The Media and the 2016 Election (Presentation Slides)

Abstract

The origins of this paper emanated from an interdisciplinary conference at the University of Houston that accompanied the 2016 Republican Presidential Debate that was held on campus. The paper was then revised for a presentation in Mexico City at the Matias Romero Institute in the summer of 2017. On August 6, 2018, the paper was presented at the SEALS Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Attached are slides from that presentation. This author is very appreciative of the positive feedback received during these presentations. In examining this issue, the paper outlines the power imbalance that existed between the traditional media and the presidential candidates during the Republican primaries as well as during the general election. This power imbalance provided Candidate Trump with an unprecedented amount of “earned” media coverage. This was partly due to his celebrity status, which the traditional media commodified through its coverage fueling their increased advertising rates. During the 2016 election, the traditional media experienced unprecedented viewership during the Republican debates and news coverage of Candidate Trump. Candidate Trump’s celebrity status and nontraditional approach to the election campaign fueled a cycle of the media disproportionately covering Candidate Trump’s campaign in comparison to his Republican rivals in the primaries and Candidate Clinton’s in the general election. Moreover, Candidate Trump skillfully used Twitter and Facebook and used these social media resources more often than his Republican rivals in the Republican primaries and against Candidate Clinton in the general election. This allowed the Trump campaign to earn even more coverage from traditional media allowing him to win the Republican nomination and the general election by raising and spending less money than his respective rivals in those contests. In contrast, in the general election, even though Candidate Clinton raised more campaign money than Candidate Trump, Candidate Trump had the significant advantage in earned media. Moreover, unlike Candidate Trump, Candidate Clinton relied more on spending on traditional media advertising than social media. Social media like Facebook and Twitter experienced outside and foreign influence. Facebook acknowledged that “fake news” was distributed on its network in its feed to subscribers. There were also dark advertising to targeted slivers of the population based on messages that either would make the recipients of the ads less likely to vote or more likely. The most troubling aspect about these dark social media ads is that because they were “dark,” there was no opportunity for a rival campaign to counter the ads’ message. After the 2016 election, Facebook acknowledged the manipulation of its network and instituted some measures to self- regulate. Given that so many more members of the voting public get their news from personalized social media streams, these fundamental changes in the media landscape and their use raise the issue of whether self-regulation by the social media companies is sufficient to provide a level playing field among presidential candidates and to prevent outside foreign influence.