Perhaps the hoariest trope in modern political reporting is the Diner Sitdown with a Trump Supporter. Between the ubiquity of them during President Donald Trump's first bid for his current position and the necessary superficiality of it — it is hard to take the measure of a person over the course of eating one slice of pie — such conversations became a source of derision or parody. Readers were often left with little to no insight, and the insights they were offered were often trivial and repetitive.Bump correctly notes that most of these safaris come to no conclusion more edifying than "Trump voters like Trump." So what's the alternative? Bump recommends an academic study:
But what if you left the diner with those voters? What if you went to their homes, spent days with them? What if you tracked the media consumption and interviewed their friends and neighbors? What if it wasn't superficial? ...The study appears to have some interesting insights, one of which is that these people are wary of democracy because they think it produces outcomes that conflict with their values. Here's an example:
In February, a team of researchers from ReD Associates, in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, visited counties in three states — Michigan, South Carolina and Wyoming — to conduct the sort of in-depth research described above. Teams spent time with conservative Americans, getting to know them, getting to know their communities, getting to know their habits. They spoke with dozens of people in largely rural parts of the state, with the specific goal of understanding how Donald Trump supporters viewed the democratic institutions of the United States. What resulted was a thorough, if constrained, understanding of the set of beliefs and assumptions that correlates with support for the president.
They chafe at proscriptions that emanate from a federal government that is designed to service all 340 million Americans, often seeing conflicts between national and local priorities as examples of corruption....We're told that they're not getting these ideas from the obvious sources. They don't have "a relentless dedication to watching Fox News." Instead,
One Wyoming resident dismissed the value of democracy through this lens: "Every single small town would be outvoted by every single city. We wouldn't be able to feed people cows. We'd all be eating seaweed."
The researchers found that the people with whom they spoke relied heavily on bespoke sources of information and ad hoc solutions for health problems. Diaries detailing their media diets include a range of YouTube channels, influencers and Facebook groups, few of which could be called media outlets in any real sense. They "do their own research," though that often means outsourcing their research to trusted, non-institutional voices....This is worth knowing, but I think the message it sends is that it's really hard to find the source of these people's ideas, unless you're able to put together a team of researchers and conduct an ethnographic study like this.
I disagree. While I recognize that Fox is not the main source of news for younger right-wingers -- which is a consequence of the decline of print, television, and cable in the age of TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and podcasts -- Fox News is still part of the right-wing media ecosystem in which these "bespoke sources of information" operate. (They sources are not really "bespoke," i.e., custon-tailored for an individual. They're just more obscure than Fox.)
For as long as I've been blogging, I've been angry at the mainstream media for not paying attention to the narratives spread at Fox and elsewhere in the right-wing media ecosystem. For reporters (and Democratic politicians and consultants) who want to know why GOP voters hate Democrats as much as they do, Fox is in plain sight, just as, in the past, talk radio was in plain sight, and podcasters and video and Twitter influencers are in plain sight today. If you want to know what these people are thinking, you can still learn a lot just by looking at the top-rated right-wing oultlets in various media. Individuals voters might not get particular ideas from the top-rated outlets, but those ideas are circulating in and out of those outlets, and can be spotted in those places.
The guy who's afraid city slickers will ban meat and force him to eat seaweed? I'm not sure precisely where he got that notion, but you can easily find the idea, or variations of it, at Fox. Here a just some of the Fox headlines I found when I Googled "world economic forum ban meat foxnews.com":
* Davos speaker calls for one billion people to 'stop eating meat' for 'innovation' and the environmentIt doesn't have to be Fox. It could be Twitter, or (in the past) Infowars. It could be any number of prominent podcasters. I'd even recommend Reddit communities like Forwards from Grandma, where you can find a wide range of right-wing memes, including memes reflecting the right-wing view that liberals are unalterably opposed to meat:
* GOP rep introduces resolution condemning UN for calling on Americans to stop eating meat
* UN wants Americans to cut back on eating meat. And that's only the beginning
* UN climate summit serving gourmet burgers, BBQ as it calls for Americans to stop eating meat
This one isn't even particularly obscure -- you may have seen it in a parking lot.
What reporters and other interested parties need to know is that the right-wing media diet, from all sources, is chock-full of paranoid, alarmist ragebait, and that the alarmist talking points are fairly easy to discover if you put a little effort into looking for them. Even just a daily glance at Fox's red-meat headlines will tell you more about the mindset of right-wing voters than a series of questions about grocery prices in an Ohio diner.



