How do accidental uploads, media incentives, and social-media feedback loops turn political scandal into a performative scoreboard—and what actually matters when the dust settles?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss a racist “ape” trope video that circulated via Trump’s social media, the administration’s shifting explanations, and why the response often matters more than the technical cause. Rosner argues politics has become “sportified,” rewarding gotcha moments and outrage that plays well to one’s side. He contrasts how montage tactics operate across news and comedy ecosystems, and how constant visibility can protect Trump while limited exposure hurt Biden. They also explore elite detachment, inequality narratives, and how social media accelerates coordination, isolation, and identity signaling—making chaos feel like a feature, not a bug.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Elon Musk previously posted on X a claim suggesting that the reason the Epstein files have not been fully released is that Trump is in them. He did not provide evidence for the claim, and he later deleted the post. More recently, Trump’s account shared a post that circulated a racist depiction involving Barack and Michelle Obama.

Rick Rosner: The night before last, Trump was posting heavily on Truth Social, in a late-night spree. One post involved a video in which a racist trope appeared—depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as primates. People noticed within hours, and the backlash intensified as it spread. 

After the reaction grew, the White House blamed it on a staff error, and many people did not accept that explanation. Then Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt framed the episode as humour and urged people to focus on other issues, which further inflamed criticism. Afterward, some commentators argued that the clip may have been appended unintentionally—essentially, that Trump posted one video and a few seconds of the following queued clip appeared at the end, possibly because he did not review the complete upload before posting. 

Even if that technical explanation is plausible, the larger issue became the administration’s response: instead of clearly explaining what happened, they first blamed a staffer and then minimized the racist content. The White House also described it as a parody, including comparisons to The Lion King, which critics rejected.

Jacobsen: Are there prominent political figures or commentators, comedians and others who identify as Democrats and express outrage in an exaggerated, performative way, at least in the moment?

Rosner: With the sportification of politics, there is a lot of “gotcha” behaviour—people playing to their own side, escalating the performance, and treating reactions like points on a scoreboard.

The fact that this video went up is a huge “gotcha” moment: Trump’s Truth Social account posted a racist video depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes. That is concerning because it signals chaos and reinforces the perception that his supporters will excuse anything. 

However, in this instance, Republican officials—including prominent lawmakers—publicly condemned the post and called for it to be removed, and it was eventually taken down. Reporting afterward also described a plausible “accidental append” scenario, in which the offensive seconds appeared at the end of a different video being posted, which lowers my level of outrage from my first reaction. But most people have not seen that analysis; they see “Trump posted a video portraying the Obamas as apes,” full stop.

The Trump administration is often characterized by high media play layered over a kind of brewing chaos. This ecosystem makes sense for a reality-TV-style presidency, where attention is a currency. Trump has repeatedly cared about audience metrics, including publicly touting television ratings during the COVID-19 briefing era.

Jacobsen: So people do not have time in this maelstrom to comment accurately or clearly—there is no time, right?

Rosner: That is where Obama and Biden often got “played.” Biden’s team limited exposure for long stretches, and right-wing media frequently used short, unfavourable clips—especially stumbles—to build damaging montages.

That tactic has been a staple in American politics for a long time. Jon Stewart and The Daily Show also helped popularize the montage format in a different register—comedy—where the point is satire rather than straight news framing.

Jacobsen: So one big difference is that Republicans do it on news shows, and Democrats mostly do it on comedy shows and through commentators. That is an important distinction, but both sides do it. One is more appropriate than the other if done consistently. 

Rosner: Yes—both do it, but the context matters. A clip montage is, by design, cherry-picking: you select the worst moments of your opponents. Biden did little to counter that narrative; he might have benefited from more frequent public appearances and from openly owning his age and speech issues. Trump, by contrast, is constantly in public and continually talking—often recklessly—but it energizes his base. Biden could go weeks or months between interviews.

Obama, meanwhile, was invested in being “no drama” and in playing by the norms, even when opponents did not. The most notorious example is the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination, when Mitch McConnell refused to proceed with hearings. There were more aggressive procedural options Obama might have attempted, but he avoided them, likely to prevent escalation and institutional rancour, while the other side was already comfortable with escalation.

Jacobsen: Let’s talk about how detached American elites can be from the consequences of the decisions they make, or something else?

Rosner: The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 50,000 yesterday for the first time, and the White House celebrated it publicly.

Meanwhile, on job creation, total payroll employment rose by 584,000 in 2025, which is extremely weak by modern standards. Whatever the precise causes, the pattern looks like an economy that is doing well for asset-holders and much less well for everyone else.

Anyway, when something like the Obama “ape” clip happens, it is awful—but it also exposes incompetence. People compare the Trump administration to early-1930s Germany, and that comparison has limits. For one thing, the U.S. is larger and more diverse than Germany was then.

Second, we have historical memory: fascism is not a new, untested brand; it is a known toxin. Third—and this matters—the Nazis were methodical about disguising what they were doing. Modern politics is messier, and social media makes concealment harder.

Jacobsen: What about the argument that social media itself drives some of this?

Rosner: Social media makes it easier for bad actors and lunatics to find each other and coordinate. I use the John Birch Society as a contrast: in the 1950s and 60s, recruiting and internal communication were slow and expensive—mail, local meetings, limited long-distance calling. Today, fringe movements can exchange more messages in a minute than earlier groups could exchange in weeks.

The other problem is social isolation. Many people now get most of their messaging through phones, feeds, and partisan media, instead of regular face-to-face friction with neighbours who will tell you, “You’re full of it.” That everyday reality-check is weaker than it used to be, and the result is stronger “news bubbles,” stronger identity signalling, and faster escalation.

I am not in that much of a bubble, because I do the “Lance versus Rick” thing—Lance is a hardcore MAGA guy. So I hear the other side in far more detail than I would prefer. Go ahead.

Jacobsen: You two talk about each other in extreme terms quite often. I am there to witness it as a third party and as a foreigner—generationally, nationally, and geographically removed. So, what are some things you and Lance agree on, and what are some things you disagree about?

Rosner: Most of our disagreements are political. Outside of that, we overlap in a bunch of ways. Lance is an outstanding artist—an excellent artist—, and he has spent his life practicing his craft. We both appreciate aesthetics.

He is also something of a writer. His father was a screenwriter. Lance says he won an Academy Award, so we both appreciate literature and entertainment. That said, it is probably harder to be MAGA and also be a heavy entertainment consumer at this point, because politics bleeds into everything.

Lance loves amusement parks. I am not a huge fan. But broadly, outside politics, we both appreciate the world, and we can have non-hostile discussions about plenty of nonpolitical things. Lance is more spiritual than I am. I am more science-oriented. Lance believes in various things I call mysticism, but we do not fight about that. It is more “to each his own.”

On the “bubble” question: I am an American, which means my exposure to world news and events is not great. If I wanted to be better informed, I would probably watch the BBC or Al Jazeera. When I remember to, I do, but I forget where they are in my channel lineup.

Jacobsen: Plus, there is just a lot going on.

Rosner: Right. So, in terms of what I post about, I would rather post some Trump outrage than wade into a full-scale rant about everything else.

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.