Mass Media were active participants, not simply unwilling instruments, to the rise and reign of United States President Donald Trump.
Mylon Shalom Patton
We as a nation are about to turn the page from the era of President Donald J. Trump – an era some even believe to be the first installment in a series of marked rejections of the traditional political system. There are many lines of thought regarding his rise and reign to the highest office in the land, including the historical persistence of prejudices and the all-to-many ‘-isms’ present in our society, a political establishment that does not live up to the ideal ‘by the people, for the people,’ and his willingness to say things and act in a manner that is traditionally regarded as unconventional or against the grain. Indeed, many Democrats and Republicans alike might agree on some of these reasons, but the media’s significant role in the rise and reign of United States President Donald J. Trump must not be overlooked or denied.
A thorough examination of Mr. Trump’s ascent to the highest office in the land uncovers the inextricable link between the man, the politics, and the media. And, with the important role our U.S. Constitution has bestowed on the media — to be protectors and defenders of our democratic process — it is important to recognize mass media’s role as an active participant in launching and sustaining the Trump era.[1]
Long before Mr. Trump vied for the American Presidency in an official capacity, he was well known in other arenas. From his namesake business ventures, to his status as a television personality, Donald Trump had established himself as a household name. With this recognition and popularity, however, Mr. Trump was also mired in controversy: he was investigated for unlawful discrimination practices in the 1970s, called for the execution of five innocent young men in response to an allegation of a rape in Central Park in the late 80s, has had numerous bankruptcies and failed business ventures, and, most recently, led ‘birther’ conspiracy theories directed towards President Obama – just to name a few.
This long, well-documented and checkered celebrity history did nothing however to deter Mr. Trump from placing his name into the 2016 Presidential fray to become the Republican nominee. From his first-ever speech as a candidate, he began to stir the cauldron of hate and intolerance masquerading as noble nationalism. At the preliminary point in the Trump Campaign, most of the media defined Trump’s actions and rhetoric accordingly — inciteful, dangerous, and oftentimes hateful. Many scholars feared, though, that this media coverage came in an overabundance. While there were a whopping 17 major contenders for the Republican Presidential Nominee, no one received near as much media coverage as did Mr. Trump. Even Secretary Hillary Clinton, a well-connected individual with a widely-regarded political history, did not approach Mr. Trump in terms of media attention. And, in an attempt to quantify this anomaly, The Atlantic documented the number of times each major presidential candidate was mentioned by the media over the course of each day.
Throughout the 2016 Presidential Campaign, Governor Jeb Bush was mentioned 140,191 times by the media. He was the second-most mentioned Republican in the media cycle. Mr. Trump was mentioned 2,176,566 times – for every 15 times Mr. Trump’s name was mentioned, Governor Bush’s name was mentioned just once. At the same time, Secretary Clinton’s media coverage was outpaced by Mr. Trump’s by a near 3-to-1 margin.
Mr. Trump was neither 15 places at the same time, nor was he three times as rife with detailed policy proposals. Though he was more outspoken, he was not more substantive in his ideas about domestic and foreign policy, and though he appeared more eager, he was not more accessible than the other candidates.
What explains his rise then? How might the history books account for Mr. Trump’s dominating year-and-a-half, in the buildup to January 20, 2017? It could most accurately be explained as this: Mass Media were active participants, not simply unwilling instruments, to the rise and reign of United States President Donald Trump.
In many ways, the media showed its hand. In late February of 2016, CBS Executive Chairman Leslie Moonves said that 2016 would be a “good year” for the company. He particularly identified Trump’s presence in the Presidential Cycle as being a “good thing,” relishing the money that is being accrued by the mass media company. Most notoriously, he said, “It [Trump’s rise] may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”[2]
With this mindset of the media taken into consideration, the details in the portrait become much more clear. Then-Nominee Donald Trump was the first person ever allowed to call into Stephen Colbert’s ‘Late Show’ on CBS. He frequently used the rare privilege of calling in to major news shows (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC), when other, less-popular candidates were often pressured to appear in person. He received unprecedented circulation of his political advertisements. All the while, he stood unchallenged when espousing proven falsehoods in the presence of television hosts.[3]
Combine this with the Presidential Debates, wherein Mr. Trump was given the leeway to behave and act like a star on his personal TV show, and Trump’s carefully-stirred concoction was near-complete.
In fact, Media-Enabled Nominee Trump began eroding the structures of our Democracy, even before he took office. He banned certain media groups (BuzzFeed, CNN, The Des Moines Register, Fusion, The Huffington Post) from attending his campaign events.[4],[5]
His recognition of his impact was profound, in a damning way. During a rally, carried live by CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, Trump said, “If you get good ratings, they’ll cover you even if you have nothing to say.” There are those in the media who would argue that, despite an abundance of media coverage, the majority of it was negative in scope and really worked against Mr. Trump. However, in the true spirit of those in the entertainment industry and, in particular, the mindset of Mr. Trump “good publicity is preferable to bad, but from a bottom-line perspective, bad publicity is sometimes better than no publicity at all. Controversy, in short, sells.”[6]
The media opened the
gates of our Democracy to Donald Trump with a smile on their face and a desire
for more profit in their pockets. Mass media provided the platform for Mr.
Trump’s platform. They ushered him into the homes, businesses and automobiles
of millions around the world. And when they tried to censor him or challenge
his policies and views, he pivoted, labeled some as ‘fake news’ and then
self-selected which media outlets he would validate and entertain. And then he
did the most unconventional–he circumvented traditional media briefings and
opted instead to use other media outlets, namely Twitter, to reach his intended
audience. But for mass media, there wouldn’t have been a Donald Trump era. We
need not be surprised of the consequences, nor should we excuse the willing participants.
[1] I use a conception of the media throughout this piece that is held, in many ways, by Jennifer Mercieca. Her ideas will be discussed briefly a bit later in the blog, but there is a conception that the media is to serve as more of a ‘gatekeeper’ to democracy and accountability. In this way, the use of the term ‘gatekeeper’ is different from that of Stevel Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s.
[2] The Undermining and Delegitimizing of Mass Media can be seen as both a precursor to, and symptom of, Democratic Erosion. Jennifer Mercieca, in her piece “Dangerous Demagogues and Weaponized Communication,” touches on this briefly. View the page ranges of 275-279 for context and substance. Citation at the end of the piece.
[3] See Richard Gunther, Paul Beck, and Erik Nisbet’s Working Paper: Fake News Did Have a Significant Impact on the Vote in the 2016 Election. Corresponding supporting and supplementary information, in regards to the influential and communicable nature of ‘Fake News,’ is on page 4. Citation at the end of the piece.
[4] The Undermining and Delegitimizing of the Media as a Symptom of Democratic Erosion, again a concept discussed by Mercieca. Citation at end of piece.
[5] Similar to Russian President Putin’s seizure of Media Networks to espouse rhetoric unchecked. The case of Trump’s is only more covert, and driven by money. Scott Gehlbach, in his piece “Reflections on Putin and the Media,” chronicles this. Citation at end of piece.
[6] This quote comes from Trump’s “The Art of the Deal.”
The question of how big a part media plays in both the modern world and, specifically, the election Donald Trump is a question that has always fascinated me. Obviously the roll of media is so much more more involved in our daily lives than it was even a few years ago, and it is interesting to see how this may not be turning out to be as good of a thing as one would imagine. The free publicity that Trump was able to exploit really seemed to backfire for some media corporations. It is extremely ironic to me that a lot of these corporations set out with the goal to defame or expose Donald Trump, but by taking advantage of the public’s yearning to see more of Trump’s outlandish comments, that these companies ended up helping him get elected president. Who knows what would have happened if the media had taken a step back, but it is definitely an interesting idea to play with. All that said, I really liked your take that Trump was able to use this media system to his advantage and that we should be holding more media corporations accountable. I think that is necessary to prevent something like this from happening again.
Hi Mylon! I thought this was a very well formulated argument. Something that made me especially frustrated that you described was the significantly greater number of times that President Trump was mentioned over Secretary Hilary Clinton and Governor Jeb Bush in the 2016 election. Though I had recognized that Trump was portrayed in the media an awful lot, I never thought to analyze how much more television time and attention he was given over the other candidates. This made the “bad publicity is better than no publicity” argument all the more poignant–he behaved the way he did not only to get more screen time, knowing that it ultimately aid his chances at victory, and gain a profit. Many of us called him an idiot, a baboon, etc, when he was truly using the media to his advantage and garnering fanatical, zealous attention. The extent to which media influences elections can be frightening when considering that people view their news channels and digest tweets/articles/posts with the lense of confirmation bias. Especially during Covid 19 when we were all glued to our divides inside of our homes, it was easy to feel overwhelmed by the amount of media covering the election, particularly Trump. Media can be a tool for both good and evil, and freedom of speech is part of our constitution, so it is hard to imagine a way to regulate their content and subsequent influence on the democratic standing of the United States. I was especially struck by one of your concluding sentences, “The media opened the gates of our Democracy to Donald Trump with a smile on their face and a desire for more profit in their pockets.”
Just as we have read in the many of the readings assigned in the course, institutions are the gatekeepers of our democracy. The media is an especially important facet as they delegate what issues and people get the attention of the public. Living in a capitalistic society, it does not surprise me that these media companies prioritize clicks, views, and profits over the integrity of our shared democracy and their role in preserving it to some degree. He continually broke norms and even went as far as to ban certain media outlets from his campaign events. I believe that should’ve been the last straw. It should’ve been the duty of these media outlets to see the damage that Trump was inflicting on the freedom of the press and speech and condemned him by not giving him any attention, but unfortunately the opposite happened. Well written article, this got me thinking about the media’s coverage of Trump in ways I never thought about!
I think a lot of your critiques of the media are spot on here. As you point out, and illustrate particularly alarmingly in the case of CBS, media companies are ultimately profit-seeking businesses. This is perhaps a bit at odds with the idea that the media is one of the gatekeepers of democracy, especially when protecting democracy from a demagogue and profit motives do not align. Sometimes watching CNN, especially during the Trump era, felt like more of a sensational TV show than actual news. CNN would gather Trump denouncers and Trump surrogates around the table and have them duke it out over how racist, sexist, etc., Trump’s latest comment was. And while it is certainly entertaining, as there is always suspense in seeing who “wins” the debate (although perhaps we are all losers), it does not seem like a very good way to convey information. As a byproduct of this, Trump clips get played over and over again.
I also do remember many in the media, even conservatives (including current press secretary Kayleigh McEnany), denouncing Trump in pretty strong terms at the beginning of his campaign. It’s interesting to think about why this didn’t blunt his rise, and may have actually helped. It probably just played into Trump’s narrative that the media is part of the corrupt “swamp” overly preoccupied with political correctness, and oblivious to the needs of “real Americans”.
The role of the media in the United States, especially throughout the Trump Administration have totally been — as you correctly point out– rooted in the desire for “good ratings” and ultimately money. I thought this analysis was super accurate and interesting, and is even more frustrating to think about how this went further than just the 2016 campaign. In this year’s cycle, the media still capitalized on his erratic, unconventional, and sensationalist behavior as president and candidate.
One thing that your post reminded me of is NBC’s decision to run a Trump town hall the same day and time as Biden’s when Trump refused to debate virtually. While the town hall probably did not serve to swing voters, the institution of debates within the American democratic system has been sacred for so long, it was frustrating to see the media so easy to hop on an opportunity to increase ratings and make more money. I think the role of capitalism here is also an important point that is missing from your analysis, but plays a significant role in the way the media operates in a broader, more systemic sense.