By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Marjorie Taylor Greene’s recent interview on 60 Minutes, former President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to express his disapproval. Trump referred to Greene as a “very dumb person” and criticized her statements during the interview, where she made claims against him and other Republican lawmakers. He also attacked the CBS News program 60 Minutes, and its parent company, Paramount, for airing the interview. Trump concluded by demanding an apology from Lesley Stahl and 60 Minutes.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump Says 60 Minutes Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Air After Interview with ‘Very Dumb’ Marjorie Taylor Greene, and this comment itself opens a can of worms, doesn’t it? It’s like a never-ending cycle. Trump criticizes someone, and then people criticize Trump’s criticism. It’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, given Trump’s own history with media outlets and his frequent pronouncements of what should or shouldn’t be allowed. The immediate reaction here is often a collective eye-roll, because it’s the same old playbook.
The heart of the matter, as always, lies in the power dynamics. Trump, a former president with a significant following, clearly still wields considerable influence. He uses platforms like Truth Social to voice his opinions, and those opinions, even the petty ones, often become news. This interview with Marjorie Taylor Greene seems to have rubbed him the wrong way, leading to a public rebuke and a declaration that the program itself shouldn’t be allowed to air. This type of statement is not new.
What really seems to be at play here is Trump’s reaction to someone who was once firmly in his corner, now expressing, or at least seeming to express, independent thought. He refers to her as “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Brown (Green turns Brown under stress!),” highlighting his displeasure, and further criticizing her by stating, “Too much work, not enough time, and her ideas are, NOW, really BAD – She sort of reminds me of a Rotten Apple!” This sudden shift in perception isn’t entirely surprising, considering his past behavior towards those who deviate from his preferred narrative. This also feeds the narrative that women are judged on how well they serve their masters.
The crux of the matter is the power to control the narrative. Trump’s reaction is an attempt to control the conversation and discredit his former ally. It’s a reminder of the consequences of crossing him. It’s a blatant attempt at influence and a demonstration of his control, as well as an indication of his fear of being questioned by those whom he once considered loyal supporters.
Furthermore, we see the pattern of criticizing the messenger. Instead of addressing the actual content of the interview, Trump attacks the outlet and the individual involved. This is a tactic he’s employed many times, and it often works to some degree, especially among his base. It’s a way to distract from the substance of the issue and shift the focus onto the perceived bias of the source. It’s also important to note that Trump is a master of creating these distractions.
The debate about free speech and media censorship is inherent in these circumstances. While Trump is entitled to his opinions, his call for a media outlet to be shut down raises serious questions about the limits of free speech and the potential for abuse of power. The implication is that if someone criticizes Trump, then they shouldn’t be allowed a platform. It’s a slippery slope.
Many also find Trump’s behavior to be childish and petty, especially for someone who held the highest office in the land. The constant need for approval, the quickness to take offense, and the tendency to lash out with insults are all characteristics that many find unbecoming of a leader. It makes the job harder for those who have to take his words seriously. It’s an important factor in the world of politics, because the media will be talking and writing about it for years to come.
Then there is the issue of his supporters. The speed at which Trump can turn on someone who once had his backing can be jarring. This incident serves as a cautionary tale for those who align themselves with him. If you step out of line, if you question, if you dare to have an independent thought, you risk being ostracized and attacked. This highlights the cult-like nature of his support, where loyalty to the leader is paramount, regardless of the facts.
This situation exposes the tension between free speech, the responsibility of media outlets, and the behavior of powerful individuals. It’s a microcosm of the political and cultural divides in the country, and it reveals the consequences of the way things are. It’s a recurring theme in the Trump era, and it’s unlikely to change anytime soon.