I would say almost not at all, except to the extent they just reported on what he said. Trump won because he was a dumbshit racist who appealed to dumbshit racists, which (at least vs Hilary) is enough to win the presidency.
Trump’s victory was not a problem with “the media” (I think the topic is fatally flawed by introducing this empty term) but a problem with democracy, the electoral college/lack of popular vote, etc. 50% of American’s are below average. Most of these people don’t normally vote, but Trump was like crack to a below-average voter’s worldview, because he embodies their empty-headed thinking about politics. He motivated people who were previously uninterested in politics to come out and vote for the moron who thinks like they think.
You refer to this as a “dissertation” but as the question is framed, it seems fatally flawed, almost vacuous. At what level is the “dissertation” being written? I am unfamiliar with dissertations below the master’s degree level.
There’s probably an interesting paper to be written re: the role of traditional media and social media in spreading his message. At some level, “the media” must have contributed because some form of information transmission system allowed all these below averge, normally non-voting Americans to hear enough of Trump’s message to get mobilized to vote.
Yes, “the media” informed people that Trump was running and played various clips of him as a candidate. The media also informed people that Abraham Lincoln was running and published stories about it, and favorable newspapers published his speeches and said nice things about him.
Most of “the media” I consume said Trump was a raving psychopath in 2016, because I curate my media intake for accurate information and avoid things like Fox News and the Daily Caller.
People don’t consume Fox News because they report the truth, they consume Fox News because it tells morons what morons want to hear, which is that black people are criminals and their life sucks because the elites are sticking it to them. Fox is in a continual race to catch up with its viewer’s sentiments and moves the dial so that it reflects what they want to hear to the best of its ability.
Sure, the media could have, I guess, not told people Trump was running and not played clips of his rallies, and I guess the media could have continually told people that Trump was literally a conman who knows nothing, but the voters wanted a know-nothing conman because he makes them feel good.
Blaming “the media” for Trump is like blaming the syringe for heroin addiction or written communication for religion.
Sounds like a good thesis for the assignment paper "To what extent did media coverage of the 2016 election contribute to Donald Trump’s success as a populist candidate?”
I looked this one up as I hadn’t heard of it and it’s grammatically incorrect. Not very subtle, unlike the CU …Next Tuesday which I’ve had female friends refer to other females as that phrase as a noun.
“she’s a real see you next tuesday”
Guys I know would just say the word.
If I’m not mistaken, CNN and MSNBC covered his rallies in full! To the point where they’d have a picture of his empty podium plastered on the screen 20 minutes before they even started
To this day they engage in rage porn propping him up so that people (like many on this forum) continue crediting him with far more power than he deserves
Yeah simplicitus appears to have forgotten how much CNN, particularly, invited Trump on after he announced in 2015. He was the king of “free media” back then.
Agree. Trump got tons of coverage from CNN and MSNBC in 2016. He brought in good ratings. And they definitely regretted it when he won the election. Even so, he still got a lot of coverage for things he did as President, but they virtually stopped covering his rallies in 2020.
