The 2016 presidential campaign was arguably the most divisive and polarized in modern American history. The election of a demagogue like Donald Trump to the White House not only exposed deep-rooted racial fault lines that continue to persist in American society, but also shed light on the economic resentment and cynicism that have been simmering in many parts of rural and suburban America.

Trump ran a campaign that was filled with hateful and xenophobic rhetoric that will most likely have far-reaching consequences on the larger public discourse in the United States. At the receiving end of his spiteful rhetoric were not only immigrants and minorities, but also journalists and the mainstream media. His constant branding of media as “biased,” “dishonest,” “rigged” and “” reinforced the perception of “liberal media bias” among Republican voters, and created an opportunity for the mainstreaming of ultra-conservative media outlets that were hitherto considered fringe.

Prominent among them is Breitbart News Network, a self-proclaimed platform for white nationalists and neo-Nazis. Its chairman, Steve Bannon, who was handpicked by Trump to head his presidential campaign and was later appointed the White House chief strategist, is now perhaps one of the most powerful people in the country.

The mainstreaming of ultra-conservative and propagandist outlets like Breitbart is ironic because for years the US had prided itself as the global champion for the rights of journalists and positioned itself as the harbinger of professional values in the field. These values have come to be known as Anglo-American model of journalism and has influenced many media systems around the world. The parallel rise of Trump and Breitbart poses a great challenge to this model.

History of Partisan Media in the US

The roots of partisan press in America go back to the 18^thĚýcentury. In fact, the period between the 1780s and 1830s in US history is known as “party press era,” because newspapers back then received patronage from political parties in the form of subsidies and government printing contracts. This era began in 1783, after the end of the American Revolution when the political systems were still nascent and continued all the way until the rise of the in the 1830s.

During this period, editors and reporters shaped news and editorial content for partisan purposes and even worked part-time for state legislators and US congressmen. Some of them served as spokesmen for political parties.Ěý such as Federalist or Anti-Federalist, Whig or Democrat, Republican or Democrat.

Newspapers were filled with vituperative commentary, vindictive stories and propaganda to sway public opinion in favor of the political party they were affiliated to. Politicians such as Alexander Hamilton, who used and supported theĚýGazette of the United States,Ěýand Thomas Jefferson, an anti-federalist who supported theĚýNational Gazette,Ěýexchanged verbal arrows using their respective publications.

The first half of 19^thĚýcentury brought drastic changes in lifestyle, technology and communication systems in the US, which saw increased political participation by the working and middle classes, higher literacy rates and rapid urbanization.ĚýThese socioeconomic changes led to the rise in demand for newspapers, which in turn led to the production of penny press: cheap newspapers that not only served the male political interests, but also reported on the wider world.

Instead of depending on political parties for revenue, the penny press focused on targeting new audiences and avenues for advertisements, while politicians decreased their financial support to the press and sought other means to reach their voters. Thus, changes in press-party relations in the middle of the 19^thĚýcentury redefined news and gave rise to a new era of objective journalism.

In the ensuing years, American journalism witnessed the emergence of a new occupational identity and development of professional ethics thanks to journalists who sought to make their profession more respectable. In the early 20^thĚýcentury, journalistic professionalization was institutionalized with the establishment of journalism schools across the US, where future reporters were trained in professional values in addition to the skills required to perform their job.

Mass Press

Buoyed by technological innovations such as radio, television and an ever-expanding domestic consumer market, mass press developed and spread across the US in the mid-20^thĚýcentury. Development of technological infrastructure and the consumer market led to the establishment of large advertising agencies and multinational media organizations that saw an opportunity in developing countries for the expansion of their business.

Countries that lagged behind in the development of media systems adopted and absorbed these technologies. In addition to media equipment and investment, much of the developing world imported values of practice that were in vogue in American newsrooms—the notion of objectivity in reporting, fairness, impartiality and balanced reporting, and ethics of newsgathering. At the same time, the high-minded purpose of journalism permeated into the American news consumers’ psyche by the middle of 20^thĚýcentury.

Now-standard reporting and interviewing techniques were also firstĚý. US-based news agencies such asĚýAssociated PressĚýplayed a vital role in exporting and disseminating some of these conventions, professional ethics and normative values overseas.ĚýSince skilled personnel were required to produce content for mass communication industries to sustain, Western media organizations mostly based in the US offered formal training to non-Western journalists and broadcasters.

When other national media plunged into crisis, as in the former communist countries, American ethics of objectivity were proposed as a model to emulate. Thus, Anglo-American news values influenced and shaped journalistic practices in many parts of the world.

Conservative Charge of Liberal Bias

Even as American newsroom conventions and journalistic values were shaping global news reporting practices, conservative leaders and politicians were making investment in think-tanks and journalistic institutions in the United States as a means of moving public debate to the right. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, conservative magazines such asĚýNational ReviewĚýandĚýHuman EventsĚýwere launched. These became the lifeblood of modern conservatism in the postwar period. During the Civil Rights era in the 1960s, Republicans actively began building a conservative network that included setting up universities, advocacy organizations, journals and media outlets. Many Republicans believed that such networks were crucial in order to win the “.”

At the same time, mainstream media’s negative coverage of politicians such as Barry Goldwater and President Richard Nixon increased the right-wing critique of news media. For several years, conservative media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity accused the press of “liberal bias,” which seems to have struck a chord with their core constituents. This is evident from the findings of aĚýstudyĚýconducted in the 1990s in which over two-fifths (43%) of randomly sampled respondents claimed that .

Further, the percentage of the public responding that press treatment of the Republican candidate was unfair increased 22% during the 1992 campaign, and 9% during the 1996 presidential elections. The launch of right-leaning Fox News Channel by Rupert Murdoch in 1996 cemented the notion of liberal bias among Republican voters, leading to a gradual decline of their trust in news media. According to a GallupĚýpoll, from a high of 55% in 1998 to 32% in 2016.ĚýMore significantly, only 14% of Republicans said they trust US media as opposed to 51% Democrats.

The conservative war on news media continues to date. The Trump administration is currentlyĚýconsideringĚý (CPB), which provides funding for the National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). During the presidential campaign, Trump severely criticized the establishment media of biased reporting and called news reporters “.” He has threatened to sue TheĚýNew York TimesĚýand proposed to change America’s libel laws if elected president. At his rallies, his supporters frequently booed and heckled journalists. His attacks on news organizations were so intense that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) had to intervene and pass aĚýresolutionĚýdeclaring Trump “.”

In fact, a Gallup poll speculated that Trump’s aggressive anti-media rhetoric could be one of the plausible reasons why Republicans think so poorly of the media. The popularity of Breitbart among conservative voters is, in many ways, an outcome of this long-term campaign of the right-wing ecosystem against the progressive media.

Mainstreaming Breitbart

Diminishing public trust in mainstream media, particularly among conservative voters, and the emergence of new media technologies provided a fertile ground for the proliferation of far-right media portals. Prominent among them includeĚýDrudge Report,ĚýVDare,ĚýThe Gateway Pundit,ĚýTownhall,ĚýDaily Caller, InfowarsĚýandĚýBreitbart News Network. While each of them play a key role in promoting the ideas on the far-right, Breitbart is associated with white ethno-nationalist groups, which were until recently considered fringe elements.

According to a GallupĚýpoll, Americans’ confidence in media has eroded from a high of 55% in 1998 to 32% in 2016.ĚýMore significantly, only 14% of Republicans said they trust US media as opposed to 51% Democrats.

With access toĚý, Breitbart has grown from being an outlier to a powerful political player in a short span of time. Established by Andrew Breitbart in 2007, the website is now closely aligned with members of the “alternative-right,” or “alt-right”—a term used to describe a group of white nationalists and neo-Nazis whose goal is to preserve “white identity” and “Western civilization.” Broad swaths of the alt-right believe in race-based nationalism and white superiority. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors hate groups in the United States, found members of this group to be frequently advocating for ethnic cleansing, racial separatism, anti-Semitism and acts of violence against minority groups.

In an interview with Ěýin July 2016, Steve BannonĚýadmittedĚýthat the website provided a “platform for the alt-right.” The site often features stories that attack Republican elites, foster anti-immigrant sentiment and promote political conspiracy theories. The views expressed on Breitbart are often so extreme that it has been disavowed by every other major conservative news outlet.

Yet in addition to Bannon’s role as Trump’s campaign chief, former Breitbart staffers Julia Hahn and Sebastian Gorka were hired to shape the Trump administration’s policies. In doing so, Trump mainstreamed what was until then considered extreme even by traditional Republicans.

Trump’s contribution to Breitbart’s rise is evidenced by its growing popularity on the web. ComScore, an audience-measurement platform, ranked Breitbart 27^thĚýin the general news category with about 8 million monthly visitors as of October 2014. That same month, Pew Research Center released a surveyĚýreportĚýaccording to which only .

However, in June 2015, when Trump announced that he would run for the president, the site was visited by 5.7% of the general news audience, and by the end of the campaign cycle in October 2016,Ěý, with an estimated 18 million visitors.

Enthused by Trump’s victory, Breitbart plans to launch its sites in Germany, Italy and France. It already operates in the United Kingdom, where it gives support to right-wing populist leader Nigel Farage. The move toĚý is seen as an attempt to foment anger and anti-immigrant sentiment in that region. With the appointment of its former staffers to the White House, Trump has legitimized Breitbart and itsĚý, helping to increase its visibility.

The shift of Breitbart and other far-right media outlets from fringe to mainstream marks the return of partisan journalism that was the norm in the United States during the pre-Progressive Era. Partisan papers have now been substituted by websites such as Breitbart. As was the case in the 1830s, Breitbart’s content is filled with libelousĚý, biased interpretation of facts,Ěý, racist, Ěýcommentary and conspiracy theories—attributes that go against the professional values and journalistic ideals that defined newsroom practices in the US since the Progressive Era.

Such news outlets not only prime citizens’ underlying predispositions, but also make them more extreme and divided. In this context, political scientist :

“Active and engaged like-minded viewers are pushed even further to the extremes on the specific issues discussed on partisan media. If these viewers watch regularly, and are moved across a host of issues, then this can put pressure on candidates to take more extreme positions on a number of issues … Solving problems becomes less about what is best for the country and more about what is politically and ideologically expedient. While partisan media alone do not cause these effects, they certainly exacerbate broader trends towards division, gridlock, and consensus.”

News is an important contributor to the formation of shared reality and public knowledge. Blatantly partisan outlets such as Breitbart disregard facts and spread conspiracy theories, thereby eroding common understanding from public life. This makes it difficult for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to arrive at a consensus or find a middle ground on contentious issues.

Worse, such outlets redefine what constitutes news as they substitute facts, good judgment and accurate interpretation of data with “,” innuendo and blatant lies.

No Easy Solutions

There are no easy solutions to fighting partisan press. Since such outlets take advantage of ethical shortcomings of mainstream news reporting, progressive media can begin with fact-checking every news report to avoid any errors. This is particularly important because even a simple misstep in news reporting would give rabble-rousers like President Trump a chance to delegitimize news media and make it into the story, rather than leave the public to focus on critical questions concerning his administration.

Additionally, to face the twin challenges of declining public trust in journalism and the meteoric rise of the far-right press, progressive media outlets must work toward rebuilding local journalism. Journalists have been accused of being “” who missed the breadth of support for Donald Trump in rural and suburban areas. Local journalism not only brings to light the stories of disaffected citizens largely ignored by major networks, but also helps reporters regain public trust in institutions of news reporting.

Lastly, journalists must remain committed to the canonical values and professional ethics that have been adopted by newsrooms across the world. Although a few scholars contend that dispensing with the ethics of objectivity is the only way to fight Trump, digression from professional values will only play into the hands of faux populists and give them an opportunity to further discredit media. Besides, an objective approach secures space for an honest public deliberation outside the partisan spin.

In this context, :Ěý“Now a new era needs to begin, a period in which reporting takes precedent over opinion, when journalists are willing to seek out and understand people with whom they may have profound personal and philosophical differences. For decades, centuries even, that has been the definition of journalism.”

Just like the journalists who broke from their parties and embraced modern ethics of objective, independent, accurate and fair reporting during the Progressive Era, it is important for contemporary journalists to deliver a collective response to counter the resurgence and mainstreaming of partisan-press. In doing so, adherence to professional values of journalism is a good starting point.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post Breitbart News and the Return of Partisan Journalism appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

Brexit in the United Kingdom and Donald Trump’s victory in the United States have marked the beginning of what some analysts call the rise of the . Although there is no consensus among scholars on the definition of populism, a review of literature offers an understanding of what it represents and signifies.

Some political scientists as a feature of representative politics, while theorists understand it as an appeal to “” against established power structures and dominant values. Researchers also contend that populism does not have an ideology or an inherent political color, although much of the recent scholarly attention has focused on populism.

Recently, populism’s interaction with the media has been a hot topic of discussion, particularly in the context of Trump’s blistering attack on the news media. His reference to reporters as the “” and “dishonest people,” in addition to his , has shocked free speech activists across the world.

After the election, there is a deluge of expert advice being rendered to journalists on effective ways to cover the Trump presidency. While such critical analysis contributes to the general understanding of president-elect’s engagement, or lack thereof, with journalistic institutions, focusing exclusively on Trump’s handling of the media runs the risk of missing the forest for the trees.

Although there is no doubt that close analysis of his interaction with mainstream media outlets provides novel insights into the changing nature of the relationship between media and politics in the American context, such a blinkered view falls short of recognizing Trump’s media strategy as being part of the larger global trend.

Press Populism

Characteristic of many populist movements is a deep-rooted skepticism of the press. Media criticism by right-wing populist politicians is not unique to the United States. A closer look at the press-politics relations in countries that are currently witnessing populist a surge reveals more or less the same trends.

For instance, in Germany, the vociferous right wing criticizes mainstream press as , or the lying press, a phrase used in the Nazi era to undermine criticism of the Nazi regime.ĚýSimilarly, in India, right-wing activists refer to left-leaning journalists as , a term first used by the country’s foreign affairs minister, General V. K. Singh, in response to what he considered irresponsible reporting by some of India’s prominent news outlets. In Hungary, a popular pro-left newspaper, , that severely criticized the country’s right-wing, Prime Minister Viktor Orban, was shut down in October 2016.

Yet such hostilities are not just confined to the far right. Several left-leaning populists who won elections in Latin America as part of the so-called “” during the past decade have similar attitudes toward professional journalism. For example, in Ecuador, President Rafael Correa frequently uses libel laws to discourage criticism. His reference to Ecuadorian reporters as “bad journalists” is emblematic of the press-politics relationship in the country. In 2016, Correa and his supporters the names and personal information of reporters involved in the investigation, putting their lives in grave danger. Similar press-populism hostilities are visible in , and .

How Does Populism View Journalism?

In his analysis on populism’s relationship with Latin American journalism, media scholar gives a long list of patterns found in populists’ treatment of the media. According to Waisbord, populists do not see journalism as being autonomous: Reporters are mere willing, or unwilling, pawns of corporate and vested interests.

Further, populism questions the core principles of professional journalism and maintains that news reporters must unabashedly defend the government and the nation. Most importantly, its anti-establishment stance sees unchecked power of large media companies as part of the conventional political elite. His diagnosis of populism’s engagement with mainstream media in Latin America is backed by the findings of studies conducted on populism in other contexts.

For instance, conducted a qualitative content analysis of 231 articles that included criticism of mainstream media by populists and identified five recurring themes: erroneous reporting, criticism of ownership and influence, naming and shaming, discursive contestations, alternative phraseology, as well as an additional theme dealing with promotion of other media outlets.

Trump, in his attack on US media, adopts all these discursive strategies, including the promotion of extreme right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart and Drudge Report.

Thus, global media organizations are faced with a unique situation where their job requires them to cover populist leaders even when they are repeatedly humiliated, targeted and vilified by them. This, despite empirical evidence that suggests that media coverage helps popularize populist leaders and their political parties. Such paradox in the press-populist relationship gives rise to a provocative yet research-worthy question: What compels mainstream media to give news coverage to demagogues and rabble-rousers despite receiving visceral hate from them and their supporters?

Vulnerable Media

In recent years, the rapidly changing media landscape combined with a sharp decline in advertisement revenue has severely affected media systems across the world. For example, the total by one-third since 2006. Diminishing revenues put media organizations in a financially vulnerable situation.

In order to increase their readership base and sustain competition, reporters increasingly employ market-driven journalism that favors sensationalism over public affairs content. Populist leaders who strive to gain public attention have regularly proven able to exploit this vulnerability by resorting to communication strategies that ensure . Thus, despite being at the receiving end of populist criticism, media outlets have become an influential, if unwitting, ally of populist leaders. For instance, it is estimated that Donald Trump has received over in news media in just 12 months.

News organizations that have the financial wherewithal to withstand market pressures face a different kind of threat: a decline in public trust. In the last four decades, Republicans have made a conscious effort to create a perception of “liberal media bias” among their constituents. The results of these persistent efforts are reflected in the declining trust in the media among Republican voters. According to aĚý, only 14% of Republican voters trust mainstream news media, bringing down the overall public trust in American journalism to an all-time low of 32%.

Similar trends are visible in Britain, where a recent survey found that only . The scenario in is equally stark, where 40% of the people believe the media are not . Likewise, Indian media’s credibility took a severe beating after the found mainstream media publishing favorable articles in exchange for payment. While in some instances populist movements engineer the erosion of public trust in journalism as evidenced by the case of US, in other contexts populists simply take advantage of media’s ethical shortcomings in order to discredit the media.

Truth to Power

There is an array of factors that contribute to the rise of populist movements and these vary from country to country. Domestic politics, economic resentment, racial unrest and perceived threat from external political actors—a combination of all or any of these factors could contribute to the rise of populism. In addition, blurring lines between politics and entertainment, fact and fiction, private and public domains, and advertising and campaigning exacerbated by market-driven journalism come to the aid of media-savvy populists.

There are no easy solutions to counter populism. News organizations can begin with reflecting on some of their reporting practices and go beyond establishment sources to find stories. This is particularly important at a time when some studies suggest that journalists have proven to be mostly .

Further, reaffirming their commitment to journalism’s canonical values by adhering to highest standards of reporting and speaking truth to power will go a long way in regaining public trust. A , ProPublica, The Atlantic and other news outlets that stood up to Trump’s bullying tactics is proof enough to say that readers are more than willing to reward fearless and high-quality reporting.

Journalism education also needs to revisit its curriculum and make changes that take into account the new political realities. Finally, civil society, nonprofits and news organizations ought to collaborate internationally to maximize the impact of their news reporting. Such collaborations bring both visibility and credibility to news reports that hold populists accountable. The aforementioned steps may not be sufficient to counter the populist onslaught. But they could be good starting points in professional journalism’s long and important battle with global populism.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:Ěý

The post Populism’s Global Media Strategy appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.