Democracy Dies in Pundits Obsessing Over Optics Instead of Mueller Laying Out Trump’s Misdeeds

President Donald Trump was quick to claim a decisive victory after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony. This is not a surprise to anyone — it has long been a signature Trump tactic. One could have expected that, regardless of how the testimony went, he would have done the same.

White House surrogates, political allies and yes, Fox News opinionators have all followed suit, declaring that that Mueller’s doddering testimony was a big win for the president. And surprisingly, many nonpartisan political commentators toed the same line.

Yes, Robert Mueller showed all 74 years of his age. And no, he didn’t appear to always have a firm grasp on his own report or even, at times, his surroundings. And that was a relatively shocking revelation to watch unfold in real-time. As former Obama advisor-turned-CNN contributor David Axelrod said early in the proceedings, it was “very, very painful to watch.”

But Trump’s early claim of victory is reminiscent of a bloodied boxer thrusting his arms in the air at the sound of the final bell, as if claiming victory will somehow convince the audience and judges that he was in fact victorious, despite getting battered for 15 rounds. As we all know from experience, just because one claims victory doesn’t mean victory has been won.

The initial narrative coming out of the Mueller testimony was the shock and surprise at just how much Mueller appeared to be off his game. This was as much to do with the high expectations that came with his stellar reputation. And speaking of expectations, the hype (and Democratic hope) surrounding this testimony ensured that, unless Trump was immediately perp-walked out of the Oval Office, it would be painted as a disappointment.

Aside from the specifics of what happened in the House hearing, the news media talking heads — especially those that appeared on cable news — focused far too much on the “optics” of the hearing, ignoring a lot of damning substance that was revealed.

The best example of this misguided analysis came Wednesday from MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, who drew fire for focusing on the optics of the hearing both on-air and in a complimentary tweet:

On substance, Democrats got what they wanted: that Mueller didn’t charge Pres. Trump because of the OLC guidance, that he could be indicted after he leaves office, among other things. But on optics, this was a disaster. #MuellerHearings

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) July 24, 2019

It’s not fair to lay all the media blame on Todd. This sentiment came from all sides of the political spectrum. Not surprisingly, Fox News primetime hosts all amplified the “Trump won the day” narrative, but we also heard Fox News anchor Chris Wallace call the proceedings a “disaster” for Democrats and Mueller’s reputation. CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin had a similar take, as did many on MSNBC.

Even CNN’s Brian Stelter, who had long argued for the importance of the hearing, said that he fell asleep during the proceedings. Whether or not that was a joke, it’s an unsettling sentiment from a media critic given the gravity of the hearing.

Fox News’s Howard Kurtz took metaphors to an absurd level, writing that “the Democratic mantra heading into yesterday’s sessions was that for most Americans, they didn’t read the book, but they would watch the movie.” He then added “the problem is that Mueller turned out to be a terrible leading man. He kept fumbling his lines, asking lawmakers to repeat the questions.” Woof.

The media’s knee-jerk reaction to the hearings was that because Mueller was not properly media trained, his testimony did nothing to change any minds as Democrats had hoped, and Trump wins. What the media is prone to forget is that its coverage of moments like the Mueller hearings plays a huge role in how the public receives information. By obsessing over the optics and not the material discussed, the media shapes history for the worse.

Stuttering aside, there was a lot of news revealed during the proceedings. Very damaging information to the Trump administration, in fact. And apart from a few outliers, most of those revelations have been largely ignored.

Some credit goes to Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough, who opened by listing the things learned from the hearing before speculating the Russians must be celebrating that Republicans have become “useful idiots.”

Scarborough noted how Republicans were “ecstatic” with the proceedings on Wednesday, before listing the items learned or confirmed by the hearing: 1) Russia interfered with American democracy, 2) Trump and his campaign “happily welcomed” that interference, 3) Trump and his team members repeatedly lied to federal agents investigating this, 4) Trump lied under oath about Russian attempts to meddle, and 5) “American democracy is still, is still under threat from the Russians.”

CNN’s New Day offered similar focus on details. Host Alisyn Camerota repeatedly made a similar listing of points:

“President Trump welcomed Russian interference and lied about it. Generally, Mr. Trump’s written answers to the Special Counsel were untruthful. Trump encouraged WikiLeaks and that was problematic. Trump was not exonerated of obstruction of justice. Robert Mueller fears accepting foreign help in our political campaigns is our new normal. And he, himself was not seeking the job as the new FBI director as President Trump has falsely claimed, and so obviously, those are unacceptable for presidents or anyone. You can’t lie to prosecutors.”

Turns out that Mueller’s implication that Trump lied under oath is a very big deal. In fact, presidential perjury has led to the most recent impeachment proceedings of President Bill Clinton roughly two decades ago and is by any measure, a much bigger story than the lazy “bad optics” takes by the commentariat who seem more interested in a career as television reviewers than political pundits.

As Mediaite’s own Tommy Christopher wrote:

At the beginning of her questioning, Rep. Demings asked Mueller “Were the president’s answers submitted under oath?” to which Mueller replied “Yes. Yes.”

That’s one key element in establishing perjury.

Later in her exchange with Mueller, Demings asked, “And there were many answers that contradicted other evidence you had gathered during the investigation. Isn’t that correct, Director Mueller?”

“Yes,” Mueller replied, demonstrating that there is evidence to support the charge that Trump was untruthful in his responses under oath.

“Director Mueller, isn’t it fair to say that the president’s written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete, because he didn’t answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn’t always being truthful?” Demings asked at the conclusion of her questioning.

Christopher notes: “Mueller’s testimony clearly confirms that according to Mueller, Trump made false statements, made them under oath, and there is evidence that those statements are false. That’s big news, or it should be.”

The media has long played an important role in American democracy. The fourth estate, buttressed by the Constitution’s First Amendment, should see its primary purpose as a tool for holding power to account. A troubling trend in recent years of the media treating news as entertainment — far more focused on how things “look” — has left the industry derelict in duty.

The good news, however, is that it is not too late. As seen on New Day and Morning Joe Thursday morning, there still time to focus on the material information revealed in the Mueller hearings, much of which was incredibly damaging to President Trump and his allies.

Trump’s claim of political victory after the Mueller hearings may end up being right. If so, a lazy news media that played into his optic-focused narrative will have thrown the knockout punch.

[Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images]

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.