SOMEBODY SET UP US THE BOMB: Upset Trevor Noah is Leaving The Daily Show? Blame Sarah Palin.
Palin’s Couric interview became fodder for memorable sketches on Saturday Night Live but the fallout also led to the political divide that defines media consumption today. Palin wrote off the press as condescending, mean-spirited, untrustworthy and out to get people like her (non-elites who would rather hunt than read.) People who saw themselves in her began to write the press off and the rise of social media finally made it easier for them to do so. (2008 was the first presidential campaign in which Twitter existed.)
When Palin first started avoiding traditional media, the thinking was that no high-profile politician could flourish without media gatekeepers. There was precedent. While George W. Bush was famously wounded by an embarrassing sit-down interview illuminating his lack of foreign policy chops during the 2000 campaign, he couldn’t simply steer clear of media he didn’t like, or trust, afterward. That simply wasn’t an option in the pre-social media days. But while she did sign a contract with Fox News, Palin became the first prominent political personality to use social media to strategically avoid media she didn’t want to engage with while still maintaining a significant public profile (and without the perch of the presidency that guaranteed visibility for Bush). A 2009 Politico article highlighted Palin’s outsized influence on the United States’ health care debate using social media (she popularized the term “death panels” in a Facebook post) despite “making almost no public appearances and successfully avoiding the media outlets that are clamoring to talk to her.” So while the Obama campaign’s win proved that social media can help mobilize voters, Palin’s loss and subsequent legacy proved something equally significant: that those who didn’t trust media gatekeepers no longer had to rely on them to reach fans or respond to enemies.
Sound familiar?
As the saying goes, Sarah Palin walked so Donald Trump could run. In the current cycle, Pennsylvania Democratic senate candidate John Fetterman has befuddled traditionalists with a campaign largely driven by social media*. This transition from defined media gatekeepers to a media free-for-all has been hard on all legacy media institutions but perhaps hardest on late night television. After all, a paper can report on the Trump White House without Trump’s participation. Cable news can broadcast a lively debate regarding Biden’s policies with a panel of pundits. But you can’t really have a successful late night celebrity interview show without celebrities.
* * * * * * * *
Noah, Seth Meyers and Stephen Colbert are among those who decided to lean into their more progressive political views. Their shows became required stops for liberals promoting books, conservatives who didn’t mind verbal combat and activist actors. Their ratings, however, seemed to indicate that they were also alienating a large swath of America. Perhaps that’s why Greg Gutfeld’s late night talk show on Fox News, which leans to the right, has been a surprise hit, recently dethroning Colbert as the late night king. Still, Gutfeld’s viewership is just above 2 million. Johnny Carson’s final episode was watched by 55 million Americans.
Gutfeld’s success may not be that big a surprise, as Rob Long writes in the new issue of Commentary: Conservative Night Live.
Jimmy Fallon had taken over Tonight from Jay Leno and returned the show to its New York roots. Stephen Colbert took over The Late Show from its founder, David Letterman. Los Angeles–based Jimmy Kimmel was in the mix with ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!
At this point, television viewers interested in talk shows could only choose among Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and Trevor Noah. The audience got sliced into very thin wedges. Suddenly, being intensely political became a big advantage. After all, if “winning” means garnering a larger slice of a diminishing pie, it makes sense to appeal to a dedicated and passionate audience. And Republican-haters, as nightly talk-show hosts found out, are a very loyal audience.
The winner in the Who Can Hate Republicans the Most Contest could rely on about 1.5 million Democrats to remain loyal daily viewers, and that’s all they needed to remain competitive—and even on top—in the ratings battle.
The only problem is you drive away everyone else. Four or five hosts were competing for the liberal Democrat audience, and the rest of us—half of the country, at least—have nothing to watch. What we could not choose was a show hosted by a center-right personality. If you were watching a nightly talk show, you were watching a liberal.
The networks chose to relentlessly politicize late night shows, turning them into “group therapy for liberals.” They shouldn’t be too shocked if the one host offering a different political view emerged the winner.
* Fetterman may have other reasons for his “campaign largely driven by social media” as well.