This interminable and frustrating presidential campaign surprised almost everyone. Besides ending with participants and observers in a complete state of exhaustion, it’s now more clear than ever that many of our surprises were the result of how the digital technology revolution changed our most basic communication rules.
A central lesson is that never before have we experienced a situation where vicious personal attacks, vulgar and offensive language, steady streams of unrealistic promises, and constant aggressive personal and international threats, became accepted as the norm. A lingering question must be: Will this affect America’s leadership role in the world?
We also learned that most all the major polls were wrong, even though political pollsters have become more scientific and technical with each election. They are now licking their wounds. How so? We are in a time where “big data” is touted as the problem-solving waive of the future. But experience over the years taught me that the more data I collected the more complicated it was for me to interpret it accurately. Changing communication dynamics often blurs complicated situations. As a result, whenever possible polls should be followed by carefully selected focus groups to assist with data interpretation.
This was also a time for more people to observe how the news media actually works. For example, when Mr. Trump’s rallies promised outrageous headlines 24/7 cable television could not resist covering them, usually live. This translated into free publicity. Even when press comments became negative, the star-building power of live TV coverage continued. And since the business of media requires news stories to deliver audiences to commercials we learned just how much entertainment values influenced the election coverage.
We also learned about several additional digital media influences. One was the effective use of Twitter by a candidate to reach specific audiences over the heads of news reporters. Another was how the digital media work schedule of newspaper reporters affected story content. For example, most reporters write a concise story each day for the newspaper’s website, make “tweets” during the day, contribute to other social media outlets, are available for TV interviews, and also write pieces for a much “thinner” daily newspaper. The result is much less content, less “street” reporting, less talking with contacts face-to-face, less time reaching key experts by phone, less daily conversations with “insiders,” and less in-depth story research. All this contributes to a news industry that is more focused on “breaking news” than on in-depth issues analysis.
One morning show host ranted about how the New York Times totally missed the boat. He said it was shoddy journalism that caused its reporters to miss recognizing that Trump could win. But maybe the Times was thinking deeper than the horse race. Maybe its reporters were concerned about whether past and current behaviors would give their audience clues about a future Trump presidency: Will he actually do what he was promising… the good and the bad? Will he actually attack the people and places he said he will? And will his international business deals turn out to be serious conflicts? Now only time will tell.
We learned hard lessons about communication and leadership during this campaign. Let’s hope we never have to go through it again.
Larry D. Lauer 