1. I wish we lived in a media environment where this take was correct. But we don't. Sadly, I think this is a more likely scenario of how a Remnick take-down interview of Bannon would have played out.
2. People who already dislike Bannon would think "Sheesh, Remnick really wiped the floor with Bannon. Nicely done!"
People already inclined to agree with Bannon will think "Wow, Bannon walked into the Lion's Den and really held his own. Nicely done!"
People already inclined to agree with Bannon will think "Wow, Bannon walked into the Lion's Den and really held his own. Nicely done!"
3. But more importantly...people who don't know about Bannon but hear he's controversial will be able to go online and see a beautifully produced video of him chatting with one of the most respected journalists in the nation.
4. When their friends say "but Bannon's a freak" they'll reply "but look, The New Yorker interviewed him, how outlandish could he be! Sure some liberals say he's a freak, but here are some other people who say he's really on to something! Let's learn more about him."
5. And Bannon's attempts to get his outlandish ideas inside the Overton Window (his goal all along) will have been accomplished, thanks to The New Yorker lending him their prestige.
6. Bannon doesn't care about winning the battle of ideas. Bannon cares about spreading his toxic politics through capitalizing on anti-intellectual fear and anger. No dismantling of his ideas, no matter how brilliant, can slow that mobilization process down.
