Anderson Cooper Is Not The Enemy

I have taken the time to objectively study all of the recent interviews/town halls where Trump went one on one with the interviewer, and I am choosing to look at Anderson Cooper first, due to the reactions people had on social media and elsewhere to his handling of Trump vs. Cruz.

Anderson Cooper is not the enemy. As a matter of act, he is actively trying to help Trump, just as he has done on other occasions. Yes, Anderson handled Trump differently than he handled Cruz, but he did so to Trump’s advantage.

The Cruz Clown Show

When Anderson had Cruz, it was obvious as it was with Trump that questioners had been carefully chosen to play to the message the GOPers want to promote. However, Anderson, as a good interviewer who is really in tune with the audience, took away much of the impact those questions and answers could have had.

If you look at the camera shots that took in the audience, you notice something interesting–Anderson knew when the audience was getting irritated with/disengaged from Cruz, and he did nothing to stop that. On the contrary, he encouraged it by letting Cruz ramble on. Cruz is NOT a good extemporaneous speaker. He pontificates, his nasal tones are irritating, and there is something “off” about his personality that grates on listeners.

Anderson knows that. As a matter of fact, there were a few instances when Anderson’s facial expression around the eyes and mouth, and body language, showed HE wasn’t into the Cruz either. But he deliberately let Cruz run down the clock as often as possible. He did nothing to redirect Cruz when he could see the audience wasn’t feeling the message, either. He was giving Cruz all the rope he needed to hang himself, without making it painfully obvious.

Trump On Parade

With Trump, Anderson was far more proactive. But he was NOT being proactive to be rude. He was deliberate in everything he did. His performance was exceptional, as a matter of fact. Why? Several reasons:

  • When he saw the audience reacting poorly to something Trump was saying, he not only interrupted–he redirected Trump, getting Trump to restate something so the audience “got it”. This had the effect of keeping the audience engaged.
  • This also created a stark contrast for pro-Trump people to seize on, as it makes it seem that “the MSM is always harder on Trump than Cruz”, something even a Cruz supporter would have to admit.
  • This also can cause a fence sitter to take a closer look at Trump, because the deliberate interruptions and aggressive behavior reflexively make the average person want to take a closer look at a candidate to see what they are missing.
  • The re-direction also gives the audience multiple examples of a single point, providing more opportunity for the fence sitters to consider the full context of an argument or position.
  • Cooper also explored parallel situations relating to questions with Trump far more than he ever does with Cruz, allowing Trump to introduce other positions into the conversation for later expansion.
  • At one point, Anderson got so blatant he joked about giving Trump “free advice”, a point both men laughed about but one that is very valid. Anderson doesn’t offer “free advice” to Cruz, even when Cruz is messing up and Anderson knows it. Nor does he help Kasich.
  • Anderson also scored a serious hit on Cruz, when Cruz was complaining about the billions of dollars in free press Trump gets. Anderson jumped right in and pointed out that his people call Cruz daily asking him if he wants to do an interview, and Cruz refuses. That particular exchange resulted in a backlash on Cruz’s Facebook page that required a major cleaning up on the part of his public perception/social media management team. Cruz’s supporters, who always complain about that issue, heard from a respected media source that their guy has been offered the same access, and has turned it down. And Cruz didn’t deny that either, he pivoted to something else.

The ends result was simple, when you watch both town halls from a strictly logical/observational standpoint. Cruz managed to alienate a good portion of the audience, and it has been confirmed that Cruz turns down exclusive interviews with Anderson. This implies that he may also be avoiding other chances at free press coverage, and is causing his supporters to wonder why he would turn down free press?

The perception that Cruz has it “easy” and the MSM treats Trump rudely has been reinforced, in a way that has people on social media wondering why Anderson was so soft on Cruz. It also has people on social media looking more closely at what Trump was “trying to say, but was prevented from saying by constant interruptions”.

It gave the audience a far more in depth look at Trump than Cruz, as the multiple re-directions and side questions allowed Trump to bring more into the exchange than Cruz did. Cruz presents, in the final analysis, as a shallow politician with hokey stories and a grating voice. While Trump presents as someone who has a variety of different views; someone complex, and interesting, and not fake and flat.

When you take the time to watch all of Trump’s interactions with Anderson Cooper and compare them to Cruz’s interactions with Cooper, from an objective point of view, Anderson is probably the best “friend” we have in terms of an interviewer, because he manages to bring out the best in Trump, minimize the inevitable mis-statements that come with speaking off the cuff, and give people a complex view of our candidate that other interviewers can’t match.



6 thoughts on “Anderson Cooper Is Not The Enemy

  1. Good take on Cooper. I’ll give him a little slack because of your post.

    However, I still regard the media as the enemy and this campaign cycle has enlarged that circle quite a bit.

    Your breakdown of Cooper’s interview tactics reminds me of why I no longer go to the movies. I used to work in the film business and it sort of ruined me that way because I can no longer watch a movie. All I see are lighting, camera moves, edits, and so on. I look at scenes, sets and shots and think production value.


    one question: what does CA/SCL mean? You’ve used it in several cth (conservative treehouse, haha) comments without typing it out. I’m woefully inadequate at deciphering those things. Acronyms.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Yep. That’s why Silent Patriot is so vital right now–because it was designed as a one shot project to specifically counter an endgame scenario that fits within certain parameters, modeled after other SCL ops over a 20 year span or so.


    • I have been watching all the talking heads closely of late, more so than in previous election cycles, because there are some very different things going on now, that started becoming obvious over a decade ago. I probably have 60 hours or more of Anderson interviewing dozens of different political figures, in all settings, so I have a very good sized data set for him. He’s been consistent with Trump, well within normal variances, and the data shows he supports him.

      Anderson is actually, from a purely analytical viewpoint, one of the best interviewers around these days.

      I know what you mean about movies being ruined for you–same here, different reasons. C.A. is Cambridge Analytica, the world’s best psychographic segmentation firm, and their parent company is SCL Group–their specialties are detailed, with links, in the posts referring to the math geeks from Hades.

      The sanitized public definition is extremely fine tuned target marketing, used to help candidates get elected to office, for instance–which has become C.A.’s main focus (not surprising when you look at what the parent company has been up to for 25+ years)..

      The less sanitized description is “effecting sweeping social and political change through the science of psychographic segmentation, using methods approved by the CIA, the Department of Defense, and Other International governments”.

      The blunt version is fomenting coups and regime changes for fun and profit. Interesting choice of marketing firm for a Senator running for the oval office.


  2. So interesting. I haven’t watched a lot of the media in recent weeks, as it’s just nonstop Trump bashing, but I thought earlier in the cycle, Trump had won over Don Lemon, but from what I hear, Lemon’s chain has been yanked & he has since reverted back to groupthink. (Can’t confirm this since I haven’t watched any TV in many weeks.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • It takes a certain level of skill to observe, rather than “watch”, the media, because everything is nuanced to produce a certain effect in people. It’s been going on for decades in one form or another, but kicked into gear about a decade ago now in a big way.

      I usually save everything to the external drive, each interview by a specific person back to back. Then I “watch” them all the way through and note and map the emotional context.

      Then I take a break, and observe them all the way through, mapping the metrics on my own scale. I haven’t had a chance to run through Lemon from end to end yet, as the latest round of distractions on the part of the opposition has taken quite some time to deal with.

      Those of us who study psychographic segmentation/psychographic analysis/semiotics and memeology have been prepping for this current mess for a decade now, just didn’t know when it would happen.

      Contrary to Asimov’s portrayal of Hari Seldon, the science behind complex system management is very imprecise at the moment. CA/SCL Group are light years ahead of the curve, but still not in the Hari Seldon league (thank God, if they were we’d already be toast).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s