Hindsight is 2020: What the Media Failed to Learn From the 2016 Election
Photo Credit: Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock.com
By Ilah Ross
On November 9, 2016, a victorious Donald J. Trump sauntered onto the stage at the Hilton Hotel in Manhattan, New York. The energy in the crowd heightened with each step he took towards the podium, and the chants of “USA” got louder and louder. “I’ve just received a call from Secretary Clinton,” he began. In typical Trumpian fashion, he took a dramatic pause before continuing, using the time to survey the crowd. A sea of red MAGA hats and signs lay before him. As Trump finished his sentence, the crowd began to cheer once again, for they knew what was to come: “She congratulated us on our victory.” The crowd exploded, and with it, our country as we knew it.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans were surprised by the outcome of the 2016 election, and rightfully so, as Hillary Clinton had not only won the popular vote by approximately 2.9 million votes, but had also been projected to win by the New York Times, Washington Post, and countless other respected institutions. However, looking back on the drama that was the 2016 election,Trump’s victory should not have come as a surprise.
Trump spent significantly more time being discussed and analyzed by the press than Clinton and was permitted to tell blatant lies time and time again without being held accountable by the very media which ridiculed him. In a 2016 article by the New York Times, it was determined that “Hillary Clinton [had] a 91% Chance to Win” the election, not only exhibiting the Times’ incorrect assumptions, but also their refusal to recognize that a significant subset of Americans were indeed in support of Trump. This gave many Americans a false sense of security, leading them to believe that they need not vote, as the outcome of the election had already been determined.
In her 2020 documentary “Enemies of the People: Trump and the Political Press,” Vice News President Susie Banikarim outlined the many missteps which the media took during the 2016 election, and more importantly, how Trump was able to exploit the underlying issues in the political press to his advantage.
“The 2016 election revealed so many flaws in how journalists had long been covering politics'', mentions one of the interviewees during the film, “The ground was shifting under their feet, and they just didn’t know what to do.” In the face of such unprecedented change, the media attempted to continue on a path of normalcy in their coverage of the election, and in doing so, helped Trump win.
Looking back at the road to the 2016 election, many journalists acknowledged the extent to which the media was at fault for Trump’s disproportionate amount of air time. In a 2016 article by the New York Times, it was determined that Trump got the equivalent of $2 billion worth of free media during his candidacy, in part because many Americans found his outrageous character entertaining, and the media tends to focus their attention where the demand lies.
Though the purpose of the media is to deliver a balanced and unbiased representation of each candidate, their attempts for equal coverage have ended up working in Trump’s favor in both the 2016, and now the 2020, elections. In a recent interview with PBS News, Banikarim notes that currently, “At the same time as Trump is saying that he wants Amy Coney Barrett confirmed so she can weigh in on the election if it goes to the Supreme Court, the media is spending a lot more time asking Biden about court packing.” She goes on to say that “the reality is, sometimes, two things are just not equal, and it's our job [as journalists] to contextualize that for people and help them process it...when we sort of push to balance, just because we don't know another way to seem objective, we're doing a disservice to the audience.”
A similar attempt for equal coverage by the media was seen in the 2016 election, specifically during the height of the Clinton email scandal. Though the press rightfully focused on Clinton’s wrongdoings and how they affected her electability, they failed to exhibit the same level of investigative journalism for matters pertaining to Trump. From his refusal to release tax returns during the campaign, countless sexual assault allegations, outright misquoting of facts, and more, the press often refrained from challenging Trump and holding him accountable, resigning themselves to the notion that those are just the types of things Trump does. The media has allowed Trump to define himself as someone who does not need to adhere to the norms and rules of a presidential candidate, simply because he doesn’t want to.
With all this in mind, it seems that the months leading up to the 2020 election should have been a chance for the press to rectify their former mistakes, as Trump’s presidency is no longer a theoretical and amusing possibility, but our reality, making this arguably one of the most important elections in American history. However, this has yet to happen. The media has failed once again in delivering Americans a clear representation of reality, without the “spectacle”-as Banikarim puts it.
With the pivotal night of November 3, 2020 fast approaching, it is time for the American people to decide what they value more; press which delivers us endless coverage of the spectacle, or truth.
