Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
Some of these comments have been quite helpful. Jiri, the personal comment was not directed at you.
This is question I'm trying to answer:
"Did the US media, by overwhelmingly negatively reporting about Donald Trump's candidacy, contribute to him becoming elected?"
|
Except your question is wrong right out of the gate. Empirical evidence supports the claim that coverage of Hillary Clinton was far more negative and far more damaging than any of the coverage Donald Trump received, especially down the stretch. The media provided far more opportunities for Trump to be in the media, but did so in a way that allowed him to drive the narrative and frame issues. The Clinton coverage was much more damaging and never allowed her a chance to frame the issues around her. The fact that coverage allowed Trump to frame issues, use specific language and dog whistle terms, meant the tenor of the articles was irrelevant. In fact, it had the opposite affect, making Trump a sympathetic figure to some in the electorate who fell for the line that he was being treated unfairly, even in the face of empirical evidence.
The media fixation of Trump's twitter feed was a big part of the election cycle victory. They allowed him to frame issues and people in his terms, and then acted as an amplifier to extend the reach of those tweets. They failed to push back on these things and allowed Trump to get his unedited message to masses, dog whistle language and all.