Premium

PRedictions, PRojections, PRaise, and PRedators: Colbert, Epstein, Bannon, and More

AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

In your hometown, there’s probably a restaurant you never visit. Maybe you don’t like the food. Or maybe the service sucks. But even though it’s right around the corner, you never go there.

Then, when it goes out of business, you get a little excited: Maybe it’ll be replaced by something you’ll actually like! Oh, boy!

That’s how I feel about Stephen Colbert’s firing.

Sure, it’s a bummer for his staff. The “Late Show” isn’t just Colbert; there are 100+ people on retainer, on salary, or performing part-time work for CBS. I feel bad for anyone who’s lost his or her job: It’s tough on families; financial hardships are a frequent harbinger of breakups. So I don’t wanna be the kind of guy who tap dances on someone else’s grave.

But on the other hand, Stephen Colbert made it very, very clear that his “Late Show” program wasn’t for me OR you. The purpose of his show was to ridicule conservatives, get “atta boy” head-pats from leftwing influencers… and every now and then, if the opportunity permits, maybe throw in an occasional joke.

CBS claims its decision was purely financial. Apparently, the “Late Show” was losing between $40 to $50 million annually, which seems excessive. I’m sure there’s an economically viable way to air the talk-show format; outside of salaries, the network’s hard-cost — a studio, a couch, a few cameras, and a budget to fly-in guests — is minimal. The overhead for something like “Survivor” is exponentially greater.

The difference is, when advertisers buy ad time on “Survivor,” they reach far more people than dyed-in-the-wool liberals. Colbert’s content and snideness precludes conservatives from watching, thus limiting an advertiser’s reach. And with Colbert making crazy money — $150 million over 10 years! — continuing his program was cost-prohibitive.

Either way, the problem with network talk-shows isn’t just financial; it’s also an old, tired, outdated format. Besides, if you really wanted to learn more about a big-name guest, why would you watch a yutz like Colbert, Kimmel, or Fallon do five minutes of scripted questions (followed by an ad break) and then move on to someone else, when you could open up YouTube and watch that guest yak with Joe Rogan (or whomever) for three solid hours?

The interviews aren’t good enough to make it a good interview show; the humor isn’t good enough to make it a good humor show. Other than nostalgia and/or institutional momentum, there’s not really a reason for its existence.

Ah well. Onward and upward for the week that was in political PR:

PRedictions: Barring any jaw-dropping revelations, this was the week where the Trump administration FINALLY put the Epstein scandal behind ‘em.

That’s not to say that they’re completely unscathed. There will be fallout and there will be repercussions, most likely manifesting in lower GOP turnout during the midterms. And we’re not totally out of the wilderness yet: There is still an opportunity for a MAGA influencer with a big microphone to gin up anti-Trump sentiment. (Fortunately, that’s not likely to happen: For guys such as Tucker Carlson, it’s still smarter to be perceived as Trump’s ally than adversary, which should stave off a conservative rebellion.)

But until a few days ago, the trend lines were just devastating to Trump. I don’t know if conservatives truly appreciated how damaging those trend lines would’ve been if they had continued unabated. And that’s why I still think Trump’s smartest PR tactic would’ve been to have addressed Epstein head-on with a national speech. As we discussed on Thursday:

It’s the mystery and all the “whodunnit” questions that gives the Epstein saga such long legs. Trump should reset the narrative as only he can, and do the one thing only he has the power to do: At long last, make the Epstein story… boring.

In crisis communications, you can’t beat something with nothing. You’ve gotta supplant the old story with a new narrative that’s more compelling, more credible, and more engaging. A national address could’ve reset the narrative and thrown a wet blanket on the conspiracy crowd, positioning Trump as the one man in government who actually told the truth about Epstein — even if the truth was less interesting and/or shocking than the sensationalist claims of the Tin Hat Brigade.

But when MAGA was floundering, in came the mainstream media to our rescue. By overplaying their hand with ridiculous, over-the-top accusations (namely from the Wall Street Journal and People Magazine), they gave conservatives a common enemy, reminding us once again that it’s NOT us versus us; it’s us versus them.

And now?

That’s the PR danger in overplaying your hand: It ultimately boomerangs on the messenger. You end up building sympathy for the person you’re attacking.

The PR danger in underplaying your hand is very different: Without enough oxygen, your story could wither and die on the vine. But honestly? That wasn’t an issue with the Epstein story. It was truckin’ along just fine without any extra juice.

But the media couldn’t resist. They got greedy and overplayed their hand.

And now they’ve lost the story.

Conservatives owe the mainstream media a tremendous debt of gratitude. They weren’t trying to help us, of course: The truth is, they hate Trump so damn much, they just couldn’t resist manufacturing bogus “news stories” to dogpile on the president. 

The temptation was too great.

So there we were, on the verge of a ruinous, destructive MAGA-on-MAGA civil war, and those mensches in the media tossed us a floatation device. 

Thanks, guys!

PRojections: Questions regarding Steve Bannon’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein are just beginning. Unlike Trump, who stopped socializing with Epstein 20 years ago, Bannon was close to Epstein all the way through to his (untimely?) demise. Epstein’s brother claims that Bannon was coaching Epstein for media appearances, namely “60 Minutes.” Per author Michael Wolff:

Bannon told the financier to look into the camera and "not to share his racist theories on how Black people learn," according to Wolff.

"You're engaging, you're not threatening, you're natural, you're friendly, you don't look at all creepy, you're a sympathetic figure," Bannon told Epstein at the time, according to Wolff. [emphasis added]

The Wrap reported that Bannon has confirmed he recorded 15+ hours of one-on-one footage of Epstein… but never released the footage. And his explanation doesn’t add up:

Bannon told the Times, however, he “never media-trained anyone,” and was instead working on an unannounced documentary to demonstrate how Epstein’s “perversions and depravity toward young women were part of a life that was systematically supported, encouraged and rewarded by a global establishment that dined off his money and his influence.”

Question: Why would an undercover Mossad/CIA/whatever agent, knee-deep in an international blackmail scheme, agree to share all his evil “secrets” to Steve Bannon in a documentary film? 

Does that make ANY sense?

And if we’re going to assume the absolute worst of everyone else’s motives in Epstein’s orbit, why would we give Bannon a pass? Steve Bannon is a very wealthy man, too. He also has high-level government relationships.

Furthermore, if Bannon was filming a documentary… why wasn’t it ever released? Seems to me that the “Last Will and Testament of Jeffrey Epstein” would generate considerable audience interest. Netflix, Prime, The Daily Wire — one of ‘em would surely throw big money at Bannon for the exclusive.

So why no follow-through?

Bannon has plenty of enemies within MAGA. If he’s going to weaponize conspiracy theories, he should prep himself for the blowback. (Or, perhaps, simply release the tapes.)

PRaise: Of all the people in Trump’s cabinet, many conservatives were most suspicious of Tulsi Gabbard. She was, after all, an ex-Democratic congresswoman and ex-Democratic presidential contender; her MAGA credentials were still shiny and new. Then, when she seemed at odds with Trump’s Iran policy (remember her weirdly shrill nuclear warning?), many conservatives side-eyed our director of national intelligence.

But if Gabbard has what she claims, she might go down in history as America’s most important intelligence director: This week, she called for ex-President Barack Obama (and other Democrats) to be criminally prosecuted for a “treasonous conspiracy” regarding the Russia Hoax.

Here’s Jesse Watters explaining the scandal:

If Gabbard can deliver the goods, the political consequences will make the Epstein uproar look utterly inconsequential. Keep your eye on this.

PRedators: I don’t know what REALLY happened with Jeffrey Epstein. Like you, I’ve heard the reports, read the stories, and listened to the gossip. Candidly, to me, some claims seem far more likely than others. 

But I’m not in a position to verify or deny any of it.

So I’d like to offer an uncomfortable, ugly, unsettling thought: Maybe the Epstein crimes are even darker and bleaker than we’ve imagined, because just maybe… there was no blackmail at all.

It’s gross to consider, but in a weird way, linking Epstein’s crimes to a blackmail ring makes it a little easier to accept, because it gives a sane and rational motive to these horrific abuses: Maybe he was an undercover agent on a secret mission, and that was his assignment.

But what if that wasn’t true at all: What if Jeffrey Epstein — and his sick, evil, depraved “friends” — were doing it all for fun? What if it the “Epstein Express” had NOTHING to do with high-level espionage or state action, and their motive was nothing more than the repulsive thrill of trafficking and abusing underage girls?

If this were a state-level espionage scam, there’d be recourse to stop it. Governments can pressure other governments. But what if the conspiracy theories are all completely false — and Epstein is just a rich, powerful guy who abused hundreds (or more) little girls for the fun of it?

What then?

I’m a daddy with two teenage kids. This story makes my skin crawl.

Recommended

Trending on PJ Media Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement