As the 2016 presidential election unfolded last Tuesday, many a jaw hung open in disbelief as more and more states turned red throughout the evening. When the results were in and the media confirmed that Donald Trump was indeed our 45th president, half the nation wondered how had this had transpired. Especially since many respected pollsters and news outlets predicted Hillary Clinton would win – The New York Times, one of our nation’s most trusted news sources, said Clinton had an 85-percent chance of winning. How did they, and every other major news outlet, get it so wrong?
The answer to this question is multi-pronged and complex, but part of the explanation pertains to the changing media landscape in our country. As the newspaper sector struggles to find new revenue models, newsrooms across the country have been shrinking and shutting their doors, leaving a workforce that is 20,000 positions smaller than it was 20 years ago. At the same time, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become common sources for news about government and politics. It’s a significant shift in how we get the news and information that inform our opinions, and this election was the first time our country felt the full impact of it.
Major metropolitan dailies across the country have been steadily closing down for years. The list of deceased daily newspapers is depressingly long, including the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Indianapolis Times, the Minneapolis Times, and the Tampa Bay Times, among others. This means that the media in America are now mainly concentrated in major coastal cities like New York City, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles.
All of us are now well aware that our country is deeply divided: Coastal cities have radically different economies, lifestyles and political leanings than communities in the heartland of the country. The media are surrounded by likeminded people in liberal cities, so it’s difficult for them to understand the opinions and frustrations of people in other parts of the country. This is not an excuse for their shortcomings. It is the media’s job to represent all sides of the story, and there is no question that they failed in that regard this election season. But it seems that it would be easier for the media to have their finger on the pulse of what’s happening in Middle America if more of the media still lived in Middle America. Instead, they relied heavily on data guesstimating that Clinton would win.
The disconnect between conservatives and liberals is further exacerbated by social media. Facebook reaches nearly 2 billion people each month and has become many people’s main source of news. This is concerning for a couple reasons. First, Facebook doesn’t filter out fake news stories so people end up reading “news” about Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump and other such untrue nonsense. Second, Facebook’s algorithm filters dissenting opinions out of our news feeds so we only see news stories and status updates that support our view of the world. Our news feeds are virtual echo chambers, and each time we open them we become more confident that everyone thinks the same way we do.
We need media to give us an accurate, unbiased picture of what’s happening across the country and the globe. But if the mass media business continues to decline, will they be able keep fulfilling this role? And will enough of the country tune in to mass media for it make a difference, or will we continue to become more siloed in our thinking by relying on social media platforms for our news?
The answers are unclear, but one thing is for certain: As we enter the Trump era, we need mass media more than ever to serve as a watchdog over our government officials.