Recent trends in the media industry haven’t done much to advance meaningful dialogue on matters of public interest. They have, however, changed how Americans relate to each other, accelerating an online culture war that threatens to tear us apart.
Most recently, the way Americans reacted to the conclusion of the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into wrongdoing by President Trump exposed this problem for the world to see. Both sides rushed to lift up voices that confirmed deeply-held biases. By focusing on whether Trump would be charged with a crime, the more important underlying issue became obscured. And here we are today, unable to confront the Russian attack on our democracy.
Why are we reacting this way? The way Americans consume media has changed in several ways that have contributed to today’s ‘rush to judgement culture’. Through the increasingly fractured lens by which we view the world, we are losing sight of a common set of facts that we can agree on. This is because hard news and soft news used to be separated by a clearly detectable line. Now however, driven by a system of incentives that make constructive dialogue less lucrative, social media has merged soft and hard news, warping what the media considers newsworthy. As New York Times columnist David Brooks put it, “these days the social media tail wags the mainsteam media dog.”
It is because the people that become internet celebrities – and therefore drive the news today – thrive on controversy and tap into visceral emotions. Voices writing detailed policy prescriptions to solve problems are drowned out. The Twitter universe is a place to air grievances, not to engage in critical thinking.
That is how we are conditioned. The media’s system of rewards dictates where our eyeballs go online. Buzzwords and catchy phrases like ‘collusion’, ‘impeachment’ and ‘witch hunt’ start trending on Twitter, making you more likely to click on these hashtags and use these words when discussing today’s news. Headlines are written for maximum clicks and trend towards the sensational. Who can blame the writers? Publications are competing for a shrinking pot of advertising revenue. Readers have more content to choose from than ever before, so quick-takes evoking visceral reactions are the currency of the realm.
As a Media Strategist at a prominent nongovernmental organization in Washington D.C. often called upon to work with legal experts and provide comments on today’s news, I have worked with hundreds of reporters, as well as editors at top publications and producers from leading television outlets, including those from emerging digital platforms.
What I have observed are well-meaning reporters with surprisingly little discretion to cover what they perceive to be newsworthy. Decisions rest on the shoulders of executives who don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. Scandal, culture wars, poll numbers, and cheap insults drive traffic. So a reporters’ talents for investigation and human storytelling are redirected to coverage of Trump’s feud, say, with Rosie O’Donnell. I have haggled with editors of the opinion sections of newspapers over headlines, and noticed how common it is for them to insert provocative words like ‘racist’ that shock readers and shut down debate.
Moreover, the consolidation of the media industry under a few corporate banners and the decline of local news contribute to the problem. Roughly 1,800 communities across the country have lost their local newspapers. “Local news is not a business anymore,” Christine Schmidt of Nieman Journalism Lab told the Salt Lake Tribune.
Other trends in social media usage show the explosion of news coming from untrustworthy sources. A Pew survey last year found that two-thirds of tweeted links to popular websites came from non-human users (like bots), which play a key role in altering the perceptions of political discourse online and spreading misinformation.
Instead of going out in the field looking for stories and then turning to cable contributors to put those stories in context, television producers have sunk to a rolling 24/7 opinion commentary cycle. This hardens partisan views and numbs increasingly cynical viewers. The reason is money. It may cost $50,000 to send a crew to cover a hurricane in Puerto Rico. It’s quite inexpensive for talking heads to argue over Trump’s nicknames: ‘Cryin’ Chuck, ‘Sleepy Joe’, ‘Lyin’ James Comey’ – from an air-conditioned studio on Capitol Hill.
The way people react to current events illustrates the challenge we face in solving problems. News cycles fueled by viral social media controversies (Jussie Smollett, the Covington Catholic students, etc.) – in addition to major news events like the Mueller Report – illustrate the problem America faces. The expansion of technology has countless benefits. It is high time that leaders in Silicon Valley and the major media distributors responsible for these gains reexamine the incentives determining which stories are worth telling.