As the country erupts in Internet flame wars (and sometimes actual flames on a pinata), people wait in dread as the day to Donald Trump’s inauguration counts down. But as mainstream news organizations use new storytelling techniques to cover the aftermath of the election--such as using Facebook Live to stream protest rallies and marches--this writer cannot help but mourn the election results for another reason.
Trump’s election indicates that the mainstream media lost much of its sway over the public.
Many of the major outlets endorsed Clinton which may have been proof to Trump supporters that the mainstream was inherently against their candidate, which doesn’t help when nearly every other headline mentions something about Trump and his supporters to the point where the public is desensitized. In this regard, the best aspect of the Internet is also its most crippling fault, that thing being the wealth of information available.
It’s in a society’s best interest, after all, to have a marketplace of ideas. By encouraging a mass exchange of different information, opinion and arguments, the best ideas can shine through to guide decision-making that ranges from whom to put on the school board to whether the country should take military action.
But as the country becomes more politically polarized, yet politically desensitized, the media and commentators struggled between objectively informing the country as per journalistic duty but also emphasizing the dangers of a Trump administration. Seeing how much effort the media put towards running negative headlines about Trump from the mid-primaries onward, it’s frightening how little impact it now seems to have had over those who voted for Trump.
At the same time, it can be difficult to persuade a person to overcome certain judgments and fears, to the point where one’s logic and reasoning is more often used to confirm biases rather than actively looking for evidence contradicting a person’s initial beliefs. A person, therefore, can claim to have spent hours researching and reading information on the Internet, but it’s not any good if the person is only receiving information from one source, or from a few sources that politically lean a certain way.
The danger of the Internet is that in the modern marketplace of ideas, social media feeds and selective Google searches make it easier for a person to receive information that leans one way or another. We are living in an era where a person’s media literacy is great if they receive news from a liberal outlet and a conservative outlet, let alone actively trying to critically and objectively analyze the messages of either one. This era of weakened trust in mainstream outlets and in poor media literacy is troubling considering that Balkan teenagers can run pro-Trump websites full of inaccurate or misleading information that nevertheless generates hundreds of thousands of engagements on social media.
As the country protests and braces itself for a Trump presidency, so too should mainstream media. Not only has the election highlighted the people’s distrust, but also shown that a polarized electorate is steadfast to sources that align with their own biases, regardless of reliability. The fourth estate is meant to be an institution that stands between politicians and the greater interest of the public. But as we watch live-streams of protests around the country, however, we witness what happens when the fourth estate fails to engage the majority of the electorate.
You bring up a very pressing point. The mainstream media, which is undoubtedly liberal, could not fathom a Trump presidency and covered the election with that stance in mind - whether it was conscious or unconscious is debatable. The coverage even after the election was undoubtedly biased. Once Trump won, the first stories the media covered were protests and riots. Not once did I see celebrations of Trump's victory - yet (about) half of the US voted for him.
ReplyDeleteWhile mass media's overwhelming support for Hillary (or, more accurately, hatred for Trump), was undoubtedly well-intentioned, it had a couple of unintended side-effects. When everyone on the internet seems to think your candidate is the Devil himself, and you as his supporter are basically a Nazi, you are probably not going to voice your opinion very openly. I'm not trying to defend Trump, but if you put yourself in the shoes of someone who wholeheartedly believes he is a better fit for the presidency than Hillary, you will probably find yourself pretty isolated and possibly even feel that you cannot exercise free speech like you once could. If someone shares a post that defends Trump, or speaks of him in a positive light, he/she is immediately branded as a racist pig. This doesn't suddenly convince you that you are wrong and that Trump actually would be a terrible president, it actually heightens your animosity towards Hillary supporters looking down at you from their high horse. Thus, you stay quiet during discussions and don't post in social media (you might even feel forced to post something that goes against your beliefs), and when election time comes you silently vote for Trump. This is why every poll was wrong and why Trump won so unexpectedly. From a certain point of view, mass media cyber-bullied Trump supporters through social ostracism, and they just fought quietly fought back.
ReplyDeleteTo me the issue is with media focusing on entertainment and ratings over quality content. Just take CNN's president admitting that they showed too many trump speeches in their entirety, or the outright trivialization of Trump's comments to the news banner. It was catchy, but a legitimate marketing tactic from the Trump camp, and the media fell into the ratings pool that is Trump's penchant for controversy. It's without a doubt a wake up call for the media and us as consumers.
ReplyDeleteHeidi, I think your totally right to point out the decaying relationship between the mainstream media (MSM) and the American public. However, I disagree with your assertion that this eroding relationship is necessarily a bad thing. The mainstream media is a corrupt institution that values ratings and ad revenue over actual journalism. Furthermore, in a lot of ways, the MSM is partially responsible for the rise of Trump, as they incessantly covered Trump.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think the internet is really the reason people have become so polarized. In fact, I think the supposed "polarization of American politics" has been a little overstated. To me, we've always been polarized. If the internet has done anything, it has brought the polarization to the forefront and forced America to reckon with it.
Great post.
This point is extremely pressing, and I'm glad that you brought it up. I think the relationship between mainstream media and the general American public is a bit eccentric. Supposedly, in a democratic society, a two-way relationship between the government/media/public is necessary for a working society. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I do believe that there is corruption in media today (as it always has been) and perhaps I bring up the point of: what is the definition of journalism? What is actually journalism? We can perhaps also use Mr. Trump's media rise/media mogul stature to be responsible of his unstoppable rise to government. I also wanted to bring the concept of the Internet and the joy and pain which comes with it. I do agree that it is polarized, that is a fact -- as is (from what I have seen) most public figures these days.
ReplyDelete