Social platforms run by multi-billionaire political partisans and the tribal extremes once at the edge of the media scene are now centre stage. It feels like the lunatics have taken over the media asylum.
Five years ago, during Trump’s first presidential term, I had the optimism to write that social media might get a little more regulation to reign in the worst fake news, even the hope it could help a little towards levelling the media playing field. That hope was, thanks in part to Trump himself, who at the time was upset that his tweets were attracting fact check warnings.
But that first presidential term now seems like another world away. How could we possibly know then that he’d be back, bigger and badder (I’m sure he’d like that description), for a second term that made his first look like he was sleeping on the job.
We had no idea that before too long, Trump wouldn’t have to worry about fact checks on his tweets for two reasons. Firstly, he moved his own social posts to Truth Social, a brand-new platform all of his own. Secondly, tweets would be a thing of the past anyway. Twitter would soon be taken over by the world’s richest man who would rename it X and not only come to own the algorithms that will push his own messages, his own accounts and any others he favoured, but that he would also be an ally at the very heart of Trump’s new administration. And the president’s slasher-in-chief in Washington who is now doing to the civil service something like what he did to the staff at Twitter — but on a much grander scale.
No more fact checks. No more moderation. What’s more, dispensing with moderation has also spread to its key competitor in Meta. Mark Zuckerberg once appeared to be trying to make Facebook and Instagram more responsible. Now, with a new political wind blowing, he’s declared he’s given up with that, leaving it instead to the same kind of weak self-regulation that X follows.
The issue that the US government had with TikTok concerned interference from another powerful actor entirely. Trump tried to have it stopped on national security concerns during his last administration but after it seemed to help him so much with younger voters, he’s now softened that stance. Like the western-owned social platforms, TikTok tends to avoid outright censorship but its algorithms instead strongly favour certain narratives that suit those in power, whether that’s Washington or Beijing.
Overwhelming
The misinformation and disinformation comes faster than it can be batted away. Even in traditional media, it’s hard to keep up. When you hear the jaw-dropping nonsense coming from recent Newsnight interviewees (eg. “the UK has more people jailed for their views than Russia has” — and that not from Russia but the White House), it’s hard to know where the interviewer should start. Some assertions are so crazy they can be immediately dismissed with one fact. But the disproving usually takes so much longer in resource and time than the initial assertion because untruths require no evidence. Proving that the Earth isn’t flat takes a lot longer than asserting that it is.
The BBC’s latest promotional newsreel talks about the fight for truth and the war against lies and proudly ends with the message ‘but we’re winning’. They’re certainly doing their best. As do we all in our specialist magazines, local newspapers, business publications or whatever it is you produce in your work. But outside our bubble, it doesn’t feel that way.
And, increasingly, that is where people are getting their news from. To a new generation, respect for journalists has given way to influencers; surveys show that young people view influencers as more independent than journalists with their scary-paying masters behind them (influencers aren’t paid, you see — except, of course, they are).
Reuters Institute’s Nic Newman’s recent presentation to Newsrewired in London noted that populist politicians have now found another outlet to reach a wider electorate. Premieres in podcasts helped to get Trump elected and politicians’ appearances are making new celebrities out of their podcast interviewers. Do they even need mainstream media anymore? Why be grilled by a difficult journalist when you can get a friendly and influential podcaster to ask you some easy questions and then endorse you too? Perhaps it’s only their egos that fire the urge to be in the traditional media at all?
Free speech is supposed to work for everyone. Publishers have some choices. They might check whether the platforms they are engaged with are still compatible with their organisations’ declared values. Do they step away from being yelled at in such an angry arena or do they stay in the room to debate, for whatever difference they can make?
We also see citizens doing their own thing in response. Campaigners gather to organise boycotts of brands that sometimes include the very social media platforms that they are organising on. Sales of Tesla cars have plummeted. Boycotts are springing up around the world. Trump made it clear he doesn’t like these consumers voting with their wallets. Musk has turned even nastier. How dare these people exercise their consumer choice! It’s a limited movement but it’s something.
Online in general and social in particular has always been the Wild West of media. But outside authoritarian regimes, the sheriffs have not been able to tame it. It’s just got wilder. And now it feels like the craziest outlaws have just become the new sheriffs.
They say, out of chaos comes order. There’s certainly a lot of chaos right now but it’s hard to see any emerging order. Except that the wilder things get, the more the trustworthy sources seem to stand out — to a part of the public at least. We’re still standing. Hang on in there.
This article was first published in InPublishing magazine. If you would like to be added to the free mailing list to receive the magazine, please register here.
