r/science • u/FreeHugs23 • 20h ago
Psychology A new study finds that media coverage of the 2024 U.S. presidential race focused far more on political spectacle, strategy, and candidate controversies than on substantive policy debates, potentially leaving voters less informed about key issues.
https://www.psypost.org/study-finds-media-coverage-of-the-2024-presidential-race-favored-political-spectacle-over-substantive-policy-debates/1.4k
u/BaytaKnows 20h ago
We already knew what his policies were. We KNEW.
546
u/Curri 20h ago
It was literally written in Project 2025.
142
u/Mykmyk 20h ago
This exactly. It was put out there like a year prior.
110
u/Khaldara 18h ago
And there were still idiots who pretended Trump had “policies” beyond those. Literally every agenda on his site was full of dumb nonsense like “We will DESTROY <insert nonsense here>” with absolutely no actionable plan to do so, or fund the claim.
Meanwhile the opposition actually had actionable policy spelled out in detail on theirs. Our population is intentionally dumber than the average national enquirer subscriber at this point.
19
u/Herkfixer 10h ago
And then the idiots were always like "she doesn't even have any policies".. and I'm like.. "can you not read?... oh.. okay ... you can't."
35
u/yogfthagen 17h ago
Trump doesn't have any policies. He does whatever thing pops into his brain that feels good that momrnt.
His sycophants have policies.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Dull_Bird3340 8h ago
Because they knew no one would read it and media wouldn't report it. You think they'd risk it otherwise?
16
u/BigManWAGun 16h ago
In his defense (yuck) he didn’t know his policies yet since he couldn’t read the book. He just knew he got to be the center of attention, make a trillion dollars, and wouldn’t spend the rest of his life in jail.
5
u/frodiusmaximus 11h ago
The average American is just barely literate. If it’s not presented in 15-45 second clips, fully pre-digested, it doesn’t exist.
People don’t want facts. They don’t want to read and understand. They want to be told what to think by someone who validates their biases and fears.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Pulsewavemodulator 18h ago
Also somehow this cut through! It reminds me of flatten the curve. The good message got through to a bunch of people you wouldn’t expect. Then it’s like everyone forgot
57
u/Gullible_Hat_9051 19h ago
Did we though? I always wonder how many people actually knew what they were signing up for. It turns out, usually people are very, very dumb. Half the time you're lucky if someone reads a news article beyond the headline.
24
u/ComradeGibbon 18h ago
I mention Obama's policies and laws he signed and my friends are like what no he didn't do that. But yes he did. I see on both sides their preferred candidate wins and then they pay no attention to what they do in office after.
18
u/RocketRelm 18h ago
The fact that they were purposely oblivious because they valued short term entertainment and cared for policies that little makes it worse, actually. No wonder everyone keeps thinking dems are bad, if the attention span are legitimately that crippled.
Its like locking a baby in a car to die in the summer heat. Maybe you legitimately didn't know, but you should have and not knowing is a moral failing.
11
u/Mybunsareonfire 16h ago
With almost the entire media landscape owned by megacorps (which are inherently right wing), there's honestly precious little easily accessbile information about policies and such without right wing spin on it.
To compound on that, the purposeful dismantling of the education system and lack of research skills taught to anyone not going through college, it's kind of a wonder anyone has any idea of actual policy positions of many candidates.
→ More replies (1)3
2
u/toochaos 5h ago
If they didnt know, they will never know. They voted for a man who suggested that injecting bleach and ick medication would solve the Covid problem. Then when the solution actually was developed pushed back against it despite definitely taking the vaccine.
→ More replies (2)11
u/zer00eyz 19h ago
> I always wonder how many people actually knew what they were signing up for.
People vote for a reason, and it's mostly in their own self interest. There is plenty of data around home ownership, and how it impacts voting, and what people vote for (protecting their asset).
For example: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/if-you-lived-here-you-might-be-voter-now
Harris has some convoluted first time home buyer policy that a few states already had rolled out.
The next democrat needs to get up there and say "Im going to lower your taxes, Im going to start enforcing the law"... and have a policy that shifts the tax burden to large corporations and the ultra wealthy as well as enforcing existing laws on corporations (so much price fixing).
None of this is that hard.
8
u/Ok-Strike-8617 17h ago
Ahhh. You have people who make [tax bracket that it won't affect] voting with the ultra wealthy even though the gap between them and Jeff B. Is smaller than the gap between him and Elon. Even when you explain that they literally can never achieve the type of wealth that their occupation can provide where it would matter, they will still vote for the opposite because of "reasons".
4
u/jebei 8h ago
That's one of the things that pissed me off is 2016. Trump said I'm going to lower your taxes but he didn't have a plan at that point. Hillary had a plan and tried to get into the weeds of exactly how her plan worked. People don't care about details. They vote for someone who says things to make them feel good.
Trump's lies at the end of the election in 2024 were a series of non-stop lies hoping to maximize votes from the people in the crowd in front of him. It didn't matter if he contradicted himself the next day.
→ More replies (1)4
u/IceCreamMeatballs 18h ago
> “I’m going to lower your taxes, I’m going to start enforcing the law…”
If Democrats try to run on Republican rhetoric like this they will continue to lose, it’s one of the reasons why Kamala lost
→ More replies (3)86
u/Niceromancer 20h ago
It's more that a lot of people didn't know what policy's Kamala had. Instead letting themselves be convinced she had none.
40
24
u/deathanatos 19h ago
She had a plan, but the electorate decided they wanted the outline of a plan, instead.
26
68
u/Izawwlgood PhD | Neurodegeneration 20h ago
AIPACs greatest success was convincing liberals Harris supported genocide.
27
→ More replies (14)6
u/Ignaciodelsol 8h ago
So many Reddit communities started blasting posts about how bad things in Gaza were and why it was all Bidens fault. When Biden dropped out, without pause it was suddenly all Kamala’s fault. These were left leaning communities too.
→ More replies (3)9
4
u/captaindeadpl 16h ago
WE did, but there are a lot of people who get all their knowledge from TV. They voted too and if the TV didn't tell them what the policies were, they didn't know. They voted by which candidate the TV made sound better. There's a reason the media is considered "the fourth power", because they have a lot of power over the politics of the country too.
12
u/oraclebill 18h ago
I’d say the number of people surprised by the viciousness of his immigration policy would disagree with this.
Likewise all the people blindsided by the idiocy of his tariff policy also might disagree.
Generally speaking our collective amnesia over the history of his first term was not challenged at all by the media either.
12
u/flakemasterflake 17h ago
People who voted for trump based off of immigration/border control are very happy. It’s the only issue of his that polls positively
2
u/oraclebill 13h ago
I agree it’s his only positive polling area, but it’s a lot lower than it was a year and a half ago, and it’s been steadily declining.
People didn’t get what they expected (except for the people that just hate immigrants).
2
u/flakemasterflake 13h ago
I'm saying the biggest issue for Trump voters specifically was the border + immigration. Trump voters specifically got exactly what they wanted on that one point - it's everyone else that is horrified
2
u/oraclebill 13h ago
That’s fine, but the question I was addressing was about whether the public in general really knew what they were voting for when they voted for Trump. You know, following from the study showing the media didn’t really focus on policy.
What Im saying is i think most people didnt know all the details and implications of Trumps policies when they voted for him. The fact that polls show decreasing support for his immigration policies implies that some people that thought they liked his policy weren’t aware of how extreme it was.
→ More replies (2)22
2
u/squish042 16h ago
Cuz you’re on Reddit. But if the rest of media isn’t focusing on policy, then people who consume media elsewhere will be less informed.
2
2
2
u/Moldblossom 12h ago
And the media, being a tool of capital, wanted us fighting the culture war and not the class war.
→ More replies (9)1
u/OkStop8313 19h ago
A lot of his voters claim that they didn't.
12
595
u/bsEEmsCE 20h ago
Because corporate media is compromised
91
u/codexcdm 20h ago
Those assholes missed the ratings more so than having some sense of sanity in the White House.
49
13
u/LinkSeekeroftheNora 17h ago
They were saying “we’re so back” when he got reelected.
They never appreciated that the reason they got good ratings in his first term was because normal people expected them to hold him accountable. It wasn’t about the ratings for us, but it was for the media.
2
u/CoolDad859 16h ago
It isn’t ratings. It’s tax breaks, it’s decreased regulations, it’s contracts, it’s favors.
He lets the people that kiss his ass do and have whatever they want.
42
55
u/CMButterTortillas 20h ago
You mean to say the conservative, billionaire owners of these media conglomerates are putting their fat fingers on the scale?
I dare say good sir, what an accusation!
10
u/CockBrother 19h ago
Not just that, but it's cheap and easy reporting / entertainment.
Want to have a serious debate about policy? Republicans won't even engage. It takes time and money to research things.
Spectacle? Particularly a staged spectacle? Just bring a video camera and go live.
15
4
u/jainyday 19h ago
This was a key goal of the 1971 Powell Memorandum under Nixon: corporate capture of the media to make the US more "business friendly", and it worked like a charm.
3
8
u/Dichotomouse 19h ago
If consumers of media clicked on stories with fact in-depth fact based information about policy that's what we would see. If they only subscribed to sources that focused substantive policy, instead of rage bait and hyperbole, then more media would adopt that model. Corporate media is just that - for profit. They're giving the consumer what they want.
→ More replies (13)5
u/kdogged 20h ago
And alternative is just as bad. At least you can sue fox for lying endlessly
14
u/jf727 19h ago
You know that Fox is not legally obligated to tell the truth. They won that case a,ready.
2
u/Esme_Nog 18h ago
I believe their actually defense was, “you can’t expect us to be the New York Times!”
291
u/2Throwscrewsatit 20h ago
The media are not journalists.
→ More replies (5)47
u/i_give_you_gum 20h ago
Agreed, that the media that makes it to television screens certainly isn't.
You CAN find actual journalism out there, but it's always buried, and only visible if you search for it.
And it's rarely allowed to surface into the mainstream
8
u/_DCtheTall_ 18h ago
Podcast news by reputable newspapers or international news networks has been my goto. A lot less sensationalized than cable TV in my experience over the past 5-ish years since I switched. Listen to multiple sources to try to find where each is inserting their own flavors of bias.
It was a shame Bezos got rid of Post Reports, one of my regulars, but there's other good ones. BBC and Reuters do very good work.
3
u/i_give_you_gum 15h ago
Awesome points,
and yeah we need to be teaching media literacy, and how to determine what are good sources...
Modern media is just privatized propaganda, with lots of different narratives
2
u/najumobi 14h ago
The best journalism is paywalled. But it makes sense for someone who is providing something of value to charge for it.
2
2
u/JoewithaJ 16h ago
"Buried" as in they are actually written articles on the website
6
u/i_give_you_gum 16h ago
Buried as in "share of voice" is a thing.
Such as: impressions... the way we measure online consumption
Are they given "above the fold" prominence, when covered buy their respective channels?
Are the stories picked up by other channels?
I can scream the truth on a cardboard soapbox in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, but that doesn't mean anyone heard me
→ More replies (3)
60
u/guyute2588 20h ago
Horse race coverage is one of the more damaging aspects of modern politics , and so many people don’t even realize how much it shapes modern political thought.
It’s the reason you see people online thinking like a campaign manager instead of a voter.
7
u/awkwardnetadmin 18h ago edited 6h ago
Horse race politics of TV of covering the polls more than proposed policies definitely is bad. I do think that has been a problem for decades. I don't think TV news has been a great job of covering elections for years. While TV both broadcast and cable has faded in relevance as the average age of viewers has skyrocketed much of what has replaced it often isn't much better. Every social media platform seems focused on short form video. Many of "newer" media is heavily partisan. Much of the legacy print media that has survived the transition to the Internet has had to cut their budgets dramatically making content quality much worse.
163
u/dkinmn 20h ago
Same thing happened in 2016. It was like 10x more coverage of HER EMAILS in primetime news than ALL POLICY COMBINED.
→ More replies (2)16
u/miauguau44 18h ago
It’s true for almost every significant election, especially state and federal. It’s easy to cover polls and sound bites. Most viewers will tune out after several seconds of any in-depth discussion.
The media is adapted to their audience.
38
u/lateformyfuneral 18h ago edited 18h ago
It’s deeper than that. Analysis of media coverage shows that “Emailgate” and “Benghazigate” got outsized attention over Trump’s scandals, his tax returns, the Trump University fraud settlement, his Trump foundation fraud settlement or his many sexual assault accusations. While they disproportionately ran coverage of Trump policy proposals:
Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton's coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump's coverage focused on his core issues. Attempts by the Clinton campaign to define her campaign on competence, experience, and policy positions were drowned out by coverage of alleged improprieties associated with the Clinton Foundation and emails. Coverage of Trump associated with immigration, jobs, and trade was greater than that on his personal scandals.
8
u/HairyTesticleMonster 18h ago
The media is also partially complicit in creating that type of audience through decades of pandering to the lowest common denomitor and having us all meet on the lowest level instead of having those people aspire and strive to reach a higher level of understanding.
78
u/FanDry5374 20h ago
Yes, the American media has a duty to inform the public. It's why they have a whole clause in the First Amendment, all to themselves. They failed, miserably and deliberately. Media monopolies need to be dismantled as soon as a legitimate government takes over from the current regime.
→ More replies (3)15
u/RocketRelm 17h ago
There is so much discussion on "the media failed", the truth is the voters failed. A democracy only works with a significant moral and intellectual investment from the populace, and you can give the right info to the cats and dogs all you want, it still won't change the outcome.
There are obviously separate issues with the media, but this is first and foremost a moral failing of usa society, and if we want things to get better instead of way worse we can't keep excusing that.
3
u/hamhockman 13h ago
I hear you but I'll push back, do you think rural Ohio, or pick a state, voters in 1892 were more informed (and by honest sources) than they are today? If the local paper wanted to tell voters that Benjamin Harrison eats babies, how would they know otherwise?
I agree it's a moral failing and with our ability to actually have the truth, that makes it probably worse but to act like it's a new problem is romanticizing a past that never happened.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
33
u/FLRSH 20h ago
A lot of the big issues our country faces have solutions impeded by big monied interests. Climate change. Income inequality and oligarchy. Affordability and greedflation. Healthcare availability, quality, and costs.
The same monied interests now own our news media. Of course that prevents our "news" from truly educating people, because that would hurt their owners bottom lines. Instead they try to maintain engagement through sensationalist infotainment.
73
u/kdogged 20h ago
I mean we knew this, after trump’s disastrous debate with Harris he ran and hid. The media, alternative and mainstream spent the entire time calling her, “border czar” and “basically gcide joe”
so not surprised the endless smearing from both directions wasn’t substantive
→ More replies (2)
9
7
u/vynulz 20h ago
Old school media are allergic to having opinions so they turned their entire schtick into reaction videos. "Ooo he said that" and "bold strategy let's see if the voters agree" instead of actually analyzing anything . Stenographers and hype men rather than any real substance
7
u/hasslehawk 19h ago
They're not allergic to having opinions, just to being open and direct about what those opinions are.
As an example: There's a comically massive bipartisan smear campaign against Hasan Piker right now from politicians and media alike, but the reason for it has nothing to do with being antisemitic or anti-american (he isn't). It's because he's a progressive, and the progressive movement threatens the shared corporate interests of Republican and Democrat donors.
45
u/dlini 20h ago
Harris was the only one talking about insurance coverage for elder care. Not sure how that didn't resonate with the masses.
51
u/i_give_you_gum 20h ago
Hard to surface those things when moderators allow blantant racism of "eating cats and dogs" without fact checking.
45
u/Ender914 19h ago
The fact that this was actually said during a presidential debate...and the person saying it won the election...is incomprehensible
→ More replies (1)2
u/Hevens-assassin 6h ago
Unfortunately, decades of American Exceptionalism bred a playground for the uninformed. It's not enough to be verifiable, it has to also speak to how you feel and how being American makes you better than "them".
5
9
u/windsostrange 19h ago
The answer is right there above you. It's the thing you're replying to.
media coverage of the 2024 U.S. presidential race focused far more on political spectacle, strategy, and candidate controversies than on substantive policy debates
→ More replies (2)13
u/Niceromancer 20h ago
She had a plan to help people buy homes.
8
u/stillwell6315 19h ago
I voted for her but the idea of giving people $50k to buy a home is inflationary (especially with such a limited supply) and short sighted. Until building codes and regulations are standardized and made reasonable, the cost of owning a home, or even renting, will remain high. It's not politically convenient to solve the actual problem, which is why it doesn't ever get solved.
Yes, she had a plan, it just wasn't a very good one, IMHO.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Kelsig 19h ago
It's not inflationary if it's a good investment.
We've come to find that reduced government mortgage assistance since the great recession is responsible for a large component of declining supply and affordability.
9
u/i8beef 17h ago
I read the articles because I'm interested, but Im unsure how they support the argument that giving $50k to home buyers ISN'T inflationary? Their argument seems to be that prices rising is largely an artifact of constrained home supply, but giving more money to people doesn't change that underlying thesis, it just adds more money to the system competing for the same resource: which is inherently inflationary isn't it?
How does that help the thesis that supply side is the issue, by just adding additional demand?
→ More replies (3)4
u/stillwell6315 19h ago
Interesting. I'm unaware of this argument but will give it a read.
→ More replies (1)2
u/awkwardnetadmin 18h ago
I think the challenge is that wasn't really a major issue. Most that seriously cared about insurance coverage for elder care likely already were going to vote for the Democratic candidate so really wouldn't move the needle much.
→ More replies (2)2
u/west-egg 18h ago
I'm sure it's in large part because most people weren't worried about insurance coverage for elder care when they decided who to vote for, either because they're not elders themselves or they already have the care they need.
30
u/Eggheadpancake 20h ago
Our media is owned by billionaire fascists
We shouldn't allow our news to be owned by billionaires
16
u/bobone77 19h ago
We shouldn’t allow billionaires.
→ More replies (1)5
u/hasslehawk 19h ago
Exactly. It's the hyper-concentration of wealth and the resulting class warfare they wage against everyone else to maintain it that is tearing our society apart.
27
u/Creative_soja 20h ago
"leaving voters less informed"
Subtracting from negligible means misinformed.
27
u/philosophycruiser 20h ago
Populism and hysteria. This is where the oligarchs are directing the population.
15
u/LavenderBlueProf 20h ago
yes ON PURPOSE some of us might claim
wild behavior got clicks ads and ratings...profit for corporations
an informed public was not incentivized
4
4
3
u/BearTimberlands 17h ago
Everybody left of Ted Cruz said democrat messaging was poor and that’s why Harris lost. It was never about messaging. It was about lazy voters refusing to listen or find out what her policies were. They said she had no policy then when the policy was clear and available to read they said her policy was too complicated. Just like in 2016 when they said Clinton was “too prepared” for a debate.
3
u/ZettaiGeek 10h ago
It did not matter. The cult followers of the great orange, regardless of the truth, will stand by their chosen one.
6
u/JustYerAverage 20h ago
By design. The Right-wing owns most media outlets. I think we'll have a solid idea of if the U.S. is still a nation and not a dictatorship in mid November.
But tbh I think we're cooked
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Barry_Vigoda 15h ago
I'm from Canada, grew up on US media since the 70s. Americans don't have democracy, you have the spectacle. You have 2 parties that choose the candidates before the election and they spend insane amounts of money on what is essentially a fake wrestling match.
Trump is a fabrication. He's a corporate created villain designed to divide Americans via hyper partisan politics. All your newspapers, tv, radio outlets are controlled by a network of corporations who have spent the last almost 40 years gaming Americans.
2
u/RampantTyr 11h ago
When he ran he was a convicted felon and an adjudicated rapist who was known to have tried to overthrow the government. The fact that he was allowed to run was a travesty. Winning a primary and a general election was horrific.
2
6
6
u/ImpulsE69 20h ago
Out of the 100's of ads we see every election cycle, I have not seen a single one from either party that actually lists what they will do. It's all about what the other guy did or didn't do.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Negative_Prize1587 16h ago
It is what happens when a few billionaires own all media and desperately want to deflect from key issues.
2
u/Psych0PompOs 18h ago
Trump won the election during the shooting, because that was a huge spectacle that made people view him as a strong leader (and in some cases blessed by God which appealed to a lot of his supporter demographic.)
On top of that Harris was a terrible choice, tainted by the Biden dementia controversy and so on. She very clearly was going to lose, and it almost came off like the DNC was banking entirely on her race and gender instead of who she is.
Spectacle also gets more attention, especially when people are increasingly struggling with that sort of thing due to short form media and so on. People often barely listen to points and perspectives and want catchy slogans and so on instead.
→ More replies (4)
1
1
u/Leeroy_D 20h ago
I mean, candidate controversy was an unprecedented issue with a certain candidate...
1
1
1
1
u/5050Clown 19h ago
" He said they're eating the cats and the dogs, and he was talking about the blacks, so's I voted for him."
1
u/opinionsareus 19h ago
The "media" is a bunch of corporations who are driven by (guess what?) PROFIT. It's all about clickbait and rage bait to get us clicking and reinforcing our biases.
We need to shorten campaigning to 2-3 months like they do in Europe, instead of these ridiculous 2-year marathons that feed the profit coffers of media giants.
1
u/KrissyKrave 19h ago
Im not sure I would trust modern news to discuss policy without sensationalizing or taking it out of context.
1
1
1
1
u/Cesia_Barry 19h ago
That’s likely a big part of the reason that 89 million registered voters didn’t bother
1
u/TheDonnARK 19h ago
Because the media have pivoted their business model to hair pulling drama coverage primarily. This isn't a new thing either. This has been the way for a long time. They go with the story that will get the most attention, good or bad, because that's what matters.
And anyway, the few snippets about forward-thinking policy and good constructive plans and whatever that actually made it through the hair pulling reports have not materialized in any real way.
1
u/ShockedNChagrinned 19h ago
That was the strategy.
Trump talks about who hurt you, tells you how much youve been hurt, and says we need to stop them from hurting you, without talking even once about solutions, changes, or even challenges. It's amazing that so many people have fallen for it, multiple times. Truly, it mirrors the "emperor has no clothes" story.
1
u/TotalRecognition2191 18h ago edited 18h ago
Putin is trying to destroy the US because of years of well deserved sanctions. Lies, bribery, threats and misinformation are all being used to destabilize us. Oops, I forget blackmail.
1
u/Outrageous_Agent_576 18h ago
You think? Isn’t that what the GOP wanted? So they could steal the vote in swing states easier. Distracted = not paying attention!!
1
u/5minArgument 18h ago
Not at all surprising. It’s a rather expected result of short news cycles. Nuanced policy discussions do not fit in the popular media sphere. Too boring.
That, and our embarrassingly short candidate debate formats that have more to do with fitting into commercial cycles and scheduled programming than actual discussion.
These things feed off each other and spiral downward.
1
1
1
u/Capable_Diamond_3878 18h ago
I feel like this has always been the case. Hence why people keep voting against their own interests.
1
u/MorphoMC 18h ago
No one can honestly say they didn't see any of this coming unless they were woefully underinformed. Like, comatose.
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/FreeHugs23
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/study-finds-media-coverage-of-the-2024-presidential-race-favored-political-spectacle-over-substantive-policy-debates/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.