He said the network had gotten feedback that they wanted Trump to appear on the show more often (given how much he was being paid), so the show added a segment in which Trump would rate the results of contestants’ challenges for positions in his organization. The ratings were recorded. rear The assignment is completed.
“The combined effect is that not only does Trump reappear in each episode, but he also seems like a prophet, in that he knows exactly how each task will or will not work,” Pruitt wrote. “He appears like an all-seeing, all-knowing figure. We are led to believe that Donald Trump is a born leader.”
At the same time, to create the impression that Trump was at the height of his success, his shortcomings were hidden from view. For example, taping a Jessica Simpson concert at his branded casino in New Jersey was particularly challenging, according to Pruitt. “The casino’s marquee lights were out. Hong Kong investors actually owned the place, and Trump was merely lending his name. The carpets stank, and the environment for Simpson’s concert was shabby at best.”
Solution: “We’ll get around all of that and film it.”
Mr Trump’s initial awkwardness during the dramatic boardroom scenes at the end of each show eased as the taping progressed, but Mr Pruitt said new problems emerged.
“Trump made some disturbing comments that he found funny or entertaining, some of which were misogynistic and racist,” he argued in the essay. “We have removed those comments. If you go to one of his rallies today, you can hear many of those comments.”
Pruitt also claims that Trump used racist slang during a planning meeting for a show that was recorded by other attendees. In a statement to The Washington Post, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Chang called Pruitt’s essay “fabricated” and “fake news,” without providing evidence.
Pruitt suggests that all of this — the creation of an infallible Trump, a consummate leader — helped propel Trump to the 2016 election. He points out that Trump parlayed his newfound success into “Trump University,” a real estate course that was announced shortly after the show’s second season aired, which led to multiple fraud allegations. (Trump settled those lawsuits shortly after the 2016 election.) If Trump’s new persona can convince people to hand over their money, why wouldn’t he think it could convince them to hand over their vote?
As it happens, new research strongly suggests that this is the case: A paper by Eunji Kim of Columbia University and Sean Patterson Jr. of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania uses statistical tools and analysis to assess the show’s impact on Republican primary voters.
“Because most voters do not have personal interactions with politicians, the relationship between candidate and voter is primarily parasocial,” the researchers wrote, referring to the phenomenon in which people are perceived to develop one-sided relationships with celebrities. The study noted that early seasons of “The Apprentice” garnered more viewers than NBC’s nightly news programs, underscoring just how widespread Pruitt’s deception was to Americans.
“A survey of white voters conducted before the 2016 presidential election found that frequent viewers of the show were more likely to trust Trump, feel a personal connection to him, and reject information critical of his candidacy,” Kim and Patterson write. “In open-ended responses, enthusiastic apprentice Viewers clearly relied on aspects of Trump’s on-air personality, such as his business experience and leadership potential, as the basis for their support. In contrast, non-viewers who do not support Trump were more likely to evaluate his campaign along more typical partisan dimensions.”
This is partly a function of the media. News coverage of Trump regularly featured and reinforced his role on “The Apprentice.” Trump’s candidacy quickly centered on immigration; Kim and Patterson’s study found that for every three articles that mentioned Trump and immigration, there was one that mentioned his show.
They argue that Trump’s emergence from the world of reality TV also helps explain his politics.
“By relying on popular support outside traditional political institutions, a leader like Trump can effect dramatic and unorthodox shifts in public opinion and public policy,” they write.
Trump’s success in 2016 was not solely down to the show. Trump also appeared as a weekly commentator on Fox News’ regular show for years before announcing his candidacy in 2015. The focus on immigration, first shown when he announced his presidential campaign, generated enormous coverage and backlash, and raised Trump’s profile among Republican voters. But Pruitt and his colleagues make a compelling case that the show played a key role. How the show presented Trump is Pruitt’s role, and how that presentation was received is the work of research.
“Reality TV is predicated on the premise that it is scripted,” Pruitt wrote. “What actually happens is Illusion By setting the situation against a lifelike backdrop, it creates a sense of realism.”
In the case of “The Apprentice,” the fantasy persuaded many people, Trump won the Republican nomination. Then he became president, shedding the perceptions created by television. The manufactured reality elevated him to a level where he could change reality. Trump was once an outsider who was perceived as highly effective because of his public persona. Now he is an insider who defines what it means to be an insider on the right. He is no longer the exception; he has made the exception the norm.
Pruitt clearly regrets the role he played in making that possible.
