Both candidates are trying to reach younger, tech savvy voters, especially female voters, and are pandering as quickly as they can. Hillary, channeling her inner Bernie Sanders, has promised to pay for public college tuition and abortions; and Trump this week released a big government maternity leave policy that is neither conservative nor financially sound, but it will likely increase his appeal among younger, female voters. And further pandering is likely.
But in the long run, and perhaps in this election, handouts will likely not sway the votes of younger Americans because a seismic shift is underway in how Americans, especially younger Americans, consume news, which will radically increase candidate accountability and undermine the traditional media’s role as protector-in-chief of Democratic politicians.
Despite the media’s efforts to frame this election as historic and Hillary as eminently qualified to continue an Obama third term, it’s clear to all Americans that Hillary lacks Obama’s charisma, charm, political and oratorical skills. Beyond that, where he was young, energetic and seemingly scandal free, she is old, scandal-plagued, and appears to be on the verge of a major physical breakdown.
Her defenders’ claim that she is just exhausted from the campaign doesn’t square with the fact that she is largely running an avoidance campaign: avoiding the media, avoiding harsh questions, and avoiding addressing the scandals that plague her floundering campaign. And the scandals may be finally catching up with her, as evidenced by the fact that she and Trump are nearly tied in several national polls.
How has she fallen so far in the polling that even the New York Times will admit the race is tied? Hillary’s recent health controversies and the media dynamics surrounding them explain everything.
The traditional media, which has been, is now, and will be in Hillary’s corner (how else do you explain Chelsea Clinton earning $600,000 per year from NBC News for doing nothing?), ran its own avoidance campaign and tried to hide the truth of Hillary’s illnesses for weeks. But the media’s avoidance campaign failed. Why?
In part, because the media is more distrusted than ever. According to Gallup, only 32 percent of Americans have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the media. Ignoring the obvious question – who in the heck are these 32 percent who still believe the media? – the bigger point is that traditional media is losing its ever dwindling influence, and Americans are willing to look for news in other outlets, and increasingly trust non-traditional voices.
We saw why with Hillary’s health scare: the traditional media ignored the story for weeks and only began questioning her campaign when amateur video showed her nearly fainting on 9/11/16. That an amateur videographer forced the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC and NBC to pay attention is noteworthy.
Further, the continued growth of online, social media and smartphone news will hurt Hillary’s and the big media’s future cover-up efforts, of which there are sure to be many. Pew Research notes that 38% of adults get news online and only 20% get it in print, and younger adults (18-49) are getting 50% of their news online. Online news – like the Daily Wire – is fast moving, responsive, and quick to call out the lies and distortions of the candidates and the traditional media.
This has been true for years and the momentum is only building. Recall when bloggers rightfully ruined the career of former CBS news anchor Dan Rather after proving his scurrilous 2004 report on George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service was based on totally fabricated documents that could not have existed at the time President Bush was flying with the National Guard.
The growing trend towards online/app news also explains why 72% of Americans get their news from a mobile device, and more Americans prefer getting their news from a mobile site (56%) than desktop (42%). Pew also reported that 55% of smartphone users (probably except Hillary) get news alerts and about half of them who get the alerts click on them for more information. (Hillary probably doesn’t know how to click on news alerts, or her aides have smashed all her smartphones before she could.)
Further, while Pew notes 62% of American adults get news on social media, 66% of Facebook users get their news from Facebook, a somewhat scary thought, but one that should give Hillary pause in light of some other surprising numbers. Pew reports that while only 24% of Americans are looking at the candidates’ social media posts to keep up with election news, nearly 40% of Americans 18 to 29 review candidates’ social media accounts. This is really bad news for Hillary because it means more and more Americans, especially younger ones, will see Hillary’s tweets or Facebook posts, and then shortly thereafter will likely see some factual rebuttal to what Hillary or her campaign just posted.
For example, if you had been following Hillary’s or her campaign’s tweets when her health was questioned (or when she said all her emails were deleted, or when she said she never sent or received classified information), you would have thought everything was fine. But then if you were on Facebook you probably saw the amateur video showing Hillary almost fainting (or the video of FBI director Comey calling Hillary “extremely careless” in her email practices). In the credibility war, video trumps tweets every time.
Does this mean Hillary will lose the election in November? No, she may, with the help of the ever-compliant mainstream media, win this battle, but in the long run, the traditional media and the Democrats they protect will likely lose the information war, one silver lining in this chaotic election season.
Garrett Fahy is an attorney in Orange County, California. He may be reached at [email protected]