I don’t want to speak her name. I don’t want to give her time or space. But this morning, once again, I found myself debating with my fellow editors about the appropriate way to cover a Dallasite who is having a national impact by loudly professing a hate-filled, self-righteous rage fanned by falsehoods. Tomi Lahren, host of Tomi on Glenn Beck’s Irving-based entertainment platform TheBlaze, appeared on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah last week, and even The New York Times is talking about her now.
[d-embed] [/d-embed]
If you search “tomi lahren trevor noah youtube,” the titles you get for the exact same video range from “Tomi Lahren Destroys Trevor Noah Over #BlackLivesMatter” to “Trevor Noah Destroys Tomi Lahren Over Her Rants on Black Lives Matter & More!”
So, a clear winner. Just like the presidential debates—and the arm-wrestling match engaged in by two well-dressed and over-served ladies sitting beside me at the 10 Best New Restaurants dinner at Cafe Momentum last night.
Unsatisfied by my discussion with an unnamed bearded colleague, I sought clarity elsewhere. I found an interesting article by Justin Charity on The Ringer. He declared Lahren the clear winner in the Tomi-Trevor contest. He had some good reasons why. In his essay, he not only discusses Lahren’s appearance on The Daily Show, but also the appearance of Charlamagne tha God, radio show host of The Breakfast Club, on Tomi.
There’s no honor in Noah setting himself up to lose an unfair fight; even if the consolation prize is the media telling itself that, actually, he won. Noah and Charlamagne have both positioned themselves as curious, civilized men doing everyone, including Lahren and the people whom she disparages, a favor by hearing her out and then stumping her with a steady handful of counterarguments. But that’s not how Lahren works, nor is it really how democratic politics work. Lahren doesn’t persuade people. Lahren engages people. She enrages people. She mobilizes people. And, in this case, Lahren has exploited the difference between conviction — which liberal pundits fetishize — and mobilization — which conservative pundits just straight-up do — to enrich herself and amplify her nonsense at the expense of the many glorified fact-checkers who will lose ground to her in the long run. Tomi Lahren thrives off visibility and conflict, regardless of whether any particular exchange favors her on a rhetorical level or not. In a post-fact world, neither Sorkinese eloquence nor reflexive triangulation will save you from people like her. Like Beck and Rush Limbaugh before her, Tomi Lahren lies dramatically to get attention; this approach to media is nothing new. But in the wake of Trump’s election, the liberal instinct to engage with the lies of firebrands like her will repeatedly backfire.
Charity concludes, “In any case, Noah played himself, Charlamagne played himself, and Tomi Lahren beat the game one-handed.”
I, for one, feel like the loser.
