On WWE, Kim Kardashian and Gun Rights – Fourth Watch “BCC Interview” with Jane Coaston of Vox

For this week’s “BCC” interview, I emailed with Vox’s Senior Politics Reporter Jane Coaston. Coaston writes (and podcasts) about politics and culture, and particularly the GOP. I also find her to be one of the reporters most open to engaging with a variety of points of view, on Twitter and elsewhere.

Below is the full email exchange between myself and Coaston. To read the last “BCC Interview” with Bill Hemmer of Fox News, click here. And click here to subscribe to the Fourth Watch newsletter.

From: Steve Krakauer

To: Jane Coaston

Hey Jane-

Thanks for doing this BCC interview!

I wanted to start with an area you’ve really been owning recently on Twitter, which is the professional wrestling-ification of politics. I wonder if you think this is significantly more WWE-like in 2020 than it was in, say 2012. And is it the fact that our president is a reality TV host and literal member of the WWE Hall of Fame that’s causing this? Do you think it’s happening on both sides as a response to Trump?

Similarly, you’ve covered conservatives closely for awhile. Do you think less online Americans – the kind that aren’t hanging out on Twitter all day like you, or me, or the president – are turned off by the professional wrestling aspects of our current political moment?

Feel free to throw anything my way, and we’ll go from there…

Thanks,
Steve

—

From: Jane Coaston

To: Steve Krakauer

I think that politics is considerably more WWE-like today, because its more highly observed. I’ve been thinking a lot about the sportsification of political news (a phenomenon Jeff Zucker has acknowledged helping to foment). Like sports, more specifically, like sports talk, politics is becoming an observable phenomenon, not a participatory one. It has characters! Plot lines! And now politicians, perhaps more observably than ever before, are leaning into those characters. I think Trump — one of the first presidential candidates to operate entirely as tabula rasa — helped to usher in this age, but he didn’t start it. 

One thing that gets me about it is that it begets such hilarious hypocrisy. Like, the folks who are attempting to convince Americans that their concerns lie with “real America” are laser focused on CNN, so much so that CNN is almost necessitates a policy position. Suburban Cincinnati, as I recall from my youth, was not living and dying on whatever CNN said. (And I’d argue somewhat the same about Fox News). I get that these networks get massive viewership, but so do NFL games. Someone ask 2020 candidates their thoughts on the new pass interference rules. 

I think Americans want to be turned off by the pro wrestling aspects of politics, but aren’t. That’s why it works.

—

From: Steve Krakauer

To: Jane Coaston

Hey Jane-

It’s interesting you talk about tabula rasa (which I admittedly just Googled). This idea that Trump is an empty vessel, a blank slate, someone who cares first and foremost about being liked and popular rather than adhering to a distinct set of guiding political principles – I wonder why more don’t take advantage of this opportunity. The way Kim Kardashian has, perhaps. Why do you think more left-leaning celebrities – or even politicians – don’t suck up to him in an effort to get what they want accomplished? 

You mention growing up in suburban Cincinnati, and the disconnect with CNN or even Fox News. Do you think the over-reliance in 2020 on Twitter to program cable news on both sides, or even to feed the digital media beast, is turning off the average middle-of-the-country American from the media more than even before? Have you heard from those “outside the business” about their media diet in 2020?

Thanks

Steve

—

From: Jane Coaston

To: Steve Krakauer

I think that sucking up to Trump only works in very specific ways, and doesn’t work for politicians. For one, no one voted for Kim Kardashian West. For another thing, I think Trump’s receptiveness to celebrity is performative, the same way his “hatred” for the New York Times (yet perpetual willingness to talk to the paper) is. He wants to be seen addressing criminal justice reform, not necessarily doing criminal justice reform. It’s, well, signaling. And I think that signaling is fairly thin.

I think that the average middle of the country American doesn’t think about the media nearly as much as we do, whether for good or for ill. Especially since what constitutes “the media” is a complex question. For example, how many times have you seen the Left or the Right demonize the media… in a media outlet? The Federalist is a media outlet! The Jacobin is a media outlet! If you can apply for a press pass, you’re a media outlet. Media isn’t just CNN. So in a way, we’re more engaged with media than ever before. 

—

From: Steve Krakauer

To Jane Coaston

Hey Jane-

The Trump performative hatred of the New York Times is interesting, because I think there’s an element of that relationship that goes both ways. I guess this brings it back to professional wrestling a bit, but I wonder the percentage of those people who knew who Trump was for years, decades in the New York City media scene, people like Jeff Zucker and Gayle King and Katie Couric who were at his wedding, actually think he’s this dangerous tyrant. Is there signaling the other way also, from a variety of media outlets, that serves to disassociate from Trump as a way to appease their audience (despite their actual beliefs about him)?

On a totally different point, I wanted to end with two questions. I’ve always been impressed by how willing you are to engage with people of all perspectives. Has there been any particular issue where your opinion has changed (even ever so slightly) thanks to discussions with other journalists, sources, or even Twitter?

Finally, the Iowa caucus is tomorrow – I know you cover the GOP mainly, but from a media perspective, what outcome tomorrow do you think is plausible, but also would be the most interesting from a media perspective?

Thanks

Steve

—

From: Jane Coaston

To: Steve Krakauer

I think that there’s a lot of signaling going on, but I would guess for Zucker and Couric, what they’re reflecting is a real concern that Trump is largely an empty vessel who went with the messaging that worked best (like how he conveniently forgot who Pat Buchanan was.) If Trump were an ideological stalwart, I think they’d find that almost less objectionable than their view that he’s playing with people for his own personal gain. A crafty person who doesn’t believe what he’s saying is somehow more concerning. But who knows? 

I’ve changed my views on guns and gun rights almost entirely, from reading more and yes, from Twitter. And virtually all things are possible in Iowa. I am trying not to be surprised by anything anymore.