I have a friend from India who is an astute observer of global politics. When he expressed bewilderment over the way the United States media has covered former US President Donald Trump’s current presidential campaign, I was only slightly surprised. To delve into the question, I launched the following prompt:

“An Indian friend of mine is astonished to note that media coverage of Donald Trump is overwhelmingly negative and usually vituperative. Having lived through Trump’s presidency, he finds the kind of apocalyptic forecasts we are subjected to concerning a second Trump term excessive.

He makes it clear from the start that he is no fan of Trump. ‘It is a given,’ he begins, ‘that this man’s personal traits are nasty and obnoxious; even his supporters grant that! But what should concern us would be his actions as President. Because if his potential return to power is being touted as the end and ruination of America – socially, economically, financially, and internationally – wouldn’t it be good to understand what this expectation is based on …?’

I believe that the best response to his question would focus on two phenomena: a long-term trend in US politics that consists of reducing everything to a game of personality rather than examining political strategy and historical context. It’s easier to brand someone as virtuous or evil and dismiss all other considerations. But there is also the predilection of the media for stories that provoke alarm or inspire fear. What would be a reasonable way to explain this to an Indian in India who has no direct exposure to today’s US political and media culture?”

ChatGPT offered this informed response.

“To explain the intense media coverage of Donald Trump and the apocalyptic forecasts regarding his potential return to power to an Indian friend, we can break it down into two broad phenomena: 

1. **Personality Politics in the US**:

• **Historical Context**: Over the past few decades, US politics has increasingly focused on the personalities of political figures rather than their policies or the broader political strategies they employ. This trend has been exacerbated by the rise of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, which thrive on sensationalism and personal drama.
• **Simplification of Complex Issues**: Simplifying political discourse to focus on the personal traits of leaders makes it easier for the public to engage with complex issues. It’s much simpler to categorize someone as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ than to delve into the nuances of their policies, the intricacies of governance, or the long-term impacts of their actions.
• **Polarization**: The US has become highly polarized politically, with each side viewing the other not just as opponents but as existential threats. This polarization is often driven by highlighting the most extreme and negative aspects of the opposing side’s leaders.

2. **Media Sensationalism and Fear**:

• **Media Landscape**: The media in the US operates on a commercial basis, where success is measured by viewership and engagement. Stories that are alarming or provoke fear are more likely to grab attention and keep audiences hooked, leading to higher ratings and more advertising revenue.
• **Echo Chambers**: People often consume news from sources that align with their preexisting beliefs, creating echo chambers where they are repeatedly exposed to extreme viewpoints. This reinforces negative perceptions and heightens the sense of urgency and danger.
• **Narrative of Crisis**: Apocalyptic forecasts about Trump’s potential return fit into a larger narrative of crisis that the media perpetuates. This narrative keeps audiences engaged by presenting political developments as high-stakes battles between good and evil, survival and ruin.

ChatGPT’s answer continued with some specific illustrations of “Personality Politics” and “Media Sensationalism” before concluding with this observation:

“By focusing on these phenomena, we can explain why the media coverage of Trump is overwhelmingly negative and often apocalyptic, despite the complex reality of his presidency. It’s a combination of the simplification of political discourse into personality-driven narratives and the media’s focus on fear and sensationalism to capture and maintain audience attention.”

I was hoping it might dig deeper. This answer did little more than explain in detail my own remarks, developing standard observations about polarization and echo chambers. This led me to wonder whether ChatGPT doesn’t systematically agree with the questioner’s thesis as a form of flattery. I tried to find out by changing my tactic and affirming the very position my friend so vehemently criticized.

“That seems to me a good analysis. But when Trump says he’ll be a dictator on his first day in office and when he vows revenge on those who have harassed him, don’t his critics have a point? Shouldn’t we fear the worst? He did some crazy things in his first term, such as withdrawing from the Paris accords and the Iran deal. So, isn’t it reasonable to think that, if elected, he’ll double down and seek to destroy his enemies and then actually become a dictator by canceling elections?”

ChatGPT gave this response:

“Your friend raises a valid concern. When analyzing Trump’s statements and actions, it’s essential to consider both his rhetoric and his policy decisions to understand the basis of the fears regarding his potential re-election. Here’s a more nuanced explanation:

Trump’s Rhetoric and Actions:

2. **Authoritarian Rhetoric**:

• **Dictatorial Statements**: Trump has made statements suggesting he would like to exercise authoritarian control, such as saying he’ll be a dictator on his first day back in office or seeking revenge on those who opposed him. These comments can be alarming because they suggest a willingness to undermine democratic norms and institutions.
• **Implications of Revenge**: Vowing revenge on political opponents raises concerns about the potential for abuse of power. Such actions could involve using government resources and authority to target and punish individuals or groups based on political motivations, which is antithetical to democratic principles.

2. **Policy Actions During His First Term**:

• **Paris Agreement and Iran Deal**: Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal were significant moves that upended established international agreements. Critics argue these actions isolated the US diplomatically and could lead to long-term negative consequences for global cooperation on issues like climate change and nuclear proliferation.
• **Undermining Institutions**: Actions such as pressuring the Justice Department, challenging the independence of the judiciary, and disputing the results of the 2020 election are seen by many as attempts to undermine key democratic institutions and processes.

Reasons for Concern:

1. **Potential for Escalation**: Given Trump’s past actions and statements, critics worry that his second term could involve more extreme measures. If he were to feel unrestrained by the need for re-election, he might push further against institutional checks and balances.
2. **Impact on Democracy**: There is a fear that undermining democratic institutions, coupled with attempts to consolidate power, could lead to a significant erosion of democratic norms. This could manifest in efforts to limit voting rights, manipulate electoral processes, or disregard the rule of law.
3. **Historical Precedents**: Historically, leaders who have made similar authoritarian promises and taken steps to concentrate power have sometimes succeeded in eroding or dismantling democratic systems. This historical context heightens concerns about what a second Trump term might entail.

Balancing the Analysis:

While it’s important to recognize the genuine concerns about Trump’s rhetoric and potential actions, it’s also essential to consider the broader political and institutional context:

1. **Checks and Balances**: The US political system has robust checks and balances, including the judiciary, Congress, and state governments, which can limit a president’s ability to unilaterally implement extreme measures.
2. **Public and Institutional Resistance**: Trump faced significant opposition from within government institutions, civil society, and the public during his first term. This resistance would likely continue and could act as a counterbalance to any authoritarian tendencies.
3. **Media and Public Scrutiny**: Intense media scrutiny and public engagement can help hold leaders accountable. The high level of public awareness and activism can act as a deterrent against undemocratic actions.

Conclusion:

Trump’s rhetoric and some of his actions provide a basis for concerns about authoritarianism and the erosion of democratic norms. However, the US political system’s inherent checks and balances, along with strong institutional and public resistance, can serve as significant counterweights. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for a balanced perspective on the potential implications of a second Trump term.”

At the beginning of this response, ChatGPT showed what might be called Biden-esque confusion when it mischaracterized my friend’s “valid concern.” His focus was on the media’s behavior rather than Trump’s. Unlike incumbent US President Joe Biden, ChatGPT does not have the excuse of being 81 years old!

For the rest, as I predicted, the chatbot’s tactic once again is to broadly agree with the premise but then hedge its bets by offering a conclusion that encourages a “balanced perspective.” 

Without seeking to analyze the pathology, which has begun to resemble a cancer, ChatGPT prefers to reassure the questioner by invoking “the US political system’s inherent checks and balances.” It fails to engage in the terms of the debate about the media’s strategies and behaviors. It offers no original insight. It doesn’t even appear to understand the nature of the question my friend raised. 

That’s probably because, quite simply, it doesn’t understand.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.