All we learned from the Ziwe interview is that George Santos is ignorant of gay history — and is obviously in on the joke
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
- Ziwe's much-anticipated George Santos interview premiered on Monday.
- All we really learned is that he's ignorant of gay history, despite his own position within it.
- He also managed to embarrass his interviewer, pointing out that people need him for "content."
Well, that was pretty embarrassing.
Not just for George Santos, who seems incapable of shame. Not just for Ziwe, who's simply capitalizing on this moment like any smart entertainer would.
It was also embarrassing, on some level, for anyone who bothered to tune in.
Ziwe's much-anticipated interview with the recently expelled congressman was ultimately a bit of a dud, retreading old ground and highlighting the serial fabulist's most outrageous statements all while offering little in the way of new information.
Perhaps that wasn't the point. After all, Santos is no longer a member of Congress, and barely acted the part when he was.
A preview of the interview includes a clip of Santos asking his interlocutor to "be mindful with the DOJ stuff," a reference to the charges of money laundering, identity fraud, wire fraud, and other offenses that he faces from the Department of Justice. Santos is currently negotiating a plea deal with federal prosecutors, an may be facing significant prison time.
Ziwe ultimately complies with that request, and the resulting interview is relatively light fare, including questions about whether Santos — who no longer has a vote on the House floor — supports a ceasefire in Gaza, whether he has Black friends, or whether he might run for office again as a Democrat in the future.
Only a couple of moments from the 18-minute interview really offered deeper insight into who George Santos is, and what any of this is really about.
The first is in the opening minutes of the interview, when Ziwe asks Santos for his thoughts on Marsha P. Johnson, a radical gay rights activist who was at the vanguard of the Stonewall Uprising, a seminal moment in the history of gay rights in America.
"Very respectful, honorable person. Keep going," says Santos, sputtering out that he respects Johnson "on all the stances and all the work" when pressed further.
He's a bit more upfront when questioned about other key figures in gay history.
"Who the hell is James Baldwin?" says Santos, referring to the Black American civil rights activist and author whose 1956 novel "Giovanni's Room" is a key text in American gay literature.
Same with Harvey Milk, a leader of the gay rights movement in San Francisco who was assassinated less than a year after becoming the first openly gay person elected to public office in California.
"I have no clue who that is," Santos replies matter-of-factly.
If nothing else, it's a fascinating indicator of Santos's broad ignorance of gay history, despite having secured his own spot within it: He's the first non-incumbent gay Republican ever elected to Congress.
But Santos isn't like most of the gay community. On his own wedding anniversary, he said that he opposed the use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples, preferring the more diminutive status of civil unions. And his very last post from his official Twitter account included a video of him insisting that there are just two genders.
The second and perhaps more uncomfortable moment from the interview was when Ziwe asks him "what could we do to get you to go away?"
"Stop inviting me to your gigs," Santos replies with a big smile on his face.
"The lesson is to stop inviting you places," Ziwe later says.
"But you can't," Santos replies icily. "'Cause people want the content."
On this count, the criminally charged ex-congressman is correct.
There's always a certain amount of symbiosis between the media and a controversial figure. This was, and continues to be, a deeply important conversation when it comes to former President Donald Trump. To what extent did the media contribute to his rise? How should we cover someone who routinely lies? What does it mean for an industry tasked with holding a president to account to be financially benefited by his continued presence in American life?
The stakes were always far lower with Santos, who never had that much power, even before he was expelled.
But these days, he's getting rich off of his own infamy via his Cameo account, and Democrats are playing a not-insignificant role in that.
And as the interview makes clear, Santos knows that full well. Why else would he have sat for it?