Psst. Over here. Right here.
Ready for a little insider info?
Most of the journalists who cover the so-called “power corridors” in nations like Washington, Ottawa, Canberra, London, Paris, and beyond, they prefer the known over the unexpected.
See, the routine is easier. It’s comforting because many capital cities are pretty ordinary places. Boring isn’t just a lack of excitement; it’s a common mindset.
That’s exactly why the strong reaction to the straight-to-the-point exchange between U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky felt just like the usual instincts of the White House press corps. They’d rather stick to the script of practiced politeness than jump into the mess of raw, impulsive truth.
Unlike many others who rushed on TV to voice their shock at the “embarrassing display” of America’s blunt leader “embarrassing” his “heroic” guest, I was captivated by the live scenes unfolding on my screen.
Instead of the typical polite visits with smiling foreign leaders in the Oval Office, it was a stark display of the harsh realities of power politics that usually happen away from the media’s eye.
They might not admit it, but the press corps, silent as mannequins during the Trump, Vance, and Zelensky exchange, had expected another ordinary day, like every other ordinary day.
They’re familiar with their role in these orchestrated shows.
Step 1: Make their way to the Oval Office.
Step 2: Capture the foreign leader speaking warmly about the U.S. president.
Step 3: Cover the U.S. president’s warm remarks about the foreign leader.
Step 4: Report that both leaders exchanged warm words.
Step 5: Later, reach out to sources who say privately, the leaders really didn’t see eye to eye.
Step 6: Report, citing unnamed sources, that in private, the leaders actually dislike each other, despite their public niceties.
That was the predictable path of reporting after visits from French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to ease tensions with Trump.
Trump, with his unorthodox style, turned this script upside down, either on purpose or by instinct, with Zelensky.
The press and pundits left puzzled and out of their comfort zone. This wasn’t supposed to go down as it did, they complained – apparently disappointed at being journalists instead of mere note-takers.
Much of the outrage aimed at Trump isn’t just about what he said to Zelenskyy – his feelings toward Ukraine and its president are no secret – but how and where he said it: openly in the Oval Office, in front of cameras.
That’s what bothers America’s civil society so much – Trump did it all out in the open, when other presidents usually do it behind closed doors.
The glaring paradox is that America’s networks and personalities, the same ones who use live broadcasts to draw viewers with the lure of instant drama and real conflict, recoiled when true, unscripted drama happened live in the Oval Office and deemed it unsuitable.
A word to the critics:
Being straightforward, blunt, and tough is part of being a U.S. president – whether Democrat or Republican.
Trump isn’t an outlier. He’s part of a tradition.
President John F Kennedy’s administration reportedly involved the Mafia in an attempt to kill Cuba’s leader, Fidel Castro, and supported a coup in Vietnam leading to President Ngo Dinh Diem’s assassination.
Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, was known for physical outbursts, including grabbing and lifting a smaller prime minister by the collar, and once pushed the Chairman of the Federal Reserve against a wall.
Nixon secretly ordered actions against Chile’s elected Socialist president, Salvador Allende, and displayed overt anti-Semitism, calling Washington “full of Jews” and claiming “most Jews are disloyal.”
Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, Trump’s approach to television made for compelling viewing.
This time, we saw the remarkable and history-making actions of another “president with a gangster mentality” unfold live.
Note: The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Ready for a little insider info?
Most of the journalists who cover the so-called “power corridors” in nations like Washington, Ottawa, Canberra, London, Paris, and beyond, they prefer the known over the unexpected.
See, the routine is easier. It’s comforting because many capital cities are pretty ordinary places. Boring isn’t just a lack of excitement; it’s a common mindset.
That’s exactly why the strong reaction to the straight-to-the-point exchange between U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky felt just like the usual instincts of the White House press corps. They’d rather stick to the script of practiced politeness than jump into the mess of raw, impulsive truth.
Unlike many others who rushed on TV to voice their shock at the “embarrassing display” of America’s blunt leader “embarrassing” his “heroic” guest, I was captivated by the live scenes unfolding on my screen.
Instead of the typical polite visits with smiling foreign leaders in the Oval Office, it was a stark display of the harsh realities of power politics that usually happen away from the media’s eye.
They might not admit it, but the press corps, silent as mannequins during the Trump, Vance, and Zelensky exchange, had expected another ordinary day, like every other ordinary day.
They’re familiar with their role in these orchestrated shows.
Step 1: Make their way to the Oval Office.
Step 2: Capture the foreign leader speaking warmly about the U.S. president.
Step 3: Cover the U.S. president’s warm remarks about the foreign leader.
Step 4: Report that both leaders exchanged warm words.
Step 5: Later, reach out to sources who say privately, the leaders really didn’t see eye to eye.
Step 6: Report, citing unnamed sources, that in private, the leaders actually dislike each other, despite their public niceties.
That was the predictable path of reporting after visits from French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to ease tensions with Trump.
Trump, with his unorthodox style, turned this script upside down, either on purpose or by instinct, with Zelensky.
The press and pundits left puzzled and out of their comfort zone. This wasn’t supposed to go down as it did, they complained – apparently disappointed at being journalists instead of mere note-takers.
Much of the outrage aimed at Trump isn’t just about what he said to Zelenskyy – his feelings toward Ukraine and its president are no secret – but how and where he said it: openly in the Oval Office, in front of cameras.
That’s what bothers America’s civil society so much – Trump did it all out in the open, when other presidents usually do it behind closed doors.
The glaring paradox is that America’s networks and personalities, the same ones who use live broadcasts to draw viewers with the lure of instant drama and real conflict, recoiled when true, unscripted drama happened live in the Oval Office and deemed it unsuitable.
A word to the critics:
Being straightforward, blunt, and tough is part of being a U.S. president – whether Democrat or Republican.
Trump isn’t an outlier. He’s part of a tradition.
President John F Kennedy’s administration reportedly involved the Mafia in an attempt to kill Cuba’s leader, Fidel Castro, and supported a coup in Vietnam leading to President Ngo Dinh Diem’s assassination.
Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, was known for physical outbursts, including grabbing and lifting a smaller prime minister by the collar, and once pushed the Chairman of the Federal Reserve against a wall.
Nixon secretly ordered actions against Chile’s elected Socialist president, Salvador Allende, and displayed overt anti-Semitism, calling Washington “full of Jews” and claiming “most Jews are disloyal.”
Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, Trump’s approach to television made for compelling viewing.
This time, we saw the remarkable and history-making actions of another “president with a gangster mentality” unfold live.
Note: The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
