The recent American presidential election and its news coverage shone a spotlight on the sharp political polarization, manifest as a disdain or even hatred for those with different political views and seeing them as an enemy with whom a civilized conversation is not possible. There were even reports of people not putting up election lawn signs for the fear of backlash.
Having followed the media coverage of the election campaigns somewhat (as a non-voter in Canada), I argue that much of the news media fuelled the polarization by partisan, non-objective reporting. This included out-of-context quoting and omitting relevant facts to distort a candidate’s positions and policies.
Given that over ten times more journalists identify as Democrats (36.4%) than as Republican (3.6%), according to the American Journalist Survey, it’s not surprising that most of the news coverage of Kamala Harris was positive and that of Donald Trump was negative. The latter was depicted, without actual evidence, as a true admirer of dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un and as an autocrat who would unilaterally change the Constitution to become a dictator for life and persecute his opponents.
This kind of reporting had an effect, even in Canada, where I was frequently surprised how many took it straight, without much digestion, cross-checking of facts, or critical evaluation of the sources. While viewers and readers are responsible for consuming news critically and the “buyer beware” principle applies, I still blame many news media for dishonest reporting that fuels political polarization.
So, what is then, or should be, the purpose of the news media? It is the same as the purpose of any business: to provide value to its customers so as to create value for its shareholders.
First and foremost, the value the news media should provide is objective reporting of the news. What is going on in the world impacts us and knowing it helps make choices that support our lives, such as where to travel (and where not), how to make sound economic decisions for now and for the future – and who to vote for.
Many people also want to have their political views validated by the media, but such validation should come from the commentary – the editorials and opinion columns – not from biased news reporting that obfuscates or omits facts not aligned with the reporter’s politics.
Having one’s views validated, not by facts but by half-truths or outright lies, cannot have any value. What good is it for you not to know the risks of travelling to certain countries or the economic outlook – or what a political candidate actually said or did or what policies they stand for? You may feel satisfaction for being right, but that satisfaction is temporary and will change into anger when the facts prove to be different than what you were told by the media.
This is what has happened in the United States (but also in Canada and elsewhere). The trust in the news media in the U.S. is at an all-time low, as Jeff Bezos observed in the Washington Post editorial explaining his decision not to allow his newspaper to endorse a presidential candidate this time, or ever again. The editorial was entitled: “The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media.”
This is particularly true of non-Democrats, but also Democrats have lost some trust in the news media. Many seek news from other sources, such as independent journalists or the social media. As a consequence, the news media are struggling under declining readership and advertising revenues and depend on private philanthropy (such as that of Bezos for Washington Post) and government subsidies.
In a bid to retain readership and viewership, many news outlets have resorted to polarizing, non-objective news reporting that supports their editorial views, but that hasn’t led to profits. For example, Washington Post lost $70 million last year with that strategy, while catering to a relatively narrow market. (And Kamala Harris was defeated at the polls, despite being supported by such reporting).
Is there any hope for the news media? Can they regain their audience?
There is always some hope, as objective news reporting is a value. Achieving it would require clearly separating news reporting and commentary, and supporting the commentary with facts and data, as many independent reporters and podcasters have done.
Still, challenges remain. It could be difficult for news media companies to restore credibility, and new companies may be needed. First-hand news reporting requires significant funding, and consumers have typically paid only a small portion and can now get news almost for free. Many advertisers have shifted to other digital platforms. Who wants to invest in a money-losing business? Philanthropists are rare, and state funding may lead to reality-distorting government influence on the news reporting.
But if – in free-market conditions – a company offers superior, objective news coverage, it can gain subscribers and build a reputation, which will attract advertisers … and achieve profitability. Until that happens, we need to be more critical consumers of the news – if we want to know the facts that impact our lives.
