Last weekend, a video went viral on social media as a woman claimed she was kicked out of a bar for being a supporter of Donald Trump. 93 WIBC afternoon hosts Hammer & Nigel booked her for an interview to talk about the situation.
At the Chatterbox Jazz Club in Indianapolis, a video purported to show a woman — named Elise — being told by the bartender she needed to leave because of her Make America Great Again hat. When asked why they were being asked to leave, the bartender said “Because you’re a Trump supporter.” The bartender then grabbed what appeared to be a baseball bat and insisted that the person filming the argument leave.
As of this publication, the video has received more than 13 million views on TikTok.
On Monday, Hammer & Nigel — Jason Hammer and Nigel Laskowski, the afternoon hosts on the Indianapolis news/talk station — were able to book Elise and “Mr. Holistic”, whose account published the interaction, for an interview to discuss the situation.
I’ve never really encountered one of these situations before — where a local station was able to so quickly book the subject of a viral video that happened in that market and made nationwide news — in this space. First of all, I think it’s a credit to what Hammer & Nigel has built in the marketplace. Many times, the figures in these viral videos are either seeking out fame (and we should pay those people no attention, for the record) or they’re looking to distance themselves from the spotlight. So, for the 93 WIBC hosts to make the subject feel comfortable enough to agree to the interview is worth a pat on the back.
Secondly, to have the connections and name recognition for the subjects to say yes to the conversation also shows the power of the brand, the station, and the show. So kudos. I’m certain I wasn’t the only person whose interest was piqued by this interview.
The conversation began by the hosts setting the scene of what happened for their audience. Which is always a good thing. Just because it has millions of views doesn’t mean everyone knows about the story or why they should care about this conversation.
Additionally, the words “appeared to show” in regard to the video was used right off the bat. Which, frankly, surprised me. Hammer & Nigel are conservative radio hosts. And in a situation where a person wearing a MAGA hat was allegedly kicked out of an establishment due to their political beliefs — or maybe better put, their political attire — it wasn’t out of the realm of possibility that they would be incredibly sympathetic to the interview subject. But right off the rip, they were using fair language, which — showing my bias — genuinely surprised me.
Also worth noting, it was an in-studio interview, not over the phone. It changes the dynamics just slightly.
Jason Hammer asked the first question, by asking the now-viral subject to set the scene on what happened, where it happened, and when it happened. He followed up by asking what the intentions were by wearing the MAGA hat into the establishment, and if Elise knew that the club had a reputation for being unfriendly to conservatives.
Hammer then followed up by asking for specifics on the timeline of events from walking into the establishment to uploading the video to social media. Elise claimed that she was asked to leave without being in the bar for more than a few seconds. She argued that she never left and came back, which is what some onlookers had suggested.
Now, this is just me, but Elise said something in her answer that was insanely contradictory. She said “You’re offended by my hat. I get it, it’s private property. You have every right to (kick me out).” Except, during the video uploaded to TikTok, she can be heard arguing that she’s being “You know this is like discrimination, right?” which led several patrons to laugh out loud.
In the grand scheme of things, it’s not a big miss to not point out the walk back or whatever else you’d like to call it, but one of the key reasons the video went viral was the disagreement from each side of the political aisle of whether or not this person had been subject of discrimination in the situation. So, I would have loved to see Hammer or Laskowski bring up the new feelings of the subject.
Instead, Hammer brought up his belief that while a business has a right to refuse service to anyone, the issues — in his eyes — was with the bartender grabbing the baseball bat. In my view, that feels like interjecting in an interview to share your opinion. Which you have four hours to do. You only have — in this case — 12 minutes or so with an interview subject. Let them be the star during the segment and then you can react or share your opinion on the situation later. It would be different if the idea was for the host to say something and then get the reaction of the viral subject, but that wasn’t what was accomplished here.
Laskowski’s first question was to Mr. Holistic, asking what he was doing during the situation. Which isn’t something I would have thought to ask, but it’s an illuminating question. Because when the focus is someone causing a scene in public, you’re not automatically drawn to “Boy, I wonder what the people with them were thinking?” But it’s a good, insightful question that adds layers and context to the story.
During the answer, Laskowksi asked another good question: “Did you feel in danger?”
Is that technically a closed question? Yes. But very few people are going to answer it that way. And in the midst of using an interview as a storytelling mechanism, that question is going to elicit a response from the interview subject — and the listener! — one way or the other.
Hammer noted that he’s seen plenty of reactions on social media but wanted to know what the fallout has been from Elise’s eyes. When she said she had sent her son to live with her mother due to fears of retaliation and online threats, Laskowski jumped in and asked for clarification because the jazz bar had put out a statement that the video was recorded after the duo were harassing and misgendering patrons. It was a good job of sort of steering the conversation back to the topic at hand, and also allowed for more context and perspective.
Hammer & Nigel then made a quick pivot, one that I think was truly brilliant. They essentially played a game with the guest called “Fact or Fiction” and utilized a rapid-fire approach to get more information on the topic as quickly as possible. Some of the quick questions included
- Most Ridiculous Lie You’ve Read About the Situation?
- Do you think the guy was trying to be Johnny Toughguy to you?
- Are you a Trump supporter? Did you vote for Donald Trump?
After the rapid fire questions, Hammer revisited the comments I made before about the “They have every right” to ask her to leave comments. But when she said she understood that they have the right to ask her to leave and she said yes, he didn’t really follow up on that. Because, clearly, she either didn’t believe that in the moment or she was trying to antagonize the bartender. That feels like really the only two options in my estimation. So, again, I would have really liked a follow-up question along the lines of “Did you know that on Friday night?” or something similar.
Jason Hammer then went back to the baseball bat being his central issue in the situation. Again, we get it. You don’t think the bartender should have pulled out the baseball bat. But if you haven’t seen the video, it isn’t like the bartender pulled out the baseball bat and grabbed in a “I’m gonna wallop you upside the head” fashion. It was an accompaniment to the statement that they were “dead serious” about asking the patron to leave. I realize this is editorializing, but it wasn’t nearly as threatening as Elise — or Hammer — made it out to be.
His final question in the conversation was the logical place to conclude the conversation: “Take me to what’s next in the story.”
That’s what everyone listening wants to know. Where does this story go from here? If there’s one question I want asked during this conversation, it’s likely that one. Because, as a listener, once I’ve been invested in this conversation, I want to know the next step. What’s next on the journey? If I’m locked into this conversation, that means I’m likely interested in the conclusion.
I know this isn’t a hard-news interview. I know this wasn’t slated to be a “let’s get to the bottom of your motives”, trying to figure out if this person caused a scene hoping to go viral type of interview. But it was more fair than I originally thought it might be. There were some questions that I’m guessing the subject wasn’t over the moon excited to answer. But they didn’t really push her, either. Was it a sympathetic interview? Ultimately, yeah. And that doesn’t really matter to me, at the end of the day.
What matters is that this was a really good example of using an interview as a storytelling mechanism. It’s easy to simply recap the video, or even play the audio of the video on the air, share a reaction, and then ask a question of the audience that piggybacked off the topic. But the 93 WIBC hosts did some art here.
They used an in-studio guest to tell a story, paint a picture, and put their audience inside an Indianapolis jazz bar during a now-viral moment. Even if I didn’t love every aspect of the conversation, I can appreciate when hosts use the medium the right way. The talent of Hammer & Nigel was on display in this conversation. It’s easy to see why the duo is as successful as they are.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
Garrett Searight is Barrett Media’s News Editor, which includes writing bi-weekly industry features and a weekly column. He has previously served as Program Director and Afternoon Co-Host on 93.1 The Fan in Lima, OH, and is the radio play-by-play voice of Northern Michigan University hockey. Reach out to him at Garrett@BarrettMedia.com.
