Why Newsmax Supports Trump's False Voter-Fraud Claims | The New Yorker
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Isaac Chotiner
November 24, 2020 
Christopher Ruddy, the C.E.O. of the conservative network Newsmax, says that the President's lies are "great for news."Photograph by Carolyn Kaster / AP
Even as Fox News acknowledges that Joe Biden is the President-elect, Newsmax Media—a conservative multimedia company that includes a Web site and a television channel—has supported Donald Trump's claims of voter fraud, and has seen a spike in ratings, with as many as 1.1 million people tuning in to its nightly broadcasts. Newsmax's C.E.O., Christopher Ruddy, began his career as a journalist at the New York Post and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review , where he specialized in conspiracies about Bill and Hillary Clinton, even going so far as to write a book calling into question the circumstances surrounding the death of Vince Foster, the Clintons' friend and the deputy White House counsel. In 1998, Ruddy founded Newsmax, which became known for its anti-Clinton content; in the Trump era, it served as a platform for Trump boosters like Diamond and Silk and Sean Spicer. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Trump's allies have explored buying Newsmax, as part of an effort to build a Trump-branded alternative to Fox News; Ruddy replied that he wasn't interested in turning his company into Trump TV. Nevertheless, Ruddy, a longtime Mar-a-Lago member and friend of the President's, has claimed that Fox and other conservative media outlets have offered insufficient support to Trump, especially during the past several weeks.
I recently spoke by phone with Ruddy about the future of Newsmax and his relationship with the President. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we also discussed how Trump's media consumption has changed during his Presidency, how Newsmax has covered Trump's false claims about voting fraud, and whether Ruddy feels any responsibility for misinforming his viewers.
How do you see the conservative media environment changing after January, when Trump leaves office, if you do see it changing?
I think it's going to be as robust as ever. It'll be growing, not diminishing. Assuming that Joe Biden is inaugurated President, which every probability study says will be the case, there'll be a demand for media that is in opposition to his Administration. We saw the success of media like MSNBC and CNN, whose ratings skyrocketed, and the Times . I think you're going to see that on the right side of the aisle.
You have said that you think Fox News was inconsistent in its support of Trump during the past four years. How so? And do you think that being unwavering in support of either Donald Trump or the Republican Party is important to conservative media?
I think it's been inconsistent, and I would say it's been schizophrenic. It, at times, is very supportive, almost to the point you would say of maybe drinking the Kool-Aid, on their opinion shows, and then, on the weekends, extremely hostile. And I think what Newsmax has done has been fairly consistent. We have an editorial policy of being supportive of the President and his policies, but I think if you looked at our digital coverage, for instance, it's always been very balanced and fair.
You have shot down this idea of Newsmax becoming Trump TV. Would you want to have the President on as a contributor? What role do you see Trump playing?
Well, he's an omnivore when it comes to media. He loves all media. There's no differentiation. He likes to be on all platforms. He did exceedingly well before he became President using all these platforms. I think he probably expects that he'll be able to do that once he leaves. So I don't see him tethered or tied down with any one media, and that's why I don't think he's going to say, "O.K., I'm going to make Newsmax my mouthpiece or my platform." Nor would we find that a good idea, either. I built a solid news organization over twenty years, and we estimate we reach over thirty million Americans each month through all our different outlets.
Why wouldn't you want that?
I've always been committed to being a news organization. And the President's a political force, and he's a personality. You wouldn't want The New Yorker to become the Biden Yorker .
Right, but I thought you said that you had an editorial policy of being supportive of him.
Well, editorially, we have our perspective, just as CNN and MSNBC have a fairly liberal one.
Wouldn't the distinction be an editorial line in favor of liberalism or conservatism, versus a line in favor of a specific human being?
Well, he was President of the United States, so we have been editorially supportive of him and his policies. I'm not thinking that we're here to say he's a great guy. We're here to say, "We agree basically with his tax deregulation and free-market approaches to government policy." I think if he was taking lines that were different, we would oppose it. I personally have disagreed with him, and I've said it publicly. I'm very pro-immigration. I think the country needs more immigrants, not less.
What's your personal relationship with him like at this point?
We're friends. He's called me twice in the past five days.
What's his mental state?
I'm always amazed at the amount of equanimity he has, with everything going on in the world, in politics, and running the government. He's quite—what's the word?—engaged with media as well, on top of all of that. And yet he seems pretty calm, and it's sort of the old Donald Trump.
One possibility would be that he wasn't spending that much time running the government, which is why he'd have more time to call you or watch TV or be more equanimous.
That's not the anecdotal evidence we're getting from people that work there, who say that they are exhausted by his work habits. The guy never sleeps, and he's always engaging people, at any time, any hour.
Come on. It seems like he just watches a lot of Fox News.
Yeah, I'm amazed he spends so much time doing it. I don't think it's necessarily been a positive aspect of his Presidency, but the guy loves media. In some ways, it's good, because I think Donald Trump is a larger-than-life figure. People are very intimidated by him. They're certainly intimidated by the office of the President. So the fact that he's listening to shows, or watching shows like "Morning Joe," or Cuomo, actually gets him to hear information he wouldn't normally hear at the White House.
Do you really believe that?
Yes. And I think all of those liberal shows have had some effect on his policies and positions and approaches.
What would be an example of that?
The cages thing on the border. I think he pretty much backed down from that position. I think on the coronavirus, you might not be happy, but the government has embraced a mask policy. I don't think he would have done that had he not been pushed by the media to do it. It was not his inclination.
As someone who knows him, could you explain why his inclination would be to put kids in cages without their parents at the border, or to not have people wear masks when wearing them could save lives?
I don't want to defend every position he takes. Let's take the masks. I think there are only two or three studies on the effectiveness of masks, and they showed that they were not very effective in controlling the disease. Do you know that?
There are more studies now that show masks are effective, but go on.
Even people with medical masks still had a twenty per cent risk of catching the virus, even with all the precautions they were taking. [ A World Health Organization-funded analysis of a hundred and seventy-two studies showed that N95 masks offer ninety-six per cent protection against transmission of the virus, and surgical masks offer sixty-seven per cent protection. ] So I think when you look at some of that, he's probably thinking, You know what? Is it really worth it to run around with all these masks? Sweden hasn't had a mask policy. They're not worse off, really, than any other European country.
I thought they had higher death rates. [ Sweden's case fatality rate remains significantly higher than Finland's and Norway's. ] But regardless, you think he's reading these studies on masks and coming to the conclusion that they're not effective, or something else?
Well, it's laughable to think he's sitting there reading the study.
That's what I was hinting at.
I don't want to say anything derogatory, but he gets his information when he hears people on programs or when he asks them. He likes to hear the information, or see it presented to him. And he'll make a decision based on that.
It seems like he has a lot of people giving him bad information, either personally or through the media. I'm wondering whether you, as a purveyor of that information, are ever concerned that you're doing a disservice to him, or the country, by peddling this stuff out there .
I don't think we initiate it at all. If we're reporting a press conference where Rudy Giuliani, the President's lawyer, says that there's voter fraud, and gives examples, I don't see, by us covering it, that we are becoming the purveyor back to the President on that. It doesn't make any sense. He's obviously coming up with it. We're reporting on factual evidence of anecdotal vote fraud. And you know what? It's so close, let him have his day in court. [ The Trump legal team has repeatedly lost in court, and failed to show evidence of widespread voter fraud. ] I think it's all right. Hillary Clinton said in August that under no circumstances should Joe Biden concede. And I do think that Donald Trump should concede when the certifications come in.
So, if Trump tried to get Republican state legislatures to overturn the certificated votes, would your network take a strong stand against that ?
I would not support it. I would not support going to state legislators to overturn the electors. And you know what? I haven't seen people that are mentioning that as a . . .
Reuters reported that that was the White House strategy. That's why I brought it up .
Well, Dick Morris has mentioned it on Newsmax, and other people have suggested it, that the states are the ultimate arbiters on the electors.
That doesn't feel dangerous to you in any way ?
I think it's not a good thing. I think that the questioning of ballots, and taking that to court, is just as reasonable as when Al Gore did it in the 2000 election. I think what bothers people a lot, on the right side, is this idea that Trump is not even entitled. He should just accept that he's not entitled. I think he's entitled to a recount process.
Well, he's not saying, "We want a recount." He's tweeting that he won, and that there's massive voter fraud, and both of these things are false. I think that's what people are objecting to. It's not that he's not allowed to make legal filings .
Well, I think they don't like the idea of even the recount. Yes, he's hyperbolic by saying that he won. Premature, for sure, but we'll see.
O.K., but you have seen polls where half of Republicans say that the election was stolen from him, and that there was massive fraud. Do you think that conservative media has played any role in making conservative voters believe things that might not be the truth ?
Well, I think the mail-in ballots opened up potential for voter fraud and manipulation beyond what we've seen in previous years. And that's, I think, the crux of the problem, and why Republicans feel this election was "stolen."
You and I both know that, regardless of what happened, Trump was going to claim that there was voter fraud, even if there was no evidence. We both know that. Let's be honest.
No, I think that if Biden won by the numbers that we were told that he was going to win by, Donald Trump would not have had much of an argument to claim voter fraud. It would have been better for the country if the election had been decided with more of a mandate. I'm not a big fan of the Electoral College. I think the Electoral College is a mirage for conservatives. Someday, when Texas goes, and/or Florida, it's going to be a nightmare for Republicans. I think that it's better if the President is popularly elected, and that Republicans should start thinking in terms of appealing to a national vote, and not trying to get smaller groups and smaller states.
But just looking at newsmax.com now, there are a lot of headlines about voter fraud and so on. I know you say that Republican voters are skeptical about whether the count was fair, but what I'm trying to get at is whether conservative media play some role in making conservative voters think this way, and whether that's a long-term problem for the country.
I think voter fraud has always been a serious problem. Mail-in ballots are accentuating that. I'm not sure that they're going to continue. I think the early voting has probably opened up the door more for it. Why is it that you have Democratic cities with huge corruption issues, systemic racial-abuse issues, and other problems, but their voting systems are perfectly fine and pristine, and shouldn't be questioned?
I think we know that America's voting systems are not pristine and shouldn't be unquestioned. I think the problem is just saying that it was fraudulent, and that the election was stolen. I think that's the main problem.
I think in very close elections, you might be able to make that claim, if it's not properly done.
But you're the head of a news organization, and so if you want to just send reporters to investigate this and prove this, fine, but the Trump Administration in court is not actually showing any of these things. They're just making the claims, and then not producing any evidence.
Well, I think, for instance, they've been showing that there were issues with the mail-in ballots, the process by which they were counted. There was a story that indicated the rejection rates on absentee ballots and mail-in ballots was a lot lower in this election, in many of these swing states. That's unusual. Now, is that indicative of fraud? I would say it's not a direct indication, but it's suggestive. And it's something that we should look at. [ A Times story on the low rejection rates suggested that there were multiple factors, including simplified voting requirements and greater enthusiasm and attentiveness among voters. ]
But that's something that journalists could investigate, rather than making broad claims about it.
Yeah. Well, I think before we even make the claim, we should say, "Hey, look at this anomaly. Why is this the case?" And we start asking about it. But you know what? At the end of the day, it's great for news. The news cycle is red-hot, and Newsmax is getting one million people per minute, according to Nielsen, tuning into Newsmax TV. I think it's good.
I think you made very clear what you're saying there .
Well, I believe that Donald Trump's been great for the news business. And I think there's nothing wrong in saying that.
Right. I was trying to circle this issue. And you said the subtext really clearly .
By saying that it's good for the news business?
Yeah. Look, you're a smart guy. You were defending things that you might not a hundred per cent believe, but the attention this is getting Newsmax, and what it's doing for the news business, is maybe where I should be focussing my questions, rather than the intricacies of the vote count .
Well, I would never do something that I thought was wrong or untrue. I didn't create the news cycle, Isaac. Donald Trump did. He created this whole thing. He could have accepted the results, but I'm saying, "Look at the amazing stuff that's done for the news business." People are more interested. And I think the debate's good. It is healthy.
Tags
Who is online
420 visitors
What a despicable piece of crap. That isn't a question.
Newsmax's survival depends on division, suspicion and fear of truth. Knowingly or unknowingly the alleged news organization is aiding those domestically and internationally in weakening and diffusing American resolve and cohesion.
When an entity such as Newsmax has only a primary goal of profit over truth and patriotism perhaps it time to seriously 'follow the money'.
But America values the benefit of the First Amendment, so rags like Newmax have the ability of feeding the ignorance of the American people. What should be done about it? What CAN be done about it?
Follow the money.
Well since this is America and not a communist nation, our first amendment trumps the urge to content control or censor a news outlet one may not prefer. The fact is that since the election while CNN and MSNBC gained slightly, Fox News is down 32% with much of the lost viewers tuning in OANN and NewsMax TV. Liberal and msm criticisms of of those outlets only increase their popularity. NewsMax TV has already surpassed CNBC and Fox Business in viewers.
Goebbels smiled from his wretched grave.
They are the snake oil salesman who tell their customers that all the naysayers who claim the cure tonics they bought are nothing but bogus grain alcohol and dog piss are just jealous of how strong, smart and amazing the tonic will make them...
"A smart feller like you? Swindled? Of course not! You're far too intelligent for that! Only total idiots or Satan worshipers wouldn't be able to see the value in our MAGA tonic cure all! Just $29.95! And if you buy now we'll throw in this custom tin foil hat that will keep your genius brain safe from the mind control of those damn Satan loving liberals and Democrats!"...
Follow the money..... It's all about revenue. Truth be damned.