FS: Has the departure of Tucker Carlson undermined Fox News? Would you say it’s losing its grip on the Right-wing narrative?
MW: You have to see this against the wider media background: cable television, which was the great media cash cow for 25 years, is a declining business. Its decline won’t be as fast as newspapers — but it is just as inevitable. One of Murdoch’s daughters has been arguing they should sell Fox News because it is only growing less valuable.
FS: Do you think that Donald Trump will win his war against Fox News? He has already boycotted two Fox-sponsored Republican debates. Is he bigger than the network?
MW: Let’s look at what’s happened so far. Rupert Murdoch, feeling guilty or trying to burnish his legacy, decided that he would try to undermine Donald Trump by inventing the candidacy of Ron DeSantis. DeSantis is a Fox bubble — and he has failed terribly. The result has been that Donald Trump is probably a more popular primary candidate than anyone in modern history. Despite four indictments, and despite New York State having taken away his business, he is still almost inevitably headed for the Republican nomination. He may well be president again. This is all in spite of Fox News.
FS: If you were a betting man, would your money be on Biden or Trump?
MW: You can logically argue that Trump should not win. He’s always been a minority figure. His campaigns are run in the most chaotic and disorganised fashion. In 2020, weeks before the election, his campaign was $200 million in debt. This has never happened before. So he should not win, except for the fact that in very close races, exogenous factors usually determine the outcome. Will Biden fall over a couple of times? We wait and see. But the important thing to remember is that Trump certainly could become president again.
FS: Your relationship with Trump is most unusual — and it illuminates some of his strangeness and maybe some of his genius. You are not thought of as a diehard Republican, to put it mildly. And yet he invited you into his circle, he gave you exclusive interviews, and even after you had written about him in a not very flattering way, he kept getting back in touch. Do you still speak to him?
MW: He threatened to sue me and tried to stop the publication of my book. So yes, we’re still in touch. But in a somewhat peculiar way. I think that he’s come to see these books as a positive chronicle — if only because they’ve sold so many copies. Therefore, they must be good. Not too long ago, one of the Trump people said to me: “The only metric we pay attention to is how much attention he’s getting: good, bad, doesn’t make any difference.” So I guess I’m part of that attention matrix.
FS: Allow me to suggest a second theory. Maybe there is still a part of Donald Trump, just as there was a part of Rupert Murdoch, which craves the approval of the liberal establishment. He’s a New Yorker. You’re the Vanity Fair guy: the esteemed journalist of showbiz. Is that fair?
MW: To be perfectly honest, when it comes to Donald Trump, it doesn’t really matter who he’s talking to. He can talk to anyone. The important thing is that he’s talking and someone is listening.
FS: For some people, this will be almost disappointing to hear. We’ve discussed these two outsized, Right-wing characters — Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump — and what you’re saying is that at some level both of them still want to be liked by the mainstream. Does this make them phony conservatives?
MW: Well, I think that is probably true. In a way, it’s more surprising in the case of Murdoch than Trump, who grew up in the bosom of the New York establishment, even if for much of that time he played the buffoon. By contrast, for most of his career, Murdoch has insisted: “I am the outsider.” But clearly, somewhere along the way, he became the establishment — although I’m not sure Rupert himself exactly appreciates this. He became one of the most powerful forces in politics, business, and, of course, the entertainment industry.
FS: Despite having been president, Donald Trump is still mysteriously considered anti-establishment. He’s outside the Citadel. Why is this?
MW: I think part of the genius of Donald Trump — although I’m not sure he planned it out in this way — is that his stature has only increased through conflict. If you spend 14 years as a reality television star, I think you understand that you have to have conflict at every turn — and it doesn’t matter whether it’s real conflict or not, you just have to find an enemy. Challenging “the establishment” is a very convenient way for Donald Trump to keep being Donald Trump.
FS: Let’s focus now on the current president, Joe Biden, because at times your characterisation of Murdoch — slightly too old for the job, slightly overwhelmed by the complexity of the modern world — reminded me of him. Do you think that America has an old man problem?
MW: Biden looks terrible. He looks like an old man, he walks like an old man, he talks like an old man. I’ve been covering politics for a long time, and Joe Biden, even as a young man, had the air of an old man — certainly in the way he spoke. I think that, under the circumstances, he has actually done a pretty good job. And I think that’s what Joe Biden feels: “I’ve done a good job. So, screw it, I’m 80 and I might fall over at any given moment, I’m gonna do it.”
FS: Do you think liberals are to blame for the rise of Trump — and for the political mess that the US seems to find itself in?
MW: The liberal establishment has clearly not been up to competing with these rising conservative outliers. It has been unable to respond in any effective manner. I don’t think they have a clear voice. I don’t think that they have a clear mission. I think that they’re caught in their own sense of self-righteousness and self-satisfaction.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeTrump gains traction with the right-leaning public because it’s pissed off at the current liberal regime which has not served the nation well at all. Trump is the perfect vehicle, a ramrod of ire and dissatisfaction. The only thing giving the Democrats power is their willingness to print more money to distribute to as many constituents as possible, more than Republicans do, to buy votes. It’s that simple.
A simplistic comment coming from a simplistic mind…
Exhibit A : The Biden Administration’s cancellation or attempting to cancel student debt to the tune of trillions of taxpayers dollars to ‘buy the student vote’. The students love it but it makes those who decided not to go to college to pay for it and those who did work and save pay again for other people. Obama did similar things, I know because my cousins told me they received letters from ‘Obama’ explaining what favorable loan terms they would be getting and so of course they wanted to vote for him for that alone. That said, technically and legally, Obama’s name should not have been used; the letters were from the government, but that’s how the Democrats roll.
I’ve voted for candidates from both parties. Just look at the data on who pumped more money into the economy, Trump or Biden? Plus go back 50 years and see that the Republicans have consistently lowered taxes on the rich and the fiscal prudence seems to have been an exclusively Democratic thing. It’s not unreasonable for Dems to conclude after having been suckered by Reagan, Dubya, and Trump – who handed out goodies to their supporters- to do the same, and the Devil take the balanced budget.
I’d prefer to not have to point this out, Danielle, but your post is an an adulterated ad hominem attack with absolutely no substance to it.
If you have evidence to rebut the OPs assertion, then post it and folks can agree or disagree with you.
Merely lashing out in anger by calling someone a ‘poo poo head’ should stay on the kiddie’s playground rather than be embarrassingly displayed in the Unherd’s comment section.
You can do better than this.
1. I was not lashing out in anger, merely expressing pity…2. I can indeed do much better, but choose not to engage with the blatant right-leaning “flavour” of most of the comments on Unherd. UnHerd unbiassed? My derrière… Most definitely a platform for mysoginists, anti-vaxxers, anti-Democrats, conspiracy theorists and the likes, who think, nay believe, their oh-so-clever comments place them above the common folk! Deplorable…
Your use of the word “Deplorable” I find very illuminating. Memories of Hillary Clinton. I wonder if you have the slightest conception of what the “ common folk” might be thinking about the likes of people like her ( and you?) in the light of the utter failure of the Liberal Establishment to govern properly.
Deplorable is not a Clinton trademark. It is a word in the English (American) dictionary. You find it illuminating, do you? Not surprising since you, as other Unherders, believe you are part of the Illuminati. Assuming you are American, before criticising the Liberal Establishment’s failure to govern properly, just witness the current US House of Reps’ shit show which is so concerned with the welfare of the “common folk”! Then go ask American women what they think of the GOP… and, yes I am referring to the reversal of Roe vs. Wade which will rightfully come back to bite them in their asses!
“the utter failure of the Liberal Establishment to govern properly.”
That is rich.
The Dems win power because the GOP are absolutely awful at elections, and part of that is making Trump their candidate.
I’ll say this though. Trump will win the nomination because the GOP has an open and fair nomination process. The Dems process is manipulated and twisted to ensure they get the approved candidate.
Re: Democrats manipulating the process – it’s exactly why RFK Jr. just announced he will run as an Independent. The Democrats do not run fair and democratic elections. They ran roughshod over Bernie and now they are propping up Zombie Biden. The Democrat Party is an empty shell at this point.
More broadly part of the problem in a number of Western Countries is the candidates get chosen by memberships who tend to be more extreme, rattle around in an echo chamber much more, than the average punter. And a criticism for Left and Right as same applies to both.
You forgot ballot chicanery and 11M “refugees” in this administration alone.
The Republicans continually beat the Democrats on distribution of government money they don’t have every time they are in office. Just because the Republicans distribute it to many fewer people doesn’t make it any lesser of an amount.
Can’t be bothered to read the article. I’ve never voted for trump, but he is not THE problem. In the same way Sadam Hussain was not the problem. The leadership picked an odious person and used that to perpetrate crimes against humanity. Millions of innocent people murdered by my tax funded government. Now I’m supposed to believe Trump is the biggest threat to liberty? And my government has used the excuse to censor its citizens. The first amendment is in tatters, and I’m supposed to be mad at Trump? Please. Not interested
I’m not a trump fan at all, but even the Dems don’t think he’s a threat to democracy. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have spent $10 mill supporting the most radical MAGA candidates in Republican primaries.
I agree with the gist of your comment but, as it happens, this is one of the best articles on the topic that I’ve seen in years, and goes a long way to supporting your argument.
Thanks you tempt me to read it.
Yes, you didn’t read the article – but decided nonetheless to provide an unrelated rant which demonstrates that all too clearly!
So now I have read the quasi article. I would call it a transcript. And my rant was unrelated. But that is the point. All this talk of Trump is a destraction. The real story should be focused on the corruption and murder by our government. I will make one more confession. I predicted that Trump would get us into an idiotic war during his presidency…….boy was I wrong, and guess what…… the Ukraine war is just the sort of war I expected from Trump.
Thanks for obliging me a second rant.
He did get you into the War. He ensured deterrence was weak.
Trump is a threat to US democracy. He’s not even tried to hide it. He’s said he wants to re-write the Constitution. The Cretin probably never even read it all the way through, although he’ll be aware of the 1st and 2nd amendments as he trots those out. Oh and the 5th as he’s used that hundreds of times – despite saying he wouldn’t as nothing to hide. Total chicken.
And then the guy wants to hang Chair of Chief of Staffs, a 4 Star General who’d done lifetime of service to his Country. What sort of character is this? And what sort of imbecile follows him?
He wants to centralise power. Of course the US Constitution designed to deal with exactly this threat thank goodness.
I’m sure many people would like to re-write aspects of the constitution in America, those who want to bring in gun laws more aligned to other civilised countries for a start, but it’s nigh on impossible to do. Therefore Trumps bluster is just that, bluster. He’s hardly a threat to democracy
This guy may have some insights due to the access he gets, but he isn’t impressive. Statements like “When you see Rupert with a newspaper, it’s like this physical love affair: the way he handles it, the way he folds it, the way he marks it. You know, it’s nearly erotic.” can’t be taken seriously.
And his comments about DeSantis are ridiculous. The man won a usually democratic state by 20 points. Calling him a creation of Fox News is stupid.
I think he meant at Federal level, where de Santis has, unfortunately, proven rather a flop.
All across the western world, the people are turning against the incumbents.
Both Trump and Murdoch have something of Timon of Athens about them: in how they are in the Establishment, but not of the Establishment.
Trump is first, last and in the middle a narcissist. The world only exists in relation to what he wants.
The comment that he’ll talk to anyone who pretends to listen is telling.
And his cheating at golf even when people are watching.
And many, maybe most, people are like that, in less extreme ways. Hence his appeal.
That claim is not made in the article, though, is it? Michael Wolff says, “it doesn’t really matter who [Trump is] talking to. He can talk to anyone. The important thing is that he’s talking and someone is listening.” It’s a small but important distinction.
Which is why stumbles so very often, anything that gives the faint hope of boosting his chronically low self-esteem, he laches on to it no mater what it is, even if it damaging. Which leaves him very prone to being manipulated and making mistakes. Narcissism is one hell of a drug and Trump is a addict, and addicts always double down.
Why are these commenters acting as if ‘narcissism’ was invented by Donald Trump? Every politician has it; and no politician could function without it.
Not all narcissist are the same, some can be pragmatic and self-disciplined. Other can be reckless and self-destructive. Trump is one of the latter. But regardless of which one, they are never happy with anything for long and they always want more in the end, and they also get worse as they age. They only care about pleasing themselves, not their duties. The system is very poor at keeping them in line due to the fact it enables them. Which is why this country and the west is in such a bad shape right now. Trump, Biden and Murdock are good examples of this.
“Not all narcissist are the same, some can be pragmatic and self-disciplined. Other can be reckless and self-destructive. Trump is one of the latter.”
That’s an interesting observation. In Canada, we also have one of the latter in the form of Justin Trudeau. And he’s destructive of much more than just himself.
That’s because he’s ineffectual, the only time that he’s ever shown any driver or inspiration is what it comes to getting power and keeping it. When it comes to actually dealing with problems, he’s worthless. He and Biden very much alike. They are there because they don’t threaten anybody, they do what they’re told, and are loyal to the powers that be. That’s pretty much the definition of a modern Western leader these days.
It’s interesting that Murdoch was never a TV guy, and created FoxNews because he couldn’t have CNN.
And that he’s now old and confused.
re: Murdoch being old and confused….Perhaps, he’s old and confused or maybe he has become more so because he has increasingly surrounded himself with liberal leaning women. I have a hunch that Murdoch’s women and his multiple marriages (his expressed interest in having a woman about) have played more of a role in his outlook over time than anyone has every analyzed. I think the son’s wives and his own daughter are very liberal…and I think they have contributed to Murdoch’s ‘muddled’ thinking. He’s old and he’s tired of battling the liberal forces within his own family.
I think it will be generally accepted if I posit that women are, on average, to the ideological left of men. (There is, after all, empirical data from polling to back this up.)
I may even get some slack if I go on to point out that it seems to me that progressivism is doing enormous damage to Western civilization, and may well cause its collapse.
But if I put the two together and ask: if my pessimistic view of the future is true, and the events I posit come to pass, will women, as a group more to the left, get a bigger share of the blame – I suspect a lot of people will not be happy.
And if I further ask if this will, in the future, lead to an adjustment of power balance between the two sexes, I suspect that this will make many people quite upset.
However, go back to my opening observations: if they are true, isn’t there some logic to the chain from there?
Oh jeez, you and NC CC – let’s find another scapegoat grouping. keep it vague, but broad. I know ‘liberal women’! yes that’ll do. Murdoch losing his touch all to do with them.
Laughable twaddle
Most men are influenced by the women in their lives. Fact. It’s as old as the ancient Greek play ‘Lysistrata’ where women withheld sex until men stopped warring.
I fail to see how Trump could become President again. He does not have people of necessary gravitas to support him in office and he cannot transform the political machinery without massive resistance from within. It would exhaust and consume him in less than 6 months. Honestly, ignoring him would be more productive.
But there is a snag in that. The most troubling aspect of the Trump situation is that Democrats seem to measure “success” by embracing how much they hate him. It’s practically their only joined up policy.
Easier for the US media to lap that up than attempt to measure positive outcomes that the Biden administration has delivered for USA. How is their country expected to move forward when neither party is offering a positive vision?
Woolf seems to me to be just another parasite existing within that system, where deflection is king. Disappointed that our own Andrew Neil was so uncritical of this latest venture.
On an intellectual level I love the positive vision idea. On a visceral level I love the ‘f*ck you’ vibe. Maybe a lot of voters feel the same.
Becoming President and being able to achieve anything in the office are two different things. In fact this is what his first term showed. He can only divide, he cannot assemble any sort of coalition to achieve anything substantial.
Michael Wolff lost me when he said about Biden “…under the circumstances, I think he has done a pretty good job.” How, by any metric besides those defined by radical leftist ideology, can anyone think Joe Biden has done a “pretty good job”?
2016 was a Peasant’s Revolt against the political class and their liberal arts college cohorts. Not to mention the corporations, and everyone else who despises American small business owners and what’s left of the manufacturing economy.
2020 was a vote on the pandemic, which makes one think that a lab flu could indeed have been the instrument to put the CCP’s favoured candidate into the White House.
Now there is neither a trade war nor the same kind of revolt. But the US public suspects that the proxy war in the Ukraine is the cause of the exacerbated inflation they are enduring, and doubtlessly Biden’s helicopter money too for the pandemic lockdowns.
Trump will not be permitted to become President either way, but I imagine a lot of people will be staying at home knowing they would be voting for Biden just to get Ms Harris. Ergo, DeSantis and Haley must be looking forward to 2028.
If 2016 was some form of Peasants revolt what did Trump then do for the peasants? Not alot I think you’ll find and what a surprise from the man who’d never given a fig about anyone but himself. Bit of rhetoric about China but a transformation for poorer Americans? I think not.
Pandemic started in last 10mths of his tenure so only an excuse then.
You are actually publishing shit written by this lying cocksucker. Go f**k yourselves.
Almost worth cancelling over.
Bye then, with fantastic insights such as this you won’t be missed.
Before you go though, would you mind telling us what’s caused your childish reaction? Is it because he dared to criticise Trump, who despite his numerous personal and professional failings has attained a cult status among a hard core group of supporters, of which I’m assuming you’re one?
Murdoch finally steps down at 92. 11 years older than Biden!
Not many on the Right been calling for an earlier retirement. Wonder why?
Trump meanwhile is an example of how Populism enables the most criminal, narcissistic, self interested to be successful if they just use the Playbook. An old lesson of course but one we have to painfully relearn.
Probably because Murdoch runs a private business, and therefore is free to do as he pleases. If his age causes his abilities to diminish it’s only his business that is affected, nobody else. Biden however makes important decisions that affect an entire country, so people obviously pay more attention and have stronger opinions on his mental faculties. Now this isn’t to say he should be forced out of office, the only people that should ever decide who sits in his chair is the electorate, but the mental state of Biden and Murdoch have no relation to each other in terms of importance.
As for populism, that’s simply a lazy term now used to describe democratic decisions that you don’t approve of. If those you despise are able to convince enough people to vote for them to gain power then maybe you should look at your own policies first and see who is negatively affected by them. Dismissing a majority of the electorate as being stupid or hoodwinked is often made by those with a complete lack of self awareness as to why many (often working class) people don’t share their worldview
Murdoch can at least talk & walk and put sentences together- Biden, not so much.