The Future of Free Speech and Democracy

This is the Guardian. After a man attempted to enter the White House correspondents dinner with guns last weekend, conspiracies immediately started to fly online. Assassination attempts in particular are basically conspiracy catnip. So why did people believe the attack? Was a hoax. He's no longer this sort of outsider insider playing both roles. He's that guy, he's the president. I'm Jonathan Friedland, columnist at The Guardian, and this is Politics Weekly America. Rachel Langang is a Guardian US politics correspondent based in the Midwest. Rachel, very good to have you on the show again. I know you've often sat in this chair, but you have um had quite a year of it in twenty twenty six. We've obviously heard from you covering the federal violence in Minnesota with ICE and so on. You were uh at an event on Saturday Where violence was very much not part of anybody's expectations. On the contrary, it's normally a time for coming together politicians from both sides of the aisle, together with their media scrutineers coming together. Did you have any worries at all going into the White House correspondence, didn't it? My worries were more about the ethics of event. And I think for most journalists that was what the discussion was in advance. Um, should you go, you know, you know you'll be in the room with a president who's been attacking the media for the entirety of p his political career. What will he say? And do you want to be in the room for it seen as sort of supportive of it? The Guardians table. Just for reference, I mean, we themed it around press freedom. So there were four of us who were reporters who were reporting on the event, not there like to Wine and dine, but to work. The rest of the table were people who advocate for press freedom, including uh Another journalist who's being charged by the Trump administration for covering a protest. Uh, so I felt okay with it on on that grounds. I felt the way we seemed it made sense for our mission. The thing that wasn't on my mind is what happened. Just talk us through how it did indeed unfold, and you were obviously right there. So from inside the ballroom, some people reported hearing Either shots or bangs, I didn't hear anything. I was pretty engrossed in whatever conversation I was having, um, with the other people around me. But quickly everyone started getting under the table. So I just got under the table, started pulling chairs toward me. I was right on the aisle and we were near an exit. So pretty quickly a bunch of federal agents just started like storming near me and kind of like pushing chairs back at me. Men running in saying Get down, get out of the way, that kind of thing. And I'll say for the entirety of that I had no idea what was happening. Once people noticed that they got all of the uh elected officials, dignitaries, et cetera, out of the room, uh the journalists started to come up from under the table. And and try to figure out what was going on. Speaking to Lucy our colleague Lucy Hoff on Monday's episode of Today in Focus, um the latest. Friend of the podcast, David Smith, pointed out that what happened In that room has obviously happened to Thousands of Americans, such as the proliferation of gun violence. They've been present at shootings. And yet you were shocked by how some of the fellow guests, fellow reporters, are people in that room Yeah, I've been struggling with this because I do think there's a wide variety of normal reactions to a traumatic event. And I don't wanna be judgmental of how people respond. I thought it was crazy that initially the correspondence association said they were going to continue the event. And then There were people and I don't know if there were journalists or guests or what have you, but there were people outside who were like, I guess I'm gonna go to the bar and then there were people there were media companies that still had their parties, their planned after parties. And I guess that's just a sign of what we accept in American life. It was gross to me on a on a lot of levels. I don't accept that. I don't accept that, you know, when these things happen, it's just business as usual. And I think the more and more we feel that way, the worse it is. I wonder if they part slightly felt a kind of the show must go on mentality, which is, you know, demo uh th we mustn't allow a a a terrorist to disrupt our way of life. That kind of argument. Do you think that was in their mind? I think that was part of it. I think it was like, Well we're not gonna let them take away, you know, what would it and I and sure. That's a that's of that's one option. Um You know, a lot of journal we're all journalists, everybody there's just trying to figure out how to report on it too. So for the people who had the ability to immediately start reporting on it, they pretty much did. You know, we were, for our purposes, immediately on chats with our editors trying to figure out coverage plans. I mean, I went back to my hotel room after about an hour, maybe longer, and wrote about political violence. So like that's the that's the job, right? So the thing I've been trying to explain to The people I know who are not reporters is imagine you were just in a violent event and instead of processing it. Quietly to yourself. With the people around you, your loved ones, you're reporting on it and trying to have sort of a meta level analysis of something that you also experience. It is very strange. Th I mean there was quite a lot made of this. photograph rapidly became a meme of the man who continued eating his Salad. There were pictures of journalists hiding. Well, mean meanwhile, swinging out of wine bottles that they had grabbed from the tables. You picture them putting their hand up above the table and bringing it down. Um But it does seem as if there was a kind of beyond almost the point you're you're making, which is a sort of increasing desensitisation specifically uh about around violence directed towards the president, not just among journalists, but even actually perhaps among the American public. And one thing I know lots of media organisations noticed is that even readership of you know consumption of s the story was way down compared to the first, and there have now been three. um attempt on the president's life, that one on in Butler, Pennsylvania, when he was a candidate in twenty twenty four, huge global attention. Then less for the next one, and now even less for this one. As if the idea of an attempt on the president's life becoming something that we just well, we don't regard it as normal, but we There's a kind of shrug of the shoulders almost. Right. I mean and in this instance too, people were like, Well you didn't get in the room, there was never any danger, you know? And it's like, Well that's pretty close to danger, I would say, closer than I was comfortable with. And I should say some people were very upset. People were crying. It was like a wide, wide range of human emotion on display. But the way the general public reacts to it too It's a confusing time. I I don't I I don't know if it's because of the frequency. I don't know if it's because of the president. I don't know if it's because of their political beliefs, or if it's just well, nothing really happened and a lot of things do happen, so maybe we get more concerned about the ones where there's more physical examples or evidence of that violence. Yeah, I think um the the the it's a whole mix of things, including, as you say, the figure of this President and who is obviously a different kind of thing. President. On that, on how he himself seem to react to these now multiple uh brushes with uh with death, um after he was first shot in July twenty twenty four in that episode I referred to his team tried to suggest that he had been a changed man. He himself suggested that in his uh speech he gave at the Republican convention shortly afterwards, uh you know, invoking God in a way he hadn't done before, as if he had been spared by God himself for the mission of becoming president again. Uh uh straight after the event that you witnessed on Saturday, he seemed reflective in his White House briefing. I'm concerned about everything. But I can't be so concerned that you can't function. Uh it's a dangerous profession. Before then discussing the need for a new ballroom in the White House and then he gave a pretty grumpy interview to CBS's sixty minutes uh when asked about the alleged shooters. The so called manifesto is a stunning thing to read. I'm no longer willing to permit a pedophile rapist and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes. What's your reaction to that? Well I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would, because you're you're you're horrible people. Yeah, he did write that. Uh I'm I'm not a rapist. Oh, you think I think he was referring to you. Excuse me. Taking all these different reactions and responses together, do we do you think we now have a sense of what Trump thinks about political violence after Saturday, but also these multiple brushes with it? You know, his his reasoning right after was, Well, if you're a person who's out there doing things, they're gonna come after you. And it seems sort of like resigned to that. The difference you're seeing between the butler one and now is just now it's three times, right? And then also I do think it was unexpected to immediately then shift into or maybe not unexpected, but a little bit I think it fed into the conspiracies that immediately he was saying that this is why we need a ballroom, even though this ballroom would not be where a private event held by the White House Correspondents Association would be held anyway. So like using a crisis opportunistically so quickly definitely played into why people have scepticism of the event. We're gonna come to that scepticism uh shortly. But just before we do Is there a a sense given that he is the most protected man in the world, surely, and yet still three times people have been able to pose a threat to him. Are people wondering now whether any big event um involving, you know, the most protected people in the country can ever be truly safe? I'm thinking that the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary celebrations of the country's founding are coming up. The US is going to be hosting among others the World Cup this summer fo football Can any event really be safe? I'll be honest and say that I've been operating as if they haven't been for a very long time. And it doesn't really matter who's there. I do have a sense that the people who are the most important in those rooms are probably more protected than I am at any given time. But Large groups. At a time of volatility and polarization. Don't make for The sense of safety. While some are focusing on that sense of safety and the state of political violence in America today. There are many on both the right and the left who aren't convinced Saturday's attack ever even happened at all. More on that. After the break. I'm back with Rachel Linegang. Rachel, speaking to reporters after the attack, Donald Trump found some solace in how the potential violence that could have ensued had actually brought everyone together. This was an event dedicated to freedom of speech. That was supposed to bring together members of both parties with members of the press. And in a certain way it did. Because the But online, even at the same time, a very different picture was emerging. Just give us a flavor of what people online, including celebrities, including people with quite serious followings was starting to say really as soon as this event became known. They were saying it was staged. The narrative didn't make sense to them. The I mean, I think this is a the concept of safety, right? So like how did someone get the to this place with all of these guns that doesn't make sense. Someone had to have allowed that. In other words, people could not believe that a big set piece event in Washington with the president with the given how closely protected He is by the secret service. For them it just strained credibility. That somebody uh armed to the teeth could get through all that. Well, and I think they're thinking too, when I go to the airport, I can't even bring water. So Why is this person able to get this close to the president? from across the country with a bunch of weapons. Which I think is a fair question. And I think like i exploring the security measures that go into that is always worth doing to figure out lessons. But Instead the narratives was immediately this is staged because the president's numbers are down and he wants sort of like a rally around the the flag sort of uh Revival. To get uh more approval. So that was immediately where they jumped to was this is a a moment of political opportunism that was created. that happened. And we should stress that actually there is no evidence at all uh that the uh that this event was staged, the conspiracy theories are unfounded. Here's I suppose my question it's n you can see in a way how that would happen, because even without the evidence, because when uh presidential assassinations have happened in the past, ones that absolutely were incontrovertible. Uh nevertheless, conspiracy theories very, very soon followed and obviously the ultimate example. is the k assassination of John F. Kennedy in nineteen sixty three. And the historian Catherine Olmsted spoke with us on the podcast about all that swirl of conspiracies about an event uh, you know, more than sixty years ago now. Uh in fact we'll link back to that episode in the show notes, but Yeah, I suppose is it normal now to just assume that people will always question The authenticity, the r the reality of events like as dramatic as this. Yeah, I do think assassination attempts in particular are basically conspiracy catnip. I mean we're starting from a sp a space of skepticism because you do assume such protection of the president. In this instance You know, and talking with people about why this would happen so immediately, they were like, Well, they don't trust the president because he does tell a lot of lies. that is a fair position as well. And I do think as well whenever we're looking at something where it's a high profile event and there are immediate narratives by the authorities. I think we've all been ingrained to also question those, you know, thinking of police shootings and how they're often framed. It's normal to question narratives. It absolutely is. I do think the uh jumping right into Making your own claims that are unsubstantiated does not help. it's not a type of accountability. It's a type of narrative making. These days the the thing accelerates that is our social media algorithms are really trained to Attention, attention, attention. So if you're getting more and more attention for saying those things, it's just going to continue to spread. Yeah, and in fact that's part of the analysis of this is that some of the people spreading these theories might not even themselves believe them, but they spread them because they get huge attention, they get clicks. On some of these platforms that translates into money, that the uh more clicks you're getting for something you're sharing, the more uh cash comes your way. And so people are incentivised to spread these theories. And I think uh there's one influencer he who did indeed post all the theories and said, I'm not saying I agree with any of them but knew that there would be traffic and detention from doing it. But one thing that surprised me is um something I think you you were working on already, even before the events of Saturday. You were working on a piece on how uh political conspiracy theories are mushrooming on both the right and left. And I think uh you know we we know about conspiracy theories around the Epstein files, obviously, about whether the the big lie, the stolen election uh according to Donald Trump of twenty twenty, but also on the assassination attempts on Donald Trump. And one thing that surprised me was that first one in Butler, Pennsylvania, where famously his ear was bleeding and he wore a plaster over it afterwards. As I'm telling that is now being qu questioned even in right wing circles. Now just tell us why there is scepticism around that event, which Feels like it was a hard to dispute. I think that There are questions. on the right because there are people who were formerly allies of the president who are grappling with how and whether to break with the alliance that they've had. And the Make America Great Again movement is It is born of conspiracy. It is very and Trump himself His political career started with claiming Barack Obama was not a US citizen. Um that movement. traffics in those as a rule. And so when you see the right start to question Butler, they're essentially using what they know, which is conspiracizing, to question the leader in the way that feels most organic to how they operate. But it's imp important to note too, these are high profile people. They have podcasts. They're making money off of this. And there's also a sense among th these leading voices in the mega sphere that Trump is gonna be out of office in a couple of years. They're jockeying then for who gets to be You know, elected leaders who gets to be thought leaders within that movement then. Think there's been people who have been like, Oh well, Tucker Carlson's breaking with Trump on Iran or claiming he's the antichrist, sort of indirectly, that kind of thing. But I think you also have to put into context that this is somebody who has he's a lot younger than the president. He has a longer future more than likely in politics and is looking for what his next step is too. So there's a lot of political opportunism involved in spreading these conspiracy theories. And then also a lot of money. Yeah, it's such an interesting idea that uh the the juice is beginning to drain away from Trump because he is An a nearly eight year old man in his um second term. And so they thinking, right, what's the next uh money making venture? What's the next uh horse to to ride? Uh one of those people who was doing that was Tim Dillon, a comedian and podcaster, previously Trump backer who says, you know, maybe it was stage we need to know the full story about Butler. All part of that movement, as you say, of moving away from Trump a bit and doing it in the only language they know, which in a way is conspiracy. Um d ten years ago, when he first rode down that golden escalator in New York announcing his um bid to become president. Donald Trump said he was g all about draining the swamp. He wanted to drain the swamp in Washington, DC. It's noticeable that now these some of these conspiracy theories actually involve the president as part of the conspiracy, in a way as Is this in a w in a way the ultimate sign that uh Donald Trump for a lot of these mega supporters has become part of the very deep state. That he wants himself railed against. This is the he's actually been able to avoid this sort of insider framing for way longer than you would expect, because he's sort of had, um, you know, I guess I I am powerful, but I'm also a victim. All these people have been coming after me, et cetera. I mean the whole thing about conspiracies is they're framed against power. They're framed against the system, if you will. Uh what who's more the system than the president? You know, I think the Epstein files are really a tipping point on this, but there are um a few examples now that kind of have opened the floodgates. He's no longer this sort of outsider insider playing both roles. He's that guy. He's the president. The Epstein Files, for instance, have been animating for the movement for a very long time. That one really became a lightning rod in a way that flipped the narrative a bit. Did it changed how they saw him, I think. Um so listen, we've talked about the desensitisation that seems to be happening towards political violence. We've talked about how These moments of violence are seen by some as just another trick in the uh politician's playbook. How do you view taking all these things together this moment in American democracy? Uh, it's incredibly volatile. And I and I think that when we have the the symptom that I'm seeing here of the immediate Saying that this is stairs the immediate belief. It really shows that There's not trust in any institutions at this point. And that makes it really hard when there's not really a sense of sharity. There there are no messengers that a mass of people will look to. It's very fractured. It's really hard to understand then how do we have a sense of collective? How do we have a sense of uh like a greater good. When The main thing that's you know, a feature these days is polarization. I think what happens with these conspiracies is Easier to default to this is stage than to really grapple with the depth of what's happening. The depth of You know. Polarization, the depth of a backsliding democracy, the depth of distrust in institutions because those institutions don't serve us. Those things are way harder to deal with, to figure out a prescription for, to begin to address, than to simply say this is fake. Rachel, as you know, better than almost anyone, we always like to ask our guests a what else question you've done the asking. Now I'm boding one to you. Uh and I want to stay with the White House correspondents dinner and particularly what it was meant to celebrate, which is the first amendment, the fr the right to free speech this week Melania Trump, um the first lady, urged ABC to fire the comedian Jimmy Kimmel. He's come into the Trump family's sights yet again, for a joke he made before the uh attack on Saturday. um which in in which he uh does suggested she look like in his words a glowing widow and I suppose it's the word widow that uh uh she's latched on to a few days later the Justice Department indicted the former head of the FBI, James Comey, uh sort of who's become a kind of a nemesis of Donald Trump. for his investigations into him. All about a picture that Comey had posted on Instagram. It was an arrangement of seashells, um which have the message eighty six, forty seven. Some people think eighty six means sort of get rid of forty seven. forty seventh president of the United States. They've charged him with making a threat against the president and transmitting that threat via social media across state lines. That's how they've managed to turn it into an indictable Ofense. James Comey denies this. Does seem as if there is a real question as we approach the two hundred and fiftyth anniversary about the health and well being of the first amendment. It's on life support. I mean, I think that's why the whole dinner in general was ethically compromising that the president has repeatedly cracked down on speech via every means he possibly can, using agencies like the FCC to threaten licenses, massive lawsuits against news organizations, some of which the news organizations have settled, going after individual journalists charging them with crimes for doing their jobs. This is sustained? And it's more serious than I think it's ever been for him, and it's more criminalized than it's ever been. We as journalists should be pushing back against that at every turn. Rachel Lingang, as always, thanks for joining me on Politics Weekly America. Thank you. And Rachel also reported on the latest ruling to come from the United States Supreme Court this week. It's seen as a landmark decision on voting rights and a blow to the civil rights movement. We will be taking a big look at the judgments which have come from the conservative dominated bench very soon here on the podcast. But that is all from me for this week. Donald Trump welcomed King Charles to Washington, D.C. This week, where the King gave a speech to Congress. It was an attempt to bridge the gap between the two sides of a fragile special relationship. To hear how that went, you can listen to my conversation with Helen Pid on Wednesday's episode of Today in Focus the Latest. You can search for that wherever you get your podcasts or on YouTube. But for now, it's goodbye. The producer was Danielle Stevens, the executive producer, Mas Eb Tahaj. I'm Jonathan Friedland. Thanks, as always for listening. This is the Guardian.