How Trump's love for TV is shaping US diplomacy
thestar.com.my -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 10:51:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, Media Coverage & Press Relations
Telly Trump: The US president's love for television is well-documented, even when it comes to major decisions. -- Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times
DONALD Trump's sudden concern about starving Palestinians was a major shift for the US president, who had previously ignored the endless cries for help from aid groups. So what changed?
In his words, it was images of emaciated children in Gaza that Trump saw on television - his main window into the world that has long shaped his political and diplomatic decision-making.
Trump made clear his affection for the small screen in late July when asked if he agreed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a major US ally, that there was no famine in Gaza.
"Based on television, I would say not particularly, because those children look very hungry," said Trump, a former reality TV star.
Since then, the 79-year-old has repeated that aid must be brought to people living in the war-ravaged Palestinian territory, though he has stopped short of any major diplomatic moves.
Journalism professor at Northeastern University Dan Kennedy said: "Trump has a reputation for not reading anything, including the briefing papers that his aides prepare for him, and for always believing that he knows better than his staff or anyone else does."
"So it's not surprising that he would be affected by images on television, especially since he is known to spend a lot of time watching TV."
Trump has attended 22 intelligence briefings since taking office in January, according to an AFP tally, despite several reports having revealed that he lacks interest in written reports.
However, his love for television is well-documented - even when it comes to major decisions.
In 2015, before he first entered the White House, the billionaire told a journalist asking how he educates himself on military strategy: "Well, I watch the shows."
And a New York Times report recounted how Trump spent several hours a day in his first term glued to the television, mainly watching Fox News - his favourite channel - but also CNN, NBC and ABC news channels.
His second term has been little changed, despite Trump leading an election campaign that deployed social media and podcasts.
"Trump is a product of his generation," Prof Kennedy said. "He's not sitting around looking at TikTok."
The Republican, who hosted 14 seasons of The Apprentice television series, knows better than most how images can be weaponised for political point-scoring.
He was gleeful after his shocking clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House in February, which saw the pair rowing in front of the world's press.
"This is going to be great television," Trump said.
Trump welcoming Putin to Alaska, as they meet to negotiate for an end to the war in Ukraine. -- Reuters
In May he gave a similar public dressing down to South African leader Cyril Ramaphosa when he sat in the Oval Office for what turned into a diplomatic ambush.
Trump hijacked the meeting by playing a video montage - one littered with inaccuracies - that purported to prove claims of a "genocide" against white farmers in South Africa.
And last Friday, Trump met Russian president Vladimir Putin at a highly-anticipated summit in Anchorage, Alaska - followed by a televised press conference, of course. -- AFP
Sign Our PetitionThe recent revelations regarding former President Donald Trump's reliance on television as a primary source of information about global affairs provide a fascinating window into the intersection of media, politics, and diplomacy. Trump's newfound concern for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, reportedly stirred by televised images of suffering children, exemplifies a broader trend where the media landscape shapes political narratives. This development echoes historical moments when visual media has influenced public perception and political action, serving as a reminder of both the power and the limitations of media in driving meaningful change.
Historically, the portrayal of crises through visual media has had profound effects on public opinion and policy. For instance, during the Vietnam War, graphic images broadcasted into American homes played a pivotal role in shifting public sentiment against the conflict, underscoring how media can catalyze social movements. Similarly, the images from Gaza, highlighting the dire humanitarian conditions faced by Palestinians, carry the potential to mobilize public support for policy reform and humanitarian aid. However, Trump's approach—reacting to what he sees on television rather than engaging with comprehensive policy analysis—raises concerns about the depth and sincerity of his commitment to addressing these issues. The reliance on sensationalized media coverage can lead to superficial responses rather than substantive policy changes that address the root causes of humanitarian crises.
The implications of Trump's governance style—marked by a preference for television over traditional briefings and expert analyses—are troubling when considering the complexities of international relations. His inclination to prioritize media portrayals over nuanced understanding can lead to misguided diplomatic strategies. In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is steeped in historical grievances, power dynamics, and social justice issues, such a superficial grasp of the situation can perpetuate existing injustices rather than foster peace. This is particularly concerning when one considers how the U.S. has historically played a significant role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often siding with Israel while neglecting the rights and needs of Palestinians.
Moreover, Trump's selective engagement with media narratives reflects a broader trend in contemporary politics where political leaders manipulate media to serve their agendas. The ability to "weaponize" images, as seen in Trump's interactions with various world leaders, speaks to a disturbing reality where diplomacy becomes a performance rather than a serious endeavor aimed at resolving conflicts. This trend is not unique to Trump; rather, it is indicative of a systemic issue within political discourse where the spectacle often overshadows substance. As political figures increasingly prioritize media optics, we must ask ourselves how this impacts the lives of ordinary people caught in the crossfires of geopolitical conflicts.
As we reflect on these developments, it is crucial to emphasize the role of informed citizenry in shaping political discourse. Engaging critically with media narratives and demanding accountability from political leaders can counteract the superficiality that often characterizes contemporary politics. The crisis in Gaza serves as a poignant reminder of the urgent need for a compassionate and well-informed response to global humanitarian issues. Advocating for a more empathetic approach to U.S. foreign policy, one that genuinely prioritizes human rights and social justice, can help dismantle the structures that perpetuate suffering. It is essential that we, as engaged citizens, challenge the narrative that prioritizes media spectacle over sincere diplomacy and meaningful action.
In conclusion, Trump's media-driven approach to governance and foreign policy raises significant questions about the nature of contemporary leadership and its ability to address complex global issues. As we navigate the ongoing social struggles surrounding humanitarian crises, it is imperative to advocate for a political culture that values informed decision-making and authentic engagement over the theatrics of media. By fostering a deeper understanding of these issues and challenging the status quo, we can work towards a more just and equitable world, one that holds leaders accountable for their actions and commitments in the face of suffering and injustice.
The recent revelations about Donald Trump's reliance on television as a primary source of information and decision-making highlight a concerning trend in contemporary governance. Trump's shift in demeanor regarding the humanitarian crisis in Gaza—spurred not by comprehensive reports or expert recommendations, but by the harrowing images broadcasted on television—offers a striking case study in the intersection of media consumption, public perception, and policy-making. This reliance on visual media to inform significant diplomatic decisions raises alarms about the integrity of U.S. foreign policy and the potential for spectacle to overshadow substance.
Historically, the impact of media on political decision-making is not new. From the televised debates of the 1960s to the 24-hour news cycle of today, the way leaders consume and interact with media has evolved, yet the core challenge of discerning fact from fiction remains. Trump's preference for television over traditional briefing materials underscores a broader issue: the erosion of informed discourse in favor of sensationalist narratives. This phenomenon has profound implications, particularly in complex geopolitical contexts where nuanced understanding is crucial. The fact that Trump’s diplomatic stances may be swayed by a mere visual stimulus emphasizes how vulnerable our political landscape is to the whims of media portrayal.
As concerned citizens, we must confront this reality by actively promoting media literacy and critical engagement with information sources. The onus is on us to foster an informed electorate that prioritizes comprehensive understanding over superficial narratives. Initiatives aimed at enhancing media literacy in schools and communities can equip individuals with the tools necessary to dissect and analyze the often-sensationalized content presented to them. Moreover, advocating for transparency in media reporting and encouraging news outlets to uphold journalistic standards will challenge the status quo, demanding accountability from those who shape public discourse.
Additionally, we need to mobilize for a political landscape that prioritizes humanitarian values over partisan interests. Trump's initial acknowledgment of the plight of Palestinians, even if superficial, presents an opportunity for advocates of justice to press for genuine action. By leveraging public sentiment—exemplified by Trump's reaction to televised images—we can galvanize support for meaningful humanitarian aid and policy changes. This can be done through grassroots campaigns, petitions, and coalition-building with organizations that focus on human rights and international law. Engaging with representatives at all levels, urging them to consider the human impact of their decisions, will help shift the focus from political expediency to ethical responsibility.
Lastly, it is essential to challenge the rhetoric and strategies employed by right-wing political figures who may seek to dismiss or downplay the relevance of humanitarian crises. By framing our discussions around the moral imperatives of aiding those in need, we can counteract narratives that reduce complex situations to mere political tools. Drawing on historical precedents of successful humanitarian interventions and emphasizing the moral obligation of the United States to act as a global leader in human rights can fortify our arguments. It is imperative to recognize the power of storytelling—particularly in a media landscape dominated by images—to reshape narratives and advocate for justice effectively.
In conclusion, the implications of Trump's television-driven decision-making extend far beyond his presidency; they reflect a systemic issue within U.S. governance that demands our attention. As Americans, we have the power to influence change through education, advocacy, and persistent engagement with our political representatives. By championing informed discourse and prioritizing humanitarian values, we can combat the pervasive influence of sensationalism in politics and work towards a more just and equitable society.
In light of the recent article discussing the influence of television on Donald Trump’s diplomatic decisions, there are several actions we can take to advocate for more informed and compassionate foreign policy, especially regarding humanitarian crises such as the situation in Gaza. Here’s a detailed list of steps to consider:
### Personal Actions We Can Take
1. **Raise Awareness**: Use social media platforms to share information and raise awareness about humanitarian crises. Create posts that highlight the suffering of people in conflict zones, particularly focusing on the Palestinian situation.
2. **Educate Ourselves and Others**: Host or participate in community discussions or study groups that focus on international relations and humanitarian issues. This could be at local libraries, community centers, or through virtual meetings.
3. **Support Nonprofit Organizations**: Donate or volunteer for organizations that provide aid to Palestinians and advocate for their rights, such as the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) or Doctors Without Borders.
### Specific Actions
1. **Petitions**: Start or sign petitions aimed at demanding U.S. policymakers address humanitarian crises effectively and compassionately. Websites like Change.org or MoveOn.org often have active petitions related to Gaza and other humanitarian issues.
- **Example Petition**: Look for petitions that call for increased humanitarian aid to Gaza. You can start one advocating for an end to the blockade and for support for UN humanitarian efforts.
2. **Contact Elected Officials**: - **Who to Write**: Reach out to your local congressional representatives and senators. They have the power to influence U.S. foreign policy and humanitarian aid.
- **Addresses and Emails**: - **For Senators**: - Find your senator’s contact information at [www.senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm) - **For House Representatives**: - Find your representative’s contact information at [www.house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative)
- **Sample Message**: ``` Dear [Senator/Representative Name],
As a concerned citizen, I urge you to prioritize humanitarian aid to Gaza and support policies that protect the rights and lives of Palestinian civilians. The images of suffering and hunger are unacceptable, and I believe the U.S. can and should play a role in alleviating this crisis.
Please advocate for increased humanitarian assistance and a diplomatic approach that prioritizes peace and human rights.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
3. **Organize or Attend Rallies**: Participate in or organize rallies or marches advocating for Palestinian rights. These events raise public awareness and put pressure on elected officials.
4. **Engage with Local Media**: Write letters to the editor or opinion pieces for local newspapers highlighting the importance of informed U.S. foreign policy. Share your perspective on the humanitarian needs in Gaza and the role of media in shaping public discourse.
5. **Work with Student Organizations**: If you’re affiliated with a university or college, collaborate with student organizations to host events, discussions, or fundraisers focused on humanitarian issues in Gaza.
6. **Support Boycotts and Divestments**: Engage with or support the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement aimed at promoting Palestinian rights. This can include encouraging businesses and institutions to reconsider their ties to companies that support the occupation.
By taking these actions, we can work towards a more compassionate and informed approach to U.S. diplomacy that aligns with humanitarian values, ensuring that the voices of those affected by conflict are heard and addressed.