The reaction of the press to the campaign and election of Donald Trump is still one of the most culturally prominent issues of the season. The diversification of programming available is one reason for that distinctions among people in the society are becoming more apparent. The polarization between political views in the country may well have been strengthened by the decision of much of the press to take sides with the Progressive policy advocates; in the absence of widely disseminated information that all parties could accept as a starting place for discussion, lack of understanding and distrust deepened.
One important way this has played out is in the reporting on the transition to the Trump administration. Because of social media and the internet, more and more people can quickly and easily compare the way the press reports on Trump with how they reported on Obama, and the contrast is striking, which further weakens their reliability. The reaction to Trump’s YouTube address on his transition and on Thanksgiving is an example, where his use of social media is reported as a problem in contrast to it being strategic when Obama used it.
Between 2007 and 2016, much of the press considered this a story of evolving technology and communication. But what used to be an interesting challenge that had media “scrambling to stay in the game” against an innovative, young president is now a grave threat. Somewhere in between is probably the correct assessment, and swinging between admiration and fear depending on the president doesn’t create better coverage or earn more trust from readers.