How the Media Made America See Red
Yet another election where the people most surprised by the results are the ones closest to the story: the news media.
After a quick shift from reporting the results to explaining “what went wrong,” my news feed, like yours, is dissecting the blame: Harris, for taking women for granted; Biden, for taking too long to exit; Democrats, for seemingly everything, including simply being Democrats; Oprah, for asking Harris what she’d do differently than Biden; Harris, for answering Oprah’s question; the price of gas, war in the Middle East, and last but certainly not least, the voters.
Yet, when I look at the map, and what’s red and blue, I see a narrative the media has ignored. Could it be that the media itself is at fault?
The 2024 election shows more than just a political shift; it reflects a profound disconnect between the media and the American public. Only 34 percent of Americans now trust mass media to report the news fairly, with just 14 percent of Republicans holding that view. Over 68 percent believe news outlets lean toward one side (which is why endorsements are out of vogue), fueling their turn to sources that reinforce personal beliefs — a phenomenon known as selective exposure. Media distrust leads them down this path.
Selective exposure has fueled this election cycle’s information bubbles as voters seek sources that align with their beliefs and share information within echo chambers where opposing views are scarce. This shift has allowed misinformation to thrive. According to Pew Research, 64 percent of Americans believe fake news causes significant confusion. In today’s media landscape, distinguishing facts from partisan spin is difficult, and it causes people to feel overwhelmed. Mainstream media should be the safety net that the public can turn to for truth. Yet the truth is, no one even speaks of truth anymore, do they?
Many Americans see the media as abandoning its watchdog role for that of an “attack dog” — especially when it comes to Trump. A 2020 Gallup/Knight Foundation survey found that nearly half of Americans perceived the media as “very biased” against him. This perception reflects the hostile media effect, where people with strong beliefs perceive even balanced reporting as biased against them. For many, a vote for Trump may not have been about policy; it was a way to push back against a media establishment that feels disconnected from their values. That disconnection may have resulted in more red votes, regardless of political leanings.
Look at the 2024 results. The blue areas are largely where the media is headquartered. This concentration creates a progressive echo chamber, often overlooking conservative perspectives and driving disillusioned voters to alternative sources — hello, social media — where misinformation can thrive. It also fosters narratives shaped by preconceived notions: “Plan for voting to take time this year. Lines will be long.” But they weren’t. “It will be a long time before we know the election results.” But it wasn’t. Election coverage would drastically improve by dropping news media into middle America and letting them find their way out.
Ironically, the media’s intense scrutiny of Trump may have fueled his support. For many, voting for Trump may not have been about him personally, but rather was a rejection of a media system they see as elitist and biased. If the media’s goal was to keep Trump out, they miscalculated by alienating voters and failing in their jobs. It’s not the media’s role to tell people who to vote for or to decide what’s right or wrong. Give the public the facts, and let the voters decide. Media fails, then blames the voter? That’s unconscionable.
The real story, according to the red-and-blue map, seems to be that it was the news media that was the definitive loser of the election, and it can no longer deny it is failing the public. It’s high time to correct course. Otherwise, we may continue to see elections defined by media rejection.
- Jaci Clement CEO/Executive Director jaci@fairmediacouncil.org
