Discussions on Democracy: A Battle and a Choice
Avinash Sholevar, President and Editor, 11/13/2020
Fox News called the 2020 U.S. presidential election at 11:40 A.M on Saturday, November 7th, sixteen minutes after CNN was the first to declare now President-Elect Joseph R. Biden, Jr. the winner. After 11:40 A.M., however, election coverage split in what may be the greatest divergence of media commentary in modern history. To some, flipping between Fox and CNN may have been a culture shock: Fox News was hosting Trump loyalists such as White House Press Secretary and campaign advisor Kayleigh McEnany, who spouted dozens of claims of voter fraud. Alternatively, CNN and MSNBC hosted Obama-era officials (perhaps with the notable exception of Ben Ginsburg) who, without fail, denounced Fox News and “enablers” of Donald Trump.
The closest phenomenon in American history that resembles the sensationalism, partisanship, and lack of accountability found on any one of these channels was the rampant yellow journalism of the late 1800’s to early 1900’s, which was largely responsible for causing the Spanish-American war and spurring the United States’ imperialistic tendencies. Right now, however, media commentary seems to be propelling the nation further to the brink of a civil war, one that has already begun to play out in millions of households across the United States.
13.7 million people around the world tuned in to watch Fox’s primetime coverage on election night. CNN’s viewership grew to over 9 million as suspense over the election results mounted. Perhaps the only reliable news organizations to cover the election were the New York Times and the Washington Post – and maybe Instagram. This is the point at which many ask, “So what? What can we do about it?”
The only enablers of polarization are the sound bite-collecting news channels that insist that providing all-day media coverage through interviewing partisan candidates is the best way to drive up viewer ratings. No one likes to listen to something that he does not want to hear, after all. After this realization, I began to switch between CNN and Fox and MSNBC and ABC, all of which had strikingly different coverage of the election. Those that only watched one of these channels lived in the bliss of self-indulgent ignorance, believing that whichever one of the aforementioned channels he or she watched is the only one telling the truth, or the only program to which other people are listening. But it isn’t. And they aren’t.
Fox’s Sean Hannity, perhaps the most ardent Trump supporter on the network after anchors Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, injected his own opinion into the mainstream: “Tonight every American should be angry, outraged and worried and concerned about what happened in the election and the lead-up to the election… Do you trust what happened in this election?... I have a lot of questions.” Allowing news anchors to make statements alleging corruption of the democratic process without evidence is not only dangerous, but violates the idea that these supposedly credible sources are the voice of truth to the people. Thus, we arrive at the crux of the battle raging in American political landscape: Truth vs. Commentary.
The battle between the two has polarized the country. No Joe Biden presidency will fix the divide perpetuated by third parties who strive for sensationalism over facts, or deceit and divisiveness over truth. While CNN’s commentators, including the network’s in-house Republican, and, as they call him, its “Trump translator,” former Senator Rick Santorum, acknowledged and praised Biden’s promises to unify and heal the nation, they attacked the sitting President’s character and gave a platform to those who called Trump’s behavior “embarrassing,” insulting the millions of supporters who still doubt the results of the election. Considering that 70,000,000 and counting American citizens voted for the incumbent, one would perhaps think that broadcasting networks would act in a manner more productive to the unity of the nation.
However much news anchors and politicians may appear to differ, the former attempting to disguise a biased statement through twisted truths and the latter not even pretending, they enable the polarized atmosphere in America. We, as the spectators to this dangerous sport of politics that tries to occupy every inch of space in our heads, make the choice to let these enablers and politicians in disguise to ingrain ideas in our heads so much that the truth is meaningless.
Some may think this idea naïve. Some may think this idea unrealistic. Some may think this idea is a cliché. In fact, believing that any of this would happen is naïve: it is unrealistic that anything will change, that we will wake up one day and discover that polarization has been discarded in favor of utopia. This narrative, the fact that it needs to be told, is just the most recent example of the trends that have culminated in a country where the presidency can be decided with less than 100,000 votes.
However, we all have a choice to listen to the truth, or to the commentary.
The closest phenomenon in American history that resembles the sensationalism, partisanship, and lack of accountability found on any one of these channels was the rampant yellow journalism of the late 1800’s to early 1900’s, which was largely responsible for causing the Spanish-American war and spurring the United States’ imperialistic tendencies. Right now, however, media commentary seems to be propelling the nation further to the brink of a civil war, one that has already begun to play out in millions of households across the United States.
13.7 million people around the world tuned in to watch Fox’s primetime coverage on election night. CNN’s viewership grew to over 9 million as suspense over the election results mounted. Perhaps the only reliable news organizations to cover the election were the New York Times and the Washington Post – and maybe Instagram. This is the point at which many ask, “So what? What can we do about it?”
The only enablers of polarization are the sound bite-collecting news channels that insist that providing all-day media coverage through interviewing partisan candidates is the best way to drive up viewer ratings. No one likes to listen to something that he does not want to hear, after all. After this realization, I began to switch between CNN and Fox and MSNBC and ABC, all of which had strikingly different coverage of the election. Those that only watched one of these channels lived in the bliss of self-indulgent ignorance, believing that whichever one of the aforementioned channels he or she watched is the only one telling the truth, or the only program to which other people are listening. But it isn’t. And they aren’t.
Fox’s Sean Hannity, perhaps the most ardent Trump supporter on the network after anchors Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, injected his own opinion into the mainstream: “Tonight every American should be angry, outraged and worried and concerned about what happened in the election and the lead-up to the election… Do you trust what happened in this election?... I have a lot of questions.” Allowing news anchors to make statements alleging corruption of the democratic process without evidence is not only dangerous, but violates the idea that these supposedly credible sources are the voice of truth to the people. Thus, we arrive at the crux of the battle raging in American political landscape: Truth vs. Commentary.
The battle between the two has polarized the country. No Joe Biden presidency will fix the divide perpetuated by third parties who strive for sensationalism over facts, or deceit and divisiveness over truth. While CNN’s commentators, including the network’s in-house Republican, and, as they call him, its “Trump translator,” former Senator Rick Santorum, acknowledged and praised Biden’s promises to unify and heal the nation, they attacked the sitting President’s character and gave a platform to those who called Trump’s behavior “embarrassing,” insulting the millions of supporters who still doubt the results of the election. Considering that 70,000,000 and counting American citizens voted for the incumbent, one would perhaps think that broadcasting networks would act in a manner more productive to the unity of the nation.
However much news anchors and politicians may appear to differ, the former attempting to disguise a biased statement through twisted truths and the latter not even pretending, they enable the polarized atmosphere in America. We, as the spectators to this dangerous sport of politics that tries to occupy every inch of space in our heads, make the choice to let these enablers and politicians in disguise to ingrain ideas in our heads so much that the truth is meaningless.
Some may think this idea naïve. Some may think this idea unrealistic. Some may think this idea is a cliché. In fact, believing that any of this would happen is naïve: it is unrealistic that anything will change, that we will wake up one day and discover that polarization has been discarded in favor of utopia. This narrative, the fact that it needs to be told, is just the most recent example of the trends that have culminated in a country where the presidency can be decided with less than 100,000 votes.
However, we all have a choice to listen to the truth, or to the commentary.
