If the theme of the 2016 US election was rage in the electorate – rage against a changing country, rage against globalism, rage against corporatism, rage against capitalism, rage against immigration, rage against racism, rage against sexism – the theme of the 2020 US election is undoubtedly rage in the media. On a daily basis the news media – from the corporate broadcast networks, to the partisan cable news channels, to small online blogs – seems to turn-up the temperature on the political tensions currently tearing at the seams of Western civilization. Right-leaning news sources such as Fox News or Breitbart – or its Canadian mirror, Rebel News – constantly blast their followers with alarming tales of potential “Communist” links within left-wing or social-Democrat political movements, or lurid and sensationalist commentary on anti-fascist (ANTIFA) actions and demonstrations. Likewise, left-leaning media outlets – think Salon, Vox, or Buzzfeed – offer their followers an alternative yet equally deranged worldview; one of Nazi’s behind every corner, and Russians behind every political movement they disagree with, and sexists, and rapists, and perverts wantonly stalking the halls of our workplaces and our educational institutions.
Rage TV. That’s what is really being broadcast, published, and sold to the consumer – regardless of political bend. Rage is what the US electorate demanded in 2016, evidenced by electing Donald Trump to the Presidency, and nearly selecting the relatively radical Senator Bernie Sanders to be the flag bearer of the Democrats, over Hillary Clinton. Now, rage is exactly what the media seems to be intent on delivering to its audiences, irrespective of the obvious and transparent damage it is doing to our society, our social fabric and the democratic norms that we have all clearly come to take for granted. The saying used to go that “sex sells” – but that old idiom doesn’t seem to tell the entire story anymore. The fact of the matter is that sex does sell – but rage motivates. Sex can indeed make a dollar, however, harnessing rage and the public fury is a far, far more lucrative business to be in. Money can often buy access to power. Power is power.
The news media, struggling to monetize and survive financially in the digital 21st century, obviously sees increased public interest in politics in the Obama-Trump era to be its saving grace. And for the most part, it has been. The New York Times’ digital subscriptions have been reported to be some of the best the paper has ever seen. Cable news viewership is up across the board – with the three major American cable news networks (Fox News, MSNBC, CNN) all setting viewership records in 2020. Right-wing outfits like Breitbart, or The Daily Caller, or The Rebel – while not public with their finances – are obviously doing quite well, with their ever-expanding staff and reach. Likewise for many left-wing news outlets and blogs.
Still, there is an even more disturbing trend in the media. Ultra-wealthy interests purchasing news outlets outright, keenly aware of their influence over public opinion, and with the apparent intent of using that influence to tip the balance of the democratic scales in their favour. One need not look further than Jeff Bezos’ purchase of the former journalistic titan, the Washington Post, in 2013. The Washington Post now reads little different than some of the most radical, fringe blogs on the left-wing, and their new editorial slant has made a veritable joke of a once-great paper, with its constant corrections and retractions, the incessant hyperbole found throughout its pages, and the unhinged behaviour of its “reporters” and “journalists” on social media – one should note the Twitter account of staff-columnist Jennifer Rubin for example.
To illustrate the danger of this turn in the media, and specifically the Washington Post, one need only look at the story of Nicholas Sandmann. Sandmann, a 16-year-old student at a Catholic high school in Covington, Kentucky became famous overnight in late January 2019 when he was reported to have confronted an Indigenous rights activist on the famous steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., sporting a bright-red Make America Great Again hat. This reporting, which was later proven to be false, was spearheaded by the Washington Post – who just settled a $250 million defamation lawsuit with Mr. Sandmann (who is now 18) in July.
Regardless of your views of those who wear Make America Great Again hats, and regardless of your views of Mr. Sandmann’s actions (or the actions of the other party), everyone with a conscience and compassion can recognize that reporting on the actions of a 16-year-old – with very extreme exceptions – is wrong. Reporting on the actions of a 16-year-old, when those actions were entirely interpretative, political, non-newsworthy, and non-criminal is beyond wrong. And reporting falsely on those actions, as part of a national media smear campaign with an obviously political motive, is disgusting. Yet, that’s exactly what the Washington Post – and other media outlets – did. And they did it because they intended to garner rage. Rage against Mr. Sandmann. Rage against the Indigenous activist. Rage against President Donald Trump. Rage against those who disagree with Mr. Trump. Rage.
This perverted harnessing of rage is obviously not exclusive to media on the political left. One need only look at what happened in Kenosha, Wisconsin this past August, when a 17 year-old Illinois boy travelled to a Black Lives Matter protest intending to “protect” local businesses from potential vandalism and petty crime – and ended up shooting dead two unarmed protestors. That boy, Kyle Rittenhouse, was reportedly steeped in pro-Trump social media groups, and was a follower of many well-known right-wing news outlets and blogs. And all summer, Mr. Rittenhouse had been consuming a steady diet of sensationalist stories about far-left ANTIFA mobs burning down American cities, and attacking innocent people and businesses. Of course, it is true that on some occasions civil rights protests did degenerate into violence and confrontation this past summer, but it is also true that the protests were not the apocalyptic images one would see broadcast on the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel, or in the pages of the Toronto Sun.
While one cannot directly blame the media outlets who had such an obvious influence on Mr. Rittenhouse for the needless deaths of two civil rights protestors, and while Mr. Rittenhouse certainly has much personal responsibility himself if he is found guilty in a court of law, one finds it hard to believe that Mr. Rittenhouse would have felt the need to go “protect” the City of Kenosha from protestors if it were not for the media images he was consuming. Those images were intended to convey rage. They were intended to spark rage. And they did. And now two people are dead.
But is the situation any better in Canada? Not really. An Obiter analysis of the online content published by the three major Canadian broadcast networks (CBC News, Bell Media’s CTV News, Corus Entertainment’s Global News) over a forty-eight hour period (Nine O’Clock AM October 16th – Nine O’Clock AM October 18th) found evidence of highly partisan, and highly provocative news coverage of the 2020 US election – not much different than that found on American networks.
However, there is one caveat, which is CBC News. CBC News, during Obiter’s analysis period, published five stories on the US election – four of which were fairly neutral in both tone and position, and one of which was hostile to a particular candidate. Contrast that with the coverage from CTV News, which published a total of eighteen stories on the US election during the study period – seventeen of which were hostile, or non-neutral in tone or position.
When reached for comment by Obiter, CTV News failed to provide a response to questions on their news coverage and editorial decisions – predictable, given the results of our analysis. CBC News, however, did respond to our questions. Brodie Fenlon, Editor-in-Chief and Executive Director of CBC’s daily news programming told Obiter that “CBC News approaches all news stories with a commitment to fair and balanced coverage. Our efforts are supported by adherence to our Journalistic Standards and Practices, an ethical framework that ensures we meet the highest standards of journalism and remain true to our core principles of accuracy, fairness, balance, impartiality and integrity.” Mr. Fenlon added that “we certainly appreciate hearing that your targeted research found the level of balance and fairness that it did in CBC News coverage of the U.S. presidential campaign.”
What the solution to all of this is, is not entirely clear to me at this point. The proverbial rot has become so universal, and so intense, that it is hard to believe the industry can be saved without a top-to-bottom revolution in how the contemporary news media works. Likewise, many of those who are expected to be impartial have been so tainted by transparent bias and lean (one way or the other) that it is hard to believe they will ever gain back trust from the public at-large. Even worse, if the news media continues down the route they are on, they risk an even more dangerous and ominous consequence – they’ll have the rage they’ve garnered turn against them.
