DAVID DONNANTUONO

In recent years, the global media landscape has evolved at an exceptional rate. The emergence of social media networks, politically-oriented talk radio, and the 24-hour news cycle has been at the forefront of this transformation, and these new entities have largely taken command of the overall discourse throughout our country. There is certainly something to be said for the way in which such media have exposed the public to information faster than ever, galvanized groups of people for righteous causes and enabled individuals to connect with one another in unprecedented ways. Yet the development of this new media landscape has coincided with an increasingly polarized, misinformed, and often distracted American public: a phenomenon that is rooted—at least in part—in this very transformation. The incentives of both consumers and producers of information have become distorted, while the number of outlets has expanded exponentially. Consequently, today’s media landscape is diluted with sources which thrive on both bias and expediency, with only a few readily available places to find uncorrupted, substantive information, and it has gradually become more difficult to distinguish between the two.

​

There exists an intrinsic, American notion that more options are always better. This idea of perfect competition is what allows the American consumer the freedom to choose a version of a given product that best suits them. This concept is a pillar of our nation’s economic system. Any industry in which few options are presented is more likely to be corrupted and exploit its consumer, right? Sure, that’s the case in most instances, but in others, it may be a bit erroneous. As the major multimedia conglomerates have diversified their approach and dozens of independent platforms have sprung up, the truth has become more and more opaque to the average American. We have little choice but to listen to our preferred news outlet to be told what we should be concerned, fearful, and angry about. Such a method seems reasonable, but if you look around, you might see how this approach—given the vast number of different outlets that Americans turn to—has helped lead to an increasingly divided public.

​

To use one simple analogy, let’s look at the fast food industry. In 2016, the crucial factors one might consider when determining where they’ll make that 2 A.M. food run don’t likely revolve around the nutritional quality of the food, but rather the taste, price, and convenience that come with any given option. Thus, as more and more of these establishments have come on the scene, it is these factors which they prioritize when determining and altering their business model. An arms race like this one has led to incredible advancements in food-serving technology like the drive thru, the computerized drink machine, and the Doritos Locos Taco™. And yes, this tactic would be fine, if it weren’t for the fact that improving each of these elements generally comes at the expense of the quality of the product itself. Taco Bell isn’t on a quest to make the best Mexican-American cuisine it can, while McDonald’s has no intention to perfect (or even improve) their hamburger. Yet these establishments have a stronger foothold on the American market than any of their counterparts who have such an intention. When a healthy option does enter this market, the prevalence of the unhealthy choices causes such an establishment to be viewed as no different from the ones selling crap. Still, the demand for fast food remains stagnant despite an overt increase in the sketchiness of many restaurants’ ingredients, and the result is a less healthy nation. The same holds true for news (to bring this delicious analogy full circle): people will always demand information, yet today’s providers of information are predisposed to ensure that they corner their segment of the market by prioritizing bias (taste), visibility (price), and concision (convenience) rather than substantive coverage, and any truly informative outlets are simply disregarded or viewed as equally unreliable. The result is a less informed nation suffering from brain-fat.

​

This corrosive development has been most conspicuous in the advent of the 24-hour news network. While strictly online outlets tend to live or die by the traction of their clickbait, these multimedia powers combine this tactic with their proprietary partial narrative, ensuring that they can sustain one consistent overarching message to attract and retain a given segment of the population. Wouldn’t it be great if you woke up to watch the news each morning and, sure enough, it agreed with you? This approach may seem neglectful of objectivity and journalistic integrity, but keep in mind, mass media companies operate for-profit. The best way to assure shareholders of the longevity of your company is to corner a segment of the market by pandering to it, while underlining the platform with almost sardonic slogans like “Fair and Balanced” and “The Most Trusted Name in News” to create an aura of legitimacy for the consumer. It’s sort of like an ad campaign declaring that a Subway-only diet is the optimal way to lead a healthy life. Who’s going to tell the people otherwise? McDonald’s?

​

The routine capitalization on people’s partiality in the news industry is problematic because perpetuating the intuitive notions of like-minded people will only serve to further entrench that group of people in their own perspective. The polarizing effect of such subjective coverage has never been more salient than in recent years and particularly through this election cycle. So it’s no wonder that this year’s election was overshadowed by the most far-left and (at least rhetorically) far-right candidates most of us have seen in our lifetime. By magnifying instances which bolster a given narrative while omitting coverage that might not fall in line with it, these outlets have thrived off of creating an American public that is incredibly averse to constructive discourse. The financial efficacy of providing biased and expedient coverage has since trickled into the social media space, where you might stumble across a two-minute video of a blonde woman yelling into a camera about relevant social and political issues, asserting herself as the sole authority over racial tensions and inequities in the United States, while conveniently failing to acknowledge any viable arguments of another perspective. People seem to love that lady; she’s got well over three million Facebook followers with insightful headings like “What is the common thread between Black Lives Matter and radical Islamic terror?” Great question Tomi!

​

The goal of the mainstream media—and especially 24-hour networks—should not be to cash in by feeding people’s already existing leanings. That’s the job of bloggers in basements and people with shows on “TheBlaze.” Its goal should be to provide clarity, but instead it thrives off of conflict whether or not such conflict is information we should actually care about. How else could the most conflict-oriented, politically inept candidate we’ve ever seen be given billions of dollars-worth of free publicity without an unequivocal condemnation of his unfounded proclamations from our most prominent news sources? When fearmongering is rampant, conspiracy theories are peddled by politicians and celebrities, and nativist rhetoric is the cornerstone of a candidate’s platform, it should be the leaders in the industry of informing us who denounce and correct such bullshit. Instead, they only magnify it. Months later, we now have a president-elect who’s appointed as his chief strategist a man who’s made a living cultivating a distrust of the media and nominated as his Attorney General one of the most prominent men in policy whose track record matches Trump’s rhetoric. Expect attempts to confront this administration to be suppressed by executive declarations that the “biased media”—a segment of which helped lead him to victory—is not to be trusted.

​

To understand why calculated narratives and misinformation have become so common in our news today, it’s important to be cognizant of the evolution of the American media, particularly the policies (or lack thereof) that have triggered the most fateful of these developments. In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) identified what it perceived as a major flaw in the media landscape of the time. Three networks—ABC, NBC, and CBS—held near full control over nationwide television broadcasting, and in order to prevent biased coverage, which many viewed as an eventual inevitability, the Fairness Doctrine was enacted. This act stated that for any contemporary issues of public importance, these networks (and any other licensed broadcasters) must present a balanced perspective to their viewers.

 

For the better part of four decades, this policy was crucial in preventing unfettered, uncontested criticism of people and ideas, and kept the most powerful sources of news in the U.S. from falling into the abyss of biased coverage. Its repeal in 1987 was a response to an increasing number of broadcasting outlets and was driven by the rising notion that such a mandate was a violation of free speech and a government infringement on individuals’ expression of ideas.

​

The heart of the debate surrounding the Fairness Doctrine, both up to and since its repeal, has been whether regulation of licensed broadcasters would ‘enhance’ or ‘reduce’ the public discourse: a struggle between enforced objectivity being in the public interest, or being a violation of First Amendment rights. The question then remains, has the degree to which broadcasters inform the American public improved or declined since the elimination of this doctrine?

​

The most recent efforts to revive the Fairness Doctrine have—as shown by the individuals who’ve resurfaced it—undoubtedly been a response to the emergence of conservative talk radio in the past two decades. Despite the conspicuousness of this fact, one shouldn’t discard these efforts as partisan squabbling. The Fairness Doctrine was, in its conception and subsequent defenses, a bipartisan effort to prevent licensed broadcasters from propagating and capitalizing on the very narratives that have now reached extensive audiences. Regardless of where one stands, it is undeniable that now-prominent broadcasters have upheld a distinct perspective of the country we live in.

​

Through both observation and purposed research, I've become convinced that the direction in which a substantial segment of the modern American media has evolved is detrimental to our civil discourse, and, consequently, to the public interest. A once-marginal narrative wherein our country is constantly jeopardized or under attack by a violent religion, criminal migrants, delusional environmentalists, and a duplicitous left-wing media has become normalized and helped to galvanize an electorate that was justifiably disillusioned (albeit due to different actualities). The response by the powerful broadcasting conglomerates has not been to defend their legitimacy and denounce views unsupported by fact. They have instead exhibited such stances as a legitimate counterpart to the modern conservative and liberal viewpoints which—at least at their core—are grounded in concrete realities. At the same time, these multimedia powers have paired an inability to provide much-needed clarity with a dilution of content.

​

Given the option between a steady flow of curated narratives or pure entertainment, it’s no surprise that many Americans have chosen the latter. Those who do choose to pursue informative content are now faced with outlets which only seek to further entrench them into whatever leaning they’re already predisposed. The alignment of once-reliable media sources with political factions and entertainment platforms has devastated investigative journalism and helped to halt constructive discourse. The result has been nuanced issues becoming distinctly two-sided struggles. On one end, the urgency of climate change is simply a part of the "alarmist" narrative. Legislation to keep high-capacity guns out of the hands of unvetted or potentially dangerous individuals is a liberal infringement upon all of our rights. Police brutality and the larger inequities it points to can be unilaterally disproved by the folly of Colin Kaepernick. At the same time, those aligned with an opposing narrative might be convinced that anyone involved in the fossil fuel industry is evil, anyone who owns a gun is crazy, and cops are predominantly malicious. Both perspectives are destructive to the dialogue in this country, yet each has been augmented by media and political frameworks that too often benefit from keeping the truth (which usually falls somewhere in the middle) obscure.

​

In my eyes, the topic which proves the most overt indicator of the detrimental effects of a massive segment of our media capitalizing on bias is climate change and the way in which its severity—and even reality—has evolved into a contentious subject in recent years.

​

Given the fact that our two-party political system operates on a linear spectrum, any news outlet which seeks to capitalize on a partial narrative must fall either to the left or the right. As a result, such sources are inclined to align themselves with the political faction that this viewpoint reflects. Thus, if these political parties are being urged financially by outside forces that would benefit from a convoluted narrative surrounding a given topic (take climate change, gun violence, prescription drug addiction, excessive risk in the finance industry, etc.), then these political figures, from whom these media companies take their cue, will do everything in their power to call into question the assertions of far more objective individuals, such as scientists, statisticians, sociologists, and whoever else actually studies the problems with which we should be concerned. The divisive and convoluted nature of the American climate change narrative is therefore fostered by the powers which have a clear interest in sustaining and expanding activities that catalyze climate change. Such an approach is not an uncommon tactic among other major political forces, and (fortunately for them) the power of groups seeking to counteract such influence generally pales in comparison. The assertion that “Big Solar” has steered the climate change narrative lacks legs, given that solar has not been the dominant force in the energy industry since industrialization, and a politician questioning the objectivity of scientists is specious, considering the fact that today’s politicians must yield to corporate lobbies in order to continue being politicians.

​

The American mainstream media as it exists today will not be capable of properly informing the American public until both the financial incentives that partiality and expediency present are fettered and the political figures with which these sources align themselves are no longer forced to bow to interests which deter effective policy. Until then, the U.S. will continue debating whether our greatest problems exist, while the rest of the world tries to figure out how to solve them.

​

By fortifying two distinct, simplified sides of complex issues, we have become almost willfully ignorant. In a country that has progressed for centuries through discourse and compromise, the solutions to our problems will continue to elude us until a willingness for ideological coexistence and cooperation returns. Reinvigorating a truly informative media is, in my eyes, the best place to start. Whether such change should be rooted in a revival of investigative journalism, media-ownership caps, more conspicuous public broadcasting, or ‘fairness’ legislation of some kind is a discussion for experts to have. But to a novice like myself, one thing couldn’t be clearer: until those charged with informing us return to valuing objectivity over the narrative they want to convey, we will never mend the ever-widening divide that has suppressed our great country.