Media Helped Donald Trump

How the Media Helped Donald Trump Become President

How did the media help create the next US President? Did the mainstream and alternative media biasness have a hand in Donald Trump’s ascend to power?

Let’s take a quick look at what happened before the 9th November elections.

Americans woke on 30th September 2016 to witness new history made by San Diego Union Tribune. This was the first time in 148 years that it endorsed a Democratic candidate – Hillary Clinton.

But they were not the only ones making history. This was the firsts time in 126 years the Arizona Republic did so; the first time in 143 years for Detroit News.

Less popular with the Media

Mr. Trump was not a favorite of the media. Even the print media could not back him up. Out of the top 100 newspapers, only two supported him.

In total, Hillary Clinton enjoyed endorsement from more than 200 newspapers. The case was different for him as only 20 or less backed him.

To make matters worse, this support was not 100% guaranteed.

The Washington Times was clear about what it thought of Donald Trump. It declared that he was imperfect and pointed out his “vulgarity and coarseness.”

They mostly excited by the fact he had “all the right enemies: the pundits, the ‘social scientists’, the Beltway insiders, the academics and the righteous mongers of failed policies.”

For that matter, Trump becoming victorious was a painful kick to the “righteous mongers” and insiders. At the same time, the thousands of journalists who took time to warn the public against Donald Trump were humiliated.

The mainstream media had the worst heartbreak.

IS Journalism Failing?

Could the fact that Donald Trump becoming president signify a failure of journalism? Was the media too biased that the citizens became angered?

The President-elect on so many occasions complained of how the media was biased. He made direct attacks on these media for not covering his positive side but only the negative. At one time Mr. Trump had to block some media from airing his political events.

But as the media did that, were they aware they were giving him too much unfiltered airtime? Yes, they made all the negative comments, but with generation change of voters, these may be exactly what he needed.

Instead of being appalled, most of the audience was pleased by what they watched. Thus, both print and TV gave him a free pass.

The triumph of television

In 1968, the future Fox News boss – Roger Ailes, had to a big problem. How would he bring Richard Nixon on TV without the control of what he felt was hostile media?

He came up with a simple solution; create his own staged Nixon TV specials. CNN copied the same strategy 40 years down the line for Donald Trump. The only difference is that this time round, it did so for free.

CNN’s attack on Trump was mainly through ratings. The CNN boss, Jeff Zucker, is the same man who gave his the job of presenting The Apprentice at NBC. He literary made the Trump a star.

But Trump repeatedly denounced the ratings by CNN. He felt brought CNN ratings in a tough TV market, and on return earned exposure.

He remained unpredictable of his next statement. For that matter, the cameras could not stop following him up. America now readies for a president whom cameras will always keep watch. One cannot tell of his next statement and will thus have to be around him – all the time.

The surprising part of his speeches is that most of them have nothing to do with the mainstream news agenda.

From time and again he has said that the inventor of ISIS is Hillary Clinton. This is not a claim supported by most websites and newspapers.

The power of Technology

Social media was one place that most voters took to announce their frustrations. To determine which candidate was leading in this area, social media analysts studied posts on Twitter and other social networks in Florida.

Their finding was that Trump was ahead when it comes to positive commenting, as opposed to pollsters.

Polls dismissed social media and said it was a self-selecting group that could not reflect the voting population. However, it may be a signal to the emotions that a candidate creates.

Trump was giving people more to talk about and saying it in a way that resonated. When it came to “share of voice” online, he was winning.

More media started developing a deep desire to have headlines that can get click and stories that can be shared. That was actually the changing point. Hillary Clinton could not create such stories and thus the focus turned to the Republican candidate.

He turned out to be an entertaining candidate who generated passion at the same time. That simply made him a winner.

Like this post:
error

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *