Trump v the Truth Analysis: Few Channel Would Attempt TV So Bold (while also) Exhausting

If nothing else, credit is due for their dedication to the concept. In general, the British media handled the former president’s state visit with restrained coverage embedded in scheduled news programming. Then along came a major UK network, which decided to go big, abandoning a full night’s schedule to deliver an continuous, lengthy, truth-focused, point-by-point debunking of almost every single thing that he stated since beginning his second term in January.

This sprawling extravaganza, called Trump v the Truth, served as the centerpiece of what effectively became a Trump-themed programming block on Wednesday. Preceding it was part two of The Donald Trump Show, a weird hour that overlaid an arch Come Dine With Me narration over old Trump clips. During the broadcast, continuity announcers were replaced with a Trump impersonator who protested about the channel’s output. In one instance, the impersonator remarked about his intense dislike of a simple side dish.

Still, Trump v the Truth was undoubtedly the focus; a monumental flex that few other broadcasters would have dared to attempt. Kicking off late and rolling on into the early morning, the show was billed as a thoroughly researched fact-checking effort of more than 100 untruths that Trump has shared during his current presidency, in addresses, media appearances, comments and social media posts.

Theoretically, this is a praiseworthy demonstration of truth-seeking reporting. We live in an age where Trump frequently seeks to muzzle the press – only days ago, he initiated a huge case against the New York Times – so for a network to confront him as thoroughly as this might set an example for other nations to copy.

Enduring the full broadcast was a different matter entirely. Right from the start, the show maintained an consistent structure: first we’d see a excerpt of Trump, and then subtitles would unemotionally set the record straight. Video of him announcing a 1400% reduction in pharmaceutical rates was accompanied by text pointing out “It is impossible reduce a price by more than 100% as a 100% reduction means the price is free”. Examples of him asserting that the US is unique in having mail-in voting was followed by text pointing out that more than 30 other countries allow it.

It will take three months in a isolation chamber to recover from this …

This continued, flitting between petty inaccuracies about Trump taking credit for the word “balance” and significant lies about Ukraine starting the war with Russia. Regarding these, you found yourself wishing that Channel 4 had produced a condensed version on the more serious claims. The anger you feel when exposed to a big destabilising distortion – like his frequent claims that a large number of immigrants are violent criminals – is quickly undermined by trivial details, like a correction about the origin of the individual to achieve nuclear fission. In these moments, it feels like being stuck in a tavern with the ultimate nitpicker.

It’s hard to find a decent comparison for the numbing experience of watching Trump v the Truth. It was a bit like marathon viewing, but with the relaxing trip replaced by a concrete risk to world stability. It was a bit like the old informational segments on VH1, but with fun trivia about Madonna replaced with data about the consequences for harming national symbols. It was, in its endless runtime, almost like being haunted by a particularly terrifying nightmare figure.

But, this deadening boredom was probably intentional. This was less a call to arms and more a grand filibustering designed to wear you down under the weight of Trump’s falsehoods. And it succeeded. After sitting through it, I only desire to spend the next quarter of a year in a quiet room until my senses returns to normal.

The bigger question is the target viewer. Trump supporters are unlikely to change by the fact that a foreign television channel spent hours unemotionally fixing his position on a criminal’s history. His opponents don’t need reminding that he often lies, and had no necessity to be awake all night to be told.

Maybe there’s a sliver of a possibility that Trump himself inadvertently pressed a device before he fell asleep at his accommodations last night, and it started playing, and it led him to realize the mistakes he made. If that’s the case, then Trump v the Truth will have been worth it. Otherwise, it might be wise that we view this as a noble but flawed venture.