Regular Media too has Blood on its Hands

The rise of mass media during the 1930’s coincided with that of fascism and Nazism. Was the media therefore an instrument for totalitarianism? Hence, post-World War II, we ended with decentralized mass media. In theory, more channels meant differing opinions, thus people form informed decisions. Then came Silicon Valley; and scaled it up massively: from a handful of media outlets we went to everyone-can-broadcast, aka social media. Not surprising then that many blame social media (and Silicon Valley) for the rise of Trump.

But the book, Trump and the Media, says the truth may be more complicated. After all, Trump’s vote base doesn’t even spend that much time online! Instead, writes Nicholas Carr in his book review:

“The novelty and frequent abrasiveness of (Trump’s) tweets… mesmerized the chattering class throughout the primaries and the general election campaign, fueling a frenzy of retweets, replies, and hashtags. Social media’s biggest echo chamber turned out to be the traditional media elite.”

The raw, provocative and emotional nature of Trump’s tweets fed right into how “regular” media had been operating anyway:

“Overheated headlines, constant “breaking news” bulletins, and partisan rants merged into people’s social-media feeds.”

Add to that the image of regular media as one of “ivory-tower elitism”. It made their views “anathema to those of a populist bent”. Carr ends with the danger of professional gatekeepers of news and opinions worth hearing being swept away:

“Professional gatekeepers have their flaws — they can narrow the range of views presented to the public, and they can stifle voices that should be heard — yet through the exercise of their professionalism they also temper the uglier tendencies of human nature.”

But wait, who exactly are these professional gatekeepers, asks James O’Brien:

“(In any debate) The presenter thus becomes a referee rather than a tribune for the viewers and listeners: if they point out a flaw in one person’s argument, they must then point out a flaw in the other’s or be accused of bias; if they employ knowledge to challenge false assertions, they are pursuing their own “agenda”.”

And what about the inconvenient fact that the media is a for-profit entity:

“It happens because the nature of a TV or radio debate is increasingly binary and confrontational, and because getting people to argue with each other makes for better “box office” than exposing them to equal levels of proper scrutiny.”

So yes, it’s complex. There is no black and white here, only shades of grey. To try and fix things, one needs to acknowledge the grey and get off one’s high horse. I don’t see any signs of that happening. Not yet anyway.