Chris Hayes on why Trump is winning the attention war and Democrats are "scared of new things"
Chris Hayes knows a thing or two about getting attention, given that he has hosted his Emmy Award-winning MSNBC talk show "All In with Chris Hayes" for more than a decade. That helps explain why his new book, "The Sirens' Call," which focuses on exactly that topic, debuted at the top spot on the New York Times bestseller list.
When I spoke to Hayes about his new book for "Salon Talks," he observed that attention is like oxygen: Humans need it to survive. 'A newborn infant is totally helpless and it dies unless it is attended to. So from the moment we come into the world, our survival depends on attention from others,' Hayes explained.
Throughout life, in fact, we all strive for attention to varying degrees. (As a needy person myself, this is an acute daily exercise!) But something deeper is at work in what Hayes calls the 'attention industry,' which seeks to secure our attention for profit. In every minute of our waking lives, social media platforms compete for our attention with all kinds of entertainment and commentary, even including a 'Dog With a Blog,' as Hayes mentioned.
Of course we also see a nonstop contest for attention by politicians. Discussing Donald Trump, Hayes remarked that 'his desire for that attention is so deep, it's coming from such a deep place, he needs it so pathologically.' That need seems to drive Trump's every action, as we have all witnessed over the past decade.
Democrats, by contrast, appear to be losing the war of attention. Some Democrats in Congress are trying to take Trump on directly, Hayes notes, 'but fighting back or getting attention might not be the same thing.' One important element is what Hayes calls the operating DNA of the two parties. "Democrats want to get some bills through Congress," Hayes told me, "and what Republicans want to do is go on podcasts."
The challenge for Democrats, he believes, is to focus on new ways to attract attention — and to overcome their 'risk aversion to trying new things.' This may be a generational or institutional issue, but it's high time for Democratic leaders need to realize that if they can't win the battle for attention, they may not be able to survive.
Watch my "Salon Talks" episode with Chris Hayes on YouTube to hear more about Hayes' theory of attention, how cable news has changed over the last 10 years and why Trump is so well suited to harness the attention industry.
https://youtu.be/cButD6_-LWI
The following transcript has been edited for clarity and length.
I'm smarter now from reading your book! I don't say that too often about other people's books.
Honestly, that is the best thing an author can hear. The thing when you write a book is you want: a) people to read it, which is not nothing — as I document in the book, we're all distracted; and b) people to find it useful. My favorite thing is when people read something that you've written, and they feel like it generates their own thoughts. Like, "Oh, I started having these thoughts about things." That's sort of the sweet spot.
You talk about people going into solitary confinement as a form of punishment. Is attention like oxygen? Do we need it to survive?
Yes — social attention, that specific form of attention. One of the things I try to do in the book is map out these dimensions and distinctions. One really important form of social attention is so elemental to human life that it is the necessary precondition to survive. A newborn infant is totally helpless and it dies unless it is attended to, so from the moment we come into the world, our survival depends on attention from others. When you read about people that have been exposed to prolonged periods of isolation, it's a form of torture, it's a form of madness. That's because that social attention from other people is like the lifeblood of human existence.
You write, "I don't think you can understand the attention age without grappling with the experience of … I've returned again and again to alienation as the best available descriptor for something I can't quite name about what it feels like to be alive right now." Why do you feel that way?
Alienation is one of those concepts that I've always been a little suspicious of because it could be so fuzzy and all-encompassing. The specific thing I'm talking about here is a sense that a thing that should be inside you is outside of you. A thing that you should have control over and be internal to you has been taken from you and it is now alien to you. I think we feel that way about our own attention, about our own minds.
This feeling of constantly being compelled to pay attention to something, maybe against our will, maybe eliciting some part of our will that we feel icky about, and then that attention being outside of us and not something that properly we control. It's that feeling of alienation, this kind of mental carsickness that we all walk around with, that stuck-in-traffic feeling but in your mind that I think has really become the mood of the times.
We can be alienated from our own attention and then alienated from each other through technologies that are defined with increasing sophistication and the use of machine learning running experiments over a billion users to find the particular individual thing we will want to spend time with that might be different than the spouse sitting next to us on the couch.
Every new media invention has caused : radio, TV, the Walkman. The Museum of Modern Art has an exhibit about the earliest days of Impressionism and you read the articles like, "It's the devil's work, it's going to destroy society."
Exactly. Those are really wild, the reviews of the [1913] Armory Show when it comes to New York and the Impressionism period. My favorite example of that is a quote I have from, I think, the 1890s, where someone's writing about the scourge of magazines and the thing he says is, like, "Nowadays after dinner by the fire, a whole family is sitting, each looking at their own magazine and not paying attention to each other." It's so perfect.
Then a few years later everyone is over the panic, the technology is normal and the next thing becomes demonized. How do you separate yourself from that cycle when talking about social media?
I think there's two answers to that. One is that if you go back, you can look at this resistance to new technologies as moral panic, but also as capturing something true. People weren't wrong to recognize that TV was a revolutionary technology that was going to totally alter how politics was conducted, how commerce was conducted and how people lived their lives in the domestic sphere. All of that was true. So first of all, we're dealing with a technology on the order of, at the very least, TV, which is to say it's going to have seismic implications.
Two, I think there's a bunch of things that differentiate this technology. Its ubiquity, which is totally distinct. You carry it around, you have this portal to it. Its sophistication, in terms of the scale at which it's operating over a billion users — there's never been a medium that operates over a billion users. Then, crucially, this social aspect where it is able to talk to you individually in a way that no technological media forum has ever been able to do. The closest you could get was to look into the camera and try to sell to a generic housewife, or Uncle Sam pointing in the poster. This can actually talk to Dean Obeidallah. This technology can have people tag and mention you. It can weaponize that need for social attention at scale in a way nothing else ever has before.
There are valid concerns about the technology we have today, but what about AI?
I have a bunch of complicated thoughts and I still feel like I am in the beginning of a learning curve. There's a Sam Altman quote where he talks about the machine learning that's employed on algorithmic social media as being the very first alignment problem of AI, meaning it's useful to understand that algorithmic social media is really the first mass consumer product driven by large language models or machine learning at scale. It is learning what people like and don't like and learning in real time and getting more and more sophisticated. The fact that that can produce a set of incentives that are misaligned with what we want from humans or produces a lot of swastika content, that's a big problem that portends something profound about AI in the future.
In terms of the specifics of AI, one of the crazy things is that social media has this thing where they can get Dean's attention on Bluesky, but there's a person connected to that. Now imagine a world in which AI can do that, and imagine a world in which there is no regulatory demand that you know when you're talking to a computer, a bot or a human. That to me is the most obvious point.
You can start to scale this sort of social tent. Imagine people friending you six months before an election and they're talking to you. You have shared interests and then they start to say things about the election and they're kind of trying to drive you toward a certain point of view. And then it turns out, "Oh, that's just an AI bot that was deployed at scale." There are serious ethical questions here.
Donald Trump has harnessed the attention industry that we live in. Is it that he works the system well, or is it the system going, "OK, we can use this person to do what we need to do, which is to monetize"?
I think it's sometimes that a man meets his moment. In this case, it's sort of a dystopian version of this, where a person whose desire for attention is so defining and pathological that it's genuine and authentic in a way that's unthinkable. He is not an authentic person insofar as he lies all the time, but his desire for that attention is so deep, it's coming from such a deep place, he needs it pathologically. He entered politics at the moment when attention is the most valuable resource, and from this sort of feral instinct he backed into this realization: All attention is good attention, even negative attention; the point is to dominate attentional space.
If you look at his first few weeks in office, he comes out every day behind the Resolute Desk. I've never seen it before. Every day, four o'clock, Resolute Desk, Oval Office. It could be the most insane surreal thing you've ever seen, like Elon Musk twitching with his four-year-old in front of him, but you're watching. That's the point, and I think the central insight that has helped him.
Democrats are losing the war of attention. I have members of Congress on my radio show, and they get slightly defensive when I go, "You guys are not fighting back hard." They'll list what they're doing. I'm like, "Well, it didn't make press coverage."
That's the thing: "Are you fighting back?" or "Are you getting attention?" might not be the same thing.
That's what they are not getting, that's the disconnect.
I thought when they went outside USAID, I thought that worked. I don't know if they had a mic set up or maybe just a megaphone, but there were protesters there. That was the first time where I was like, "OK, there's something happening here that's new, that's different, you're trying to break through." But a huge part of it is just this default institutionalism, this hidebound risk aversion that I think has become a real cultural problem in the Democratic Party. This kind of stasis, not wanting to try new things and being scared of new things.
I also think there's a real problem, which they've found themselves in for perfectly good reasons: They really are more comfortable governing than being powerless in opposition. Republicans are the other way around. What Democrats want to do is try to get bills through Congress, and what Republicans want to do is go on podcasts. What happens is when the Democrats are in power and Republicans are out of it, they're each suited to their roles. When it flips, what you have is Democrats struggling to get attention and Republicans having a hard time governing, and instead going to war against their own government.
Democratic leadership during the election campaign would say, "Donald Trump's a fascist, he's going to take away our freedoms, our democracy, everything." After he wins, they're like, "Let's find common ground." How does that work?
I think that was a pretty rough message twist. I don't think their worst fears have been disproven by his actions in the first three weeks. Let me defend them this way. Here's their logic, and I don't think it's ludicrous: We believe this is true, that he is a threat to democracy. We made this argument consistently and forthrightly to the American people and they were like, "Eh, I don't care."
Then I think what they said is, "Look, if people don't care about that argument, if that's not breaking through to people, we shouldn't keep trying it. We should try something new. What we're going to try is we'll work with him on areas we agree, but what about the price of eggs?" Now, again, that has a certain logic to it and in the latest polling, even a very good poll for him that came from CBS where he had positive approval, 77% of people said he wasn't doing enough about prices. You had inflation come in hot this week. So it's not crazy, but there's something a little narratively incoherent as he lays waste to the government to be like, "Well, what about the price of eggs?" Like, OK, yes, but ...
Politics is about figuring out effective means of public communication, particularly when you're in the minority. They literally have no power to set an agenda, they have to react to the agenda. One of the things you have to do is try different messages, try to do different things, and one of the things I think you can say is, "Look, he has given the keys to the government over to a billionaire to enrich themselves, to screw over working people, to push through big tax cuts and what is happening to your costs?" There's a way to unify those messages. Some Democrats are doing a good job. I think it's hit-and-miss. It's a little generational, too.
One of the things that I think is really important is that there's this entire industrial complex around Democratic politicians, PR people and comms people. Everything has to be vetted because blah, blah, blah. AOC just goes on Instagram and she talks to people. Maybe she's going to say some things that are going to be taken out of context and she's going to get killed in the New York Post for it, and that does happen. But she is trying her level best to authentically communicate, without these filters. There's a lot to learn from that, which is just go talk to people. On any platform you can find, go talk to people.
Your book is about attention, and you've been on TV now for more than a decade. What have you learned about getting attention over this year? How has it changed for you in terms of trying to get the viewership attention?
One is just the constant change of the universe we live in. When I started doing this show, I remember we had the showrunner for 'House of Cards,' Beau Willimon, on [as a guest]. It was 2013 or '14, because the big thing was, Netflix has a show now. That was the reason we booked him, it was a political drama, but the big story was, "Whoa, Netflix making content." Radical transformation! TikTok didn't exist, none of that.
In every moment, everyone who's doing something like what you and I are doing is competing with every other piece of content ever made in human history. I see it with my kids sometimes, they'll be rooting around on Disney and discover a canceled sitcom from 2002 that they watch every episode of. 'Dog With a Blog.' That's a real show. There's a show called 'Dog With a Blog' about a dog with a blog. Didn't last very long. My daughter loves it. The point of that is the competition is incredibly fierce, more intense than it's ever been.
It's hard to move people off the platforms they're on, that's the other thing. I have a podcast that comes out weekly — we reach a bunch of people that don't watch my TV show. A lot of people watch my TV show and don't listen to the podcast. I hope there's a lot of people that read this book who don't do either. I'm on Bluesky and I'm on X and I'm on Threads, and part of the reason that I'm on all these different places is that different people, different generations, different demographics, get information in different ways. You kind of have to be in all these different places.
If there were things you couldn't talk about on your show, would you choose to talk about them in a book? Is there ever push and pull from the big world of corporate media?
No. I think I had this conception when I was younger: "Corporate media won't let you say X or Y." I've really not had that experience. People talk about advertisers all the time. No one knows my advertisers less than me. I talk to viewers who will mention my advertisers all the time. I'm like, "I've never seen an ad for my own show. I have no idea who my advertisers are. In fact, you know much better than I because you actually watch it from the outside. I sit there in the studio like ... 'Four minutes.'" That part of it is just not a factor.
What is a factor is format. That's the big factor. What can you do in an eight-minute cable news block, versus what can you do in a 45-minute podcast, versus what can you do in a 300-page book, versus what you can do in an essay, in a tweet or a Bluesky post. That's where I think you hit limitations in format. I did this podcast with this guy, David Roberts, who's a great writer on the green economy, and we talked about the electrical grid for 50 or 55 minutes and it was fascinating. You can't really do that on a cable news show, there's too much detail to fill up.
One thing that's great is with these different formats, at the same time we have this lowest-common-denominator sirens' call of the casino-fication of content and the algorithmic drive to short video, and next to that we have these boundless human appetites for all sorts of different things. People listen to four-hour podcasts, people get really into shows about history or astrophysics. People are interested in different stuff and a more diverse landscape allows you to meet those different needs in different places and create small-scale but sustainable outlets. The question is, which of those two impulses is ascendant?
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democratic city council forum on June 17
In the lead-up to the June 24 primary election, the Niagara Gazette and Niagara Falls NAACP are hosting a forum for the Democratic candidates in the Niagara Falls City Council race. The forum is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 17 at Bloneva Bond Primary School, 2513 Niagara St. The six Democratic candidates for council have been invited and include: • John Kinney Jr. • Michia Lee • Noah Munoz • Bridgette Myles • Donta Myles • Sylvana Rahman. Munoz, Kinney and Bridgette Myles have received backing from both the city and county Democrats. There are three open seats on the city council this election cycle. Candidates in attendance at June 17's forum will be questioned by representatives from the debate partners. There are currently no plans to take questions from the audience during the forum. City residents are urged to send in their questions prior to the event to Gazette managing editor Matt Winterhalter at The forum is expected to last from 6:30 to 8 p.m. Doors open at 6 p.m.

Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Republicans rediscover the one weird trick that actually cuts spending
Dominic Pino is the Thomas L. Rhodes journalism fellow at National Review Institute and host of the American Institute for Economic Research podcast 'Econception.' Well, this is awkward. After the relationship between President Donald Trump and businessman Elon Musk very publicly soured, Congress is considering action on the primary product of that relationship: spending cuts suggested by the U.S. DOGE Service.


San Francisco Chronicle
39 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Mayor Lurie made ‘painful' cuts in his S.F. budget proposal. The hurt is far from over
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said he made 'painful decisions' when assembling his recent budget proposal that would slash nonprofit contracts and shrink the City Hall workforce. But the hurt is far from over. Lurie recently told the Chronicle that he is still eyeing a more ambitious overhaul next year as he tries to erase a deficit that's projected to reach as much as $700 million in the 2028 fiscal year. Complicating Lurie's plans to rein in city spending is the fact that the Trump administration has already moved to claw back federal funds from San Francisco and could try to take more money away. And a Tuesday report from the city controller's office warned that proposed Medicaid cuts advanced by Congressional Republicans could further hurt city revenue — as could a potential recession. Lurie's city spending plan would eliminate about $185 million in grants and contracts over two years and cut about 100 filled jobs from the government payroll. The proposal would help Lurie close a massive budget shortfall, but unions and nonprofits quickly decried what they view as an unwarranted assault on community groups that provide crucial services to residents and businesses. Despite the early resistance, however, Lurie's inaugural budget blueprint does not represent a massive reorganization of the San Francisco bureaucracy, nor does it compare to the layoffs the city last experienced during the Great Recession. Next year could be a different story. In an interview with the Chronicle last week, Lurie indicated that he sees the current budget negotiations as a prelude to his plans for 2026. This year, his budget proposal was all about 'right-sizing,' he said. For next year, he has a different word in mind: 'restructuring.' 'This was a really focused budget on delivering core services (and) right-sizing our government,' Lurie said. 'And it does not mean the work is over. It was never going to be that way. … We have a lot of work to do ahead of us.' It's not yet clear what Lurie's promised restructuring will look like. The mayor's budget plan this year already proposed combining two city departments beset by scandals into one agency. And a February executive directive that Lurie issued on permitting reform said the city should explore how it might merge 'key permitting functions' into one department. Just how difficult Lurie's budget calculus will be in the coming year depends heavily on what happens at the national level. San Francisco's nearly $16 billion budget relies on more than $2 billion in operating revenue from the federal government, the vast majority of which comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursements. Funding changes under consideration in Congress could hurt the city, but it's how much it might lose. The controller's Tuesday report said the proposed federal budget bill 'represents the biggest set of cuts to Medicaid since inception and could result in thousands of San Francisco residents disenrolling from the Medi-Cal program and reduced funding for the Department of Public Health.' Lurie has proposed setting up a $400 million reserve that the city could tap into to offset any major funding cuts from President Trump or Congress. The controller found that the reserve amount was 'commensurate to risk.' Another unknown is the extent to which any national economic downturn could harm San Francisco's budget, and Lurie's ability to bring city spending in line with revenue. The controller's report noted that, while unemployment in the city is stable and office attendance has risen, technology and hospitality companies continue to lay people off. Trump's tariffs and immigration crackdowns could further strain the economy. Regardless of what happens nationally, Lurie has said he is already trying to end 'the era of soaring city budgets' and wants city officials to 'start living within our means.' His proposed cuts represent a reckoning for nonprofits after years of flush city budgets that saw millions flow to third parties in exchange for providing crucial social services. Now, many of those organizations are reeling from deep cuts that could force layoffs and the shuttering of programs. Some San Francisco legal aid organizations are facing deep cuts that they say could lead to more homelessness and less access to legal services for the needy. One legal aid organization's director is going on a hunger strike to protest the cuts. The Latino Task Force, Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, the Chinatown Community Development Center and dozens of others are facing cuts that will impact services. The People's Budget, a coalition of city advocacy groups that every year proposes changes to the mayor's budget, has a 'walkthrough' of all the groups they have heard from that are losing funding. Anya Worley-Ziegmann, lead coordinator for the San Francisco People's Budget Coalition that advocates for nonprofits facing cuts, said in a statement that Lurie's budget proposal threatens 'essential services for food security, workforce development, legal aid, and children and families facing homelessness.' 'We cannot balance the budget on the backs of working class and marginalized communities while at the same time claiming to be a city that cares for all its residents,' Worley-Ziegmann said. Lurie also is being slammed by fiscal conservatives who believe he should have made deeper cuts to the city's 33,000-person workforce and take on the city's 'nonprofit industrial complex,' a moniker critics have given to the large contractors that do work on behalf of the city. A previous Chronicle analysis found that San Francisco has an unusually high amount of public sector workers per capita, especially among public health and library employees. Marie Hurabiell, founder of the neighborhood advocacy group Connected SF, praised Lurie for taking on the city's nonprofits and contractors as well as his effort to 'right-size' the budget after years of what she said was 'overspending' related to the pandemic. But she said those changes will only get San Francisco to the level of spending it had before COVID, and there are many more cuts to be made to downsize the government so it better reflects the city's relatively small population. One way to do that is by doubling down on accountability, she said. 'For years there's been a lot of money flowing and our services have not been great,' she said. '(Lurie) is probably trying to be very thoughtful and methodical (about future cuts), but I'm hoping he will be more impactful.' The existing job cuts in Lurie's proposed budget also drew some criticism from the executive committee of the San Francisco Democratic Party, which is controlled by moderates who generally share Lurie's politics. Committee members said in a statement that Lurie's budget overall 'demonstrates bold leadership during a time of unprecedented fiscal challenge.' But party leaders said they were 'very concerned about the proposed reduction of city jobs currently held by San Francisco employees.' 'Cutting these roles not only disrupts lives and livelihoods but also risks weakening the long-term capacity of government to meet the needs of its residents,' the statement read. Party chair Nancy Tung said the committee doesn't have a position on where budget cuts should come from if those 100 jobs were preserved. But she said the committee hoped Lurie and supervisors would be able to find a way to prevent any city employees from being laid off. She also acknowledged that the city's financial condition had put Lurie in a tough spot and praised him for issuing a hiring slowdown on his first day in office. 'I don't envy where the mayor is in terms of having to do this,' Tung said. 'I also know that this is very hard for him, too. He is trying to do it as humanely as possible.' Tom Li contributed reporting.