Eric Deggans of the Tampa Bay Times makes three main observations in his article about the media's coverage of the presidential election. His first observation that "[s]ocial media smartens up and dumbs down the coverage" ties into the idea that the media has priming power. Although news sources and social media sites highlighted seemingly trivial gaffes and memes, the attention may have led to more serious discussions about issues that weren't fully addressed in the debates.
Many important issues, such as climate change and racial inequality, did not feature in either presidential campaign. Today's media may have exhibited a "limited ability" to set the agenda by failing to press candidates on issues they shied away from. On the other hand, the media tends to focus on issues that are in demand and, according to exit polls, the economy was by far the most important issue to voters.
Deggan's third observation focuses on the media's role as fact- and truth-checkers and supports the view that the media is becoming more active, and less objective. Rather than simply reporting what each candidate said or reviewing the bare factual accuracy of their statements, the media debated whether or not candidates used facts in a way that fairly reflected the truth. The truth is "a more open question" than fact and the greater ambiguity requires the media to make judgments rather than report objectively. By arguing for different, often partisan, interpretations of the truth the media might be inviting more selective attention, with news consumers tending to follow messages that support their candidate.
Rate this posting:
{[['
']]}
']]}