Today marks the second anniversary since I began the resurrected Chicago Media Action newsletter on November 2, 2022. I announced in last month's newsletter my plans to wrap up the newsletter in the coming months, and then compile these essays in a book to publish. However, I'm announcing here and now that I'm delaying that plan by at least a couple of months (possibly subject to change; watch this space!). I came up with some additional ideas for this newsletter which necessitates this change, one of which I'm presenting presently on the topic of how the media shaped the 2024 elections in the United States.

A word of warning: I'm writing this on October 31st and November 1st 2024, so what follows will of course not reflect changes after those days. And changes are apt to come at rapid speed. (I hadn't heard of Tony Hinchcliffe before this week, nor of a possibility where the 12th Amendment could lead to a Trump presidency despite a Harris victory, and yet these may prove significant.)

You can say that the media had a significant role in helping to shape both major-party candidates. One was a businessman with a litany of failures (including a namesake trivia game show that has gone almost completely forgotten), who was resurrected in the public mind as an astute business mind by means of a popular TV show. The image was one thing, the reality (ironic for "reality" television) was that he was far from astute -- much to the later regret of the show's production staff. Even so, Donald Trump's 2016 campaign for president and much afterward would likely have gone nowhere if people didn't know about his time on The Apprentice.

The media also played a significant role in the other major-party candidate, given the Trump/Biden debate of June 27, 2024, on CNN, and the perceived failure of Joe Biden to perform well against a kook like Donald Trump. That resulted in a month-long frenzy of media coverage that had as its going concern that Joe Biden is...really old. That blizzard of coverage helped make a historic midstream candidate change. This despite the fact that Trump is also really old, and with a considerably litany of frauds, crimes, a sexual assault conviction, another conviction involving a porn-staff payoff and election interference, a long history of racism, and on and on. Oh, and an attempted coup. But never mind.

This ranks among the many, many double-standards in coverage, what with Kamala Harris becoming the standard bearer of the Democratic party after Biden declined to run for a second term. Van Jones (whom I first encountered at one of the National Conferences for Media Reform, and has since become a disappointingly more-centrist pundit) did state this point quite ably: "He gets to be lawless; she has to be flawless."

It seems he really is Teflon Don. A number of here-today-gone-tomorrow scandals that would fell any other candidate -- including allegations of an eight-figure bribe from Egypt whose investigation was squashed, and leaked documents about Trump vetting vice-presidential candidates -- appear and then vanish with no follow-up. Donald Trump simply can get away with so much more than Biden or Harris ever can or ever will; he even escaped an assassination attempt (by a registered Republican no less -- also something which could have been defining but which has apparently lost its potency). To be fair, there are serious policy concerns with the Biden/Harris policy axis, particularly with regards to the Middle East and is the focus of vigorous debate. Nevertheless, the American media stand guilty, here as always, in making sins of omission to prop up Donald Trump's campaign.

Plus, a good case could be made of Donald Trump's apparent physical and mental collapses. There have been signs of this for years, but the signs have grown more and more apparent. This has even earned its own term -- "sanewashing".

There are a number of institutional reasons as to why this double-standard exists. Among them:

• Corporate structure and ownership of the media. The major media are corporations, and what is or isn't discussed in the media and in popular discussion is a reflection of that fact, which has long been studied and analyzed. This point has gained some coverage, even outrage, in recent weeks when both the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times -- both owned by billionaires -- declined to endorse a president on orders from ownership. Whether the outrage from this has staying power after the election and/or leads to more lasting changes remains to be seen. Sad to say, A.J. Liebling's famous remark still rings true: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

• Weakness of media neutrality. In the 19th century there was a staggering variety of newspapers, but newspaper consolidation in the early 20th and the rise of advertising as the main source of funding led to a consolidation of newspapers. The remaining newspapers couldn't opine as openly as they use to, which led to the establishment of neutral journalism: report "both sides" of a story with no opinion in coverage. That status quo remains today but has long had its weaknesses, also long studied and analyzed. Nevertheless, Donald Trump with his nonstop blizzard of lies has exploited this weaknesses to tremendous effect and took advantage of a weakness of the American press. As one Republican politico put it: "How do you tell both sides of a lie?"

• The right-wing echo chamber. The right-wing in America have a well-funded and widespread media infrastructure that the "left", however that's to be defined, simply doesn't match. With no countervailing response and ample institutional support, this echo chamber has taken the right-wing further and further to the right, to the point that fascism is now on the table, most notably in the form of Project 2025 (whose widespread infamy stemmed not from jouralists but from an entertainer, Taraji P. Henson). This echo-chamber also helps keep journalists from giving too harsh coverage of Republicans -- "working the refs" to use a term from sports and from right-wing parlance. Trump's repeated threats about pulling the broadcast licenses from channels, dubious though that may be, also helps "work the refs".

Trump has also benefited from additional institutional support in sundry ways, including a polling infrastructure that, it would appear, has made a race seem closer than it probably is, though we'll find out for certain next week.

It's not a great situation, to put it lightly, but one which I remain convinced is ripe for change. The institutions here are creations of humans and of policy, and they can be changed, daunting though that may appear. We are seeing some belated commentary on the media gain some ground. On the front of corporate ownership, we are and have been seeing corporations leaving the news industry, which can open opportunities for responsible nonprofits and other projects to fill the void of coverage. On media neutrality, diversifying the media environment, in ways we've been seeing, also accords some ripe possibilities. And as to the right-wing echo chamber, there are and have been attempts to countervail that; we should continue to work in that direction and nurture these and related efforts.

Don't hate the game. Change the game.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed on this website are those of the individual members of Chicago Media Action who authored them, and not necessarily those of the entire membership of Chicago Media Action, nor of Chicago Media Action as an organization.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.