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 [email protected] 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

The Jacob Blake Shooting

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Seriously no police or military unit ever trains someone to shoot a person in the leg- it’s a tactical mistake which could cost you your life if you miss, and even if you hit the person it’s not a guarantee that it will stop them.

As far as shooting out tires, again the guy could still drive off on the rims, potentially lose control of the car (with kids inside the car), and also endanger the lives of others. Once a guy like this with a violent criminal record refuses to comply, all bets are off, and he’s assumed to be a threat to the greater community, which includes his children in the car, and any other people driving on the road.

Also, in the US, there are violent criminals with guns, lots of them. That’s why everyone in the entire country knows that when a cop is pointing a gun at you, the best way to not get killed is to comply. I know it sucks, and yes some cops are assholes on an ego trip- I’ve dealt with all sorts of cops, some decent, some jerks, but the one thing that never crossed my mind during any police stop was that it would be a good idea to resist or try to get away. Everyone knows this. I’ll say it again: EVERYONE in the US knows that if cops are pointing guns at you and telling you to stop, walking away and reaching into a car will likely get you shot. All the people in the neighborhood watching know this, and all the people setting Kenosha on fire know this. This guy knew what he was doing- he figured this is the post George Floyd era so he could just walk away and nothing would happen to him.

Posted in Police | Comments Off on The Jacob Blake Shooting

Landmark Forum

From Phoenix New Times in 2000:

Everyone registering for the Landmark Forum is asked to sign a paper relinquishing right to a jury or court trial and agreeing to arbitration should any controversy or claim arise out of his or her participation.

But in September 1997, the company was hit with a lawsuit from a customer who claimed she was sexually assaulted by a group leader at the Dallas Landmark Forum. In the suit, filed in Dallas County, Tracy Neff claimed that in 1995, David Grill, then executive director of Landmark’s Dallas branch, invited Neff to his home and assaulted her.

The suit claimed that Landmark had received numerous complaints about Grill from both students and Landmark officials relating to sexual and/or behavioral misconduct, yet still put him in charge of the Dallas facility. Landmark “should have been aware of Grill’s propensity to commit criminal sexual assaults with students from a time preceding his assignment as executive director of the Dallas Landmark facility,” the suit alleged.

As part of a settlement, both Neff and her attorney, Jay English, agreed to sign a comprehensive confidentiality agreement, so English can’t comment on any specifics of the case. But he does offer up his personal opinion about Landmark Education.

“My set of facts in my case was so obnoxiously egregious — I cannot say anything about it — but I am no fan of Landmark Education,” English says. “It was settled, they compensated my client for her injuries, and it was an amazing, amazing case.”

Rick Ross, a Phoenix-based cult interventionist, was called in as a consultant on behalf of Neff. Ross can’t discuss specifics of the case, either, but says the plaintiff was awarded a substantial sum of money, though the amount cannot be disclosed because of the confidentiality agreement. Art Schreiber, general counsel for Landmark, disagrees that the award was substantial.

The Neff case, Ross says, was one of the more shocking complaints he has heard about Landmark. “I see it as a controversial group that I would not recommend to anyone because of all the complaints I’ve received,” Ross says.

Ross says he gets numerous complaints from people who tell him they were traumatized by the organization. He gets complaints from people who say they were pressured and relentlessly pursued by the group. And he hears from family members concerned about radical personality changes they see in loved ones spending time and money on Landmark courses.

Ross says he has even received e-mails and phone calls from people who say they have been hospitalized for breakdowns as a result of their involvement in Landmark.

…Ross says he’s heard from people who say they were well before participating in the Landmark Forum, and not so afterward.

Like 60-year-old Nan Kolbinger of Minnesota, who found Ross’ Web site after her Forum experience. She had signed up for the Forum at the suggestion of another teacher who informed her she could receive 40 hours of in-service credit toward renewing her teaching license. She walked out after two 15-hour days, feeling demeaned, controlled and browbeaten. Kolbinger says the breaking point came when the Forum leader exploded and yelled at the participants. Kolbinger says she cried all the way home. She later met with a psychologist who she claims diagnosed her with posttraumatic stress disorder.

“I was depressed and hadn’t been able to sleep for more than a few hours at a time, even after I did escape,” Kolbinger says. “I said that I was okay, but then the tears would well up. I was denying how really traumatized I was. I was semi-paranoid.”

…Landmark vigorously disputes the cult accusation and freely threatens or pursues lawsuits against those who call it one.

When the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) made statements and distributed materials alleging or implying that Landmark is a cult, the company sued. In 1997, CAN resolved the suit by stating it has no evidence that Landmark is a cult.

Landmark also boasts numerous letters from experts stating that it does not meet cult criteria. One such letter comes from Dr. Margaret Singer, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, and an expert on cults. Landmark sued Singer after she mentioned the company in her book Cults in Our Midst. Singer says she never called it a cult in her book, but simply mentioned it as a controversial New Age training course. In resolution of the suit, Singer gave a sworn statement that the organization is not a cult or sect. She says this doesn’t mean she supports Landmark.

“I do not endorse them — never have,” she says.

Singer, who is in her 70s, says she can’t comment on whether Landmark uses coercive persuasion because “the SOBs have already sued me once.”

“I’m afraid to tell you what I really think about them because I’m not covered by any lawyers like I was when I wrote my book.”

Singer will say, however, that she would not recommend the group to anyone.

…Even professional cult buster Ross agrees that Landmark isn’t one. “I’m a relative conservative on the issue of defining a cult,” he says. “In my mind, I look for an absolute authoritarian leader . . . I just don’t see any parallel with that type of leader in Landmark.”

The company does not meet many of the conventional definitions of a cult. Landmark does not require its members to turn over their personal assets, except the cost of tuition. Landmark does not cut people off from family and friends, there is no communal living situation, nothing to worship, and participation must be voluntary.

But does Landmark wash brains? That is an entirely different question. In an article titled “Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change,” Richard J. Ofshe, professor of social psychology at UC-Berkeley and co-recipient of the 1979 Pulitzer Prize, defines coercive persuasion, or brainwashing, as “programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group manipulations.” Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, a psychiatrist and professor at the City University of New York, studied brainwashing in China, and in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism identified eight criteria as a basis for answering the question: “Isn’t this brainwashing?”

They include: control of communication, emotional and behavioral manipulation, demands for absolute conformity, obsessive demands for confession, agreement that the ideology is faultless, manipulation of language in which clichés substitute for analytic thought, reinterpretation of human experience in terms of doctrine and classification of those not sharing the ideology as inferior.

Ofshe points out that brainwashing isn’t always as scary as it sounds and it doesn’t necessarily involve physical assault. He distinguishes four characteristics of coercive persuasion: the reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack, the use of an organized peer group, applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity and the manipulation of the person’s social environment.

In his report on the Landmark Forum, Raymond Fowler of the American Psychological Association states, “The relatively brief encounters in a pleasant environment that characterizes the Landmark Forum program could never effect such extreme and unwanted changes in personality and behavior as those attributed to the various forms of ‘mind control.'”

Posted in Landmark | Comments Off on Landmark Forum

Wall Street & 2020 Election

Bud: I don’t think the country fully grasps how the labor and not capital are made to pay risk premiums. The fed has inverted the equation. The only people smart enough by and large to understand what the Fed has done have mostly benefited from it. So its not a mass cause. you get paid a risk premium without taking risk, if you own assets. The fed has muted all price discovery, its like bumper bowling. If you are wealthy or have chunk of assets you never through gutter balls, scores go through the roof, without anyone being able to ascertain who the weakest bowlers are to make way for new people to try. Wage earners are still playing without bumpers. plus the cost of bowling, and beer have gone up. It’s by far the biggest story, not Trump or Biden or Floyd or all the other distractions. It’s always about the money. I think Dems got more and more desperate w blm and antifa as they realized that Fed would bail out Trump’s markets and even cause them to rip, having removed any risk from the horizon. They wouldn’t be able to run on weak markets which is how most people see the economy, i.e. if you turn on news and markets make highs, and your statements are at highs, you re elect you don’t change.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Wall Street & 2020 Election

Pundits V Professors

A friend says: Political pundits are selected for on their ability to get and keep attention. Many though academia’s problems are, the selection process is not as pathological. And the same applies to business/finance analysts — and, to be honest, to papers like the New York Times that have serious branding power such that the individual writers are not “hustling” as much. People who strive individually for attention have to resist a riptide pulling them towards “we have to fight wicked evil childeating [outgroup].”

The internal rhetoric of the left is of being overcome with emotion, with rage and sadness that overspills uncontrollably yet the actions of the left are deliberate and cohesive over a timescale of decades. The internal rhetoric of the right is all about plans coming to fruition at some time in the usually distant future yet the actions of the right are spontaneous, reactive, short-term oriented.

It’s like we’re on a very big ship, and a crowd is fighting over the steering wheel. There’s little point in throwing yourself into the melee. The ship’s course is of ultimate importance, but out of control. Lifeboats spring to mind – but most of the time, ships don’t sink. The worst should have its place in one’s priorities, but not the first place.

The first priority should go to some business on the ship which is neglected, and which you can make headway in. It seems paradoxical, but the more obvious a problem is the less likely it is that you’ll be able to make headway as a fellow arriving on the scene.

One should seek some happy medium in the ideal problem: something drab and obscure enough to be underprioritized, but not so drab and obscure as to leave you a lone crusader.

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Pundits V Professors

WSJ: Elites Yearn for a Restoration Abroad Under Biden

Gerard Baker writes: “Part of the problem the foreign policy establishment has with Mr. Trump is that it’s hard to stomach that a dilettante has been so effective. Whatever you think of the president, his inconsistencies, his curious taste for the world’s autocrats and his bombast, his efforts have proved more consequential than those of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment that came before him. On the three biggest strategic challenges the U.S. confronts—the Middle East, China and the Western alliance—the president has radically reoriented U.S. policy.”

“Bob Gates, another former Republican foreign policy official who actually served in government with Mr. Biden, once said that the Democratic nominee had been “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” A Glorious Restoration indeed.”

Posted in America | Comments Off on WSJ: Elites Yearn for a Restoration Abroad Under Biden

Are Our Opponents Demons?

My friend calls the Antifa-BLM block and those who support them “demons.” I disagree. I think these people are just as motivated by doing what is right as I am, they just experience the world differently from me. When Antifa and BLM riot, they feel like they are on the side of the angels. They are having fun, feeling powerful, and destroying things that either represent the enemy or have no meaning to them.

By calling your opponents demons, you make them huge and the center of your life. You make them supernatural beings you can’t control. You can’t help but be miserable with this mindset. On the other hand, if you focus on your own life and the things you can control, you will be happier and more effective.

When you think of your opponents as demons, is that empowering or dispiriting? I don’t see how that perspective makes you feel more powerful. How could a human being defeat a demon?

Also, all talk of “evil” and “demons” depends upon a subjective leap of faith to a transcendent moral code. If you are talking with people who share your faith, that rhetoric makes sense. If you are speaking to a wider audience, it usually doesn’t.

I’d think that believing your opponents are demons would fuel feelings of rage and impotence while understanding your opponents are as desirous of good as yourself, but just are made differently and experience the world differently, that would allow for calm, happiness, and effectiveness.

What is there to understand about people who platform a killer and torturer such as Donna Hylton? That they are a people who put a premium on rehabilitation.

Friend: “America is so polarized because we have mutually incompatible moral systems. They have a new religion, a godless one. Our conflict is essentially a religious one. There is no middle ground in a holy war. It’s us vs them and the us is by definition good and the them is evil. To think otherwise is to fencesit. Now most Americans are fencesitters but they’re coming off the fence as it becomes increasingly clear that they cannot avoid this conflict. We need to understand their enemies as mortal enemies. Our enemies. And also dehumanize them. Otherwise we’re going to get picked off.”

First, less than five percent of Americans have a coherent politics. Most Americans don’t think much about politics. So I don’t believe that America is completely and irremediably polarized. Second. If there is no middle ground in a holy war, I don’t see how it serves us to think of labeling our current conflict a “holy war.” Third. People change if you give them room to change. New York elected Rudy Giuliani as mayor twice and Michael Bloomberg twice and Brazil voted in a right winger.

There are advantages to the demon view: clarity, energy, you don’t waste time understanding, incentivizes you to seek out God. You feel yourself part of a cosmic battle between good and evil. There are also disadvantages to this mindset: It might induce a feeling of helplessness, might promote a self-righteous assurance, reduces your ability to get along with others who have a demonic view. I would think that the demon view would give one shots of adrenaline which usually don’t serve one, we’re better off a notch above boring.

If you frame things in religious terms, people who don’t share your faith will be less likely to relate, also, you will be more likely to get caught in arguments about faith rather than the problem at hand. A secular argument is accessible to everybody, a religious argument only works on those who share your leap of faith.

The more you blame others, the less effective you will be in life, and the more health problems you will have. The more you understand, the more you have an internal locus of control, the more peace you will have, the more effective you will be, and the better you will get along with others and yourself.

Making other people the enemy to deal with one’s own feelings of discomfort and impotence is not a winning strategy.

Fred Luskin: “If we were cows at a cow conference, everyone who hate meat would be worse than Hitler because they ate cows and Hitler was a vegetarian.”

Friend: “These things aren’t mutually exclusive. I can say Democrats are actually demons and primarily concern myself with my own life.”

How exactly can you regard Democrats as demons and then primarily focus on your own life? How does that work? Demons control the world around you but you focus on your own life?

Friend: “Scott Adams understands rhetoric. Do you want to win? Or do you want to be genocided by people who don’t view you as worthy of life.”

Jim Goad: “What if they declared a race war and one side didn’t even realize it?”

Friend: “I have nothing to do with politics. It’s not my job. I’m just sitting around waiting to here the muster call for my state militia. It’s actually freeing. I wrote off Joe* yesterday and it doesn’t feel like a loss. He started talking some shit about orange man bad after admitting that his son has a nervous tic and anxiety over coronavirus.”

Talk of demons give you a temporary burst of resolution, power and agency. And then it wears off and leaves you filled with rage and impotence.

Friend: “We need to feel powerful if we are going resist the demons. We are currently demoralized. Loss after loss after loss. And we’re going to keep losing as long as we think we’re competing with fellow Americans worthy of dignity and equal respect while they spit on our graves.”

“This is losing. This is respecting the rule of law when demon judges hand down shit judgments. The judge should’ve been burned at the stake along with the mother.”

LF: “You are writing checks you can’t cash.”

Friend: “Oh I can’t but maybe one day we’ll have a leader who will. We all write checks we can’t cash with our opinions. Last time I checked, no one here commands an army.”

Anger serves you when it gives you the power to get something done immediately, but anger that hangs around does one no good. For example, if somebody disrespects you and you get angry and you let them know that is not appropriate, you may well have stood up appropriately for yourself. But if you say nothing at the time and then hang on to the slight for months afterward, that type of anger does not serve you. Getting angry about events you can’t control does not serve you. A steady state of rage does not serve you.

A key element to a grievance story is “story.” Story is the way we interpret and relate a set of facts. By describing our opponents as demons, we are building a grievance story that will distort our understanding of reality and deepen our feelings of rage.

Friend: “Serious question: is there a natural revulsion by jews to Christians invoking Satan/demons/evil in politics? Does it feel like that barrel will get pointed at jews eventually?”

American Jews are mainly secular and they don’t like religion and the supernatural given serious sway in politics. To the extent that Jews are religious, they don’t believe in any entity with power outside of God and the freedom He has given people. The turn to the irrational frightens Jews.

Once you understand that most people’s behavior is based in their genetics and their upbringing, you lose your need to demonize the different.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Are Our Opponents Demons?

Outrageous Betrayal: The Real Story of Werner Erhard from Est to Exile

In the first 50 results for his name on Youtube, Werner Erhard has zero critical videos.

During the 1990s, it felt like at least half the people I knew in Orthodox Judaism were doing Landmark Forum. That’s seems to have died down.

Washington Post:

Steven Pressman, a legal journalist, nicely recounts the bizarre tale, partly known already from muckraking magazine articles and a 1991 “60 Minutes” expose. Particularly good on Erhard’s Byzantine financial and legal affairs, he also conveys Erhard’s callous egomania and the nastiness of the est seminars, where “body catchers” and barf bags were available for people who fainted or vomited under the trainers’ brutal, foul-mouthed harangues. The strategy was to destroy participants’ sense of self-worth through techniques of deprivation and boot-camp intimidation and then encourage them to construct a new “self” free of the guilt and errors of the past. To demonstrate their transformation, “graduates” were pressured to recruit friends and associates for future est sessions.

Even in a field not noted for clarity of language, est-speak was exceptionally leaden and jargon-clogged. Erhard offered banalities and the thuggish tactics of the schoolyard bully as a path to personal renewal, and a million Americans ultimately responded, generating $430 million in revenue — eloquent testimony to the longing for meaning and authority in contemporary society. “I was trying to find the fastest way to God,” recalled one recruit. “Meditation was slow. Werner put things together in a way that went bing, bing, bing.”

Though Erhard briefly campaigned against world hunger as a recruitment gimmick, he preached essentially a narcissistic preoccupation with the self, devoid of social connectedness apart from the ersatz “community” of est enthusiasts.

Publishers Weekly: “Before he abandoned his wife and children, changed his name to Werner Erhard, moved to California and began promoting his self-awareness programs, known in the 1970s as est and later as the Forum, Jack Rosenberg was a car salesman in Philadelphia. Inspired by a self-help course called Mind Dynamics, by Napoleon Hill’s book, Think and Grow Rich , by Scientology and cybernetics, and advised by a skilled tax lawyer, Erhard launched est in 1971. And for 20 years he reigned as guru of the “human potential movement.” According to freelance journalist Pressman, the womanizing, charismatic and demanding Erhard collected tens of millions of dollars from 500,000 people who took his courses. Eventually lawsuits, desertions among his coterie and the rise of new New Age mind-improving programs ended Erhard’s empire and in 1991, owing millions to the IRS and others, he went into exile in Mexico. Pressman here cuts into him with surgical precision.”

Here are some highlights from this 1993 book:

* Not long after Janis Vivo’s suicide, Wachter considered filing a lawsuit claiming that Erhard and his network bore some responsibility for what happened. Instead, Wachter contacted Erhard’s San Francisco headquarters himself, saying he had spoken to an attorney but preferred to settle the matter privately. Wachter’s decision could not
have pleased Werner Erhard more. For years lawsuits had generated nothing but bad publicity for him and his work, even though no jury had ever found est or the Forum legally responsible for any injury. Courtroom fights just weren’t good business when it came to selling the wonders of personal transformation.

* Jack Rosenberg played around with the sounds of the German names mentioned in the pages of the magazine. And then it came to him. Werner Erhard. It sounded both powerful and exotic, a blending of scientific intellectualism and respected statesmanship. Werner Erhard. He definitely liked the sound of it, and injected another note of Aryan purity into the mixture by picking a good, solid German name: Hans. Werner Hans Erhard. Nobody back in Philadelphia, he thought to himself, would ever imagine that Jack Rosenberg would change his name to Werner Hans Erhard.

* He turned to the pregnant woman sitting beside him, the same woman with whom he had driven to the Newark, New Jersey, airport earlier that day to board a flight to escape to a new life. He asked her what she thought of the name he had picked out. She smiled and nodded in agreement and told him she had picked a new name for herself. Ellen Virginia Erhard was easy enough to pronounce and even had a bit of a poetic lilt to it. Of course, there’d be family back in Philadelphia looking for June Bryde as well as for Jack Rosenberg, so it was important to shed identities and pick up new ones once the plane landed in Indianapolis. A few hours later, when the plane touched ground, a new future lay ahead for Werner and Ellen Erhard.

* His fledgling success on the car lots only seemed to encourage Rosenberg’s increasing alienation from his family. Feeling flush with a little money in his pocket, he much preferred the bellicose carousing and womanizing favored by his fellow salesmen to the mundane domestic isolation that awaited him at home with his wife and growing family. It was a pattern that would be repeated over and over again long after Jack Rosenberg transformed himself Werner Erhard.

* Three years after their son Jack was born on September 5, 1935, Joe Rosenberg resolved one thorny family prob¬
lem by converting to Christianity. Though Jack continued to see his Jewish relatives, his own religious upbringing took place within the walls of the Clauson family church, the Church of the Holy Nativity in Germantown, where he was baptized John Paul Rosenberg in February 1945, at the age of nine.

* Unfortunately for Rosenberg, his wife, Pat, and his mother learned about his affair, which succeeded only in increasing his hostility toward both of them. Soon he had a new plan to get away from his family and Philadelphia. On March 29, 1960, he and June— who now knew about Rosenberg’s double life— drove the seventy miles that separated Philadelphia from Bel Air, Maryland, not far from the Pennsylvania border. That afternoon he and June applied for a Maryland marriage license under the names of Curt Wilhelm VonSavage and Celeste Marie Radell. On the application for the license, Rosenberg accurately listed his age as twenty-four and his occupation as that of a salesman. But VonSavage, he wrote, had been born in New Jersey and currently lived in the small New Jersey town of Phillipsburg. Three days later, on April 1, a Methodist minister in Bel Air united the covert couple in marriage. Jack Rosenberg had committed bigamy. Wedding vows completed, the couple returned to Philadelphia, where June Bryde quietly resumed her job at the real estate office while Rosenberg continued selling cars and living with Pat and the children in an apartment in Hatboro, a commuter town north of Philadelphia off the turnpike.

* More than a dozen years would pass before Rosenberg’s family would hear from him again. By the time they landed a
few hours later, Jack Rosenberg and June Bryde were ready to begin new lives as Werner and Ellen Erhard.

* He and Ellen also made arrangements with an attorney to give up the baby she was carrying for adoption immediately after the birth.

* Erhard was growing restless in St. Louis so the idea of moving on caught his fancy even though he did not even own a car. He solved that dilemma by packing Ellen and their meager belongings into a Buick Special that he had agreed to sell on consignment and simply taking off. Driving west in a stolen car without much money, the Erhards
often spent the night in the Buick. Once Ellen woke up to the jarring sounds of Erhard yelling and banging on the car. The heater had not been working correctly, which had angered him so much that he pounded furiously on the car until he managed to punch the heater right out. On other nights the couple would check into a motel, only to steal away early in the morning without paying the bill. Erhard also avoided arrest by periodically screwing on new license plates that he had taken from one of the car lots back in St. Louis.

* The apparently successful transformation from a Philadelphia car salesman named Jack Rosenberg to a San Francisco book salesman named Werner Erhard did not change the old Rosenberg habit of romancing women to whom he was not married. He usually preferred to hire attractive women for his book sales force, and he rarely hesitated to seduce those whom he found sexually appealing. Between work and his extramarital socializing, Erhard had little time to spend with Ellen and his children, often seeing them only for a few minutes late in the evening after one of his employees—often one of the women he was seeing—drove him home from San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge. On some evenings the night security officer who patrolled the grounds of the Cote d’Azur would see Erhard arriving home well past midnight in the company of women who enjoyed parking with him and talking for a while before he went inside.

* Later that night Erhard was arrested for battery and disturbing the peace by San Rafael sheriff’s deputies. The
battery charges were later dropped, leaving Erhard to pay a $44 fine and receive a sentence of six months’ probation. A year later, however, the conviction was formally set aside, leaving Erhard’s criminal record officially expunged.

* Beginning in 1971, Erhard started to amass his own personal fortune by telling at first hundreds, and then later
thousands, and then later still hundreds of thousands of people that there are no such things as “victims” in the world, whether they are people set upon by muggers in dark alleyways or hospital patients suffering from cancer and other debilitating diseases.

A particularly disturbing example occurred years later when, during an est session, Erhard set about convincing a Holocaust survivor and est participant that she— along with family members who had perished in a Nazi death camp— was “responsible” for her own predicament. Neither the Nazis nor Hitler, Erhard said later, created the woman’s “experience” of the concentration camp. They were only an illusion. The reality, said Erhard, was that she had created her Holocaust experience.

* Erhard, with his own record of seduction and sexual conquests, undoubtedly found in Hill’s motivational writing a rationale for his own sexual exploits. After all, sex— at least in the get-rich formula of Napoleon Hill— amounted to little more than part of a salesman’s arsenal of weapons in the ongoing battle to sell more, to be more productive, to be more successful.

* Like so many other American fads, however, L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics movement, which had shot so quickly to stratospheric heights, found itself on the descent after a matter of months. Word began to seep out that Hubbard was growing unyieldingly authoritarian, refusing to delegate power while growing increasingly suspicious of those
around him. There were rumors that he had beaten and mistreated his second wife, and it was later revealed that he married his second wife without informing her that he had not divorced his first wife, a strikingly eerie parallel to Werner Erhard’s bigamy. He started having affairs with women who worked on his staff or as volunteers. Adding
to the troubles were some severe cases of psychotic behavior suffered by a few individuals going through Dianetics auditing…

* By the mid-1960s Hubbard was again hearing the ominous sounds of footsteps marching after him. In October 1965 complaints about Scientology in Australia had prompted a blue-ribbon panel there to issue a scathing 173-page report that called the practice of Scientology a “serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially, and its adherents sadly deluded and often mentally ill.”

The report also blasted the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, which Hubbard had created in London in 1952, as “the world’s largest organization of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental therapy.” The Australian government responded to the report in December by passing the Psychological Practices Act that effectively outlawed Scientology in that country. That legislative act, in turn, prompted calls within the House of Commons in Great Britain to probe the status of Scientology in that country. . In the United States, Internal Revenue Service agents began to investigate the legitimacy of Scien¬
tology’s tax-exempt status as a “church.”

* In July 1968 the British government declared Scientology to be “socially harmful” and imposed a ban on its students entering the United Kingdom. Within days the British home secretary announced that Hubbard had been classified as an “undesirable alien.”

While Hubbard cruised warm waters, Werner Erhard continued to study Scientology while subjecting his staff to Hubbard’s odd tenets and theories.

* Erhard’s Scientology course never got off the ground. For Erhard quickly realized that once his customers completed the course, they would have no further need for him. Werner Erhard wanted more: namely a program and a marketing plan that would keep his customers coming back again and again.

* Shortly after he reappeared in the lives of his children in Philadelphia, he made the startling announcement that he had little interest in being their father. Instead, he said, his role would be that of a “teacher.”

* Privately, Erhard had trouble remembering his children’s ages and spent little time with either his once-abandoned Philadelphia family or his second family being raised by Ellen Erhard in Marin County.

* But the illusory image of Werner Erhard as a transformed human being who joyfully embraced his once-abandoned family was only part of the facade he needed to project. Even before his reconciliation with his Philadelphia family, Erhard had been tiring of his role as a husband to Ellen and father to their three children. All during his days working for Parents and Grolier, Erhard kept up a steady stream of sexual affairs while spending little time at home with Ellen and the children. The pattern persisted once he started est. He began spending more frequent nights in San Francisco, sleeping in one of the apartments that some of his employees had rented in a fading threestory Victorian on Franklin Street in Pacific Heights, not far from the est office in North Beach. Gradually he began using part of the house as his own private office, leaving the rest of the staff to carry out the
business of making him famous back on Kearny Street.

* Others who had joined up with Erhard received their own lessons in surrendering authority to the imposing figure who, from the time that est started, always presented himself as the source of the material he was now selling to the public.

* During the first year or so of est, Erhard himself led all the est trainings, since he was the only one who had yet mastered the hours of materials he had stitched together from Scientology and Mind Dynamics and Dale Carnegie and Maxwell Maltz and a variety of other sources.

* Anytime someone got up to “share” something during the training, everyone else was instructed to acknowledge him or her with applause. It never took very long for est training sessions to take on the surreal dimensions of confusing logic. A stream of abusive epithets hurled at a skeptical participant always ended in a cheerful smile from the trainer and an enthusiastic round of applause from everyone else.

By the late afternoon of the first day, the est trainers always launched into another several hours’ worth of lectures revolving around one of est’s fundamental tenets. Taking responsibility for your life, in the world according to Werner Erhard, required people to accept the idea that they were equally responsible for everything that happened in their lives. From illness and disease to auto accidents and street muggings, Erhard and his trainers drummed into the heads of est participants that they alone caused all the incidents and episodes in their lives to occur. The est philosophy included no room for victims or excuses. Only when his customers accepted that, only when they realized that all people “create their own reality,” were they in a position to resolve problems plaguing their lives.

Nobody believed that more fervently than Werner Erhard himself. More than ten years before he created est, Jack Rosenberg had already created a new reality by shedding his past and pretending for years it had never even existed. Driven by an overpowering ambition for fame (and its accompanying riches), Erhard discovered in the myr¬
iad self-help, get-rich, human motivation textbooks and courses a formula that seemed to accommodate so conveniently his own personal psychodrama. It had worked for him. Surely it was something that
could work for others.

* Erhard, of course, had discovered no new miracle cure. Similar versions of the Truth Process already had surfaced in other self awareness methods, including gestalt therapy, primal scream therapy, and the auditing practice in Scientology. Even earlier, a British psychiatrist named William Sargant had studied various techniques involved in indoctrination and thought control, only to discover a longstanding strain of the very same method used in Erhard’s est training.

In his 1957 book, Battle for the Mind, Sargant described the technique as a “time-worn physiological trick which has been used, for better or worse, by generations of preachers and demagogues to soften up their listeners’ minds and help them take on desired patterns of belief and behavior.”

* In September 1976, a Berkeley sociologist named Theodore Roszak told Newsweek magazine that America in the mid-1970s was in the middle of “the biggest introspective binge any society in history has undergone.” Nowhere was that binge more evident than on the streets of San Francisco.

* Tom Wolfe acidly described the years as the “Me Decade” in a 1976 cover story for New York magazine that, not surprisingly, opened with a searing account of an est training, offered as a classic example of the self-obsessive nature of the times. Wolfe compared the new culture of “me-ism” to two earlier periods of religious awakening that had gripped the country, first in the middle of the eighteenth century and again in the early decades of the nineteenth century. But in the Me Decade, worshipers sought to tap not some distant and unseen spiritual force but rather the more immediate and potent, self-absorbed power of the individual. Wolfe concluded his lengthy essay:
“Where the Third Great Awakening will lead— who can presume to say? One only knows that the great religious waves
have a momentum all their own. Neither arguments nor policies nor acts of the legislature have been any match for
them in the past. And this one has the mightiest, holiest roll of all, the beat that goes . . . Me . . . Me . . . Me . . . Me. . . .”

Journalists such as Wolfe and others delighted in using Werner Erhard as an illuminating example of the narcissistic message so pervasive during the 1970s. The central, underlying message that Erhard had planted in the est training—the same mantra that his cloned trainers drummed endlessly into the minds of those streaming into
hotel ballrooms by the tens of thousands—was that reality centered in each individual sitting in each of those uncomfortable ballroom chairs. Each of you, Erhard and trainers repeated over and over again to every fresh set of customers, is ultimately and completely responsible for your own reality. Each of you is responsible for everything
that happens in your life.

* Although Erhard hardly created single-handedly the phenomenon and culture that defined the Me Decade, Peter Marin, writing in Harper’s in 1975, castigated Erhard as a living embodiment of the age’s “new narcissism.”

“Clearly Erhard has a genius— not only for the efficiency with which his program is organized and sold, but also for the accuracy with which he tells his audience what it wants to hear. It is the latter which binds them to him. The world is perfect, each of us is all-powerful, shame and guilt are merely arbitrary notions, truth is identical to belief, suffering is merely the result of imperfect consciousness— how like manna all of this must seem to hungry souls. For if we are each totally responsible for our fate, then all the others in the world are responsible for their fate, and if that is so, why should we worry about them?”

* By the mid-1970s Erhard had largely succeeded in building an enterprise that revolved, in almost every facet and detail, around the obligation to worship Werner. “I love you,” he signed off constantly in est-promoting messages that appeared in a new monthly magazine distributed to est graduates around the country. Along with a litany
of glowing testimonials about the power of est, the magazine usually included plenty of photographs of Erhard himself, always smiling, always showing off his handsome, almost boyish features. In person, as in his photographs, Erhard was always immaculately groomed and fashionably dressed. As he approached his fortieth birthday, Werner
Erhard gave every appearance of a man completely in charge.

* To the outside world, Erhard often appeared as a fuzzy-sounding though seemingly well-intentioned head of a popular self-awareness offshoot of the human potential movement. But inside the culture of est, he was becoming nothing less than the dictatorial general of a compliant army, whose sole job was to re-create the man in charge
and carry out his every whim.

* Although insistent that his walls be adorned with books, he rarely read any himself. “I gave up reading about ten
years ago,” he told an interviewer, almost pridefully, in 1974. “I have really gotten over having to read them. I love tables of contents. I can truly read a book from the table of contents, most of the time.”

* The est organization by the mid-1970s already had a name and a program in place for ensuring Erhard’s increasing influence on the world. It was called SOIP, which stood for Sphere of Influence People — and it included those who
needed to be courted and cajoled, wined and dined, treated to VIP est training sessions where they could “get it” without having to mingle with more ordinary people flocking into est trainings around the country.

* Werner Erhard “looks like someone I should keep my eye on,” San Francisco writer Leo Litwak wrote in an article about est that appeared in the Sunday magazine of the New York Times in 1976. “He goes all out for what he wants. My inclination was to close my heart and guard my pockets.”

Esalen founder Michael Murphy, in the same article, noticed two sides to the curious persona of Werner Erhard. “[There is the] rough cut, self-taught philosopher with a dazzling gift for philosophy,” said Murphy. “Where did he get it? He hasn’t read the texts. He has no academic background. And then there’s the super-salesman, the founder of an autocratic organization held in reverence by staff and graduates. The mixture is disconcerting.”

* Werner Erhard seemed to reserve his fiercest hostility for some of the women who were part of the est culture. Though the feminist movement in the United States roughly paralleled the rise of est, Erhard rarely hesitated to make demeaning remarks about women who worked for him. He would deride women as “snakes,” and insist that
men were the source of power, leaving women to fill subservient roles.

Once, when one of his aides walked into a meeting to let him know his next appointment was scheduled to begin in a few minutes, Erhard glanced at the busty woman and then chortled to others in the room, “Pretty good, a clock with tits.” At other times he tossed around crude remarks, telling one employee, for example, how nice she looked in
the “fuck-me shoes” she wore to work that day.

But his demeaning attitudes toward women did not stop with his verbal insults. Though he was insulated by a layer of protective personal aides, there have been persistent reports that Erhard allowed his quick and sometimes violent temper to spill over into physical abuse of women. Though he could be seductively charming, Erhard
also possessed a deep-seated resentment of women, the origins of which were likely to be found in his unsatisfying relations with the most prominent women in his life, including his mother and each of his two wives. Perhaps fearing personal intimacy in long-term relations, he resorted instead to a long-standing series of affairs. He also
preferred to hire for his various sales staffs attractive women, some of whom he seduced into utter obedience and total loyalty. Now, as the mystique of est conferred upon Erhard still more power over the lives of his most faithful followers, he carried his behavior and attitudes toward women to even more disturbing depths. On more than
one occasion, it became the task of one of his closest aides and confidants inside the Franklin House to be ready with an ice pack and some soothing words to treat a blackened eye and comfort another victim of Erhard’s demons. Werner Erhard’s seductive charm sometimes had a habit of giving way to the back of his hand.

* His self-assuring words about a contented family life masked a much different family portrait that was well hidden from public view. Long before est came into existence, Ellen Erhard had grown accustomed to playing the role of a dutiful wife, putting up with his absences from home and his womanizing habits. She compensated by devoting herself to maintaining a clean and comfortable home for herself and her children, realizing that her husband—with his expansive ego-driven ambitions—had little interest in sharing in that life with her. She contemplated divorce from time to time, but always backed away because of the anxious fear that leaving Werner Erhard might jeopardize her own ability to provide a secure home for herself and the children.

* Living inside the est culture, the young offspring of Werner Erhard hardly could escape the same strict demands and angry temper that often marked their father’s dealings toward his staff. During one social gathering at the Franklin House, Erhard stood in the corner of the elegant dining room talking to some of his children while others
milled around waiting for dinner to be served. Suddenly, and without any provocation, Erhard launched into a bombastic tirade aimed at his nine-year-old son, St. John, berating the frightened boy over a poor grade he had received in school. As others in the room watched in muted embarrassment or pretended not to notice, Erhard grabbed
St. John by the shoulders and shook him harshly, forcing the boy to fall to the ground.

“If you ever get grades like this again, I’ll break your leg with a baseball bat, and don’t think I’m kidding!” Erhard screamed, as he towered over the boy who could only look up at his father with terror in his eyes.

* The time had come for Erhard to complete his wife’s transformation. He walked over to her chair and slapped her across the face, and then, with greater force, he knocked her to the floor. No one in the room came to her aid as Erhard began kicking her—not the kind of kick that earlier had been delivered, but sharper blows that hurt her and had her begging for him to stop. Finally Erhard’s brother Harry and another assistant got up from their chairs and pulled Erhard away.

* Erhard remained adamant that she confess her transgression, that she “get off it.” Pushed out of her chair, she was ordered by Erhard to her knees while he continued to yell loudly and repeatedly at her to stop “withholding” from him. “You are having an affair!” Erhard screamed at his wife, who looked back at him with empty eyes but said nothing. “What do you think you’re hiding?”

Ellen remained mute on the ground, hoping, as she had done in vain during the previous session, that someone would come to her aid. But no one did. And when Erhard asked for a volunteer to “handle” Ellen, Bob Larzelere suddenly felt the time had come to demonstrate his complete loyalty and obedience to him and est’s principles of
transformation. This was the moment, thought the former Berkeley doctor. This is when I can prove to Werner Erhard that he can count on me, fully and without any doubt, to serve him. Larzelere got to his feet and approached Ellen, who was lying prone on the floor. He put his hands around her neck and began to squeeze. He meant only to frighten her, since that is what he assumed Erhard wanted him to do.

Applying enough pressure to bruise her neck without cutting off her supply of oxygen, Larzelere acted almost as if he were in a trance, a trance induced by his commitment, above all else, to win the love of Werner Erhard. Erhard’s children looked on in horror as they watched their mother’s face turn pale, as a little saliva dribbled out of the side of her mouth. Celeste, fourteen years old at the time, grabbed hold of nine-year-old St. John and turned his head away so that he would not have to see his mother endure such physical abuse. Clare, Erhard’s oldest daughter from his first marriage, also tried to shield some of the younger children from the ugly scene unfolding in front of them.

“Stop it!” Celeste finally shrieked at Larzelere, as she watched her mother slump on the floor. “You’re going to kill her!”

Until then, Erhard had remained in his chair, calm and without emotion, as he watched Larzelere choke Ellen. Only when his daughter screamed for Larzelere to stop did he turn to her with a cold stare and an angry outburst. “Sit down!” he snapped at her. “Or you’re going to get the same treatment.”*

The night Ellen Erhard was choked in front of her children marked the beginning of a year-long “rehabilitation” program that Erhard decreed for his wife…

* In March 1992 Erhard sued CBS for libel, alleging that, among other claims, a “60 Minutes” broadcast a year earlier “falsely publicized that Mr. Erhard launched into a jealous rage toward his ex-wife wherein he kicked her a number of times while she was on the floor” and “falsely publicized that Mr. Erhard assaulted her to such a degree that he was killing her by causing her to be hurt, choked, strangled, or punished and made to talk or confess.” However, Erhard subsequently dropped the suit without any decision on the merits of his claims.

* Erhard “has no original ideas, but he is sharp enough and glib enough to impress a lot of folks,” a reviewer wrote in the Los Angeles Times. As for Bartley, the Times said his “philosophical justification of est as a mishmash of totalitarianism, hucksterism and existentialism makes this book more a public relations product than an objective study.” Illustrating the frontpage Sunday review was a cartoon caricature of Erhard outfitted as a
slick used-car salesman pitching his dubious wares.

* The most serious allegations about Werner Erhard would not be found in publicity-minded interviews orchestrated by him and his aides. Instead, several years would pass before Deborah had the courage to state publicly that her father had sexually molested her when she was about sixteen years old, well before the pretty soft-faced girl
first sat down to talk about her famous father. She said it had happened only once, after which she tried to tuck it into the background so that she might yet have a loving relationship with her father. It was not to be. According to Deborah, Erhard, a few years later, coerced one of his older daughters— one of Deborah’s sisters, in her twenties — into having sexual intercourse with him in a hotel room they were sharing during one of his frequent out-of-town trips. Again, according to Deborah, the sexual abuse happened only once, but Deborah’s sister nonetheless was frightened and traumatized by the incident and she remained silent about it for years, afraid of what Erhard might do if she ever uttered a word to anyone. She recounted the ugly episode to Deborah only after Deborah told of her own abuse.

Still, the two girls did not immediately say anything to others in the family, not even to their mother, for fear that they simply would not be believed. But, Deborah says, Erhard’s older daughter made one solemn vow that she kept ever since. Never again, she swore to her sister, would she ever see her father alone.

According to Deborah, Werner Erhard’s daughters finally confronted their father with their accounts of his sexual abuse at a stormy, twelve-hour family meeting on board his Sausalito houseboat in the mid-1980s. With most of his family present, Erhard vehemently denied that he had ever raped his older daughter, although, Deborah says, her father admitted having sexual intercourse with her sister. What’s more, Erhard explained that the episode had been a “nurturing experience” for the young woman. Erhard has denied all allegations of sexual abuse.

The man who sermonized at est meetings about the special bond between parents and children made a mockery out of his words with his own behavior toward his children. Even with his younger daughters, he sometimes talked suggestively about sex, sitting around the table as he reached, almost playfully, for their breasts. “Oh, I wish I
could be the first to teach you guys,” he would tell his teenage daughters Adair and Celeste. “Wouldn’t that be great?”

Throughout est’s existence, Erhard had treated sex as simply another form of human behavior to be controlled and manipulated in ways that enhanced his own overpowering control over the lives of others who inhabited the est culture. Long before he ever started est, Werner Erhard— even when he was still Jack Rosenberg—used his powerful sexual appeal and charismatic energy with women to intensify their own sense of loyalty and devotion to him.

* Inside the emerging est culture, Erhard continued to view sex as an integral part of his obsessive demand that others around him pledge their devotion. He required staff members to divulge the most intimate details of their personal lives as part of a series of policies aimed at controlling their thoughts and behavior. A staff policy imposed in the mid-1970s instructed est staffers to “stay in communication” with Erhard about their personal relationships, particularly those of a sexual nature.

Although the policy was designed to proscribe sexual relations between staff members, exceptions were possible in cases in which Erhard was informed about existing affairs. These relationships could continue to include “fucking,” the staff was told, but only as long as the trysting staffers got their jobs done and showed no signs of “upsets.” The policy made it clear to the staff that Erhard would attribute declining job performance to the fact that “you are fucking whoever you fuck” and would ask the offending party to leave est.

Erhard generously added a “family policy” to the est rules governing sexual conduct, mindful of the occasional desire among married staff members to enjoy dalliances with other partners besides their spouse. The policy, which otherwise prohibited extramarital affairs, allowed such liaisons as long as Don Cox received a letter from
an est staffer’s wife or husband allowing their spouse “to fuck someone else.” The letter also had to include “guidelines” aimed at identifying those with whom the spouse could enjoy sexual intimacy.

* In the early years of est, Erhard had a habit of announcing strict rules proscribing sexual liaisons among staff members, only to drop them at particularly opportune times and reinstate them at a later date. While treating the staff to a weeklong Mexican cruise in 1974, Erhard abruptly lifted the sexual ban, delighting many along for the
trip. After the amorous week at sea, Erhard reimposed the no-sex rules back in San Francisco.

* No such self-reporting sexual rules applied to Erhard. Instead, he entrusted to his closest aides the confidential role of assisting in the steady, though usually clandestine, flow of women in and out of
his private black-painted bedroom on the second floor of the Franklin House. Sometimes his partners came from the ranks of celebrity est enthusiasts, including actress Cloris Leachman, with whom Erhard maintained a relationship for a few years. Otherwise, Erhard helped himself to the sexual favors offered to him by an assortment of attrac¬
tive staff members and est volunteers. A comely Franklin House assistant once confided to an est trainer that another Erhard aide “schedules Werner’s cock” and that she planned “to get on the schedule.”

For the most part, Erhard managed—with the help of his swornto-secrecy aides—to keep the details of his frequent trysts from other staff members. To them, as well as to the legions of Erhard followers around the country, he wanted to maintain the image of a devoted husband and father whose long hours away from his family represented a willing sacrifice to his passionate and consuming dedication to est’s goals of human transformation. Only when occasional evidence of his other extracurricular activities surfaced did staff members see, firsthand, another side of Werner Erhard.

* Swept up in the fervor of the discussion, one of the seminar leaders got to his feet with a serious look on his face. “The question in the room that nobody is asking,” the man told Erhard solemnly, “is ‘Are you the messiah?’ ”
The room grew silent as Erhard looked out to the curious faces of some of his most devoted disciples. After a few moments he replied, “No, I am who sent him.” Undoubtedly, there were many in the room who were sure they had just witnessed the ultimate transformation of a man; Werner Erhard wanted them to believe he was on par with God.

* “Werner Erhard is using the Hunger Project not only for self-aggrandizement but for promoting the for-profit corporation he funded, as well,” concluded Mother Jones magazine in December 1978, following a six-month investigation. “I have serious doubts about the social value of the Hunger Project,” one hunger expert in Washington told the magazine. “It’s probably collected more money in the name of hunger and done the least about
hunger than any group I can think of.” After threatening a libel suit against Mother Jones, est responded instead with a call for seminar participants to devote two minutes of “negative energy” on the magazine’s writers…

* Erhard was keenly aware that his own image as the creator of est and its transformational message required him to be viewed as a successful family man able to enjoy successful and fulfilling relationships. “Jack Rosenberg could botch a marriage,” he once told an interviewer, referring to his broken relationship with his first wife, Pat. “But Werner Erhard had to make it work.” The irony was that the est culture was filled with the victims of busted marriages, both among Erhard’s staff and among plenty of est graduates as well. Divorce was not an uncommon result of the training for many couples. In some cases the training caused husbands or wives to become aware of problems in their marriages. In other instances, est participants found themselves speaking a strange new language and preferring the company of like-minded others who spoke the same fuzzy jargon.

* the two psychiatrists said they had seen enough evidence to speculate that est’s “psychodynamic mechanisms” bore at least some responsibility for the psychotic episodes they had observed. “We are impressed,” they wrote, “that an authoritarian, confrontational, aggressive leadership style coupled with physiologic deprivation fosters an identification with the aggressor. The inability of this defense mechanism to contain overwhelming anxiety aroused by the process may lead to fusion with the leader, ego fragmentation and psychotic decompensation.” In plain English, Glass and Kirsch at least thought it likely that est could be terribly damaging to some of its participants.

* Erhard and others at est were anxious to refute Glass and Kirsch’s suggestions that est training might trigger psychotic outbreaks among some participants.

* As est’s popularity continued to spread across the country, psychiatrists and therapists began to encounter other cases of a seeming cause-and-effect between the training and psychotic behavior. “Most of the people I’ve seen at our clinic— and they come in after the training in fairly substantial numbers— have suffered reactions that range
from moderately bad to dreadful,” the executive director of New Tork City’s Lincoln Institute for Psychotherapy reported in 1978. “They are confused and jarred, and the same pattern — elation, depression, feelings of omnipotence followed by feelings of helplessness — are repeated over and over again.”

* Dr. Lloyd Moglen had seen and treated some apparent est casualties. One man from Fremont, California, imagined that he was God after taking the training. Another patient had shown up at Good Samaritan Hospital displaying signs of acute psychotic behavior and suicidal tendencies immediately after taking the est training. A year later the man walked out of a board-and-care facility in Santa Cruz at one in the morning and was struck and killed by a passing car while he aimlessly crossed the coastal highway which cut through the center of town. Over the years Moglen had begun to revise his initial feelings about est.

* Released from the hospital twenty-five days after she was first admitted, Bojorquez remained at home for the next four months, usually confined to bed and kept heavily sedated on tranquilizers. By early 1980 she felt well enough to take a part-time job; it would be more than a year before she returned to full-time work. In April 1980 a young San Jose attorney named David Rude filed a lawsuit against Werner Erhard and est, claiming that Evangeline Bojorquez’s hospitalization and emotional injuries resulted directly from her est training seven months earlier…

* Moglen, the onetime est enthusiast, bluntly blamed est for causing her psychiatric condition. “What est did was to break down Mrs. Bojorquez’s defenses and concept of reality,” he said in a court document. “Then they left her. They left her to put herself back together again. This she was unable to do.”

* One of Bojorquez’s lawyers, a Seattle attorney named Richard Stanislaw, challenged Simon during his deposition on the educational value of est.
“Are you aware of any educational setting where barf bags are available for the participants?” Stanislaw asked.
“No,” Simon replied.
“Are you aware of any other educational settings where people throw up in the normal course of their educational course?”
“No.”
“Are you aware of any other educational institution where people go through cathartic reactions in the same or similar sense as you have observed people going through the est training?”
“Not directly,” replied the psychiatrist.

* Alarmed by the prospect of a rash of lawsuits, est officials as early as 1981 began to take steps aimed at reducing what they described as “severe emotional upsets” during est training sessions. Erhard’s trainers had observed dozens of incidents in which est participants exhibited strange and bizarre reactions to various portions
of the training. And while the official est policy was to discourage anyone from taking the training if they were already involved in psychotherapy, in many instances there was little emphasis placed on weeding out anyone who was intent on going through est.

* A few days after Irving Bernstein once led an est training in Miami, he got an anxious call from an est official in San Francisco whose job was to keep track of severe emotional upsets occurring around the country. He was calling to tell Bernstein about a woman who had just completed the Miami training and who had been found naked in a nearby playground by two policemen. When the officers approached her, all she could tell them was “Would you come to my posttraining with me? Would you come to my posttraining with me? Would you come to my posttraining with me?”
By the time Vangie Bojorquez settled her case against est, about a half-dozen lawsuits had been filed by others seeking similar damages for a variety of psychological injuries. All had either been dismissed in est’s favor or settled out of court for confidential sums.

* This time a man— a seemingly healthy twentysix-year-old at that— had dropped dead during a particularly stressful
portion of the est training. Far beyond causing a “severe emotional upset,” the man’s family now was claiming that Werner Erhard was responsible for the est-induced death of Jack Slee.

* Erhard now looked for other ways to win recognition and acceptance into the highest circles of San Francisco society. He tried repeatedly, for example, to win a coveted membership in the city’s blue-blood St. Francis Yacht Club, assigning teams of staff people to figure out a way to be invited to join. He was never successful. His bid for acceptance into society circles prompted Erhard to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to organizations such as the opera and the symphony. Though the beneficiaries of his patronage certainly savored his largess, his aggressive and expensive campaign to win society status clashed with his public insistence that he had little interest in the rich spoils est had provided.

* Above all else, Erhard craved respectability and prestige, and not only among the fawning multitudes of est graduates who would soon be flocking into a warmed-over version of est called the Forum. While the Forum would serve as the bedrock of Erhard’s business, in the 1980s he also embarked on other ambitious efforts to bolster his
public image as a transformational guru intent on changing the face of society.

* In late 1984 NASA paid Transformational Technologies $45,000 for three sessions in which Erhard and others lectured forty-seven space agency officials on est-style management theories. “What surfaced,” a NASA official
later wrote in an estlike memo, “is the need for a whole new arena of mastery in management, one that comes to grips with the phenomena of the dance between an organization’s cultural capacity and the unfolding of program accomplishment. It’s not a problem that needs to be fixed. It’s an opportunity.”

In December 1988 several former employees of the DeKalb Farmers Market, a huge produce and seafood mart near Atlanta, claimed in a federal lawsuit that they had been forced from their jobs after protesting their coerced attendance at the Forum along with another similar training session put on by an Erhard-licensed franchise
firm in Florida…

* Michael Breard discovered there was little honor in the menial tasks he was ordered to perform in the service of
Werner Erhard. In the predawn darkness, he scrambled aboard the polished decks of the Canim, careful not to make any noises as he slipped stealthily into the boat’s small galley at around five in the morning. After putting on the coffee, Breard made his way into the bathroom, seeing to it that the room sparkled. Then Breard meticulously arranged Erhard’s toiletries, lining up his shampoo, dental floss, razor, and shaving cream so that nothing was out of place. Breard knew there was a price to pay if he overlooked any of the details. Even the slightest miscue had sometimes resulted in a torrent of shouted obscenities from Erhard himself, who would stand within inches of Breard while he vented his anger. So Breard made sure the colognes were lined up in perfect order and that the toothpaste was spread evenly across Erhard’s toothbrush. After finishing in the bathroom, Breard repaired to the boat’s small galley, inspecting the glass of orange juice for signs of too much pulp that displeased Erhard. Finally Breard was ready to pad softly into Erhard’s bedroom. Kneeling at the foot of the bed, he slipped his hands under the covers until they reached Erhard’s feet and began a gentle massage.

“Werner,” Breard whispered in a singsong voice, “it’s fivetwenty.” After more massaging and another five minutes passed, Breard’s chiming voice updated the time. “Werner, it’s five-twentyfive.” At five-thirty, Erhard arose to begin his day.

* “For so long, I wanted to have a father, for him to be there, to love me,” a solemn-voiced Adair told the journalist. “He said you were interviewing him, and he asked if I’d do this scenario. It’s sickening but I agreed. I would have done anything to have the relationship.” The whole episode on the Canirn had been scripted, plotted in
advance with Adair and two of Erhard’s aides. The morning of Kornbluth’s interview with Erhard, Adair and the aides had figured out the best subject that she could convincingly bring up after her on-cue entrance into Erhard’s study. Afterward, Adair had been offered a “reward” for her convincing performance— the honor of setting up
some of Erhard’s dinner parties.

* Scientology officials for years had been keeping files on Erhard’s est activities out of anger toward his generous use of Scientology material in the est training. L. Ron Hubbard himself had once decreed that his opponents could be “tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed” in order to protect Scientology’s shadowy reputation. Now
Erhard was alarmed by the news that a few Scientology-hired private investigators were snooping around the Bay Area, collecting critical information about him and apparently making efforts to spread it around.

* A few weeks later, on the evening of March 3, millions of television viewers across the country tuned their sets to CBS to watch another edition of “60 Minutes.” Each week the program began with short teasers— a few seconds of excerpts from each segment— so that viewers knew what to expect over the next hour. On that evening, the first teaser showed CBS correspondent Bob Simon describing his harrowing tale of captivity in Baghdad while covering the war against Iraq. Simon had just been freed, and the show had rearranged its schedule so that he could report on his experience.

A few seconds later Erhard’s face filled the screen, and he was heard briefly touting his est-flavored philosophy about making “the world work for everyone.” Then the scene switched to a woman named Dawn Damas, who once had been hired as a governess to take care of the Erhard children. “He beats his wife and he beats his children and he rapes a daughter, and then he goes and tells people how to have marvelous relationships,” Damas said solemnly. “I’m sorry. That’s what I have against Werner Erhard.”

All across America, thousands of est graduates, Forum participants, Erhard employees, and other faithful acolytes— not to mention countless others who may have remembered only vaguely the man with the strange-sounding name of Werner Erhard—watched as “60 Minutes” correspondent Ed Bradley related a dark story of Erhard’s past. The camera dramatically focused its gaze on a few of Erhard’s former followers such as Bob Larzelere, est’s onetime “well being director,” who had left in the late 1970s, and Wendy Drucker, the wife of former est executive Vincent Drucker, as they described their own harrowing accounts of life inside Erhard’s world.

Bradley then turned his attention to two of Erhard’s daughters by Ellen— Celeste and Adair—who choked back tears as they recounted the ugly stories of their father’s violent temper and relived the night their mother had been beaten and abused years earlier at the Franklin House.

“Does your mother know you’re talking to us?” Bradley asked Adair after informing viewers that Ellen’s divorce agreement prohibited her from telling her own side of the story of her relationship with Werner Erhard.

“Yeah,” Adair replied. “Before we left tonight, I talked to her and she’s just—you know, she said, T can’t thank you enough for doing this, for saying these things that need to be said.’ And I know that she wishes she could do the same.”

So far, the “60 Minutes” broadcast had not included anything about Erhard that had not already appeared in other stories. But Werner Erhard knew there was more to come. He knew the most damning charge against him was about to be made from another one of his daughters.

The screen pictured a well-dressed woman with a self-assured expression and the same penetrating eyes as her father. Deborah Rosenberg, the youngest of Erhard’s four children from his first marriage, had never spoken publicly about Werner Erhard since her wellorchestrated interview years earlier for a book about children of
celebrities. She had long since retreated into the shadows, preferring to live quietly in Honolulu with her husband and infant son while trying to put her father out of her mind. Now, the blond thirty-oneyear-old had a more solemn story to tell about what it was like to be the daughter of a man named Werner Erhard.

“I don’t have a problem saying that it happened,” Deborah told Bradley, choosing her words carefully. “I don’t like describing it, but I don’t have a problem admitting that he molested me.” Deborah then added that her father had forced sexual intercourse with one of her older sisters, a charge that Erhard vociferously denied in a portion of a taped interview played by Bradley on the air.

Deborah, however, offered a different version of her father’s response to the alleged incident during a family gathering aboard Erhard’s boat in the mid-1980’s.

“What he did say when I confronted him about it was that there had been sexual intercourse and that it had been a nurturing experience for my sister,” she said.

“He admitted it?” asked Bradley, an incredulous tone in his voice.

“He admitted there was sexual intercourse and that it was a nurturing experience,” she replied softly. “He said he did not rape her.”

* For Werner Erhard, the past had always been something to run away from, to render invisible by pretending that it barely even existed. Erhard and est for years advocated a convenient culture of amnesia, which certainly served the needs of so many thousands of his most loyal followers. In their zeal to discover the innocence of enlightenment, they savored his message of “completing” the past by casting it into a dark abyss. Many of Erhard’s followers also cheered est’s satirical rejection of traditional psychotherapy for similar reasons. Most forms of therapy have aimed for transformation by mining the individual’s past. Erhard’s own experiences in life were reflected in est’s formula for achieving transformation by avoiding the past.

* But now, on this night and on other nights to come, it was up to Laurel Scheaf and a few dozen other disciples of Werner Erhard who led the Forum to accept the applause they knew really belonged to him. They would continue to serve him as they always had—by imitating him, copying his gestures and his style, subtly planting in the mind of each new customer a rationale for the dark acts that Werner Erhard had been so publicly accused of. A rationale for the behavior of a man who humiliated his wife and had been accused of beating her and abusing his own children, while claiming to invent a worldchanging “technology” of personal transformation. Finally the demons had caught up with the man, and he no longer was able to accept the delicious applause that had once greeted his name wherever he
went. On a cool spring night in San Francisco, no one even wondered what ever happened to Werner Erhard.

Posted in Landmark | Comments Off on Outrageous Betrayal: The Real Story of Werner Erhard from Est to Exile

I’m Dysfunctional, You’re Dysfunctional: The Recovery Movement and Other Self-Help

From the New York Times review:

Ms. Kaminer’s antipathy has little to do with whether these techniques work or not. She avoids questioning the experience of people who say they have been helped, cured or even had their lives saved by these methods and others; to her thinking, successful cure isn’t even the issue.

What worries her is the movement’s ideology. She feels that it tends to trivialize suffering by melodramatically refusing to distinguish among levels of suffering or victimization.

* …MS. KAMINER also detests the abstract jargon that makes a linguistic salad of contradictory realms of discourse — especially the high-tech and the spiritual — in order to reap benefits from both markets. For example, people in recovery are usually exhorted not only to overcome the ravages of shame and abuse in flicted by dysfunctional families, but also to resurrect the buried, suffering “inner child” that exists in each of them, as well as to give up their addictions to alcohol, hard drugs, food, sex, tobacco, other people, shopping, work and negative emotions.

* According to the recovery movement, evil, as Ms. Kaminer puts it, “is merely a mask — a dysfunction.”

* Ultimately, what lifts Ms. Kaminer to the pinnacle of her indignation is the recovery movement’s insistence that the faithful surrender their wills to an unspecified higher power.

* For all her wit and intelligence, though, Ms. Kaminer, in her polemical fury, seems blind to some important distinctions. Maybe she stared a little too long at the klieg lights shining on those recovery celebrities who have grown rich and famous entertaining audiences plunged into the darkness of addiction and co-dependency. It’s true enough that in our society, movements readily turn into industries. But that has not happened to Alcoholics Anonymous, which explicitly prohibits the use of its name for publicity or profit. A.A. is a serious, worthwhile organization that employs a blend of moral pressure and group support to help people who can’t face their drinking problem even in psychotherapy. The same is pretty much the case with Overeaters Anonymous and some of the other 12-step programs.

Moreover, there is something to be said for any movement that seeks to stop the centrifugal drift of private life in America. The very existence of the recovery movement illustrates how urgent our longing must be for a sense of community that transcends self-interest, unhappy marriages and the terrible pressure to achieve professional or business success.

* “The failure to deal with racism is partly a function of the kind of insularity that the recovery movement encourages,” she observed. “It becomes more important to focus on your own problems than on larger social issues. And look at the Rodney King verdict — it had nothing to do with rationality. It was all emotion.”

Isn’t what works the most important question for the average bloke? About 100x more important than good linguistics and sterling philosophy? About 100x more important than distinguishing between levels of suffering?

Evil is not a focus of recovery programs. Is that ok?

If seeking direction from a Higher Power works, what’s so terrible? Kaminer hates recovery programs for making people simultaneously more self-centered and more other-centered. What a powerful critique! Either way, recovery loses in Kaminer’s worldview.

So what does Kaminer think is important? Dealing with racism. The Rodney King verdict. Not the riots, the initial Simi Valley verdict. She writes: “It becomes more important to focus on your own problems than on larger social issues.”

For most people, and properly so, their own problems are more important than larger social issues, which they can’t change much anyway.

She’s furious at movements and groups that help people connect with one another and share their deepest fears and pains. Whether or not these groups enable people to lead better lives is irrelevant to Kaminer. To me, that is disturbing. She doesn’t care that some people turn their lives around in these groups? That means nothing to her? What kind of person lacks interest in the welfare of other people? A sociopath. Kaminer’s callous disregard for individuals while laboring so publicly for humanity is typical of her leftwing political orientation.

And why is she so angry? What is it about reality that she can’t accept? Why is she so filled with rage against people who believe in something greater than themselves? What is it about the transcendent and the ineffable that so troubles her?

All effective approaches to life boil down to adrenalin management. When does religion help and when does religion help? According to its ability to manage your adrenalin. When do recovery programs help and when do they hurt? According to their ability to manage your adrenalin. When does philosophy work for a man and when does it hurt? According to its ability to manage your adrenalin. When does therapy help and when does therapy hurt? According to its ability to manage your adrenalin.

To phrase things a little differently, all effective approaches to life help you to attach to the people most important to you. When does religion help you and when does it hurt you? To the extent it helps or hurts you to attach. If you can’t attach to people you love, you’re in big trouble. If believing in the tooth fairy helps you to attach to the people you love, that belief benefits your life. If believing in Santa Claus hurts your ability to attach to the people you love, it hurts your life. If believing in Jesus helps you to attach to the people most important to you, it helps your life. If eating right and exercising diligently hurts your ability to be present with the people most important to you, those seemingly healthy practices are destroying your life.

The less comfortable you are with yourself, the less comfortable you will be with others. The more grievance and anger and resentment you carry, the less you will be able to bring joy to those you love and the less they will want you around.

* Publishers Wweekly: “Kaminer takes potshots at the omnipresent 12-step self-help groups that are threatening to put psychotherapists out of work. She dismisses the rhetoric and religiosity of the programs, finds their intimacy manufactured and their emphasis on “higher power” authoritarian.”

How is having a higher power authoritarian? If it does not exist, what can it do? Why should anyone care that people are finding a more useful and less expensive substitute for therapy?

Los Angeles Times review:

Kaminer is proud to proclaim her non-expertise, which she seems to regard as a kind of credential in itself: “You don’t have to be a therapist, MD, or any other certifiable expert in drug and alcohol abuse and other bad behaviors,” she insists, “to wonder about a society in which people are so eager to call themselves addicted and abused.”

And so Kaminer wonders out loud and at length about the “religiosity” of 12-step groups that call on the intervention of a “higher power,” the “cloyingly positive messages” of various recovery gurus, the “weird New Age babble of bliss-speak and techno-talk” and the media excesses of confessional television programs like “Oprah” and “Donahue”: “Voyeurs collaborating with exhibitionists in rituals of sham community.”

Kaminer may be accurate enough in her self-described “indictment” of the recovery movement, but she cannot seem to resist the impulse to offer up an arch and condescending judgment on the frailties of human nature: “Listening to 35-year-olds complain that they have never been understood by their parents,” she cracks, “I find myself thinking about the Kurds.”

…Still, the author is so arrogant, so brutal and so cutting that Kaminer sometimes sabotages her own earnest arguments. And she so often qualifies or apologizes for what she has written (“It’s not that all positive thinkers are Stalinists or Nazis . . .”) that I began to wonder if her own editors didn’t ask her to lighten up a bit.

Kaminer complains that the recovery movement is “niggardly and mean-spirited.” The same, I’m afraid, can be said of “I’m Dysfunctional, You’re Dysfunctional,” which discounts and dismisses the real human suffering that has prompted the very excesses that she gripes about. To the reader in pain, I’m afraid, the author has nothing to say except: “Buck up–and shut up.”

* Kaminer’s big critique of recovery programs is that they are not political and don’t promote participatory democracy.

Kaminer criticizes 12-step programs for being religious, but AA’s founder, Bill Wilson, and the two thinkers who influenced him, William James and Carl Jung, were not religious and even anti-religious.

In the 12-step approach, what does powerlessness over an addiction mean? One, it is an approach to dealing with a problem proven to work for millions of people who otherwise felt hopeless. Two, it increases our humility and opens us up to new ways of doing things. Three, stating powerlessness brings awareness of how many automatic responses we have that do not serve us, and brings awareness of our vulnerability in a dangerous world. Four, it is a way of turning our orientation away from ourselves to a higher power. Five, admitting powerlessness means complete self-acceptance and that in turns enables me to accept others. I have accepted my place in humanity. Six, admitting powerlessness is an acceptance of reality because we are powerless over almost everything around us and helplessness is one of the four basic states we continually return to as we climb the spiral staircase of life (along with mastery, grandiosity, and loneliness). Seven, admitting powerlessness in 12-steps is not a flight from responsibility, rather, it is the beginning of accepting responsibility. It is akin to admitting that one is a type one insulin-dependent diabetic and hence needs to take insulin regularly. When we admit we are powerless, we are admitting we have a guillotine above our necks and that it is only through the maintenance of our spiritual condition that we can live freely one day at a time. 

Posted in Addiction, Self Help | Comments Off on I’m Dysfunctional, You’re Dysfunctional: The Recovery Movement and Other Self-Help