75 percent of everything on the page with fresher and newer stories. At noon, Hurt would come and take off the rest of the old stuff. Then at 6:00 p.m., Matt took over and worked until 11:00 p.m. or later.

By the time Curl got back behind the wheel the next morning, about 25 percent of the stories he had posted were still standing. Those would be the first he would take off. Then the cycle restarted. Over the course of twenty-four hours, there would be up to 150 links flowing on and off the page.

A few weeks before the 2012 election, and just as the news cycle was heating up, Matt announced to a small group of people that he would be leaving the country. When asked where he was going, Matt wouldn’t respond.

Matt had ended his embargo on Breitbart links, but the bad blood continued. In early 2012, after Breitbart completed the first draft of his book Righteous Indignation, which included an entire chapter about the near-decade period of his life he had spent working on the Drudge Report, he called Matt ahead of publication to give him a heads-up about the book and the passage about their time together. Breitbart explained how the chapter would be an ode to the Drudge Report, with fawning praise for Matt.

“I want you to pull the chapter,” Matt told him. “All of it.” Breitbart said, “But this is part of my life. I spent ten years with you. I can’t just pretend like it never happened.”

Matt wouldn’t budge—or read the chapter. Breitbart did as Matt asked and pulled the chapter. “Andrew was hurt,” a friend remembers.

In February 2012 at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Curl met up with Breitbart, where the two briefly discussed the unique nature of working for Matt Drudge. “It’s the weirdest job in the world,” Breitbart told him. “You’ll never talk to your boss—and no one will tell you what to do. It’s crazy.”

* In January 2016 Matt gave away the 4,600-square-foot house that he had paid $700,000 cash for in January 2013. He surrendered the property to a man with whom he had shared the same addresses since 2004 for a total of $10, according to Miami-Dade County property records. The house had been stockpiled with survivalist stuff, according to a friend.

Matt told his neighbor Kevin Tomlinson, whom he befriended in Florida, that he needed to keep moving because he “believed that he was always being watched. That people were out to get him.”

Tomlinson adds, “Matt thought there were eyes everywhere.”

In one instance, Matt told Tomlinson he had been chased by the Clintons. Another time he said, “They are stalking me, so I’m hiding out in Poland.” He would say, “They are watching me. They know where I’m at. They are going to see the cars I’m driving and get my plates.”

“I was worried about him,” added Tomlinson. “I still am.”

In March 2015 Matt had bought a home in Arizona, spending $1.9 million in cash for a 2,939-square-foot bunker-like compound in the desert outside Phoenix. A neighbor says the house has remained so quiet, he isn’t sure anyone ever moved in.

Matt would spend a month living out of a cabana at the MGM in Vegas. Next, he would travel to Tel Aviv or Helsinki for two weeks. Then he’d spend a week in Washington, DC, followed by a month in Australia.

* Matt shouldn’t expect recognition from academia. [Kevin] Wallsten believes there is a “blind spot when it comes to Drudge. No one understands how he works in the media ecosystem. We as academics are loath to describe the influence of single individuals. We study systems and how individuals fit into a greater whole. This idea of one great man who can spark a revolution is often beyond the scope of academia.”

* By April 2017 Charles Hurt had left the Drudge Report to become editor of the Washington Times and Matt had hired Daniel Halper, the former Washington bureau chief of the New York Post.

In the Age of Trump, the news cycle has never been as juiced. The Drudge Report’s page views have continued their upward trajectory. From December 2015 to December 2018 there have been a total of 55,136,650,898 page views of the Drudge Report, with 146,000,000 average monthly visits, according to SimilarWeb. From January 2018 to January 2019, over eleven billion visits were recorded to the Drudge Report, according to Quantcast.

However, a lifetime of being hunched over a computer for as many as seventeen hours a day has taken its toll on Matt’s body. He experiences pain in his back, neck, and shoulder. His spine is curved, and he has one foot “that is turned out in a way.”

“Don’t try to live my life,” Matt once told a friend. “It’s horrible.”

Drudge Report watchers say there has been a noticeable slowdown leading into 2019. The page doesn’t update quite as quickly as it once did. Many can’t remember the last time the Drudge Report broke a major story.

Longtime Republican consultant and Reagan biographer Craig Shirley believes social media is taking its toll on Matt’s ability to crash a news cycle, saying, “Twitter now moves a story much faster than Drudge does.”

Posted in Matt Drudge | Comments Off on The Drudge Revolution: The Untold Story of How Talk Radio, Fox News, and a Gift Shop Clerk with an Internet Connection Took Down the Mainstream Media

Investigating the mysterious man behind the Drudge Report

From Jewish Insider:

In his book, Lysiak notes that Drudge formed a close bond with Breitbart because of their Jewish backgrounds. “Breitbart, who had been adopted into a Jewish family, would later tell friends, ‘It is kind of weird that Drudge and I are both secular Jews who are interested in faith issues,’” Lysiak writes. “In Breitbart, Matt saw someone with boundless energy, a skeptical worldview, and who shared a passion for headlines and news.”

Drudge’s influence cuts across political divides. The CNN host and media reporter Brian Stelter “really looked up to Matt,” Lysiak noted.

But despite his reach, Lysiak believes that Drudge has been given short shrift by the majority of media professionals.

“Matt Drudge is the godfather of all these websites,” said Lysiak. “But I feel like he also doesn’t get the credit he would normally get because he isn’t highly educated, never wanted to go to the parties, didn’t do that scene, didn’t care if he was liked. For example, I worked at the New York Daily News for quite a long time. My editors were constantly refreshing the Drudge Report page, but they would never admit that.”

“It seems like people talk about him like he’s a guilty pleasure,” Lysiak added. “Like, it’s unsophisticated to say you go on the Drudge Report. You go on that site, you’re going to see things about sex robots, natural catastrophes, aliens and then some hard news. You might get the impression that we’re on the verge of an apocalypse every time you click on the site.”

Still, Drudge hasn’t done much to advocate for himself, at least publicly. According to Lysiak, Drudge basically bowed out of public view in 2007, when Philip Weiss published a lengthy New York magazine feature about him. The day after, Lysiak said, Drudge quit his radio show. Then, over lunch with a friend, Drudge decided that it would be best if his website didn’t have a face associated with it.

“He made a Batman reference,” Lysiak said. “And he’s been dark ever since.”

Drudge has been equally quiet about his faith, but Lysiak said that he has occasionally spoken about it. “Matt definitely feels closely connected to his identity as Jewish,” Lysiak said, adding that Drudge often travels to Tel Aviv. “He remarked to one of his friends that he feels a really powerful connection with the history” of Israel, Lysiak said.

In 2018, Drudge clashed with Fox News over coverage of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.

“A segment on Fox News this morning where hosts laughed and joked their way through a discussion on political impact of terror was bizarre,” Drudge tweeted at the time. “Not even 48 hours since blood flowed at synagogue? Check your soul in the makeup chair!”

Such disputes are typical of Drudge’s independent streak. Lately, he has turned a jaundiced eye toward the president, coverage that has earned him scorn from Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who in a Friday segment characterized Drudge as “now firmly a man of the progressive left.”

Left or right, however, Lysiak explained that Drudge’s motivations for posting negative coverage of Trump aren’t simply ideological.

“People make this mistake of looking at him through a political lens, but Matt Drudge’s loyalty is to one thing, and that is his website and page clicks and anything relevant,” Lysiak mused. “If you notice, people are talking about Matt Drudge again.”

Posted in Matt Drudge | Comments Off on Investigating the mysterious man behind the Drudge Report

A Place For You

I just thought of a four-word phrase that sums up my approach to politics, sociology, recovery, self-help, spirituality, God and religion: “A place for you.”

We deserve a place to feel at home. Government policies should promote that. People should have freedom of association. We need to get rid of civil rights legislation which has destroyed the ability of most Americans to feel at home.

Spirituality, recovery, and self-help boil down to adrenaline management. People who feel at home usually can manage their adrenaline surges. Feeling at home calms down your central nervous system so you are less likely to act out.

A key part of feeling at home is that you know what the rules are.

Stanford University’s Fred Luskin says most Americans spend most of their waking hours trying to feel safe. So solutions to this problem that promote a feeling of safety are approaches to life that works. One way to tackle the problem of anxiety is to shut off things that can make us feel unsafe — such as our email and our phones and TV news. Another great way to feel safer in the world is to live in reality. When we accept that we can’t change the traffic around us, we live in reality. When we accept that we can’t change other people, we live in reality. When we reflect on how our selfishness has hurt everybody in our life, we live in reality. When we have an accurate sense of our bank account, our bills, and our earning, we live in reality. When we have at least three months of prudent reserve, we live in reality. When we are aware of how we spend our time, we live in reality. When we glide through life without frequent humiliation and intense conflict, we are in reality.

Forgiveness, happiness and health are largely about relaxing one’s defenses, notes Luskin. Generosity only comes from people who feel safe. To phrase this differently, people who feel safe tend to be generous. Alternatively, people who don’t feel safe are not generous.

Which communities have the most generosity per capita? The most homogeneous ones. People prefer to help people like themselves and few people care about outsiders.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on A Place For You

Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth

Brian Stelter writes in his new book:

“You know what we need,” a senior producer of Fox & Friends told her staff during a rare dip in the ratings. “We need outrage.”
That’s really what F&F was about. Certain segments were designed to instill fear; others, to stoke hate; others, less often, to spark love. And the hosts were encouraged to ask viewers for feedback to confirm that the segments were having the intended effect. Gavin Hadden, the executive producer, sometimes had the foxfriends@foxnews.com inbox up in a window on his computer in the control room to monitor responses as the seconds rolled by. Had the viewers had enough of Geraldo yet? If so, wrap him! It was the closest thing to Choose Your Own Adventure on TV.
Hadden was one of the most important people at Fox that no one outside Fox ever heard about. He joined F&F in 2006, when Gretchen Carlson was the female cohost, and worked his way up to the top spot by proving he knew “what works” and what doesn’t. What works:

Stories about undocumented immigrants killing Americans
Stories about citizens standing up to the government bureaucracy
Stories about college students disrespecting the flag
Stories about hate crime hoaxes
Stories about liberal media outlets suppressing the truth
And, whenever possible, stories involving attractive women (They could be the hero or the villain, it didn’t matter, but they had to be attractive.)

“Job one is to titillate the audience,” the former producer said. “For celebrity stories, I had to pick the sexiest photos. And then I’d still hear, ‘Can you find hotter photos of her?’ Sigh. Okay, we’ll spend another thousand bucks on three photos from Getty.” It got to the point where the producer knew, without being told, which specific photos of Angelina Jolie the execs would expect to see. This sexualized approach spilled over to other parts of the show. If it was a quiet news day and the producers needed to fill a spare block, “we would look and see, what are the locals doing?” Fox tapped into its network of stations in big cities all across the country. “Then we would Google around to find the hottest reporter.” Workers striking in Detroit or rush hour flooding in Houston? Sometimes that’s how the editorial call was made.
“You have to understand how completely sexualized Fox is,” a former star said. What was visible to viewers on the air also affected the culture off the air.
Sex is what Ailes wanted, and sex is what he got. He used his power to enforce the short skirts and “leg cams” and exploitative segments that kept men watching. He also abused his power by preying on dozens of women, including Gretchen Carlson, who hatched a plan to hold him accountable. Ailes’s downfall would coincide with Trump’s takeover of the American right.

* While others heard a rambling and racist campaign speech, 5 p.m. cohost Kimberly Guilfoyle heard a rousing call to arms. “It was like The LEGO Movie, the theme song ‘Everything Is Awesome.’ It really got me excited. I felt richer just listening to him!” Guilfoyle exclaimed while the control room re-racked the tape of Trump gliding down the escalator for the umpteenth time.
Guilfoyle, who was once the first lady of San Francisco through her marriage to the city’s mayor, Democrat Gavin Newsom, was tapped by Ailes in 2006 to be a weekend host and legal analyst. Guilfoyle was mighty hungry for airtime. “Kimberly’s an avatar,” a Fox insider said. “If MSNBC offered her a better gig with more money, she’d be a raging liberal.”
Guilfoyle maintained that she’d always been a registered Republican. She occupied what was known as the “leg chair” on the set of The Five, and it was a prime perch from which to be noticed by Trump. “Let’s see” what happens, she said on launch day, already sounding like Trump. “I don’t know. I think it will be fun!”
“I get it, that he’s entertaining,” cohost Dana Perino said, piping in with the GOP establishment position. Perino, the former Bush 43 press secretary, scoffed at Trump and wondered how long his stunt would last. Come on, she said, prodding her cohosts, “you’re gonna build a wall and you’re gonna make Mexico pay for it?” She pushed the show’s satirist Greg Gutfeld: “On what planet could that actually happen?”
“Planet Trump,” Gutfeld replied.
Gutfeld looked at Trump very skeptically, but noticed something Fox-y about the topics Trump hit in his speech. “He did ISIS, Obamacare, immigration, Bowe Bergdahl,” Gutfeld said. “He did the Five rundown!”

* Ailes was a Bush guy at heart, having worked so closely with H.W. decades earlier. According to Ailes’s confidants, he favored Jeb Bush early on in the primary season. He also told his New Jersey neighbors that he was pulling for Chris Christie.

* When his campaign began, Rupert Murdoch claimed to detest him. Murdoch was always more of a Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush kind of Republican. He wanted comprehensive immigration reform and tax cuts and relaxed regulations, not “Mexicans are rapists” rhetoric. In mid-July, Murdoch tweeted, “When is Donald Trump going to stop embarrassing his friends, let alone the whole country?” Behind the scenes, Murdoch tried to prop up contenders like Ben Carson, who prepped for his 2016 run by being a paid pundit on Fox. And Murdoch urged others, like Michael Bloomberg, to step into the ring and challenge Trump as well. So much for that.

* The host of The Kelly File was Fox’s No. 1 rising star. Kelly branded herself as a free-thinker in contrast to O’Reilly’s faux folksiness and Hannity’s blind partisanship. She knew to stand on the side of Fox’s viewers, yes, which meant insisting Santa is white amid heaps of social media mockery, but she was also willing to buck the system. She wanted to be unpredictable. Uncontrollable. And she was succeeding like no one at Fox ever had. Over the course of a decade, she transformed from an unhappy lawyer to a bona fide television star. Her career trajectory was the stuff of TV news dreams: from bottom-of-the-ladder general assignment reporter to Supreme Court correspondent to mid-morning co-anchor to host of her very own two-hour afternoon show. Kelly was everywhere: She was a regular on The O’Reilly Factor. She anchored election night. And in 2013, Ailes moved her to prime time.
Almost immediately, The Kelly File at 9 p.m. was one of the hottest shows on cable. The talk show tilted right but got good press for Kelly’s surprising “independent” moments. It was a win all around: for Kelly, for Ailes, for the Fox ad sales execs. The only loser was O’Reilly, who hated seeing Kelly challenge him in the 25–54 demo.
O’Reilly publicly claimed to stand up for Kelly, and she said she respected him too, but they sniped at each other’s shows at every turn. O’Reilly resented her good press and her relationships with Rupert and Lachlan. Kelly mocked O’Reilly’s “looking out for you” shtick and his lackadaisical approach. (He taped his show several hours ahead of time, while she was live.) Execs dreaded the end of the month because O’Reilly would argue over the ratings results. If Kelly was No. 1 in the demo, he would come up with a reason to say it shouldn’t count. The way O’Reilly saw things, he had made Kelly a star by giving her airtime on his show. “The Kelly File was formed from me!” he groused. Ailes laughed away O’Reilly’s bellyaching: “He thinks he made her a star? No, I made her a fucking star.”

* Trump’s media relationships were so transactional that you could move from bad to good in the space of a minute. I noticed this when I conversed with Trump at the TIME 100 gala. On Reliable Sources I scrutinized his loose relationship with the truth every week; no one could mistake Reliable for a pro-Trump talk show. But when Trump saw me, he smiled and pointed and said, “Good show. Good numbers.” He meant the ratings, which were way up thanks to campaign coverage. I took it as an attempt at flattery.

* It is hard to imagine now, but there once was a time when Rupert Murdoch sternly told Trump to “calm down.”
The date was February 18, 2016. The octogenarian mogul was gradually giving up on Jeb and giving in to Trump. His reluctance was palpable for all to read on Twitter. When Trump flipped out at Kelly after the first debate, Rupert defended Fox’s moderation and said “friend Donald has to learn this is public life.” On December 15, 2015, he tweeted that Donald “seems to be getting even more thin skinned!” He wondered, “Is flying around the country every day tiring him?”
All campaign season long, aboard Trump Force One and atop Trump Tower, the candidate watched Fox to get talking points, used Fox to vanquish his rivals, and complained about Fox to manipulate the coverage. He was constantly on the phone with Ailes ranting about perceived slights, which Rupert then heard about.
“You’re showing the wrong polls!”
“When are you going to fire Karl Rove?”
“Why is Megyn such a bitch?”
And he ranted in public too. On February 17, 2016, he claimed Fox didn’t want him to win. The next day he accused Murdoch of rigging a scientific poll. That’s when Rupert talked down to Donald like a grandparent soothing a toddler.
“Time to calm down,” Rupert tweeted. He observed that if he was running an “anti-Trump conspiracy” then he was doing a “lousy job!”
Rupert “always craved a relationship with the US president. And he really craved it when it could help his business,” according to a family friend. Rupert wanted the ability to strut into the Oval Office at a moment’s notice. He wanted the state dinner invites and the policy briefings. Trump could be his ticket, if only the fellow could settle down.
If only.
Trump continued to come up with new ways to attack Kelly. Fox execs fumed—at Trump, at the RNC for not corralling the guy, and at the press for delighting in the so-called “feud.” They weren’t feuding—Trump was just wildly thrashing around, trying to cull Kelly from the Fox herd and make an example out of her. Almost every week during the primaries, I heard from a Fox exec or anchor who groused about the GOP front-runner.
“He’s nuts,” one Fox exec complained to me.
“He’s out of control,” said another.
“Fuck him,” said a third exec.
But their complaints rang hollow for this reason: Whenever Trump wasn’t pissing on Fox and Fox producers weren’t cursing over him, he was live with Hannity or O’Reilly or Greta Van Susteren or Fox & Friends or Special Report or Fox News Sunday. And his rallies were being carried live on Fox and all across cable TV. His campaign was fought mostly on television, with the rallies serving as elaborate stages for the show.
Kelly noticed all the interviews and rallies and live shots. She felt like Ailes did the bare minimum to defend her. Other insiders saw it the same way. Ailes, on the other hand, wasn’t sure what more Kelly expected from him. He was like an ego juggler, having to keep up with a dozen multimillionaire stars and Trump too, and he wasn’t as nimble as he used to be. For all the talk of him as an all-powerful and sinister force in politics, what was not well understood is that he was, according to ex-employees and even friends, “losing it” in his final few years. “It was so sad, seeing him lose his fastball,” one confidant said. He simply didn’t have much fight left.
And his history of abuse was finally, finally catching up with him.

* “Cable news is a snake pit,” Bill O’Reilly warned Megyn Kelly when she moved to prime time in 2013. He knew because he was the biggest python of them all. But Kelly could bite too: Years later, another Fox host told me “I’ve never known someone with as many enemies as Megyn Kelly.”
Those internal enemies existed long before Kelly spoke to the Paul, Weiss lawyers about Ailes’s sick treatment of women. Here’s why: When someone goes from a correspondent gig to the anchor desk and then to her own two-hour show and then her own prime time spot and a $15 million-a-year contract, others are going to feel passed over.

* In the immediate aftermath of Ailes’s expulsion, the man was portrayed in the press like a nuclear weapon pilfered by a rogue state. There were numerous reports that Ailes was advising Trump ahead of the debates. Clinton campaign aides talked about what kind of advice Ailes might be feeding her opponent. But they didn’t need to worry. While Ailes did run a very informal debate prep in Bedminster, his coaching was of limited value, partly because he babbled about past debates and bragged about his past victories—a sure way to lose Trump’s attention. Besides, as Ailes once said, his talent was in getting people to loosen up and be themselves on TV. “If you see them at home,” he said of typical politicians, “they’re laughing and they’re physical and they could move. And as soon as you put them on television they turn into stiffs and they’re boring.” So his go-to move, he said, was to “peel the layers back so they could be themselves.” Trump definitely didn’t need that advice. There were no layers. What you saw on TV was what you got.
So Trump didn’t really need Ailes. Neither did Fox. The network kept humming along without him. The Murdochs and Shine and Abernethy were moving the network from a dictator model to a committee model of leadership. They didn’t try to improve the content; they just kept a good, profitable thing going. The summertime scandal had proven that everyone was replaceable, even Roger Ailes.

…Trump was in charge of the television wing of the GOP now and had all the deputies he needed. Rudy Giuliani was at debate camp along with Fox commentator Laura Ingraham and assorted friends. Hannity was at Trump’s beck and call. And Fox & Friends spewed toxic waste at his opponent every day.

* There was a moment, after Ailes lost, before Trump won, when Fox News could have gone in a different, truthier direction. Ryan Grim, the DC bureau chief of the Huffington Post , wrote a pivotal October 2016 story about what might have been. It was titled “Is Shep Smith The Future of Fox News?”
Shep was a hero to the Fox newsroom. He was unlike every other newsman on the air. First people noticed his boyish good looks and Mississippi drawl. Then his unflappable delivery. He exuded an electricity. Without shouting, he made viewers want to listen. A reporter once called Shep “the Red Bull of TV news anchors.”
Shep came from the Walter Cronkite “that’s the way it is” school of journalism—which, as Fox made its rightward turns, increasingly clashed with Hannity’s “this is the way I want it to be” school of spin. Shep stood for journalism while Hannity tried to tear down journalism. How could they possibly share airtime? How could they coexist? Eventually, in the Trump age, they couldn’t.
But in October 2016 Fox was planning for the Clinton age. Smith and others on the news side of Fox News “were hoping that with Ailes collapsing and Murdoch coming back in, that this was their moment,” Grim told me. “And perhaps with Hillary winning the White House—perhaps it was a moment for them to pivot.”

* At 5 p.m. Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, and a raft of producers gathered for a final pre-show prep meeting. “We were all around this long table, Rupert at the head of the table, and all of the producers and anchors on both sides of it,” Chris Wallace told me later. “They gave us the first wave of exit polls. While it didn’t flat out say Clinton was going to win, if you read it
you had to think Clinton was going to win.
“In fact,” he added, the sheaf of paper even said “it was likely that we would make the call between eleven and eleven-thirty.” The networks never called the election before West Coast polls closed at eleven, so this was another sign of Clinton’s apparent strength. The forecast called for an early night.
An exec at ABC News, Chris Vlasto,
shared the early exit poll results with the Trump campaign. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump told the patriarch that the data looked bleak. “We’re not going to win,” Donald told Melania.

* The early exit poll findings informed the tone of the early eve ning TV coverage. But by 8:30 p.m., as actual votes poured in, the picture started to change, just as Parscale had expected. “The sweep that the exit polls had predicted just wasn’t happening,” Wallace recalled. “Now we were down to counting individual votes.”
There were no immediate calls in states like Michigan or Wisconsin. Wallace factored that in as, on-air at 9:05, he told Kelly that he was becoming “open to the possibility that Donald Trump could be the next President of the United States.” His voice betrayed his own amazement at the words. It was a pivotal moment in the coverage of the night because he said aloud what others had until then been saying only to themselves. “I’m kind of proud of it,” Wallace told me, “in the sense that it altered altered our coverage a little bit.”
It sure did. The crowd outside Fox’s sparkling new $20 million street-level studio started to cheer. “I turned around toward them and said, ‘I’m not saying he’s going to win, folks, but it’s possible,’ ” Wallace recalled. Trump’s election night party was five short blocks up the street at the Midtown Hilton, so some people strolled back and forth between the Fox broadcast and the ballroom. Pirro, Ingraham, and former Fox contributor Sarah Palin all hung out at the Hilton. Trump was still ensconced in Trump Tower, wondering whether to believe Parscale’s insistence that they could pull this thing off. Wallace’s comments had an immediate impact. There were tears of joy and tears of fear in Trump’s inner circle. Chris Christie, who was in charge of the transition team, sensed that Trump was scared shitless.
Trump watched from a room on the fourteenth floor of Trump Tower, which was actually just the sixth floor in a building full of exaggerations. Around midnight he went upstairs to his residence to come up with an acceptance speech. Once it was clear that Trump was going to win, Hannity called in to Fox and called the result a “modern-day political miracle.” At 2:41 a.m., Fox News was the first TV network to officially project that Trump was the president-elect. Baier credited him with winning “the most unreal, surreal election we have ever seen.” Wallace looked across the studio, where one of the oversized screens flashed “TRUMP ELECTED PRESIDENT,” and he shook his head, the way you try to wake yourself up from a nightmare or a dream. “Is this really happening?”
“There’s nothing more exciting for a political reporter,” Wallace said, “than when things go off-script.”
Kelly looked into the camera and wondered if she could remain at Fox.
Ailes watched from the sidelines from his mansion and took comfort in a bag of chips.

* O’Reilly was on CBS This Morning to promote his next book, even though it wasn’t coming out for another week. O’Reilly had been a staunch defender of Ailes, and on CBS that day he went further, saying he’d “had enough” of people treating Fox News like a “piñata.”
When the anchors asked about Kelly’s allegations against Ailes, O’Reilly said “I’m not that interested in this.”
Norah O’Donnell interjected: “In sexual harassment? You’re not interested in sexual harassment?”
O’Reilly: “I’m not interested in basically litigating something that is finished, that makes my network look bad. Okay? I’m not interested in making my network look bad. At all. That doesn’t interest me one bit.”
O’Donnell: “Is that what she’s doing?”
O’Reilly: “I don’t know. But I’m not going to even bother with it.”
This old white guy culture was still deeply entrenched at Fox even though Ailes was gone. Kelly, disgusted by the CBS appearance, wrote an email to management around three in the afternoon that called out O’Reilly’s “history of harassment.”
“His exact attitude of shaming women into ‘shutting the hell up’ about harassment on grounds that it will disgrace the company, is in part how Fox got into the decades-long Ailes mess to begin with,” Kelly wrote. She urged them to intervene—to defend her—and to defend the other women O’Reilly insulted.
According to Kelly, Bill Shine called her and promised to “deal” with O’Reilly. But he didn’t. O’Reilly went ahead and pretaped his 8 p.m. show and included another shot at Kelly. Her executive producer Tom Lowell caught wind of it early in the 8 p.m. hour and alerted her.
“We’ve got a problem,” he said. “I just looked at his rundown. At 8:50, he’s going to double down.”
Lowell tried to get through to Shine. O’Reilly was on tape, but Lowell had an idea for a breaking news insert that could replace the offending segment and stop the 8 p.m. host from attacking the 9 p.m. host. You’d think that the copresident of Fox News would call back and thank him—Yes, Tom, please break in, thank you for alerting me to this, I’m sorry I didn’t take action sooner—but that’s not what Shine said. He said, “The segment stands.” Lowell had to go tell Kelly.
At 8:50, O’Reilly devoted his “Factor Tip of the Day” segment to the Kelly fracas—disguising it, barely, as being about the subject of “loyalty”—by saying that “if somebody is paying you a wage, you owe that person or company allegiance. If you don’t like what’s happening in the workplace,” he lectured, “go to human resources or leave! I’ve done that. And then take the action you need to take afterward.”
This was beyond audacious, coming from a man who was credibly accused of sexual harassment in a 2004 lawsuit, and who had—unbeknownst to his viewers—settled multiple cases with other accusers. “Loyalty is good,” he concluded, condescension dripping from his voice.
Loyalty to whom? The Murdochs knew, from the law firm investigation, what Ailes had done. They had approved of Kelly writing about her experience. Her book was for their publishing house! Kelly was in disbelief and almost in tears. When she went live at 9 p.m., she hid her shock from O’Reilly’s drive-by shooting, but she mentioned the Murdochs at the end of the hour: “Like me,” she said, “they believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
Right then, Kelly knew she was done with Fox. Done with these executives, done with this place. That night, she told friends, was the “final straw.” She wondered: Was the decision to allow O’Reilly’s drive-by made by Shine? Or did he consult with Rupert and Lachlan? Were they afraid to intervene because they were trying to sign O’Reilly to a new contract? Were they just ignorant? She never found out the answer. But the episode spoke to a basic lack of leadership that would hobble the network for years to come.

* Lachlan truly wanted to keep Kelly in the fold. He offered her a $100 million contract plus all the sweeteners she could ever want. “When Trump won, Lachlan thought, ‘We need her more than ever,’ ” an insider told me. His theory was that The Kelly File would be the X factor of the Trump years—the unpredictable, buzzy hour that would make Fox News stand out.
But deep down inside, Kelly knew that she probably couldn’t be what the Trump-era Fox would need her to be—a PR flack pretending to be a fiercely independent journalist…

* How many times have you heard someone say “What’s wrong with those people?” while referring to Hannity’s groupies? Or say “What’s wrong with those people?” about Rachel Maddow’s fans?
Whether they’re wrong or right, they’re different. For all the pandemic-era talk of togetherness and common humanity, there are massive differences between the liberal and conservative tribes—and Fox and Trump both exacerbate those differences. Look no further than the studies that show variations in brain chemistry between conservatives and liberals. Some people really are hardwired to value tradition and preservation. They are more likely to perceive threats from outsiders. One study showed frightening images to participants—maggots in an open wound, a spider on a man’s face, a crowd fighting with a man—and found that conservatives reacted more strongly to the images than liberals. I think about that now when I notice Fox’s fear-based appeals.
Up until Election Day in 2016, Fox fans, when compared to the public at large, were far more pessimistic about America’s future, far more critical of Obama’s performance, and far more fearful of a Clinton presidency. (Common denominator: fear.) Fox’s highest-rated shows reinforced this point of view night after night. “The conservative entertainment news complex has constructed an alternative reality so all-encompassing that the chance of conservatives happening on any sort of good news is virtually nil,” Jason Sattler wrote in USA Today. This foreboding view of the world benefitted Trump.
A Suffolk poll in October showed that people who trusted Fox over other networks were way gloomier about the health of the economy than, say, people who trusted CNN or CBS the most. Only 11 percent of Fox devotees said America was in an economic recovery, when the recovery had been going on for years. Fox loyalists were also more likely than other news consumers to say they were concerned about political corruption, media bias, and the bogeyman of voter fraud that Trump kept talking about. Many of these viewers were primed to lose, which made Trump’s victory all the more shocking. Now they felt like they were gaining power for the first time in years, in the most surprising of ways, with the most surprising of leaders. Fox felt like the home team, with one of the network’s super-fans ascending to the presidency. Like many of Fox’s super-fans, he was resentful of news outlets that didn’t reflect his view of the world. Now he had the unique power to do something about it. Trump was determined to delegitimize anyone who stood in his way…

* Disbelief of, and disdain for, the news media was the cornerstone of Fox’s business model in 1996, and it became the cornerstone of Trump’s presidency. But the anti-media posture was part of something even bigger: The utter transformation of the Fox-fueled Republican Party. The anti-intellectual positioning of the party, the resistance to settled scientific fact, the contempt for intelligence agencies—“it’s all one thing,” as media scholar Jay Rosen liked to say, all part of the same rejection of expertise and resentment of anyone who claims to know better. These observations didn’t just come from liberals like Rosen. In 2012 the straight-edge DC think tankers Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann described the GOP as “ideologically extreme” and “unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.” They said “asymmetric polarization” afflicted the country, meaning conservatives had moved more radically to the right than liberals had to the left, and accused Fox of being partly responsible. Some veteran members of the GOP establishment, like former Reagan and Bush aide Bruce Bartlett, were equally outspoken about this radicalization and also faulted the Fox echo chamber.
“Like someone dying of thirst in the desert, conservatives drank heavily from the Fox waters,” Bartlett wrote in 2015. “Soon, it became the dominant—and in many cases, virtually the only—major news source for millions of Americans. This has had profound political implications that are only starting to be appreciated. Indeed, it can almost be called self-brainwashing—many conservatives now refuse to even listen to any news or opinion not vetted through Fox, and to believe whatever appears on it as the gospel truth.”

* Around this time, post-Lewinsky and pre-9/11, people started taking notice of cable’s color palette. “Blondes make for better TV,” a cringey New York Post story declared. The story named “blond gabbers” Ann Coulter, Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, and Laura Ingraham and said “the new wave of blond pundits continues the conservative line with the likes of Heather Nauert and researcher Monica Crowley.”

* Nauert interviewed with Tillerson at the State Department after his confirmation. Though he remained skeptical, Trump was sold, and the deal was done. She gave up a $500,000-a-year job on Fox for a $179,700 government salary but gained a much higher profile and a big new challenge, fielding sensitive questions from some of the toughest reporters in the world. She mostly held her own: She could be snippy at times, but was careful not to alienate the press corps the way Trump and Spicer did. Her hardest relationship was with Tillerson, who rarely let her travel with him and ignored her advice. He dismissed her as a “White House spy.” “Rex disliked anyone POTUS endorsed,” an insider said.
After one year, Tillerson was fired through a presidential tweet and Nauert remained. Circumstances changed. Nauert was welcomed into new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s inner circle; he promoted her to “acting undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs.” In one year, she went from Fox anchor to high-ranking State Department diplomat, traveling the globe, counseling the leader of the free world.
Nauert was the first full-time example of the revolving door of the Fox-Trump Temp Agency, so it made perfect sense that she came from Fox & Friends . Within days of the inauguration, White House reporters had to wrap their heads around the fact that the Fox morning show had supplanted the president’s daily intelligence briefing. West Wing aides and lawmakers and lobbyists had to start watching the show so they could follow Trump’s tweets and orders.
The Fox & Friends A-team started at 6:00 a.m. sharp, and Trump planned his day accordingly. Steve Doocy, Trump said, was a 12 out of 10. Brian Kilmeade was a 6, but later earned an upgrade to a 9. Yep, Trump really scored the hosts.

* Earhardt’s colleagues uniformly told me she is a lovely person. “She’s very sweet,” one said, “but”—of course there was a “but” coming—“this is not someone with a core set of political beliefs.”
“It’s not just Ainsley,” the source added. “What you have to understand is, a lot of these people were basically blank slates. Blank canvasses.”
Every morning in the car on the way in to the studio, Earhardt listened to hymns and read from the daily devotional book Jesus Calling. In the makeup chair, she leafed through the prepared research packet of printouts from right-wing websites. In the host seat, she was curious but not pushy. As one of her colleagues said, “She knows what she’s there for.” A magazine profile once likened Earhardt to a “wedding-cake figurine come to life,” with a smile “glorious enough that when it flashes it feels like nothing in the world could be wrong.” With the Trump White House in perpetual crisis, and F&F tasked with pretending it wasn’t, that smile was worth millions.

* So did the producers of F&F reckon with their newfound power? Did they triple-check their facts to make sure the president was fully informed? No. They continued to rip stories off fringe right-wing blogs and promote conspiracy theories and play into the president’s worst partisan impulses. They took the cheaper partisan path. This was the show’s natural setting, but suddenly the stakes were profound: Trump was making policy decisions based on what random TV pundits told him to do. “People claim Putin is Trump’s puppet master but it appears that role is actually occupied by Fox & Friends ,” The Intercept ’s Glenn Greenwald remarked. It sure seemed like the producers of F&F had more power than the CIA. And they used that power to feed him resentment news and nonsense about voter fraud and random stories about leftists on college campuses. To put it bluntly, the president’s media diet was poisoned… and he gobbled it up.
As for the hosts, they played their newfound power for laughs. “I asked the president to blink the lights on and off if he was watching,” Brian Kilmeade said at 7 a.m. on January 27. “Now clearly he’s awake,” Kilmeade said as the control room showed a live shot of the White House, where lights in an upstairs bedroom appeared to be flickering.
“Good morning, Mr. President!” Ainsley Earhardt said, joking that the flashing lights were a “Mayday” or an “SOS.”
It was actually a prank concocted by a control room staffer. “It’s a video effect,” Steve Doocy told the audience. “Just having a little fun.” HAHAHAHA.
A video clip of the prank zipped around Twitter, without the explanation, and many people thought it was real—because it could have been. Every single day, Trump either tweeted about Fox or talked to Fox hosts or cited Fox’s coverage of how well he was doing. “Turn on Fox and see how it was covered,” he said to ABC’s David Muir after Muir brought up widespread criticism of Trump’s self-aggrandizing speech in front of the CIA’s Memorial Wall. Earlier in the interview, when Muir challenged Trump’s discredited belief about widespread voter fraud, Trump justified his lie by saying that “millions of people agree with me.
“If you would’ve looked on one of the other networks,” he continued, clearly talking about Fox, “and all of the people that were calling in, they’re saying, ‘We agree with Mr. Trump. We agree.’ They’re very smart people.”

* Day by day, tweet by tweet, the country came to grips with the fact that presidential statements—which used to really mean something—were now just the misinformed and misspelled rants of an elderly Fox fan.

* When government officials couldn’t get a face-to-face meeting with the president, they jostled for bookings on F&F. Corporations bought ads on the show, sometimes addressing “Mr. President” directly, because it was cheaper and more effective than hiring lobbyists. (What they didn’t realize was that Trump usually muted or fast-forwarded straight through commercials.) Some Fox hosts started to greet the president by name. They understood that if Trump stayed happy with their shows, viewers would stay tuned. It created an incredible and perverse incentive structure that was completely at odds with journalistic values. Everyone at Fox could see that the way to get attention, to get promoted, to get ahead was to hitch a ride with Trump and never look back. This ethos trickled out from Fox & Friends to the shows before and after.

Take the early morning anchor Heather Childers. Before he ran for office, Trump used to tweet compliments to Childers. “You are doing a great job Heather!” “You do a great job on Fox!” In another universe, Trump would just be one of those guys posting comments to her Instagram page, pining for her attention, gazing at Fox’s anchor desk with a hole in the middle that blatantly showed off her legs. But in the Trump age, the roles were reversed. Fox hosts yearned for his attention.

* In January 2020 I was on the phone with one of Fox’s household names who said, with complete sincerity, “I think it would be good for the country right now if Roger Ailes were still in charge of Fox and Bill O’Reilly were still on the air.”
Before you say “which country?” you should know that Ailes nostalgia was very real and very deep at Fox, even three years after his exit. Many insiders believed Fox would be better off with Ailes at the helm.
But O’Reilly? I didn’t detect much longing for the return of Billo. He was not well liked when he was on at 8 p.m., and he was not missed when he was fired. So why would it be good for America to have The O’Reilly Factor still on Fox?
“Because O’Reilly would tell the truth,” they said. “O’Reilly would sit down with Trump and call him a jerk to his face. Hannity will never do that.”

* “Tits up, hair back.” That’s what Ailes said he wanted Suzanne Scott to deliver for him.
“She was the wardrobe enforcer,” a former Fox host told me.
That’s why my phone lit up with texts when Suzanne Scott was named president of programming on May 1. Staffers couldn’t believe that she was being promoted again.
“Suzanne Scott? She’s the worst of all of them. Give me a break,” a female Fox talking head wrote. By “worst,” she meant Scott was an accomplice of Ailes.
Scott has never answered detailed questions about whether she was complicit in his abuse. The closest she came to commenting was in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, when she said “I had no clue on what was going on in Roger Ailes’ office.” Some staffers had a hard time trusting her.
Here’s what Scott absolutely did know: that Ailes, for all his charm and power, was a racist and a misogynist with a warped and outdated view of the world. He wanted a certain southern beauty queen look from the women on his channel. And, according to current and former Fox anchors and commentators, he wanted Scott to deliver it.
Sometimes Scott would convey his messages directly, by telling new hires to “let hair and makeup do their job.” She wanted more glam, longer eyelash extensions, shorter skirts, bronzer legs. Some of the Fox makeup artists called it the “Barbie doll look.”
“Suzanne’s job, straight up, was to enforce the dress code,” a male Fox anchor told me. “She told women how short their skirts had to be.” Scott typically did this indirectly, by sending word to a show producer who would then call a makeup artist to the set. Hosts and guests were told the “second floor” ordered a change. “She would call the control room and say, ‘Fix her necklace.’ Or change which way my hair was parted,” Alisyn Camerota recalled. The source who dubbed her the “wardrobe enforcer” said, “Suzanne would call and say, ‘I don’t like her shade of lipstick. It looks like shit.’ The poor makeup people would rush out on set and change my lipstick.” Personalities who objected to the cosmetic adjustments would sometimes be asked, “Don’t you want good ratings?”

* Television is a visual medium, so there are certain expectations, but some staffers charged that Scott took it to the extreme. Griping about facial hair is one thing, but she was known to tell men to shave even when they were in the middle of a breaking news marathon. It’s hard to find a razor while on the scene of a mass shooting.

Scott joined Fox News at its founding in 1996 as an assistant to Chet Collier, one of Ailes’s deputies. Collier said he believed that TV news had to tap into the “best elements of the entertainment world.” People watch people, he said, a basic concept that producers sometimes forget when they try to fill the screen with videos and graphics and gizmos. “People watch television,” he said, “because of the individuals that they see on the screen.”

* Ailes lost some weight in Florida with his wife Beth’s help, but otherwise had little to show for his post-Fox phase. Roger Stone had predicted that without Ailes, “Fox will be surpassed by a new conservative network,” but that was hyperbolic and wrong. Ailes was more replaceable than anyone thought.
Some days Ailes stared out at the Atlantic and stewed. Friends like Matt Drudge came to visit. Suitors reached out, wondering if Ailes could help launch something Foxier than Fox, and he took the calls, scratching an itch that never subsided. He was bound by his noncompete deal, so “I can’t call,” he told Wolff, “but I can’t stop people from calling me.” Ailes had lots of ideas about where to find a billion dollars for a new network. He said he might get Steve Bannon involved. Maybe they could poach Hannity and O’Reilly and leapfrog Fox with its own talent. This was fantastical talk, but it was a way to pass the time. Ailes was scheduled to meet with billionaire tech mogul and Trump backer Peter Thiel about a possible network venture in mid-May. But on the afternoon of May 10, he slipped and fell in one of his bathrooms. When the ambulance crews arrived, he was hemorrhaging blood from his head. He was put into a medically induced coma and never came out.

* “This is high school. This is like ‘The Real World,’ ” a Fox host said. “Of course they’re hooking up with each other, because they’re all basically trapped in a house together.”

Pete Hegseth was the most brazen example. He cheated on his second wife, Samantha, with Jennifer Rauchet, one of the top producers of Fox & Friends and a rising star at the network. “Jennifer was favoring Pete with airtime. She kept putting Pete on TV,” an exec said.
Rauchet disclosed the relationship to HR when she got pregnant at the end of 2016. Hegseth was still married at the time. Management moved Rauchet—demoted her, really—to the weekend show Watters’ World so that the couple wasn’t working together anymore.
It was ironic that Rauchet ended up on Watters’ World, because Jesse Watters, with wife Noelle and twin girls at home, was also dating in-house. Colleagues said his relationship with Emma DiGiovine was an open secret around the office—they were posting vacation photos on social media—but management apparently looked the other way until November 2017, when Watters went to the aforementioned HR department and disclosed the relationship. At that point, Emma was transferred to Laura Ingraham’s show. Fox’s PR shop mostly kept a lid on both extramarital affairs. Hegseth and Watters were valuable assets despite their asshole antics.

* About a year into the Trump presidency, his speeches and interviews lost the pizazz that generated huge ratings. He started to phone it in, both literally and figuratively. When an interview “made news,” it was usually because Trump felt so comfortable with the hosts that he blurted out something inappropriate, like the time he said he tried to “stay away” from the Justice Department, “
but at some point I won’t.” His aides tried to intervene and stop these chats from happening, but they felt they could only tell him no so many times in a row. The end result: his April 2018 call to Fox & Friends . Trump hijacked the Friends conversation from the get-go; when the hosts tried to ask him about his dealings with Michael Cohen, who had just been raided by the FBI, he railroaded them; and when they eventually tried to wrap the president, he kept rambling. “We’re running out of time,” Steve Doocy said. “We could talk to you all day, but it looks like you have a million things to do,” Brian Kilmeade said a couple of minutes later, trying to be polite. But no—the president just wanted to keep talking. When it was finally over, Kilmeade said, “We’ll see you next Thursday, Mr. President,” alluding to Trump’s weekly segment in the past. “The phone line’s open!” White House aides groaned. They were worried about his troubling admissions that could come back to hurt him in court, but Trump tweeted that he “loved” being on the show.

* Shep was the most prominent gay anchor at a network with an ugly history of antigay commentary. He later said he didn’t think he needed to “out” himself because “I didn’t think I was in.” It’s true that his coworkers and New York City neighbors knew about his personal life, but his viewers generally didn’t. He started to talk publicly about “the gay,” as he once jokingly called it, in 2016, while denying another Gawker report that claimed Ailes tried to keep Shep in the closet. He nonchalantly told a group of college students in 2017 that “I go to work, I manage a lot of people, I cover the news, I deal with the holy hell going on around me,” and then “I go home to the man I love, and I go home to family.” And the family part is what he prioritized as he felt the channel lurching further to the right, caring less about news and more about views he reviled. He cut back on work travel and booked vacations with Gio instead. He developed a reputation as one of those anchors who came in two hours before airtime on slow days. “He’s in at 1 and out at 4:15,” a source said. It’s no wonder why—the halls of Fox News HQ were not a happy place for him to be. Other hours of the Fox day were increasingly hostile to what he reported. Shep’s show was an island under siege. “When something is reported on Shep’s show, it doesn’t make it past the commercial break on Neil Cavuto’s four o’clock show,” Conor Powell said. “There wasn’t a continuous line of reporting” the way there was at other networks. Each time slot was someone’s fiefdom.

* Kimberly Guilfoyle had a more successful transition into the Trump orbit. She was forced out of Fox in mid-2018, though in retrospect her days were numbered as soon as Ailes was forced out. The leader of “Team Roger” had generated quite a few HR complaints that couldn’t be ignored by the Murdochs. The top lawyer for 21st Century Fox, Gerson Zweifach, had to get involved. Chief among the accusations: that Guilfoyle went around the office showing off dick pics on her phone. She claimed the pictures were from her male suitors. One of the people who saw the pictures told me, “I thought, ‘She’s single, he’s single, what’s the big deal?’ But flaunting it at work was a violation.”
There were other issues too—and sources pointed out that most of the complaints were lodged by women. The bottom line, one colleague said, was that “she was very open about her sex life. Too open.” An HR investigation dragged on for months. “If Kim were a man, she would have been out much sooner,” a person with knowledge of the investigation said. (Guilfoyle’s lawyer said, “Any accusations of Kimberly engaging in inappropriate workplace conduct are unequivocally baseless and have been viciously made by disgruntled and self-interested employees.”)
In the spring of 2018 Guilfoyle made her Trump love literal. Depending on who’s telling the story, she either seduced Donald Trump Jr. or he decided to pursue her. Junior’s impending divorce from Vanessa, the mother of his five children, was first reported in March, and when he was first seen in public with Kim in May, Page Six said they had been dating “for a few weeks” already.
Guilfoyle “knew how to use sex to get ahead,” in the words of one friend, and some of her colleagues suspected that she was hitching herself to Junior for more than purely romantic reasons. According to them, Guilfoyle had been told months ahead of time that her last day at Fox was July 1. Undeterred, she fought to stay on the air. “She had Trump calling Rupert, lobbying on her behalf,” one well-placed source said. “She thought Rupert would do nothing to her once she was with Trump Jr.,” another source said.
In June, I asked Fox PR how the president’s son’s girlfriend could feasibly cohost a show about politics. Fox dodged the question because the answer was, she couldn’t. Maybe it was true love—but l’affaire Don Junior also supplied an alternative storyline on the day she departed Fox, several weeks after the original deadline. Guilfoyle said she was leaving to go campaign with Junior. That’s when Yashar Ali, writing for HuffPost, published a story saying she did not leave voluntarily. Ali had been chasing rumors about Guilfoyle’s behavior for months. She knew he was working on a story, and before the end of the day Guilfoyle’s lawyers were threatening to sue him and HuffPost. Ali followed up a week later with a detailed accounting of her workplace escapades, noting the Junior angle: “Some people at Fox News were concerned that easing her out of the network would be slowed or halted due to the Trump family’s close relationship with Murdoch.” Alas, Rupert hated feeling like someone was manipulating him. Guilfoyle’s time was up. She went out on the campaign trail with Don Jr. and hosted streaming video shows and extolled all things Trump. The mostly male members of Trump’s inner circle thought she was a huge asset. In the words of former campaign aide Sam Nunberg, “Those legs got ratings, and I think those legs can get votes.”
Guilfoyle wasn’t missed at Fox. To the contrary, there were awkward rumblings whenever she came back to Fox HQ with her boyfriend, whom she nicknamed “Junior Mints” for his alleged sweetness. She tagged along on his interviews with Hannity and others, prompting one Fox insider to say, “It’s not a good look. She seems desperate.”

* Trump granted himself more “Executive Time” and watched more TV as the years went by. He outfitted his upstairs residence with multiple TVs and DVRs, and lingered there in the morning, out of sight of the potential leakers who worked for him downstairs. He typically typically watched shows like Fox & Friends on a bit of a delay, which meant he could zap through the commercials with the DVRs. He channel-surfed to Fox Business and Newsmax and the broadcast networks. For all of his professed hatred for CNN and MSNBC , he kept a close eye on those channels too. I knew it for a fact because my Reliable Sources guests occasionally heard from the president after saying supportive things about him on my program. One of the biggest lies he ever told, measured by its distance from the truth, was “I do not watch much television.” He watched so much that he sometimes fell asleep with Fox still on, like the truly hardcore fan that he was.

The DVRs were the critical part of his television setup. He called TiVo “one of the great inventions of all time” and said television was “practically useless without TiVo.” But TiVo, which was invented in 1999, was just the brand name for a generic concept, like people who “Xeroxed” a paper on a different brand of copier. Trump said he had “Super TiVo” in the White House, but he actually had the DirecTV Genie HD DVR, a whole-home system that recorded multiple channels at the same time and let users watch those recordings from any screen in the home. It was genuinely awesome technology for a TV junkie. With the Genie, he could flip through hours of Fox in his residence, hit pause, walk downstairs to the Oval Office, and resume watching right where he left off. When he moved in, contractors also installed a sixty-inch TV above a fireplace in his private West Wing dining room, steps from the Oval. That’s typically where he caught up on cable news during the workday before retreating back upstairs in the evening. Obama only kept a small TV in the dining room, mostly tuned to ESPN, as Trump told visitors when he mocked the size of Obama’s screen and pointed out his replacement unit.

* I covered the newest Carlson controversy on CNN’s air, which caused Tucker to retaliate. While I reported his past statements, he called me names, including “eunuch.” (Google it.) His fans picked up the insult and ran with it. A year later, I still received tweets every day that called me a “eunuch.” (Mission accomplished, Tucker.) He also sent someone over to CNN’s New York office with a Dunkin’ Donuts delivery for me. I threw out the dozen jelly donuts and decided to ignore the fat-shaming attempt, but Tucker made sure everyone knew by tipping off the right-wing website he founded, The Daily Caller. By the end of the week Page Six had called me for comment. I said I would accept the donuts if Tucker accepted my interview requests.
Why did any of this matter? Because this shit was what appealed to Carlson’s audience. Millions of people loved to watch his high jinks every night. As the Bubba controversy swirled, Fox senior statesman Brit Hume defended Carlson by pointing out that he was in first place in the ratings, even ahead of Hannity on some nights.

* Tucker Carlson used his 8 p.m. perch to push against Trump national security advisor (and Fox veteran) John Bolton and other hawks who wanted aggressive action in Syria and Iran. In June 2019, Carlson and Fox military analyst General Jack Keane were credited with stopping Trump from bombing Iran. (I find it hard to believe that I just wrote those words.)
Trump was, by his own account, “cocked and loaded” to strike Iran in retaliation for the downing of a drone. Warplanes were in the air, but Tucker’s publicly aired views weighed on him.
Earlier in the day, Trump had phoned Tucker, wanting a more personal assessment of the situation. “What do you think?” the president said, his voice blasting through the receiver on Tucker’s end.
To his credit, Carlson held to what he’d been saying on TV: It would be “crazy” to respond to Iran with force. “That’s not why the voters elected you,” he said.
Unlike Hannity, Carlson never initiated calls to POTUS, but when the White House switchboard called, he answered. Whether through the calls or his television platform, his isolationist views and contempt for Bolton-style neocons got through to Trump, and he could tell that at least part of Trump agreed with him. “He’s conflicted,” Tucker told a pal. “All I can do is remind him of what he thinks.”
General Keane was also persuasive—whether he intended to be or not. Hours before the planned strike, he appeared on Fox and reminded everyone about the fogginess of war. “Our viewers may have forgotten, but during the tanker war in the late eighties when Reagan did take some action, we actually made a mistake,” Keane said. “We had a USS warship shoot down an Iranian airliner in Iranian airspace. Two-hundred ninety people killed. Sixty-six of them were children. And we took that for a Tomahawk F-14. That was clearly a mistake by the ship’s crew in doing that. And we acknowledged that we made a horrific mistake.” Politico reported that Trump was “spooked” when he heard Keane tell that story. Trump brought up Iran Air Flight 655 repeatedly later in the day and eventually called off the strike shortly before 8 p.m.
Carlson was relieved. His reward was an exclusive interview with Trump one week later during the president’s trip to Japan for the G20. Carlson traveled along as a “guest member” of the White House staff. Tensions with Iran remained high, and Iranian officials knew how to push Trump’s Fox buttons. Not long after Trump and Carlson got back from Japan, on July 3, an adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweeted at Trump saying he “can listen to Pompeo and we’ll make sure he stays a one-term President” or “he could listen to @TuckerCarlson and we might have a different ball game.” What a world. “I feel safer having Tucker in charge of the country than Sean,” a Fox commentator joked in a text.

* Shep was depleted. Colleagues said he was withdrawing from work. “Instead of giving counsel, and nurturing coworkers, and helping the rest of the network, he just focused on his hour,” one of his former friends complained.
This had been true to some degree for years. Correspondents and anchors elsewhere at Fox were proud to call him a colleague, but said he ran hot and cold. One minute he’d be generous, recommending his therapist to a producer in need; the next minute he’d be vindictive, canceling a planned live shot from a correspondent who was on his shit list. Shep was like a “tyrant,” one of the correspondents on his list said. “If he thought you were anywhere close to being conservative, you were blackballed,” a second correspondent said.
Everyone agreed that Ailes had been the Shep whisperer. Ailes knew how to tamp down the newsman’s volatility and bring out his talent. With Ailes buried, and with Trump burying any semblance of shared truth, Shep felt “unprotected and vulnerable,” according to one insider. “He just got madder and madder and madder. And he aired it on the channel.”

* Enter jackhammering, Trump-loving lawyer Joe diGenova. He was booked on Tucker Carlson’s show later in the day, September 24. Tucker invoked Napolitano and asked, “Is it a crime? You’re a former federal prosecutor.”
“Well, I think Judge Napolitano is a fool,” diGenova said, “and I think what he said today is foolish. No, it is not a crime.”
Tucker was choosing to use his own legal “expert” instead of Fox’s official “senior judicial analyst.” And diGenova didn’t just say Napolitano was foolish, he called him a “fool,” a distinction that led one Fox exec to tell me “it was out of line.” There weren’t many lines left to cross at Fox, but diGenova had found one.
Shep, incensed, wanted what he always wanted: some support from management. None was forthcoming. He thought carefully about what to say and hit back the following afternoon: “Last night on this network during prime time opinion programming, a partisan guest who supports President Trump was asked about Judge Napolitano’s legal assessment, and when he was asked, he said unchallenged ‘Judge Napolitano is a fool.’ Attacking our colleague, who is here to offer legal assessments, on our air in our work home is repugnant.”
In Shep’s mind, Carlson was the one who “started” this, so Scott needed to end it. Bad blood between the two men stretched back several years; Carlson’s Daily Caller website ran anti-Shep stories on the regular. So Scott had to do something. Right?
She didn’t. After dark, Carlson brought back diGenova and kept the feud going. He said Napolitano’s analysis wasn’t news, it was opinion. He mocked Shep for acting holier-than-thou. “Apparently our daytime host who hosted Judge Napolitano was watching last night and was outraged by what you said and, quite ironically, called you partisan,” Carlson said, basically calling Shep and the judge anti-Trump crusaders. “Unlike maybe some dayside hosts, I’m not very partisan,” Carlson claimed. He later joked to friends that he gave Shep a “spanking.” Shep hit the roof.
No one knew this outside Fox HQ, but Shep’s staff thought in the wake of Tucker’s comments that he would resign immediately. On Thursday he asked the team where they wanted to order food for a special Friday lunch. They chose Carmine’s, the Italian mainstay on 44th Street just off Times Square, and they nervously awaited the enormous spread, thinking their trusted leader was going to quit right then and there. When the food arrived, Shep gathered everyone and gave a speech. “The news will always continue at this network,” he said, as staffers exhaled just a bit, learning today wouldn’t be the day. He still had to negotiate his way out. Looking back, “we knew right then that his mind was made up,” a staffer told me.
On day three of the feud, Shep alluded to network unrest on the air by saying “there are two different information streams” in competition. On one side, he said, there were facts that the president had admitted. “Then there’s this information stream of constant attacking of the facts that is… interesting to watch.”
And, he should have added, exhausting to be a part of.
Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman reported that Scott and Wallace “communicated to Smith” to “stop attacking Carlson.” Fox execs insisted that never happened. Part of the problem was that management wasn’t communicating at all. But Shep had a sense—from Scott’s silence—that the network sided with Carlson.

* In the weeks before he died in 2017, Roger Ailes told one of his mentees that Trump’s win proved that the cable TV model also applied to politics. When there were only a few broadcast networks, all sharing the same more or less genteel sensibility, politics had to be broad—candidates had to appeal to the whole of the country. Provocation and extremism were turn-offs. But those same techniques were turn-ons in the cable model. Cable channels weren’t for everyone, they were for specific demographics. The winners knew how to rabidly excite their base and blow off everyone else. Turn the levers just right and you ended up with the monstrosity at work at the end of the decade: an untouchable politician protected by his untouchable media apparatus.
Fox’s cable power extended to the internet, where micro-targeting on social networks meant that candidates didn’t have to cultivate just a single base, they could tell different stories to different audiences simultaneously. Lachlan and Rupert still had to figure out Fox’s position in that world. But the network’s website increasingly functioned as a propaganda workhorse.

* “Trump wants control,” the insider said. “He wants Trump TV.” If Trump didn’t win reelection, the theory went, multiple billionaires stood ready to bankroll a media empire of Donald’s own with both television and internet components. He wouldn’t need Fox anymore; he would be in business against Fox.
I put my fork down and said, half-jokingly, that I’d always figured Rupert and Lachlan would give Trump a prime time show for his post–White House years.
“Think bigger,” my breakfast mate said. With an entire network, Ivanka could have a show, and Don Jr. could have a show, and the Trump brand could span politics and culture and entertainment. The Trump 2020 campaign was already testing this premise with webcasts. What would America prefer to watch—people on Fox talking about the Trumps, or the real thing, straight from Mar-a-Lago?

Posted in Fox, Journalism | Comments Off on Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth

China’s Economy Is Not Overtaking America’s

Michael Beckley writes in 2020:

China’s economic growth over the past three decades has been spectacular, even miraculous. Yet the veneer of double-digit growth rates has masked gaping liabilities that limit China’s ability to close the wealth gap with the United States. China has achieved
high growth at high costs, and now the costs are rising while growth is slowing. As I explain in a recent book, data that accounts for these costs reveal that the United States is several times wealthier than China, and the gap appears to be growing by trillions of dollars every year.1 This conclusion may surprise many people, given that China has a bigger GDP, a higher investment rate, larger trade flows, and a higher economic growth rate than the United States. How can China outproduce, outinvest, and outtrade the United States—and own nearly $1.2 trillion in U.S. debt—yet still have substantially less wealth?

The reason is that China’s economy is big but inefficient. It produces vast output but at enormous expense. Chinese businesses suffer from chronically high production costs, and China’s 1.4 billion people impose substantial welfare and security burdens. The United States, by contrast, is big and efficient. American businesses are among the most productive in the world; and with four times fewer people than China, the United States has much lower welfare and security costs.

GDP and other standard measures of economic heft ignore these costs and create the false impression that China is overtaking the United States economically. In reality, China’s economy is barely keeping pace as the burden of propping up loss-making companies and feeding, policing, protecting, and cleaning up after one-fifth of humanity erodes China’s stocks of wealth.

The persistent U.S.-China wealth gap means that the two countries are not destined for hegemonic rivalry, as many scholars argue. China will not be able to afford a full-scale challenge to American primacy, so the greatest risk of a U.S.- China war stems from the reckless escalation of a local crisis in East Asia, not a global power transition. Instead of gearing up for a new Cold War, the United States should take more pragmatic steps to bolster the East Asian balance of power and reinvigorate the U.S. economy.

The persistent U.S.-China wealth gap also undercuts the Trump administration’s argument that the United States has been losing economically to China and therefore needs to bypass the WTO, slap tariffs on Chinese goods, and decouple the U.S. and Chinese economies. Yes, China cheats on some of its trade commitments and engages in rampant espionage and intellectual property theft, and the WTO is ill-equipped to punish these actions consistently. But the biggest challenge to American workers and the companies that employ them may well be coming from the U.S. government’s failure to make large enough investments in job training (including hiring and wage subsidies), infrastructure, research and development, and support for working families. Boosting investment in these areas would allow the United States to protect American workers and preserve U.S. economic dominance without resorting to ruinous protectionism.

Posted in China | Comments Off on China’s Economy Is Not Overtaking America’s