Update: In a press conference Thursday House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) dismissed Trump's tweets as: "I don't read that stuff."

AD

I called up Stewart and he agreed to debate how much stock should be put in the president's tweets. Our conversation follows. It has been lightly edited for clarity and length

AD

The Fix: What's wrong with the way President Trump uses Twitter?

Stewart: I don't necessarily think the president is wrong for tweeting. I just think, like any form of communication, you have to consider the downside as well. I think he has established he has this public presence that's different than any other president we've ever seen, and he does feel like he communicates directly to the American people — and frankly, through the media— and that's an effective way to … I don't want to say to get his message out, because it's more than that.

AD

Having said that, I don't think Twitter (a) carries the weight of public policy, as some of them are just musings of the president and sometimes we react as if everything he tweets is far more dramatic than it probably is. The second thing is, it distracts us from actual policy and actual plans for what he wants to do.

The Fix: Part of your argument against reading the president's tweets is that it doesn't amount to policy. I see two problems with that: (1) He just announced a major policy on transgender people serving in the military on Twitter, and (2) Isn't a president's job description much more than to announce policy? He controls the political civil and social climate in so many nuanced ways.

Stewart: I'm not sure he controls it; I don't think the president controls anything. He influences it, certainly. But he certainly is, if not THE, then one of the most powerful voices. And I agree with you, today is a good example that he actually did announce policy changes on Twitter. But I don't think that's typically the case. I think that more generally, the tweets we see day-to-day are less than that.

AD

AD

The Fix: But how do you define “less than” communication from a president? Would past presidents' words be weighed as “less” depending on how they say it?

Stewart: If you have a press conference, that probably carries more weight than something that was captured by a microphone of a conversation he had with an individual.

I think there are obviously different forms of communication, stating the obvious here, and some of them are more meaningful and more impactful than others. That's hardly surprising. And I think where a lot of us are trying to figure out is where does this new medium, and this new president who uses this medium, where does that fit in the spectrum?

AD

I can't tell you the number of times I've been on TV and they'll say: “Let me read you the latest tweet.” And a boatload of times, they are truly not meaningful tweets, in the sense they are not like today in that they are announcing new policy.

They are not anything with that kind of weight or gravity, and yet that's what we'll spend the rest of the interview talking about. And it frustrates me sometimes when we intended to talk about North Korea. I just got back from China. It's like: “Let's talk about how we can formulate a plan to counter North Korea's nuclear program.” And yet we spend the whole time talking about a tweet.

AD

I know that tweet is interesting, but it's just not that important. And it seems to me that some of the struggles we have is trying to give proper weight to both of them.

The Fix: Isn't that a problem with the messenger (Trump) rather than the message (Twitter)?

AD

Stewart: I don't think it's one or the other; it's a combination of both. But how many characters do you get on Twitter, 128 or something, right? (Editor's note: 140, but less if you want to include a link to something.) And it's hard to have real clarity and conversations when you limit it to the amount of what can you say in a tweet.

And you're choosing to talk to me because I was asked about this on CNN and gave an answer that surprised a few people. But I'm one of the last people in Congress that you should be talking to on this. If you look at my Twitter account, I'm not terribly active on it. I don't read Twitter. I don't get my news from Twitter like a lot of people do. And I haven't thought that much about it; this is a little outside my area.

AD

The Fix: Actually that's precisely why I called you. I think we're in a transition point about how politicians communicate, and how voters receive that communication. Trump's unapologetic use of Twitter, perhaps before the rest of the world has agreed this is the way it should be done, is forcing us to debate: “Should we give equal weight to the president's Twitter account and everything else he says?”

AD

Stewart: Maybe that's changed forever. But you might have a situation where the next president or presidential candidates look at Trump and say: “Yeah, he did communicate with his supporters, and he was effective at it. But it brought some distraction or ambiguity in this conversation.” And maybe the next president will be more careful. I just don't know yet. I really don't.

The Fix: You mentioned earlier being frustrated when reporters only want to talk about Trump's tweets. But can you see how it's frustrating to us when we ask a politician to comment on something controversial Trump said, and they avoid answering by dismissing the fact Trump said it on Twitter? It comes across as if they are dodging the question.

AD

Stewart: I guess, maybe. Maybe in this day when we're required to read Twitter and to stay up on it. But in that case, it just is what it is. I don't have time for it. I don't feel it is the greatest source of information. I'd rather read something with more substance. If my response frustrates them, it's just one of those things where we would agree to disagree on that.

The Fix: Last question. Would you agree to disagree with Spicer, who said Trump's tweets are literally White House statements?

AD