Media performance in the 2016 Election Season

Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Media Performance in the 2016 Election Season
INTRODUCTION
According to Media and Elections, the media are very imperative in a democratic space, and without the media, democratic elections may not be readily achievable (1). Free and fair elections may not be necessarily the freedom and the knowledge to vote, but also an interactive process where the electorate shares information, access information about their preferred candidates, policies, political parties and the election process. That helps them to make very precise and informed opinions when voting. Besides, the media acts as a crucial watchdog to a democratic process, and also safeguard the interest of the people without any biasness. Therefore, a democratic process covered by a gagged media would be the direct contradiction of its role.
Ten years back, it was declared in the annual World Press Freedom Day that the independence and the plurality of the media are critical in upholding transparency, accountability, and participation of the members of the public (Media and Elections,1). The declaration also encouraged the people to respect the role of the media in promoting good governance and democracy. To fulfill the requirements in the declaration, the media needs to maintain precision, professionalism, and fairness in their coverage of election seasons. Notably, the media have been in the past comprehended to refer to the radio, television, printed press, and networks. However, the definition in the modern society has even become broader, encompassing new media such as blogs, independent news portals, and various social media platforms.

In the United States of America 2016 general election season, both the old and the new media platforms significantly contributed to the democratic process. Some of these contributions were positive, and of course, some were also negative in informing the decisions of the voter in the just concluded general elections. From past events, the operation of the American democratic system is very precise. The people elect candidates to office majorly based on their policies and issues. Therefore, the presence of media is essential in sharing such vital information with the people. This paper intends to analyze the performance of the new and old media in informing the decisions of the voters in the United States 2016 general election.
NEW MEDIA
Apparently, the new media, which is primarily online journalism, took the center of the stage in the election season. Various political operatives and citizens actively participated in the social media platforms to share their opinions on the occurrences. According to Geddes, social media is an online community that most people choose to engage in today (1). The civilization that we have today has subjected so many people to spend most of their time on the social platforms than in real life. Thus, that element makes it an avenue that can be used to influence a person’s political perspective. The 2016 election was not the first general elections where social media has been used, but today one can attest that it carried much weight and influence in the just-concluded exercise. All the candidates used the platforms to their advantage, but it is the voters, supporters and the influencers who mold their perception as accordance to the views that serve the interest of their preferred candidate.

First and foremost, the social media platforms reinforced and popularized narrow opinions in the previous elections (Kapko, 1). Never before has a tweet or a like on Facebook been so reflective and influential in the American politics like today. It acted as a core fiber for those who shared same political opinions. Besides, it reinforced the electorate’s confirmation biases. A Clinical professor of communication known as Karen North says that psychological researchers indicate that people are always in need of confirmatory messages. They may not only want to get informed of the current situations but also to air their opinions and get like-minded individuals who support them and approve of their opinions “correctness.” The same views are also held by an assistant professor of communication at Emerson College, Vincent Raynauld. He argues that many people seek echo-chambers on the social platforms. He states, “even though social media allows people to be exposed to different political views, people tend to be part of the environments where their political opinions are constantly reinforced.” (Kapko, 1)In that way, it improves information sharing, and people with narrow interests quickly hook up with those who embrace their views.
Positive illustrations. The same applied to the 2016 elections when people used sensational headlines to fuel political momentum on social media. The case of the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is quite illustrative in this case. Just after their first presidential debate, he went ablaze on Twitter to explain how he had won the debate. He even used independent surveys from other agencies that ranked him the best in the contest to prove his point, though it was very clear that Hillary Clinton had done much better than him. It worked out well for him, as many were appealed by the exuding confidence that he expressed, despite losing to the Democrat candidate in that debate. A study that was conducted by the Pew Research Center has also pointed out to the fact that social media platforms give rapid political momentum. In the research, 35 percent of young people on social media agreed that social media was a very helpful source of pertinent information on the elections. It attests that social media has grown to be a go-to equipment for politics (Kapko, 1).
Apart from the candidates, political strategists also targeted segmented audiences and fed them with information that served the interest of the majority. An example is a time when Trump announced his idea to ban all Muslim people from migrating to the United States. The proposal generated multiple engagements in the social media platforms than any other. These remarks were publicly made at a rally in South Carolina, and they quickly found an audience in the online social platforms through different political operatives. Since then, it has remained to be one of the most responded to news events, and many people got moved with the idea (Lang, 1). Consequently, it contributed much to the outcome of the elections. Just like Frank Speiser, the co-founder of SocialFlow puts it,
One thing that Trump does, he combines two or three issues in a single statement or proposal. Now, he may be muddling them, but it doesn’t matter because it activates groups that are interested in all of the above. Like how he will conflate crime and gun violence with immigration. It may not be true, but the fact that he says it excites groups whose top issues are crime or guns or immigration (Lang, 1).
When such statements are shared online, like-minded people are easily influenced to join the camp.
Secondly, the social media also provided a campaign platform for various candidates. The online campaigns made things easy for the electorate when choosing their preferred candidates. According to Lambert, all candidates and political parties have an explicit democratic right to provide the voters with information regarding their agendas, issues, and attributes (1). Moreover, the social media is an important gateway to very relevant pieces of information about the candidates. Various candidates, therefore, took advantage of this to connect and share their views with the voters. Marissa Lang, in her article titled “2016 Presidential Election Circus: Is Social Media the Cause?” claims that Donald Trump had used social media in campaigning more than any other candidate. Other candidates like the former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders also used their social media presence to the campaign but not as Trump did. SocialFlow estimates indicate that Trump had garnered more votes for free exposure via social media and also his rate of engagement with the people favored him a lot. He also used the social media platforms to extend and connect his personality to his supporters. Occasionally, he could brag about his wealth and also express gratitude to his followers through Twitter. As a result, most of the people were moved by their unrestricted access to his opinions and voted for him in the presidential elections. Also, the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton used the social media to extend her campaigns. In her accounts, very less personal data were shared; she primarily focused on sharing her bids and plans for the American people. In one of her tweets, she indicated that she was determined to build an economy that is good for every person and not just for those who sit at the top of the social class (Candidates Differ in Their Use of Social Media to Connect with the Public, 1). Such posts appealed to those who were concerned with having a balanced economy.
Negative illustrations. On the other hand, the new media also brought down the integrity of the elections, and that significantly impacted in informing the decisions of many citizens. Luke Geddes in his article “The social media’s role in the US elections” states that publicity is good in the social media for politicians, but when the wrong content is shared, it has got very devastating effects to the victims. In the last month’s general election, the negative content about a particular candidate, which prompted the dramatic change of opinions among citizens, is a clear indication of a failed democratic process. For example, the Republican candidate, Donald Trump shared fake news in many occasions to influence the opinions of the electorate. In one particular instance, he posted a false and racially oriented crime data between the black and the white community. Trump claimed that he had sourced the data from very credible sources, only to emerge later that this data was from a neo-Nazi Twitter handle. That was not the only case; Geddes claims that there was evidence of Twitter robots that were used to increase support for the Republican presidential candidate. It is said that these robots produced automated tweets that backed him (Bessi and Emilio, 3). They produced legitimate reports, propaganda and messages of support (Geddes, 1). It could be cumbersome to determine the tweets that were automatically generated and the ones that were created by actual users. As a result, it increased the people’s perception on the amount of support that he had; and it is possible that this might have misled many people into drumming support for Trump.
OLD MEDIA
Like Thomas Patterson puts it, the press meticulously failed in democratically informing the decisions of the electorate in the past general elections (1). A Harvard news report on media, politics and public policy analyzed the news coverage in the November 2016 elections and concluded that Hillary Clinton and his Republican rival got extremely negative coverage on tone and their policies. According to Thomas Patterson, “A healthy dose of negativity is unquestionably a good thing, yet an incessant stream of criticism has a corrosive effect. It needlessly erodes trust in political leaders and institutions and undermines confidence in government and policy” (Patterson, 1). His statements explicitly imply that false and negative media coverage can mislead people’s choices during the election season. The negative media coverage in most cases overlooks the leadership qualities in someone, and instead focuses on personal stuff that may not be relevant for good governance. The study manifested that on topics related to suitability for the presidency, the coverage on both candidates was nearly indistinguishable regarding the negative portrayal. However, the magnitude of allegations that were leveled against the two candidates was not equal in any way. It serves as a more appropriate indication that the press failed in providing accurate information to the voters.
Negative illustrations. David Zurawik, a contact reporter, indicates that the old media has performed irresponsibly in informing the opinions of the people months before the elections. He alleges that cable news employees shared questions with the Democratic Party presidential candidate before live presidential debates (Zurawik, 1). Trump is also not left out as he alleges that he got endless airwaves through phone call interviews that were organized by various executives. The two allegations is deadly a combination of how the press has failed in providing the citizens with precise and trustworthy information that they can use in making their decisions. Some may have opted to vote for Clinton basing on how she responded to the debate questions; yet, the fact that she had the questions prior was hidden from the public. Besides, in previous events, it was alleged that CNN gave Hillary Clinton information that was intended to skew the interview processes. As a result, she regularly led in the opinion polls for the better part of the election season. Zurawik feels that such schemes are the complete opposite of democracy as they not only attempted to prove Donald Trump’s rhetoric of election rigging but also improved Clinton’s profile in the eyes of the voters (1).
The confusion caused by various old media platforms on the manner in which they would have covered the 2016 general elections, considerably derailed the democracy status in the United States. It cannot just be limited to the cable TV Coverage, Huffington post state that Donald Trump did not need political coverage. His colleagues claimed that they would only cover Trump’s campaign as part of their entertainment programs because they felt that his efforts were simple side shows (Zurawik, 1). Additionally, a Vox editor, Emmett Rensin also incited his readers to resort to violence, should Trump visit their localities. In other twists, the CNN further confused the electorate by hiring former Donald’s director for campaigns. Corey Lewandowski was brought in as a featured analyst, a move which can be simply argued that he was intended to serve as Trump’s surrogate in the media. Apparently, his addition to the team might have given the electorate a different perspective on Trump’s popularity. It was one of the “well” played media mucks that consistently continue to misinform democracy.
CONCLUSION
From the above discussions, it is evident that the previous US general elections saw the massive use of media as a platform of appealing to the voters. In the new media, social media reinforced and popularized narrow political opinions, it provided a campaign platform and also brought down the integrity of the election campaigns. In the old media, the press media, cable TV, and networks have been subjected to criticism for negative coverage, confusing the electorate and failure to provide trustworthy information that is imperative in propelling mature democracy. Unlike the past, it is an indication that political media coverage has been brought to the forefront of the public; therefore, media personalities ought to uphold highest standards of integrity to shape better future political campaigns.

List of sources
Bessi, Alessandro and Emilio Ferrara. “Social Bots Distort The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Online Discussion”. First Monday, vol 21, no. 11, 2016, pp1-4. The university of Illinois Libraries, doi:10.5210/fm.v21i11.7090.
“Candidates Differ In Their Use Of Social Media To Connect With The Public.” Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project, 2016, http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/18/candidates-differ-in-their-use-of-social-media-to-connect-with-the-public/.
Geddes, Luke. “Social Media’s Role in the US Election.” Greenwood Campbell, 2016,
HYPERLINK “https://www.greenwoodcampbell.com/blog/2016/12/social-medias-role-in-the-us-election/” https://www.greenwoodcampbell.com/blog/2016/12/social-medias-role-in-the-us-election/.
Kapko, Matt. “How Social Media Is Shaping The 2016 Presidential Election”. pp. 1-1. Coi.Com, HYPERLINK “http://www.cio.com/article/3125120/social-networking/how-social-media-is-shaping-the-2016-presidential-election.html” http://www.cio.com/article/3125120/social-networking/how-social-media-is-shaping-the-2016-presidential-election.html.
Lambert, Brian. “Post-Election, The Media Will Have To Examine Its Own Role In The 2016 Presidential Campaign”. Minnpost,
HYPERLINK “https://www.minnpost.com/media/2016/10/post-election-media-will-have-examine-its-own-role-2016-presidential-campaign” https://www.minnpost.com/media/2016/10/post-election-media-will-have-examine-its-own-role-2016-presidential-campaign.
Lang, Marissa. “2016 Presidential Election Circus: Is Social Media The Cause?”.
Govtech.Com,
HYPERLINK “http://www.govtech.com/social/2016-Presidential-Election-Circus-Is-Social-Media-the-Cause.html” http://www.govtech.com/social/2016-Presidential-Election-Circus-Is-Social-Media-the-Cause.html.
“Media and Elections —”. Aceproject.Org, 2015,
HYPERLINK “http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/onePage” http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/onePage.
Patterson, Thomas. “News Coverage Of The 2016 General Election: How The Press Failed The Voters – Shorenstein Center”. Shorenstein Center, 2016, HYPERLINK “https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/” https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/.
Zurawik, David. “Biggest Loser of 2016 Presidential Election? The Media”. The Baltimore Sun, 2016, HYPERLINK “http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bs-ae-zontv-election-press-fail-20161104-story.html” http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bs-ae-zontv-election-press-fail-20161104-story.html

Work Cited
Bessi, Alessandro and Emilio Ferrara. “Social Bots Distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Online Discussion”. First Monday, vol 21, no. 11, 2016, pp. 1-4. University Of Illinois
Libraries, doi:10.5210/fm.v21i11.7090.
“Candidates Differ In Their Use Of Social Media To Connect With The Public.” Pew Research
Center’s Journalism Project, 2016, HYPERLINK “http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/18/candidates-” http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/18/candidates-differ-in-their-use-of-social-media-to-connect-with-the-public/.
Geddes, Luke. “Social Media’s Role in the US Election.” Greenwood Campbell, 2016,
HYPERLINK “https://www.greenwoodcampbell.com/blog/2016/12/social-medias-role-in-the-us-election/” https://www.greenwoodcampbell.com/blog/2016/12/social-medias-role-in-the-us-election/.
Kapko, Matt. “How Social Media Is Shaping The 2016 Presidential Election”. pp. 1-1. Coi.Com,
HYPERLINK “http://www.cio.com/article/3125120/social-networking/how-social-media-is-shaping-the
2016-presidential-election.html” http://www.cio.com/article/3125120/social-networking/how-social-media-is-shaping-the
2016-presidential-election.html.
Lambert, Brian. “Post-Election, the Media Will Have To Examine Its Own Role in the 2016
Presidential Campaign”. Minnpost,
HYPERLINK “https://www.minnpost.com/media/2016/10/post-election-media-will-have-examine-its-own-role-2016-presidential-campaign” https://www.minnpost.com/media/2016/10/post-election-media-will-have-examine-its-own-role-2016-presidential-campaign.
Lang, Marissa. “2016 Presidential Election Circus: Is Social Media The Cause?”. Govtech.Com,
HYPERLINK “http://www.govtech.com/social/2016-Presidential-Election-Circus-Is-Social-Media-the-Cause.html” http://www.govtech.com/social/2016-Presidential-Election-Circus-Is-Social-Media-the-Cause.html.
“Media and Elections —”. Aceproject.Org, 2015,
HYPERLINK “http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/onePage” http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/onePage.
.
Patterson, Thomas. “News Coverage Of The 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed The
Voters – Shorenstein Center”. Shorenstein Center, 2016,
HYPERLINK “https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/” https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/.
Zurawik, David. “Biggest Loser of 2016 Presidential Election? The Media”. The Baltimore Sun,
2016,
HYPERLINK “http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bs-ae-zontv-election-press-fail-20161104-story.html” http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bs-ae-zontv-election-press-fail-20161104-story.html