Trump's repeated attacks on 'fake news' and traditional media are one of the reasons why he's been labelled a fascist, given that one of the first things fascist governments do is close down independent media outlets.

“If Trump is gone before I wake, I pray to God the news ain’t fake,” read one viral meme on the night of the election. Sadly, the prayer went unanswered, but the notion of ‘fake news,’ which has become synonymous with Trump, feels more relevant than ever.

Since he announced his campaign for the US presidency first-time round in 2015, Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked ‘fake news’ and ‘traditional’ media. These attacks are one of the reasons why Trump has been labelled a fascist, given that one of the first things fascist governments do is close down independent media outlets. 

Last Sunday, at a rally in Pennsylvania, he complained about the bulletproof glass surrounding him, stating: “To get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news – and I don’t mind that so much.”

He also called the media “bloodsuckers.”

“The media is so damn bad – it’s unbelievable,” he said, specifically criticising certain news outlets. “ABC, ABC, fake news, CBS, ABC, NBC,” he said. “These are, in my opinion, these are seriously corrupt people.”

As Trump intensifies his attacks on the mainstream media, the unregulated landscape of social media – where misinformation thrives – undoubtedly aided him in securing a second presidency, as it did the first-time round.

In 2015, Trump built a massive social media following, with supporters dubbing themselves “centipedes,” closely tracking his every move. During his presidency, the White House even considered some of his 8,000 tweets as official statements. Following his Twitter ban in January 2021, after he referred to the Capitol rioters as “patriots,” he had amassed over 88.9 million followers.

But when Elon Musk reinstated Trump’s account in 2022, Trump opted not to return, instead promoting his own platform, Truth Social, described by the LA Times  as a “mix of swaggering gun talk, typo-filled Bible scripture, violent Biden bashing, nonsensical conspiracy theories and more misguided memes about Jan. 6 “hostages,” trans satanists and murderous migrants than anyone should be subjected to…”

A pro-Trump echo chamber

Even without Trump, under Musk, Twitter – now X – has witnessed a lurch to the right. X’s owner – the richest man in the world – has increasingly used the social media platform as a megaphone to amplify his political views. During the election campaign, he bombarded his millions of followers with pro-Trump content, some accurate, some misleading. Following Musk’s endorsement of the now president-elect, X algorithms intensified pro-Trump content.

“I don’t think this race would even be close if it wasn’t for what Elon Musk was doing with X and showing people what is going on,” said Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Junior. 

This year, Trump’s digital outreach became the cornerstone of his campaign. Podcasters and influencers, with millions of followers tuning into their weekly, even daily shows, trumpeted Trump’s message with little scrutiny.

Makena Kelly of Wired’s Political Lab, notes how the industry has grown and changed dramatically since the last presidential contest, eclipsing the traditional media in viewership in some cases. “This size and power is a legitimising force, despite the racist and misogynistic rhetoric some share with the manosphere.”

Joe Rogan, whose chart-topping podcast has an estimated 81% male audience, announced he was giving the Republican his backing after being convinced in one of his interviews by Elon Musk. It was said that Rogan’s backing could carry significant weight with his young, male listenership –  who Trump had been working hard to court ahead of the 2024 vote. Trump welcomed the endorsement as “great” news.

And this so-called ‘heterodoxy,’ ‘free-thinkers’ like Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, and their endorsement of the Republican’s hyper-masculine promise, seemed to win over their young male audience. Among younger voters aged 18-29, 49 percent of men voted for Donald Trump, shattering previous images of young people generally leaning left.

While online influencers and digital media is eclipsing traditional media in US, the trend appears to be progressing more slowly in the UK. Both Labour and the Conservatives have invested heavily in online strategies to reach voters. In the 2015 election, Labour enlisted Blue State Digital, known for its work on Barack Obama’s campaigns, while the Conservatives allocated substantial resources to Facebook advertising.

But as a study by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University found, despite advancements in digital media, traditional broadcast media remained more influential in shaping public opinion during the 2015 election, with much social media discussion responding to broadcast content.

Nonetheless, the trend suggested that the influence of digital media was set to grow in future elections.

Now, eight years later, digital, unregulated platforms have become a formidable force in the political landscape, and, it seems, it’s the right-wingers who are on the winning foot. 

The TikTok generation

Take TikTok, which, during his first presidency, Trump was the biggest threat to the platform after he tried to ban it on national security grounds. Trump joined the video sharing app in June, and just a day later, had attracted three million followers. As Reuters reported, the move was strategically aimed at connecting with younger voters in his third bid for the White House.

His inaugural TikTok video featured him greeting fans at an Ultimate Fighting Championship event in New Jersey and quickly racked up millions of views. In a statement, he asserted that he would “use every tool available to speak directly with the American people.”

Though it’s uncomfortable to find any merit in Trump’s statements, with about half of TikTok’s users under age 30 saying they rely on the platform to keep up with politics, his observations reflect the reality of today’s media landscape, where social media has emerged as a dominant force.

Traditional media is declining and increasingly appeals to an aging audience, yet even this demographic does not always align with its content.

A recent survey found that 78% of Americans aged 65 or older get most political and election news from journalists and news organisations. But that figure drops to 55 percent for people aged 30-49 and to 45 percent for 18-29-year-olds.

But in the UK, despite the pervasive Conservative messaging in the media, research shows that those who primarily read right-wing news outlets are increasingly inclined to support alternatives to the Conservatives.

Polling by Best for Britain in April suggested that despite the domination of Conservative-leaning newspapers in the industry, 37 percent of people who get their news mostly from print outlets had planned to vote Labour at the election compared to 22 percent who plan to vote for the Conservative Party.

Readers of the Sun were found to be the most likely of readership to back Labour with almost four in ten (38 percent) having planned to cast their vote for Starmer compared to one in four (25 percent) prepared to back Sunak. The only right-wing newspaper to buck the trend was the Daily Mail whose readers continue to lean Conservative 33 percent to 26 percent for Labour.

A separate poll showed a similar trend among GB News watchers, where Labour led by 39 percent to 28 percent, excluding undecided voters.

The ‘Trump effect’

There is little doubt that the “Trump effect” in America has spread widespread distrust and hostility towards mainstream media, creating a disconnect between millions of American voters and the principles of balance, respect, and quality journalism that once defined traditional media (at least quality traditional media).Of course, the big difference between our media and that of the US is the BBC, which, for all its faults, is widely loved and respected, in spite of being continually sniped at by Conservatives and the right-wing media.

Unlike the likes of Fox News and other US news outlets, the ‘Beeb’ doesn’t rely on polarisation as a business model, as it’s legally obligated to neutrality.

Foreign Policy notes that one might assume American viewers are just different. Perhaps they like drama, hyperbole, and confirmation more?  But a 2020 report by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, shows that isn’t necessarily true. Rather, 60 percent of Americans want neutral news. What’s more, 56 percent of Americans find the BBC trustworthy.

But, with or without a BBC, when it comes to winning elections, clearly, political strategists are increasingly recognising that traditional media is not as essential, as it once was. And it’s the right that seem to be winning the digital media wars.

For Mark Jacob, author of Stop the Presses, a weekly newsletter about how right-wing extremism has exploited the weaknesses in American journalism, the decline of traditional media is not solely its fault, as the rise of smartphones and social media has altered consumer habits. He argues that right-wing disinformation has bewildered mainstream journalists, who have often failed to adapt their strategies in the face of this challenge.

Instead of merely broadcasting political rhetoric, journalism should focus on meaningful investigations, contextualising news events, and holding public figures accountable.

“… with Trump’s successful campaign of lies eight years ago should have come an aggressive reassessment by the media. Only in limited cases has that happened. Networks are still letting a deranged criminal traitor tell outrageous falsehoods on live television with no pushback. They’re amplifying disinformation and pretending that amounts to “fairness.” 

Abetted by our own right-wing press

In addition to the insufficient accountability in mainstream media coverage that Jacob highlights, and the right’s more visceral connection with audiences on social media, Trump was, regrettably, even supported by our own right-wing press.

During the final weeks of the campaign, content with negative sentiment about Kamala Harris was published on the Daily Mail’s TikTok account, which has 20 million followers. It  achieved 13.4 million views, outperforming even Trump’s official campaign account.

The Daily Mail capitalised on controversial content, including a widely criticised performance by stand-up comedian Tony Hinchcliffe at a Trump rally, which drew a backlash for its offensive remarks about Puerto Ricans. Despite this, the Mail focused on sensationalised clips that resonated with a pro-Trump audience.

In another pro-Trump viral clip, the Mail’s TikTok showed a tourist who had flown from Japan to attend a Trump rally. “Trump supporter goes above and BEYOND #trump#kamala#japan#election#newyorkcity#nyc,” read the accompanying text.

And judging by some of the comments in the feed below the clip, the content succeeded in resonating with its audience.

“The whole world wants Trump as president that should say something,” was an especially painful comment.

And it wasn’t just the Daily Mail’s TikTok account spouting a pro-Trump narrative. In the final few days of the campaign, the newspaper’s columnist Richard Littlejohn – who has advocated hiring the host of You Are What You Eat, Dr Gillian McKeith, to sift through human excrement to identify country of origin – wrote an article headlined, “I haven’t got a dog in this fight, but watching Trump I can’t help wishing we had a politician who would give us hope again, make Britain great again – and make us laugh again.”

Which brings me onto Nigel Farage, a vocal Trump supporter, and shrewd social media promoter, whose videos on TikTok outperformed all other parties and candidates during the general election campaign.

During a rally in Pennsylvania on the eve of the vote, Farage met Trump backstage, posting the encounter to his millions of followers on social media.

The Reform UK leader claimed “a Trump win will make the world a safer place” despite concerns on both sides of the Atlantic over past threats by the Republican to pull the US away from Nato.

Reciprocating the endorsements, Trump gave a special mention to the Reform leader during the rally. In a shout-out to his “friend,” he said: “He’s shaking it up out there. He was the big winner of the last election in the UK.”

As the mainstream media seems sadly on a path to its own irrelevance, modern media is being ever more tightly embraced by populist, right-wing politicians.

Of course, many UK politicians are behind the curve and are still intimidated by nasty headlines in the Mail, with ministers finding themselves asking, “What would the Mail say?” when contemplating any ‘liberal’ policy that might provoke backlash from the paper.

In a media landscape transformed by social platforms and the relentless march of misinformation, the prayer that “the news ain’t fake” resonates louder than ever.

With each rally, each viral TikTok, and each strategic post, Trump’s influence underlines a crucial lesson for journalism.  To survive, the mainstream must adapt, prioritising truth and accountability over the more comfortable narratives of the past. The call for a fearless and honest press is urgent, otherwise, the media risks becoming a relic, sidelined by a populist tide that thrives on chaos and distortion. Just as the meme prayed for truth, the future of journalism must embody it – before it’s too late.

Right-wing media watch – Once again, the anti-woke brigade fail to grasp the National Trust’s appeal

Undeterred by yet another failed invasion attempt, the right-wing anti-woke crusaders at Restore Trust faced their fourth defeat in trying to plant their candidates on the National Trust council during this year’s Annual General Meeting (AGM).

Their candidates managed a mere 18,000 votes while the winning candidates scooped a hefty 42,000.

But fear not, GB News remained determined to throw around ‘woke’ insults at Europe’s largest conservation charity.

“National Trust pushes through woke vegan overhaul of cafes despite backlash from members,” blared their headline on November 3.

Despite a resounding 57,490 votes in favour of a resolution to make half the offerings at its 300 cafes plant-based, the broadcaster insists the Trust is facing a backlash over the decision, with 20,111 votes opposing it.

“….critics accuse the [National Trust’s] leadership of pushing an anti-meat agenda,” the article continues, citing on such critic stating: “This motion forces us to eat food that is not of our choice. Instead, we should be supporting the National Trust’s livestock tenant farmers.”

In addition to the vegan produce resolution, members also backed a proposal to strengthen the trust’s response to the climate emergency and support the proposed Climate and Nature Bill.

But rather than commending such climate efforts, GB News was intent on stirring up trouble reporting that some AGM attendees expressed concern about staff and volunteers’ attitudes toward British history.

“Some questioned the attitudes and patriotism of staff and volunteers towards British history, following comments by director general Hilary McGrady about the progressive nature of trust employees,” the article continues.

The broadcaster was also quick to inform of other “recent controversies,” including the “trust’s use of explainer panels highlighting slave-owning histories at its properties, the introduction of vegan scones, and decisions regarding property restoration.

“Additionally, there was criticism of the trust’s ‘quick vote’ system, which some argue stifles debate.”

In fact, GB News even dedicated a whole separate article to this right-wing complaint, with a headline screaming: “National Trust members furious after being BLOCKED from holding vote aimed at stopping charity imposing woke policies without scrutiny.”

“A group of National Trust members has been prevented from attempting to debate the charity’s “debate-stifling” voting system at its annual meeting last weekend.

You’d think after four consecutive failures, the anti-woke media might take a hint and recognise that folk actually appreciate the National Trust’s woke, progressive, vegan, left-wing appeal – whatever label they want to slap on it.

Smear of the week – Ed Miliband and the kettle conspiracy!

Ed Miliband has long been a favourite target of the right-wing press. During the 2015 general election, the Tory tabloids launched a full-scale smear campaign, with the Sun devoting nearly half its front page to a photo of Miliband looking like he was about to have a heart attack while eating a bacon sandwich. “Don’t swallow his porkies and keep him OUT!” was the message.

The media’s vitriol towards Miliband and Labour was consistent and intense, and many believe that the combined efforts of the Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express, and Daily Telegraph, not only contributed to, but actually orchestrated Miliband’s downfall.

“…  I haven’t a shadow of doubt that Ed Miliband lost because of newspaper coverage,” said Roy Greenslade, a former professor of journalism at City University.

And, as the saying goes, a leopard never changes its spots, especially when it comes to right-wing media outlets.

Now, as the minister for energy security and Net Zero, Miliband is facing renewed attacks, not only because they view him as an easy target, but also because if there’s one thing the right-wing press seems to loathe, it’s the concept of Net Zero.

“Miliband’s war on teatime: People ‘will have to restrict when they boil the kettle to help Ed Miliband hit 2030 clean power targets,” headlined the Sun this week.

The article continues with dire warnings about the need for swift planning and regulatory reform to meet ambitious infrastructure goals.

The experts the piece refers to is the National Energy System Operator (NESO), which the Sun was quick to point out is now taxpayer-owned after a £630m deal. Their ‘Our Clean Power 2030 advice to government report, which was commissioned by Miliband and published this week, concludes that while the challenge of achieving clean power by 2030 is substantial, it’s feasible.

But as Stop Funding Heat – a group dedicated to calling out media outlets for spreading “climate lies” for clicks, sales and vested interests –  astutely noted, the very report the Sun twisted for its headline doesn’t even mention the words “kettle” or “boil.” In fact, it highlights the benefits of transitioning to clean energy.

“Who’d have predicted that the Sun would run yet another misleading headline about climate policy?” the group mockingly asked.

Indeed, the report is decidedly pro-climate action. Fintan Slye, the chief executive of NESO, said: “There’s no doubt that the challenges ahead on the journey to delivering clean power are great.  However, if the scale of those challenges is matched with the bold, sustained actions that are outlined in this report, the benefits delivered could be even greater.” 

Slye painted a rosy picture of a clean power system for Great Britain, one that would free us from the volatility of international gas prices, secure our homes with affordable energy, decarbonise our commutes, and drive innovation.

But of course, the part of the report that the Sun jumped on was its assertion that meeting the 2030 targets would require a six-fold increase in “demand flexibility.”

In other words, we might have to forgo our cherished cuppa during Coronation Street breaks or at the half-time whistle during the football. And somehow, it’s all Ed Miliband’s fault.

Poor old Ed, he always manages to brew up a media storm! Mind you, it could be said that he must be doing something right to attract so much vitriol from the likes of the Sun.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Comments are closed.