Media in US Politics

Television remains a key news source, but the rise of the Internet and social media is changing the media environment quickly. In 2011, Twitter was the first platform to report the capture and death of Osama bin Laden. By 2016, 66 percent of Facebook users, which is almost 44 percent of the U.S. population, were getting some news through Facebook. This statistic stirred debate, especially when it became known that many false news stories circulated on Facebook during the 2016 presidential election. For instance, a false story claiming Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump was shared over 960,000 times, while a story about Hillary Clinton selling weapons to ISIS nearly reached the same engagement. Although both stories were untrue, they might have affected voter opinions.

The instances from 2016 are not isolated; social media has become a significant news source that competes with television. Almost twice as many adults now access news online compared to reading print newspapers. Additionally, mobile phones and tablets are overtaking desktops and laptops as the primary devices for online news, indicating further shifts ahead. The media play a critical role in politics, yet many misunderstand their influence and have various misconceptions about what the media can and cannot achieve in this realm. This chapter aims to clarify the media's powers and limitations.

The Internet is a crucial platform for politics, but it brings challenges similar to those faced with past communication advancements. From the nation’s founding, politicians have sought to win over the media while recognizing that media often thrive on controversy, leading to both praise and criticism. Some politicians view the Internet as a solution, believing that by creating their own websites, they can reach voters directly. However, their opponents can do the same.

The commitment to a free press limits the government's ability to control media in the United States. Attempts to regulate radio and television have mostly failed, unlike in many democracies where press restrictions are more common. For example, libel laws in the United Kingdom are stricter, allowing politicians there to sue newspapers for defamation more easily. In contrast, U.S. libel laws make it difficult to stop press criticism of public figures. Moreover, the U.K. has an Official Secrets Act and a more limited Freedom of Information Act that can penalize officials for leaking information. In contrast, in the U.S., leaks are frequent, and the Freedom of Information Act allows journalists to obtain government documents with relative ease.

European governments often enforce stricter consequences for controversial statements compared to the political system in the United States. For example, in 2006, an Austrian court sentenced a man to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust at Auschwitz. A French court convicted a well-known American historian for suggesting in a newspaper interview that the Armenian genocide may not have been a deliberate act. Additionally, an Italian journalist faced trial for making comments deemed offensive to Islam. In the U.S., individuals are generally protected under the Constitution, even if their claims are factually incorrect, such as the Holocaust denial.

The U.S. has a strong tradition of privately owned media, whereas other countries, like France, have only recently embraced private television ownership. The Internet remains accessible to everyone, allowing people to freely express and access information on their computers. American newspapers can operate without government approval, but radio and television stations require licenses from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which must be renewed periodically. While the White House has occasionally tried to influence station owners through license renewals, the level of FCC oversight on broadcasts has decreased in recent years.

Two main challenges affect the freedom of privately owned newspapers and broadcast outlets. First, these media organizations need to be profitable. Critics argue that the profit motive can lead to biased reporting to please advertisers or attract audiences. While there is some validity to this concern, the reality is more complex; media outlets must cater to various stakeholders, including advertisers, subscribers, listeners, reporters, and editors, which results in different approaches among owners.

The second issue is media bias. If most reporters and editors share similar political views and act on them, the media may present a skewed perspective on many issues. This chapter will further explore the extent of media bias in reporting.

The spread of fake news stories during the 2016 election raised serious concerns. Fake news refers to false stories created to promote a specific viewpoint or candidate. Many misleading articles circulated online throughout the campaign, including false claims that Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump, that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to ISIS, and that Mike Pence made derogatory comments about Michelle Obama. None of these claims were true. Despite their inaccuracy, these stories gained considerable attention: during the last three months of the campaign, the top 20 fake news stories on Facebook received more likes, shares, and comments than the top 20 real news stories from reputable outlets such as the New York Times or the Washington Post. While some analyses suggest that fake news didn't significantly alter the election results, the prevalence of such misinformation raises serious alarms, indicating that voters could be misled online. Many Americans have reported feeling confused by these false narratives. Following the election, Facebook and other online platforms announced various measures to address fake news, yet it remains essential for readers to critically evaluate any story they encounter. They should check the source for credibility and verify the information with reliable third-party fact-checkers or respected news organizations. Analyzing the language of the articles can also help identify any bias. If something appears too good to be true, it likely is.

Many expected that the Internet would enhance political knowledge, particularly among young people. However, the impact has been limited. While the Internet provides vast amounts of political information, making it easier for enthusiasts to access content, it also allows individuals to easily avoid political topics by seeking out entertainment or humor. Political websites represent a small fraction of overall Internet traffic; only about 3 percent of web visits go to news sites, and a mere 0.12 percent is directed towards political sites. Consequently, the Internet has not significantly improved overall political awareness among the general public.

Many people hoped that the Internet and social media could transform political organization. Evidence shows that the Internet has indeed impacted politics positively, aligning with those expectations. For instance, grassroots organizing has significantly benefited various groups, particularly on the political left, thanks to online platforms. A notable example is MoveOn.org, which has utilized online tools for political activism since its inception in 1998, leading to considerable offline engagement. Other organizations have adopted similar online methods to enhance their efforts in organizing and mobilizing voters.

Polarisation is dividing America State by State 

A generation ago, most Americans casually encountered political news. With only a few TV channels available, early evening viewing meant watching the news, as every network aired it. Similarly, when the president gave a prime-time speech, everyone had to tune in if they wanted to watch TV since all networks covered it. This setup ensured that most Americans received some political news, which likely encouraged their participation in politics.

However, the rise of the Internet and cable TV, while increasing options, has ironically led some individuals to become less informed and engaged in politics. This is a complex issue tied to modern technology. Although the wide range of entertainment choices is generally seen as positive, it can bring some unintended negative effects on political awareness.

Nowadays, fewer Americans have that incidental exposure to news. Instead of watching the news, many can easily switch to a cable channel to enjoy a rerun of a popular show, a sports game, or any number of other programs. This applies to presidential speeches and debates as well. Those who are less interested in politics are now more likely to remain uninformed, as they have so many alternatives. Consequently, without knowledge of candidates and issues, they are less inclined to vote. Thus, the abundance of media choices can diminish some people's likelihood of participating in politics.

In the past, when Americans primarily turned to newspapers and broadcast television for news, they were likely to encounter various viewpoints. Most journalists aim to be objective and neutral, working to present multiple sides of a story. This commitment persists among journalists at mainstream media outlets like ABC News, National Public Radio, or USA Today.

However, not all news today comes from journalists who adhere to these principles of fairness and balance. Many online bloggers, who do not operate under traditional journalistic standards, often prioritize their viewpoints over impartiality.