The Squeaky Wheel Gets Their Candidate Elected

Imagine a world where someone with a strong opinion and a show on television could influence the results of an election. Or, turn on Fox News or MSNBC. It’s no secret that media has a big influence on American voters in the 21st Century, but the genre of “outrage media” as defined by Berry and Sobieraj has played a unique role. In this genre, “being offensive is the foundation of most content,” and tactics such as “ideological selectivity, vilification of opponents, and fear mongering” are used in order to entertain audiences. This unique ability to provoke emotion has made outrage media very profitable, and more successful than traditional media platforms. We must also understand that “outrage industry shapes the terrain in which lawmakers work.” The audiences of these radio and television programs are more likely to vote, and politicians can use outrage media to gain support even if they “lack years of party networking.” This has resulted in political parties, namely the GOP, utilizing conservative outrage sectors to gain support and shift the ideology of elected officials further to the right.

So what responsibility to outrage media personalities have? Unfortunately, even if the country needs more level-headed and moderate voices to have important conversations, they are not as profitable. What’s more, telling people that they can’t have emotional responses to policies that affect them is problematic.

In 2004, Jon Stewart went on the CNN show Crossfire and expressed his concern for the hosts’ tactics in broadcasting political debates, saying that they were “hurting America.” The clip below shows the highlights of this argument, and demonstrates how outrage media personalities view their roles in shaping political discourse.

Important note: The president and CEO of CNN acknowledged Jon Stewart’s arguments in the decision to cancel the program just two month’s after his guest appearance.