During the recent Presidential election that took place in 2016, there was a rise in conflict of social issues such as race, immigration and feminism and a fall in conversation of fiscal policy and trade. This was due to the rise in the public’s ability to voice their opinion on social issues through outlets such as Facebook, Twitter as well as other forms of social media. These platforms resulted in other media news sources focusing on topics that the people wanted to hear rather than policies. The focus of the Presidential Election turned from a traditional debate on policies into a media war on based upon ideals and beliefs. The use of different forms of media influenced the decisions of voters during the recent Presidential election and ultimately shaped the political and social ideals of many Americans.

Throughout history the creation of different types of media has changed the way that people view the world around them. In earlier times, when the newspaper was first created, people could find out what was going on in the world and learn more about the current events. Next, the invention of the radio gave the world a way to hear directly what was going on in real time. Today, whether it is through news channels or twitter pages, people are able to rapidly and efficiently convey their opinions on any topic to millions of people. As a result, the bias that is seen within each word a person types or says has a lasting effect on those who view it. Although there are many outcomes that can be effected by the use of media, a current event that has brought the nation’s attention to the use of media, especially social media, is the most recent election process that took place in 2016. With this election came twitter wars between candidates, and Facebook posts from many American’s that contained a direct line of propaganda for whomever they were in support of. One source states, “In 12 months, the country has collectively spent more than 1,284 years reading about Donald Trump on social media… social media's influence in this presidential election is stronger than it has ever been… and the information cycle it has created will shape campaigns for years to come” (Lang). With such a large social media presence the candidates were able to speak directly to the people rather than going through media outlets. This direct sense of communication gave way to a different type of election and use of propaganda by the candidates. Different forms of media defined the recent Presidential Election and sparked a new generation of politics. 

The increase in media usage is largely due to the rise in technological advances. Cellphones and tablets have given users the ability to have an infinite amount of knowledge at the click of a button. These devices also allow users to the ability to be notified the second anything happens in the world through news app notifications or Twitter notifications. Where most information was found in a newspaper 10 years ago, most news articles can now be found online. This leads to more articles being able to be shared on social media where anyone can add anything that comes to mind when reading the article in a single post. The post is what is seen by the viewer before they read the article giving an immediate reaction of happiness or anger to set the tone before they even begin to read. This creates a “’feedback loop’ wherein candidates' posts on social media make news, and then those news stories get circulated through social media, building momentum and generating even more chatter” (Lang). Social media allows for widespread reactions as well as voiced opinions on topics not limited to politics but worldwide issues as well. This chain effect can alter the ideas of the world around you, by something as little as a shared article on Facebook.

With that being said, another way that social media and other media outlets have affected the ways that people view certain topics is the immediate access to millions of websites and information. With the access to new technology there is a newfound means to acquire any information a person wants whether it is good or bad. This again turns back to the election of 2016. Throughout this election there was a constant battle between the candidates addressing the email scandal that Hilary Clinton was accused of. “Clinton’s use of a private email server has been dominating headlines since March 2015 when it was revealed that she had used her family’s email server for official communications — rather than official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers — during her time as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Thousands of emails would retroactively be marked as classified by the State Department, prompting many to say Clinton put important information at risk,” (Petit). This scandal was also brought to light in a movie, 13 Hours, that explained the tragedy that took place in Bengazhi, Libya. The film illustrates the terrorist attacks that took place inside a United States diplomatic compound as well as the negligence of former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton (iMBD). 13 Hours was released a few months before the Presidential Election and sparked mass outrage from the Republican party as well as many Democrats. Many Americans took to social media to share their opinions on the film with a goal of persuading others to feel the same way. Conservative news outlets also heavily covered the release of the film while more Liberal stations gave little to no attention to the film. The movie was said to be “sold somewhat under-the-table to political conservatives,” (Mendleson), because the liberal media would not shine light on the negative ideas being spread to the public about Hilary Clinton. This example shows how different forms of news media try to persuade their viewers to have the same opinions as them through the news they choose to report.

The news is able to persuade their viewers through the topics they choose to report on and the manner in which they cover these topics. Many media sources pick a political side and use their platform to highlight the strengths of their own party while condemning the actions of the opposing parties. “Since June 1, Fox News has devoted significantly more time than cable news competitors CNN and MSNBC to airing live coverage of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign rallies, live events, and press conferences. Fox has also aired less live coverage of similar events from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton compared to its rivals,” (Savillo). Mass media creating a bias towards a party is also another reason that the news is not always 100% accurate. “Fox's audience leans conservative, while CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have audiences that lean left,” (Engel).

The graphs above represent which way the type of viewer attracted to the media outlet leans on their political views and beliefs. There is a clear difference between the viewer of CNN, which is shown as the most left sided outlet, and Fox News, the most right sided. Each of these news channels have their own representation of events that are present in this country. “In September alone, Fox News aired 7 hours and 32 minutes of live coverage from Trump events, compared to CNN, which aired 5 hours and 18 minutes of Trump events, and MSNBC, which aired 5 hours and 48 minutes of Trump events. Conversely, Fox aired only 3 hours and 25 minutes of Clinton events during the month -- far less than CNN (5 hours and 4 minutes) and MSNBC (5 hours and 14 minutes),” (Savillo).  Through picking and choosing the coverage each news source chooses to convey; they slowly influence their audiences.

Multiple times during the election, liberal media sources provoked anger with their selective coverage of President Trump’s immigration policy to gain support for Clinton. “Build that wall” has been something commonly thrown around within the nation since Trump announced his idea to build a wall bordering the US and Mexico in order to keep illegal immigrants from entering our country. Since this idea has been brought up there have been many ways that people have changed his idea from a positive look on our country to a negative racist comment. The media has made shown videos of legal immigrants explaining that they believe Trump hates immigrants and wants them out of the country when that is not the case. What most news medias are leaving out is that legal immigration and illegal immigration are two completely different things. Where the wall will be built to keep persons from Mexico from crossing over into the united states without proper documentation, media outlets have changed this into a situation where Hispanic's feel personally victimized by the President. Different media sources took a policy idea and turned it into an idea rooted in hatred. 

Racism has become another issue throughout the election and has been widely discussed via social media. Different accusations have been made about the current President that have aired nationally through retweets and Facebook shares. Racism is a huge issue however, the media broadcasted it as a political problem rather than a social issue. One person cannot change the ideals of all people, even if he is the President. The media’s coverage of racism made it seem as though racism was a political debate rather than a true social issue. This effect is negatively impacting the United States because it is drawing attention to an issue that has tried to disappear into the dust. Throughout American history racism has been a large issue and even created a war. Due to the problems of racism in society, the media outlets began to blame Trump and label him as a racist. Social media added fuel to a fire and influenced many Americans to believe that Trump supported racism, therefore persuading many people to vote for Hillary Clinton. 

As an opposing viewpoint to the media’s negative influence, there are instances where different forms of media bring about a positive effect. A topic that was heavily talked about on most major news stations as well as on social media during the election is the idea of feminism. The issue of feminism erupted with the use of social media. During the election, a video was released of Donald Trump, that was deemed to be disrespectful to women. Outrage was plastered over all different forms of social media thus, giving the nation a perspective of our President that is extremely negative. With the chaos behind the accusations, women began to let their voices be heard. Through social media women were able to take a stance and show the Presidential candidate that his demonizing language and actions were not okay. In the days following the inauguration there was a nationwide women's march that was flooding the news media as well as social media. This march was planned throughout the post inauguration time period. “What began as a Facebook post by a Hawaii grandmother the day after Hillary Clinton's loss in November's election blossomed into a massive protest uniting people of all ages, races and religions who crowded downtown Washington. They called for a ‘revolution’ as a bulwark against the new administration and the Republican-led Congress they fear will roll back reproductive, civil and human rights” (Przybyla). On this day, many of the nation’s most influential personnel were expressing their feelings and taking a stand against what they believed in. The women showed how passionate they were in their beliefs and their ideas became widely publicized as a result of the media. In many ways, social media was their output to explain how they were feeling, through Instagram posts and Snapchat stories, each person could express how they felt and spread the ideas that they had to the rest of the social media community. The use of media had a positive effect not only on the women who participated in the march for Women’s Rights but also empowered women all over the country. 

However, in some ways the Women’s March was perceived the wrong way due to conflicting forms of media. Throughout this whole day members of the marches were publicized. “Aside from the new president's ability to appoint Supreme Court justices who could seek to overturn the decision in 1973 that established a woman’s right to abortion, Roe v Wade, marchers see other things that could happen more immediately. This includes Congress rolling back funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides free breast cancer screening and health services. U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan has vowed to cut the group's funding as part of repealing Obamacare. The same could well happen with contraception coverage provided under the Affordable Care Act, as well as access to mammograms with no co-pay or deductible,” (Przybyla). This event effected our nation because it brought to light women's issues. However, the way that some media sources portrayed this event was much different than the way that the event was portrayed on social media. Each of the Women’s marches were shown on media to reflect how women were fighting for equality amongst the nation, between women and men, while on social media posters were posted with slang reflecting the anger towards the election of Donald Trump. The different versions of media showed different sides to the march and showed how different media outlets give different viewpoints on political topics. While the original reasons of the march included many political reasons that women wanted to allow their voice to be heard for, the social media output turned it into a stab at the President.

The impact that the media outlets had on the election held a strain on the people’s views and in turn shaped the election process. Media has become part of the everyday lives of Americans and in turn has a very large influence. The media shed light to issues that were not typically discussed while ultimately taking away from the topics that are usually covered during a Presidential Election. Media played a large part in shaping the events that led up to the final Presidential Election. Because of its role, the impacts of both social media and media from news outlets had a large impact on how the American people viewed both Presidential candidates and ultimately influenced who they chose to cast their vote for. 