Election Aftermath Proves that News Media Outlets Are Often Disincentivized to Tell the Truth

Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

Last night, in an interview with 60 Minutes, former President Barack Obama popularized a catchy, and incredibly relevant, new phrase while describing this bizarre new era in American politics: “Truth Decay.” There is no doubt that Obama is correct about this pathetic reality, but he was light on how and why this development has been allowed to happen.

There are many explanations for why the truth, as Obama suggests, not only doesn’t usually win the day, it often no longer even matters at all. But an extremely important element can be seen in the aftermath of our presidential election, specifically the perverse incentives which “news” media outlets now continually face, and to which they all-too-routinely succumb.

In short, the incentive structure in the news media is completely dysfunctional and totally broken at nearly every level. Members of the news media now know that, in many situations, they will be punished for telling a truth which is unpopular to their audience, and will be rewarded for telling those who consume their product a lie which makes them feel good.

This massive conflict of interest has been seen in stark terms surrounding the outcome of this election, including the literal calling of the results themselves. There was no more dramatic example of that than when Fox News Channel was the first news outlet to call the critical state of Arizona (the first state to flip from its 2016 outcome) for now president-elect Joe Biden.

Trump and his sycophants, even those who are stars at the same network, immediately expressed private and public outrage that Fox News Channel, formerly the favorite cable TV outlet of the president and his cult-like fan base, would have the audacity to do something so contrary to his interests. As a consequence, Fox News has been heavily criticized by their own viewers and there is strong ratings evidence that many of them are abandoning the network for other, more openly pro-Trump, outlets (a trend which Trump himself may try to further exacerbate for his own profit once he finally leaves office).

For the record, the call Fox News made on Arizona may have been a bit premature as the final results were extremely tight, however it WAS indeed correct (it should also be noted that it is possible that, at least from the corporate level, Fox was actually eager to have the opportunity to finally separate itself from Trump). Being right used to be the ultimate defense in such controversies, but now, just as Obama indicated, that isn’t even relevant.

In this media age where broadcasting has long ago been replaced by cult-casting, all that really matters is how a news story makes an outlet’s target audience feel. If a report makes those to whom each outlet is appealing feel better, then that is a “good” story, regardless of whether it is true.

Conversely, and perhaps even more dramatically, if a story causes an outlet’s target demographic to feel poorly, then that story is inherently “bad,’ even if it is true. Essentially, news media organizations have become glorified therapists for their audience, creating a view of reality which makes their patients more likely to keep coming back.

This is why Trump, and particularly his election loss, creates a huge conundrum for Fox News and other semi-respectable conservative outlets. Being forced to tell their audience that Trump lost and that he is lying about the election being stolen from him, is as unpleasant a task for them as a parent being forced to explain to their young children that the reaction to the pandemic really has destroyed their lives into the foreseeable future (to be clear, liberal outlets  often face similar challenges when it comes to topics like the pandemic, or riots, where their audience is deeply invested in only one view of how such stories must be perceived).

On a FAR less grand scale I have experienced this phenomenon myself on several occasions in my career. For instance, since election night, I have lost approximately 1,000 Twitter followers, almost all of whom appear to be Trump fans upset for me having committed two significant crimes against their hero.

What were those transgressions? Correctly predicting Trump’s loss right down to the exact number of Electoral College votes, and publicly stating that his claims of having had the election stolen from him were clearly false.

In others words, my “audience” (luckily, I am one of the very few media commentators who honestly does not care at all about being popular, mostly because I know I never will be) literally punished me for telling them the truth. Meanwhile, as it has become an overt religious edict on the right that you must placate Trump’s election fraud fantasies, formerly credible pundits like Mark Levin (once a “Never Trump” conservative!) can go ALL in on this insanity, secure in the knowledge that they will get points from their audience for being a good soldier, once Trump is eventually forced to wave the white flag, and they will be fighting against President Biden for at least the next few years.

As this conflict of interest becomes more deeply imbedded in the DNA of the modern media, it will begin to impact decision-making not just regularly, but universally. Now that news media outlets are purely business enterprises desperately trying to hold on to ever-shrinking audiences who wield the power of a tail able to wag the dog, it will become increasingly rare for major media players to ever let the truth get in the way of either embracing a narrative that is good for job security and the company’s bottom-line, or openly avoiding storylines which are likely to cause damage.

Even when the topic is as important, and clear cut, as who won the 2020 presidential election.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!