'The View' guest co-host corrects liberal panel about stock market liking Trump's policies
Analysis Summary
This article tries to convince you that President Trump's economic policies, like tariffs and deregulation, were good for the economy and corporate profits, especially for investors. It does this by quoting authority figures, specifically a CNBC anchor, and by downplaying concerns about the negative impacts of these policies.
Cross-Outlet PSYOP Detected
This article is part of a narrative being pushed across multiple outlets:
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"CNBC anchor Sara Eisen surprised co-hosts of "The View" Thursday by saying President Donald Trump’s policies have actually been a boon for the stock market."
The article opens by highlighting a 'surprise' and an unexpected viewpoint from a guest, which serves as a novelty spike to capture and hold the reader's attention by presenting an assertion that goes against a commonly held narrative or expectation regarding Trump's economic policies.
"Eisen stood her ground, arguing they were nowhere near as bad as people anticipated. "Well, fair. But, you know, when the tariffs were announced, everyone thought it would be like massive inflation and the market would fall apart and the economy would fall apart. And it hasn’t.""
This quote frames the situation as an unexpected outcome, contrasting general predictions with the reported reality, thereby presenting the notion as extraordinary or previously unacknowledged, designed to make the reader pay closer attention.
Authority signals
"CNBC anchor Sara Eisen ... usually serves as the host of CNBC's "Squawk on the Street.""
Her role as a CNBC anchor and host of a prominent financial show is immediately presented to establish her perceived expertise and credibility on financial matters, lending weight to her subsequent statements.
"On Thursday, however, co-host Whoopi Goldberg asked her, as an expert on the subject, about the degree to which presidents affect the stock market."
Whoopi Goldberg explicitly introduces Eisen as an 'expert on the subject,' reinforcing her authority and encouraging the reader to accept her statements as informed and authoritative.
""But it was interesting because it’s very rare that we get to sit with a financial person.""
Whoopi's closing remark further emphasizes Eisen's unique position as a 'financial person' on the show, underscoring the perceived privilege of hearing from such an authoritative figure and making her insights seem more valuable.
Tribe signals
""It helps for rich people," co-host Joy Behar said. "It doesn’t help poor people or middle-income people.""
This statement immediately establishes an 'us vs. them' dynamic, positioning the economic policies as beneficial to one group ('rich people') at the expense of others ('poor people or middle-income people'), which can trigger tribal identification and division among readers.
""So, if you're an investor, or you're wealthy, then it's great. If you’re middle class or under the middle class, then it’s not good at all.""
Hostin reiterates and reinforces the 'us vs. them' framing, explicitly drawing a line between the 'wealthy' beneficiaries and the 'middle class or under' who do not benefit, weaponizing economic status as a tribal marker.
Emotion signals
"CNBC anchor Sara Eisen surprised co-hosts of "The View" Thursday by saying President Donald Trump’s policies have actually been a boon for the stock market."
The word 'surprised' indicates an emotional spike, as the statement challenges established sentiments or expectations, likely evoking a sense of curiosity, mild shock, or even disagreement in the reader, leading into an emotional oscillation.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article aims to instill the belief that, despite common perceptions or critical narratives, President Trump's economic policies, particularly regarding the stock market and tariffs, were not as detrimental as anticipated and were, in fact, beneficial for corporate profitability and overall economic growth, especially for investors. It suggests that a more nuanced, and perhaps positive, view of these policies is warranted.
The article shifts the context from a general economic discussion that includes various income strata to a focus on corporate profits and investor sentiment, making the success of the stock market and corporations feel like a primary indicator of economic health. By emphasizing 'upbeat sentiment from companies and from investors' and 'companies have never been more profitable,' it frames economic success through the lens of those who benefit directly from the stock market.
The article omits broader economic data and analyses beyond corporate profits and stock market performance that would illuminate the actual impact of these policies on different income groups, employment, wage growth, national debt, or global trade relations. While the co-hosts briefly touch upon the 'K-curve' effect, detailed discussion or data supporting the impact on middle and lower-income individuals is largely absent. The long-term and indirect consequences of deregulation or tariffs beyond immediate corporate absorption are also not explored.
The article implicitly grants permission to consider Trump's economic policies, especially related to tariffs and deregulation, as economically sound or at least not as damaging as perceived. It also encourages a sentiment of optimism towards the stock market, even suggesting that more individuals should seek 'exposure to stocks' as a beneficial personal financial strategy, despite acknowledged inequalities.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
"When asked about Trump’s tariffs, one of his most famous and most controversial policies, Eisen said, 'The tariffs usually wouldn’t be helpful for growth, but they haven’t been as bad as everybody expected.' ... 'Well, fair. But, you know, when the tariffs were announced, everyone thought it would be like massive inflation and the market would fall apart and the economy would fall apart. And it hasn’t.'"
"Eisen stood her ground, arguing they were nowhere near as bad as people anticipated. ... She added further that 'companies have absorbed it. You know what? They’ve never been more profitable right now. But, also, they like the tax bill.'"
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
"'Actually, the market likes who’s president, I think,' Eisen replied. 'There’s a lot of upbeat sentiment from companies and from investors about policies that are helpful for growth — you know, deregulation.' ... 'The tariffs usually wouldn’t be helpful for growth, but they haven’t been as bad as everybody expected.' ... 'companies have absorbed it. You know what? They’ve never been more profitable right now. But, also, they like the tax bill.'"
Techniques Found(3)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"The tariffs usually wouldn’t be helpful for growth, but they haven’t been as bad as everybody expected."
This statement minimizes the potential negative impact of tariffs by suggesting they 'haven't been as bad as everybody expected,' downplaying their actual effects. It doesn't deny they are unhelpful but implies the degree of their unhelpfulness is less than anticipated.
"Well, fair. But, you know, when the tariffs were announced, everyone thought it would be like massive inflation and the market would fall apart and the economy would fall apart. And it hasn’t."
This quote minimizes the impact of tariffs by contrasting the perceived 'massive inflation' and market collapse with the actual outcome, portraying the tariffs as less detrimental than initially feared, potentially downplaying any real negative effects that occurred.
"Companies have absorbed it. You know what? They’ve never been more profitable right now."
This statement minimizes the negative impact of tariffs by claiming companies have 'absorbed it' and are 'never been more profitable right now,' suggesting the tariffs had little to no adverse effect on corporate profitability.