Where would we be today, in politics, without the media? Perhaps tensions wouldn’t be as high as they are today. In recent years, there’s been a noticeable drastic change in the political climate following the 2016 presidential election. The media played a tremendous role in the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, amplifying their scandals and influencing their public perception, eventually leading to a deepening divide in America. Since then, it has become increasingly difficult to find common ground between both parties and respect each other’s opinions. Today, politics have become a moral argument, heightening tensions between parties that have been simmering since 2016. While the media has certainly been beneficial for politics in numerous ways, it has simultaneously been used to rip apart the country, turning voters into isolated groups who listen only to their politicians of choice, leaving Americans to grapple with the loss of consideration we once had for each other.
Media is integrated in nearly every aspect of our daily lives and has irrevocably changed the way we perceive information and function as a society. Media was first introduced into politics in the late 1700’s when political parties set up a national network of newspapers to provide partisan news and information to supporters about elections. After the first televised presidential debate in 1960, television screens opened the door to many possibilities in politics and turned the media into a powerful tool, but its influence became a source of concern. Many worried that the media could be manipulated, particularly by politicians, to sway public opinion for political gain and votes. In modern politics, most of this will be taking place on social media platforms such as, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, where it seems freedom of expression is promised to all users who sign up—with terms and conditions. These platforms have become a large part of our everyday lives and have the power to feed us information, though whether the information is credible or not is up to debate. Social media has become a battleground between political parties, where misinformation is being used as weaponry in this war, with several commentators even suggesting that Donald Trump would not have been elected president in 2016 had it not been for the influence of fake news (Allcott and Gentzkow 2).
When analyzing the role of media in politics, the first thing that comes to mind is how intense the amount of media attention involved in the 2016 presidential election was. The nonstop coverage amplified controversies and focused on sensational moments, most coming from the Trump campaign, which dramatically affected their public opinion. News outlets provided extensive coverage of Trump’s speeches, rallies, and social media posts, turning his provocative, sometimes inappropriate, comments into headlines. Many believe Trump’s unconventional approach to social media had made him the center of attention in the media and changed how candidates communicated with supporters (Patterson). While media seemed to be working mostly in Trump’s favor, Hillary Clinton was trapped in the media storm caused by her scandal, which had been amplified by news outlets. The media’s opinion on Clinton was molded by the “Hillary Clinton email controversy”, an investigation into her use of a private email server where she was accused of sending emails containing highly classified information. The scandal attracted widespread attention, and the story made front-page news in multiple publications. As the news reported, concerns about her trustworthiness began to emerge and republicans viewed it as a serious breach of protocol. Even though many of Clinton’s supporters remained loyal, the scandal tainted her public image and credibility which negatively affected her favorability. Studies will show that Hillary Clinton’s negative press outpaced her positive press by 64% to 34% (Patterson).
Both candidates were criticized relentlessly for their personalities. Democrats thought of Trump as apathetic and disrespectful, while Republicans believed Clinton to be calculating and untrustworthy. As the public made up their minds about the candidates, it tore America into two groups, the left and the right. Both groups have grown to dislike each other, even describing the opposing group as immoral. According to a 2016 study on the role of morality in the 2016 presidential election, most supporters of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton projected their moral beliefs onto the candidate they supported, interpreting their preferred candidates’ values to align more with their own (Kidd and Vitriol 598). This causes tension between groups, painting each party as either morally wrong or right.
Some extreme political groups, like QAnon, have taken up the responsibility of tasks such as, “exposing a group of Democratic Satan-worshipping pedophiles”, who “control the government, media, and financial worlds”. Although these claims are unfounded and frankly absurd, QAnon followers genuinely believe they are fighting for a worthy cause. One interesting thing about the group is the method they use to attract new supporters. Their seemingly innocent slogan, “Save the Children”, has been spread on social media, showing up on people’s feeds, and shocking them with theories of pedophile trafficking rings, tortured babies, and drinking blood. For many, the decision to initially join QAnon was not to harm others, but to help (“The Cult of QAnon” 00:16:40). This misguided notion of wanting to help is reflected across many extreme political groups in the world, especially the groups that end up causing the most harm, which is ironic. It seems that at the core of most political groups, the main argument is “We are right. They are wrong.” Leaving no room for understanding.
Politics didn’t just now get tense; the tension has lingered forever waiting to be awakened at certain points in time. One instance in political history I like thinking about is the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Alexander Hamilton’s rivalry with Aaron Burr was deeply rooted in political and personal conflicts, and they both symbolized deep divisions in early U.S. politics. Because Hamilton was an adamant Federalist, he greatly distrusted Burr and his political views, going against him in the elections of 1800 and 1804 and calling him “despicable.” Burr, on the other hand, felt his honor disrespected by Hamilton’s insults. This conflict quickly escalated to the duel, where Burr fatally shot Hamilton (Lurie). Hypothetically, if modern media existed in the early 1800’s, the conflict would have been escalated a lot quicker by news outlets and public opinions shaping narratives. Social media would have amplified the personal insults they exchanged, causing such a huge commotion that their rivalry might become a national debate. That kind of controversy could have changed everything from their political careers to public reputations, and even to their final decision to duel. The existence of media changes every aspect of this situation and adds new complexities and it’s interesting exploring what could have been.
Media has single-handedly been responsible for our perspectives of the personas we see online, and it seems that if there’s one thing that matters on the internet, it’s how you present yourself, what you do, and what you say. If you are in the public eye, however, everything you do can and likely will be criticized, commented on, or blown out of proportion. For example, conservative outlets magnified Donald Trump’s outsider persona, largely portraying him as a victim of liberal media bias (Gallagher 3). Several studies showed that Trump received way more media coverage than Clinton during the 2016 election. While much of this coverage was negative, it still served to promote his message and increase visibility across platforms (Boehlert). The huge media attention served to promote Trump’s presence in the public eye, placing him consistently at the center of the political conversation.
Misinformation played a very significant role in the shaping of public opinion during the 2016 election via fake news stories spreading across social media platforms. One example was the false claim about Hillary Clinton’s alleged involvement in a child trafficking ring, also known as “Pizzagate.” Donald Trump constantly accused the mainstream media of “fake news,” which isolated public trust even more. In fact, studies show that most fake news stories favored Trump over Clinton. In this specific study, they found 115 pro-Trump fake news stories had been shared online a total of 30 million times, compared to the 41 pro-Clinton stories that were shared 7.6 million times. (Allcott and Gentzkow 2). Like mentioned before, this plays into the idea that misinformation in the media played a major role in Donald Trump winning the presidency. Which begs the question, again, where would we be without the media?
Many are concerned about the credibility of some of the things reported online, especially in mainstream media, which leads to alternative media bubbles. A 2022 study will show that only about 14% of Republican’s trust mass media to report news accurately (Brenan). People who don’t trust mainstream media may resort to using alternative media to get their news they feel they trust, sites like YouTube, Reddit, and Tik Tok. When consuming information from alternative media outlets, it can be easy to fall into an echo chamber, where the consumer is surrounded by content that caters to their pre-existing beliefs. Being in these spaces online can be damaging, especially if it’s your primary news source, since it only enables and strengthens beliefs that may be baseless rather than challenging or correcting them. This dynamic makes it difficult to disprove misconceptions and properly inform the public.
The 2016 election was a turning point in how the media shapes public opinion and reinforces division. Both conservative and liberal outlets played a role in driving a wedge between Americans, framing candidates to fit their respective audiences’ biases and fueling mistrust in opposing viewpoints. While the media is an important tool for democracy, it has simultaneously become a battlefield for control over narratives and even the truth. This leads to a crucial question: can we, as a nation, move forward without addressing the toxic environment that misinformation and bias have created? Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Even though he said these words over 150 years ago, they still ring true today in the modern age. The media should aspire to unite, rather than divide. Until we hold the media and ourselves accountable for the echo chambers we’ve built, the political tension will only continue to worsen. It’s time to reflect on our role in this vicious cycle and think about what it’s going to take for us to find common ground.
Works Cited
McCarthy, Kevin. “Speaker Mike Johnson: Trump, Corporate Deregulation, and Harris Election.” CNBC, NBCUniversal, 18 Sept. 2024, www.cnbc.com/2024/09/18/speaker-mike-johnson-trump-corporate-deregulation-harris-election.html.
“Democrats vs. Republicans: US Party Policies.” Political Science View, 28 Oct. 2024, www.politicalscienceview.com/democrats-vs-republicans-us-party-policies/#google_vignette.
Allcott, Hunt, and Matthew Gentzkow. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” Journal of Economic Perspectives.
Patterson, Thomas E. “News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters.” Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School, 18 Dec. 2016, https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/.
Mezzofiore, Gianluca, and David Caplan. “Fact-Check: Trump Repeats Myth about Benghazi.” ABC News, 1 July 2016, https://abcnews.go.com/International/fact-check-trump-repeats-myth-benghazi/story?id=40045892.
Kidd, William, and Joseph A. Vitriol. “Moral Leadership in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.” Political Psychology.
”The Cult of QAnon.” CNN Specials, CNN, 2021. Alexander Street, https://search-alexanderstreet-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C5195713#/embed/object.
Lurie, Maxine N. “Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton’s Duel: A Brief Note on Underutilized Sources.” NJS: An Interdisciplinary Journal, https://njs.libraries.rutgers.edu/index.php/njs/article/view/21.
Gallagher, Thomas. “The Outsider on the Inside: Donald Trump’s Twitter Activity and the Rhetoric of Separation from Washington Culture.” Atlantic Journal of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2019.1610763.
Boehlert, Eric. “The Staggering Numbers Behind the Media’s Trump Obsession.” Media Matters, 2016, www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/staggering-numbers-behind-medias-trump-obsession.
Brenan, Megan. “Americans’ Trust in Media Remains Near Record Low.” Gallup, Gallup, 7 Oct. 2022, https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/americans-trust-media-remains-near-record-low.aspx.
