Spring 2016 Special Issue

the JHU POLITIKSpecial Issue

Spring 2016

THE POLITICS OF MEDIA

2 the JHU POLITIK • May 2016 • SPECIAL ISSUE SPRING 2016

468

1013

TOP COVER PHOTO COURTESY OF: HTTP://WWW.CNN.COM/2012/10/02/US/GALLERY/1960-DEBATES/

the

JHU POLITIK

MANAGING EDITOR Sathvik Namburar

ASSISTANT EDITORS Dylan EtzelShrenik Jain

CREATIVE DIRECTORDiana Lee

COPY EDITORZachary Schlosberg

WEBMASTERSasha Cea-Loveless

MARKETING & PUBLICITYChiara Wright

FACULTY ADVISOR Charlotte O’Donnell

HEAD WRITER Preston Ge

POLICY DESK EDITOR Arpan Ghosh

CAMPUS EDITORChristina Selby

MARYLAND EDITORDavid Hamburger

STAFF WRITERS Dylan CowitGeorge GulinoSina Fahimi HanzaeiAlejo Perez-Stable HusniCaroline LupetiniDarius MostaghimiCorey PayneYuyan PuDimitri SimesLinh Tran

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Mira Haqqani & Evan Harary

2 the JHU POLITIK • May 2016 • SPECIAL ISSUE SPRING 2016 SPECIAL ISSUE SPRING 2016 • May 2016 • the JHU POLITIK 3

468

1013

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

The Politics of Social MediaYuyan Pu ‘19

A Closer Look at the Era of the Digital ElectionShrenik Jain ‘18

If You Give a Candidate a Twitter...Dylan Etzel ‘17

Interview with Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of The National InterestDiva Parekh ’19

NAZIS IN THE NEWSDarius Mostaghimi ‘19


The Politics of Social MediaBy Yuyan Pu ‘19, Staff Writer

If you had to describe yourself in 140 characters or less, what would you say? That is one of the big questions the 2016 presidential candidates are trying

to answer. Since the beginning of the election cycle, the Republican and Democratic hopefuls found it easier to distinguish themselves by their personalities and values rather than their respective, overlapping policy platforms. Because both the newspapers and TV news outlets control the content of their respective medium, it is difficult for candidates to woo voters with their charm, especially when the traditional media sources have a different agenda. However, the new social networking landscape is giving candidates the freedom to shape their own narrative. In fact, this election cycle marks an unprecedented amount of social media activity used by campaigns to court voters.

Social media is unique because it’s fluid and ever changing, and the news it delivers is both instantaneous and momentary. The sheer volume of stories being told compete for the attention of the mass audience, and as a new strain of democracy, social media users collectively decide to share the information to their peers. It is a new form of democracy as citizens can engage in civic dialogue online that can be easily said, saved, and spread. There are no barriers for individuals to participate, save an email address and Internet access, and for better or for worse, anyone can circulate their opinions and ideas to the billions connected. With the development of mobile apps, access to social media is in the palms of almost every hand—constant updates, news, and messages now reach a dense network of people willing to listen. The number of followers or likes a candidate has does not translate into votes, but the millions of American social media users have grassroots potential greater than any community organizer can hope to create by knocking on doors.

The rise of social media in politics isn’t an unknown phenomenon; there have always been new technologies that politicians try to take advantage of to further their own agendas. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chat on the radio garnered public support for policies that Congress resisted, and John F. Kennedy’s suave demeanor on TV won him the presidency against the more experienced-

-but stiffer--Richard Nixon. The internet is the new frontier for political campaigning, and Barack Obama was the first to fully utilize the online networks to its full potential in his successful 2008 campaign. He was against two well-established, political giants: Hillary Clinton in the primaries and John McCain in the general election. What Obama lacked in name-recognition he made up for in organization—his campaign stringed together a cohesive movement by using multiple social media networks. People would give away their personal information through emails and Facebook to participate in discussions and rallies for Obama’s movement for change. This allowed his campaign to accumulate a database of potential donors that Obama later successfully tapped into with a record-breaking $600 million in fundraising.

Obama’s derived his success from his ability to build a cohesive brand, a skill the remaining 2016 presidential candidates are striving to achieve. Like how a company would market their products, a candidate’s brand creates, delivers, and communicates their values to citizens in hopes of high voter turnout. The process of political branding attaches an idea to the candidate, and as the candidates become political commodities during election season, their image is the best way to sell themselves to voters. Pictures shared on Instagram and stories posted on Facebook give candidates the emotional capital necessary to resonate with everyday Americans. One of the most important qualities to develop is trust, as the Pew Research Center found 16 percent of voters desired the most (out of nine traits) a candidate that is honest, just behind the standard qualities of willing to stand up for their principles and being a strong leader. Trust is hard for politicians to cultivate when they are so physically removed from their constituents to interact regularly, but being perceived as trustworthy is just as beneficial—another reason for candidates to run a value-based campaign. Social media also may be the best way to reach the youth vote, as evidenced by 66 percent of voters under thirty who voted Obama into the Oval Office in 2008. The Pew Research Center found that more than a third of 18 to 29 year olds find social media to be the most helpful source of information about the 2016 presidential election.


Even more importantly, 46 percent of the very likely primary voters have learned something about the election through social media. If broken down into parties, 74 percent of Millennial Democrats likely to vote in the primaries learn something about the election from social media in the past week they were sampled, a two digit lead over 50 percent of Millennial Republicans. The discrepancy between the parties can help explain why Sanders has been doing far better than expected in the primaries with 71 percent of the support from youth voters in the primaries according to research by Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Bernie Sanders, candidate for the Democratic nomination, has won an impressive 15 of 33 state primaries and 1,151 of 2,579 delegates as of April 21, 2016. This is in part due to the effective social media mobilization efforts of the Sanders campaign. The Senator does not have the establishment backing and the large-sum donors, but his poignant call for providing tuition-free college and

closing the income inequality gap, has curated a humble authenticity that his rival lacks. His populist message is simple, passionate, and so effective that Sanders’ social media is mostly driven by his supporters. They created the popular hashtag #FeeltheBern on Twitter that epitomizes the grassroots energy vital to many campaigns.

However, Trump is probably the most successful and interesting candidate on social media--he has shown an ability to, through tweets, mitigate the political repercussions of his words. His inflammatory social media posts feature countless ad hominem attacks against any candidate and political commentator who disagree with him, calling them anything from a dummy to a loser. Even when he claimed that Mexico purposefully sends over rapists to America and questioned just how stupid the entire state of Iowa is, these events only seem to boost his numbers at the polls. These incidents should have crucified any politician who violated normal political etiquette, but Donald Trump has built an entire campaign based on his ability to employ empty rhetoric. His comments aren’t particularly intended to show he is capable of being a good president, they are said to further promote his particular brand of nonconformity that voters respond to. The Trump anomaly demonstrates a noticeable trend of individuals supporting the candidate that matches their personal values rather than political views. His outspokenness is a common reason Trump’s supporters consider voting for him; not many would cite Trump’s half-baked policies of building a wall along the Mexican border or preventing Muslims from entering the country as reasons for their support. The success of the Donald Trump brand reveals that a good percentage of Americans care more about electing a candidate unafraid to say what he thinks than the actual words he is saying.

With the prevalence of wide social media use, 2016 is the most dramatic election cycle yet. Voters are able to immediately respond to the messages candidates put out in mass, appealing to users’ sentiments rather than policies. The fleeting nature of social media forces candidates to find bolder ways to stay relevant in the news, often in crowd-pleasing rhetoric and not actual substance. Social media platforms allow voters to participate in the election process, but it also allows unfounded and politically-charged claims to circulate the webs and causes conversation to deviate away from real policy issues. And despite these problems, the influence of social media in elections is inevitable as it is now creating, distributing, and responding to the political news.

“The Pew Research Center found that more than a third of 18 to 29 year olds find social media to be the most helpful source of information about the 2016 presidential election.”

{


If You Give a Candidate a Twitter...By Dylan Etzel ‘17, Assistant Editor

The presidential campaign cycle is a spectacle—that is not a secret. Until the primaries end, there remain two arenas or stages: Democrat and Republican.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have thrust upstage, each dominating the digital media, from tweet to tweet and website to website. The two candidates appear to have jettisoned opposite political visions—but their popularity in the media is no coincidence. The length of the campaign cycle, coupled with a quantifiable thirst for ratings and hits on the part of every news outlet, blogger, and Twitter user, have produced polarized media champions, Trump and Sanders, who wield an endless ability to out-liberal or out-conservative their competitors. Social media has enabled candidates to generate news instantly, endlessly, without jeopardizing their image. But has this power translated to votes? Not necessarily, though a fundamental shift has occurred, away from politics and towards philosophical polarity between conservatism and liberalism. Why, then, has Trump apparently prevailed while Sanders appears close to losing? The answer is not just “Superdelegates!” The answer might be that only one political party’s candidate can ride the media to primary victory. Political supporters have frequently mistaken social media popularity for the allegiance of primary delegates. However, likes, followers, shares, and retweets might only become votes when the social media race is

uncompetitive. No other Republican candidate has nearly as many Twitter followers as Donald Trump, but Sanders’ follower lead over Hillary Clinton was a mere 27,000 in early March – compared to Trump’s current near-seven million follower lead over rival Ted Cruz. However, even more important than his social media power is Trump’s conventional media supremacy.

Donald Trump has claimed a majority of all campaign stories. Donald Trump seized headlines on 104 of the 200 days after he announced his candidacy, when campaign-related stories led daily news coverage. One tenth of these stories directly involved Trump’s condemnation of the Republican Party establishment. Meanwhile, Trump has spent $10 million on advertising but received free media coverage worth $1.9 billion, according to the New York Times. Not all of these stories are positive, however; every major news outlet has published at least one article about Trump lying, misleading, or losing money. These stories do not stick onto Trump because they cannot generate as many hits. News outlets do not organize stories in favor of Trump—they organize them in favor of hits, or page views. The logic is simple: more past hits predicts more future hits, in a crude model. Relative to Trump’s lead over the Republican field in media coverage, any difference between Clinton and Sanders is negligible.

PHOTO COURTESY OF: CAR MICHAEL DIGITAL PROJECTS

Sanders has tried to employ this crucial difference between the Democratic and Republican primary races in recent weeks. He notably called for Clinton to apologize after Clinton claimed to reporters that Sanders had repeatedly lied about her during his campaign.

However, unlike non-Trump Republican candidates, Clinton has somewhat effectively managed her own media exposure. Clinton surged in social media under the trend #ApologizeForWhat?, even though the hashtag was also used to criticize her. Clinton has also received enormous media attention as a result of Republicans’ attacks, who have—perhaps mistakenly—criticized her on account of their assumption that she would be the Democratic nominee. On the other hand, this same effect has potentially reinforced Trump’s own power; liberals’ relentless criticism of Trump both via left-leaning news stations like MSNBC and sites like Mic.com have probably bolstered Trump’s exposure. The culmination of both of these “rivalry effects” may have helped to lock Trump and Clinton in voters’ minds, as liberals have assumed that Trump will be their opponent, and conservatives have assumed that Clinton will be their opponent. This rivalry could have, in turn, produced a protection mechanism for liberals who want to defend Clinton from media criticism, and likewise for conservatives who want the same for Trump. This may not, however, account for the supposed inattention afforded to Bernie Sanders.

Sanders’ supporters have coined the phrase “Bernie Blackout,” claiming that the mainstream media has left the successes of Bernie Sanders unaccounted for in the news. In fact, supporters staged a protest outside of the headquarters of CNN, labeling CNN the “Clinton News Network.” However, this has mostly demonstrated a sort of media defense mechanism for underdog candidates. A study by the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy found in their research sample that Clinton and Sanders received almost equal amounts of coverage from fourteen major news sources, but both were eclipsed by the media dominance of Donald Trump. In fact, the discrepancy very closely follows results of primaries; the marginal coverage of Clinton was highest in 2015, while she was winning big, and Sanders has pulled even in 2016 due to his primary success. However, the Pew Research Center found that 58% of Sanders supporters believed mainstream media had slighted Sanders, whereas only 14% of Clinton supporters felt the same way about Hillary Clinton’s coverage.

On the other hand, despite gaining in delegates, Ted Cruz has faced the worst media coverage discrepancy. Ted Cruz has probably failed to gain similar media attention to Trump because Trump was household name long before Cruz, but news stations have continued to embrace Trump for a more obvious reason: despite being less politically conservative, Trump discriminates more harshly. It is important to note that presently, the Republican Party and conservatives in general are more frequently associated with discriminatory policies by media outlets. Given this assumption, Cruz, who has more politically conservative views of illegal immigration than any other candidate, appears less philosophically conservative in comparison to Trump, who advocated an enforced ban on all Muslim immigration, legal or illegal. The media, and in turn, its audience, regards this policy proposal as racist because of its inattention to international codes of human rights and American civil rights. This divide is further highlighted by the fact that Trump gets more attention from the media for suggesting that the Mexican government build a physical wall than Ted Cruz does for suggesting tripling border security. Divides like these show how Cruz, considered among the most conservative elected politicians in Washington, has received less media attention for his conservative views of these two Republican candidates. The media, paper, digital and televised, has various incentives to afford more attention to candidates who politically polarize because they question the status quo and therefore, make for more unusual stories. On the other hand, everyone loves a winner. These two facets of coverage rationalize the current standing of media coverage of the presidential candidates. However, it is much more difficult to prove that this coverage produces votes – as opposed to the other way around. On the other hand, a campaign cycle without Trump may have left a void that Bernie Sanders could have filled. Certainly some of Sanders’ proposals are just as radical as Trump’s, but out of virtue appealing to Millennials’ prerogatives, such as free college tuition and dividing banks under the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions. The Millennial Generation is projected to outweigh the Baby Boomers in voting potential by 2020; maybe the stage is set for an Anti-Trump, a young, career grassroots political protestor. This candidate could benefit from being a true outsider, unlike Barack Obama in 2008. The candidate could focus a campaign on passing pro-gender spectrum legislation, supporting an expansion of government services—education, health care, and workers’ rights—and disentanglement from foreign conflicts.



NAZIS IN THE NEWSBy Darius Mostaghimi ‘19, Contributing Writer

Seconds after being released from handcuffs, Anders Breivik raised his right arm forward, erect and confident--performing, with seriousness,

the Nazi salute. The agitated crowd of reporters and photographers he points towards would broadcast this chilling, image among the headlines of many of the world’s leading news publications. Breivik, convicted of massacring seventy-seven people, mostly teenagers, in Norway in 2011, was in court to demand better prison conditions, despite Norway’s highly generous inmate treatment. The verdict of his suit remains to be seen. But what this almost frivolous suit did achieve, however, was to detonate Breivik’s neo-Nazi political statement within the mainstream press, garnering Breivik’s case attention he never otherwise would have received.

The media’s sensitivity to all things Nazi is not new. Whenever a Hitler or Nazi reference is found or said anywhere in the public sphere, it shoots out over and above its rightful level of priority into a higher level of media coverage. In no other world would a random clothing store in Cairo be known around the world unless if it was decked out with swastikas and plainly named “Hitler”.

The world’s fascination with Nazis comes from Hitler’s unique degree of evil. This evil was rivaled by no other in living memory, so much so that comparing anything with Nazi Germany inevitably leads to fallacy--no one today is that evil. This incomparability makes people disregard those who have made these comparisons as being foolish, and unnecessarily hyperbolic. The discussion, as a result, becomes polarized, with one side attached to the Nazi argument, and the other side backing away, possibly offended, from finding common ground. As comedian John Stewart put it, comparing someone to Nazis “demeans you, your opponent, and to be honest, it demeans Hitler. That guy worked too many years, too hard, to be that evil to have any Dick and Harry say, ‘You’re being Hitler’.”

Consequently, in political discourse, often comparing someone’s words or deeds with Nazism has almost always been treated by the media as being in poor taste. More often than not, the media ridicules the one charging another with a Nazi-like action far more than the person or idea being charged with Nazism. The thread of the previously substantive debate becomes whitewashed with outrage.

Over the past year, however, this de facto rule seems to have changed. The media still leaps at any chance to talk about Nazis, yet instead of pointing out the distastefulness of Nazi comparisons, the media has actually started making the comparisons itself. This change in tone has come about specifically due to the rise of one person: Donald Trump. Donald Trump’s comments, among others, deriding Mexicans as rapists and Muslims as terrorists, have attracted him an almost cult-like following. The actions of Trump and many of his followers at his rallies have induced comparisons to Nazis from much of the media. The media was eager to plaster a Trump supporter, Birgitt Peterson, when she ostentatiously gave the Nazi salute, to boost clicks to their web articles and ratings to their station. Similarly, when Trump called on his supporters to pledge their loyalty and their vote for him in the primaries, the media propagated images of the rally that made it seem as though his supporters were giving him the Nazi salute. The story headlines of these events, and Trump’s response, ranged from the plain--”Donald Trump Responds to Hitler Comparison” (CNN)-- to the silly--”#MemeOfTheWeek: Comparing Donald Trump to Hitler” (NPR)-- to the serious “This Donald Trump Rally Looks Like A Scene From Nazi Germany” (Huffington Post). Presumably, the media believes that it is doing a public service by making these comparisons, in that they see a relationship between some aspect of Nazi Germany and Trump’s campaign.


Despite whatever relationship they draw, the Nazi comparison inherently contains an abhorrent reference to the Holocaust, in which millions of Jews, homosexuals, Roma, and other disparaged groups were systematically slaughtered. Unless the comparison intends this heinous addendum, it will be perceived as insulting. The media, by even making these comparisons, still taps into the Nazi taboo that lies in people’s heads. If you call someone a Nazi, despite whatever objectively logical comparison you wish to make, they will nevertheless be seriously offended. Offended people tend to avoid interacting with those who make them feel demeaned, and will choose to bathe their views in places where their opinions will be validated, and contrary views be quashed. Arguably, it is this type of demeaning which isolates many diehard Trump supporters from trusting any mainstream news sources, instead choosing to trust Trump’s disingenuous authenticity and absurd claims.

Trump’s significant following demonstrates a failure of the media to educate the public. While the media may try to present the facts correctly, it does not matter if it insults the audience. It does not matter how long your reach is if the public shuts their ears to the facts out of spite. Although provocative headlines generate more clicks, higher ratings, and more revenue--succeeding in the advertisement department--they fail in the journalistic department, the goal of which is to inform. Therefore, do not insult the audience. Those insulted by these pithy comparisons will opt out of the traditional sources in favor of partisan outlets that may misleadingly reinforce their beliefs.

This sensationalist media in its failings leaves holes for people like Trump to exploit. As mentioned earlier, Trump supporters are alienated ever further into Trump’s camp as they serially disregard the media’s insultingly-presented facts that demean them. People like Donald Trump, not unaware of this pattern, exploit it, overstepping the line in the sand every so often in order to generate a media controversy, which will only present him as the victim of the establishment even more, hardening his loyalty base. This alienated base has become one of his strongest claims to political success.

The various media sources must thus ask themselves what audience they seek-- a subset of the population, or the whole? Several partisan news sources exist today, and of course they appeal to specific subsets. However, if they are a New York Times or CNN and attempt to answer a broader audience, then they must change how they frame the news. The substance does not necessarily have to change, but the media must remove the unabashedly overboard judgments, such as comparing Trump to a Nazi, and let the facts journalists pride themselves on speak for themselves. Journalists ought to create a conducive environment from which the public can draw sound and logical conclusions, free from Nazi-induced emotional counterfactuals. If the public can decide for themselves without the media shouting Hitlerlian judgments at them, they will make fewer reactive, temperamental decisions, and more calmer, rational ones.

PHOTO COURTESY OF: HTTP://UNAM-ECCLESIAM.BLOGSPOT.COM/2008_09_01_ARCHIVE.HTML


By Shrenik Jain ‘18, Assistant Editor

PHOTO COURTESY OF: MARISELA GOMEZ, HTTP://WWW.MARISELABGOMEZ.COM/

Technology companies have acquired power by controlling society’s access to the media during political campaigns. Social media has disrupted

the primary means by which the average person obtains information. 78% of the entire US population now has a social network profile, and social media’s influence is only growing. The platforms of online discussion have matured with this rapid rise in penetration, from anonymous internet messaging forums to billion dollar behemoths with agendas in place and investors to appease. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and the like have realized just how exponentially easier they have made it to spread a message, and are now employing a variety of strategies to sell this power to the highest bidder. This has direct ramifications on democracy as we know it. Already, we can see how social media has transformed how campaigns are run, empowering some surprising fringe groups and leaving some traditionally influential ones in the dust. Moving forward, we need to consider

the ambitions and ramifications of those that actually provide ubiquitous digital communication platforms.

Social media as a political tool had its breakthrough moment in the 2008 Presidential Election. A study from the Martins Centre notes that “Barack Obama’s 2008 US presidential campaign has often been described as the first electoral campaign in which the use of social media had a decisive impact. The core of the web-based campaign was a well-designed, versatile and dynamic website, “my.barackobama.com”. The study then went on the cite clinical psychological evidence explaining the particular relevance of social media, specifically the fact that voting decisions are seldom the result of ‘one-step’ conversation, and that social media offers a new means to discuss with “opinion leaders, colleagues, friends and acquaintances who can either consolidate or weaken the voter’s opinion”.

PHOTO COURTESY OF: SOCIALMEDIAOBSERVATORY.COM

A Closer Look at the Era of the Digital Election


The political groups enjoying the most success today are on the radical side. In an article of The Economist examining the European Parliament, fringe right and left wing parties were more both more popular and prolific than ruling centrist coalitions. For example, the average Facebook message posted by the UKIP, an Eurosceptic party in the UK, averaged 4,000 “likes” on Facebook, double that of the much larger and ruling conservative groups. Social media platforms allow these fringe groups to oftentimes react more quickly to events than incumbents, and they tend to be much more prolific than centrist parties. This has allowed fringe groups easy access to a large audience - MEPs in Europe of Nations and Freedom, an anti-EU group, have their tweets retweeted twenty eight times on average, compared to six for mainstream politicians. These fringe, often radical groups, are not voicing their platforms in a void. A smart insights study found that internet users now make up 87% of the US population, with social media being the most common reason for internet use. The same Economist article also cited studies that indicated that the presences of politically charged tweets were correlated with increased voter turnout in the 2012 congressional elections. Overwhelming adoption of social media platforms in developed nations means that oftentimes ‘standard’ media outlets such as newspapers and TV channels often follow the happenings of social

media rather than the other way around. The rise of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate indicates that traditionally ‘fringe’ groups are now wisely using social media to reach out to followers and gain support. While ‘likes’ may not directly translate to ballots cast, the lightning speed with which social media can spread sentiment makes it very suited to reactionary groups. More than directly convincing others of their beliefs, there is evidence that the dominance of more radical political groups on social media has the effect of polarizing previously centrist platforms and candidates. Posts that get the most traction are simple, unambiguous, and more and more likely to be insulting in nature. Many candidates mistake Twitter outcry for public opinion, and then turn to ‘viral’ attack ads aimed at riling up one’s base, rather than engaging moderates. While social media allows millions who otherwise would not have a voice to communicate openly and get grassroots initiatives off the ground, the establishment’s neglect of social media is polarizing and distorting the entire political landscape. Politicians and governments view social media as a one trick pony to an election victory, and need to recognize that online platforms have created a persistent space for interactions that can be utilized to give governments more dynamic communications with their own citizens. While centrists in the US such as Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton have used social media to promote their campaigns, the government as a whole is severely lacking in its use of social media to actually inform citizens on relevant policies and happenings. The result of this is the social media space becoming a simple market for votes, with issues condensed into sentence bites attacking the current way things are done, creating good publicity for those running for election but making the government itself seem even more sluggish and unresponsive.

Advocating for greater involvement of governments on social media seems to make sense. Why allow fringe reactionaries alone to capitalize on the low hanging fruit of attacking the establishment, when governments now have a consistent and direct medium to inform and educate citizens on actual policies designed to help them? Facebook’s recent iterations have added many features that make it easy to manage the page for a company or institution. But just because these sites are not regulated by the government itself, does not necessarily mean they are totally open.

“Voting decisions are seldom the result of ‘one-step’ conversation.”{

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE


However, digital spaces are trending towards monetization. Publically traded tech behemoths such as Alphabet (formerly Google) and Facebook are driven by a desire to create shareholder value. While one may think of self-driving cars and fancy glasses at the mention of Alphabet, the company has risen to become the world’s most valuable by market cap through revenues almost entirely driven by advertisements on its search engine. Facebook also makes over 80% of its revenue from direct advertisements and the sale of user metadata. This, combined with the market’s harsh punishment of tech companies that fail to successfully monetize (e.g. Twitter), shows that from a business perspective, success in social media comes from properly controlling the content given to users. Alphabet alone spent around $17 million in lobbying, and other Silicon Valley firms are following suite. Critics complain that these technology companies are now behaving as traditional corporations and buying influence, while others say that these companies are merely attempting to educate the government and public on the true nature of the relatively new space that is the Internet. Either way, these companies recognize their stakes in the issue of politics and government as a whole, and are becoming increasingly committed to making their voices heard.

The internet is currently grappling with the issue of net neutrality, which has the potential to drastically change the online landscape by giving providers the ability to treat content on the internet unequally, restricting some sites, and allowing others. Facebook has pushed the envelope with this issue by directly challenging existing regulations for net neutrality set forth by governments. A notable example of this is the recent debate over Facebook’s Free Basics plan in India. Facebook’s plan to offer limited internet access, in which specific sites were deemed accessible over the rest of the web, to poorer Indians has currently been declared illegal by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. Despite this decision in India, Free Basics has connected 19 million people online in other locations across the globe, and Facebook’s advocacy, which included a massive PR campaign and conversations between Zuckerberg and Modi, shows that those who maintain and develop social media platforms intend on having a greater role on its content going forward.

Social media is changing how people communicate, and that change shows no sign of slowing down. Already we can see examples of how social media changes the traditional nature of campaigning and has a direct effect on how candidates are elected into office. Currently the inflexibility of the political establishment has allowed more fringe parties to reap the benefit of social media and secure disproportionate influence in government and policy. Furthermore, the tech companies that provide such platforms have growing ambitions and burgeoning purses. The network of moving parts that includes the people, the government, and large technology companies, is changing with incredible speed. It is critical to lay the foundations on a standard for how these different stakeholders are to interact moving forward, to ensure that we don’t squander a chance to make democracy more accessible by engaging billions.

12 the JHU POLITIK • May 2016 • SPECIAL ISSUE SPRING 2016 SPECIAL ISSUE SPRING 2016 • May 2016 • the JHU POLITIK 13CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

INTERVIEW WITH JACOB HEILBRUNN,Editor of The National Interest

By Dimitri Simes ‘19, Staff Writer

Politik: What is your assessment of how the media covers foreign affairs?

PG: There is no single media. There is the mass media, like the New

York Times and the Washington Post, which did not do as good a job as it did several decades ago. This is partly because foreign affairs only sells episodically to the American public. There has to be a major event or crisis to interest people, otherwise it simply stays off the radar. Then there are the publications and websites that are devoted to analyzing foreign trends, like Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and, if I may say so, The National Interest. I think there the coverage is more intense and detailed than it has ever been.

Politik: The media obviously plays a significant role in shaping U.S. public opinion, but to what extent does the media influence American foreign policy? Since you drew up the distinction between the mass media and more focused media, could you explain to which extent both of these mediums affect U.S. foreign policy?

PG: I think I’d have to take a little bit of issue with the question because if you look at the phenomenon of Donald Trump and the blunt way in which he has attacked establishment certitudes about American foreign policy, I’m not sure the media plays as great a role in shaping public perceptions as your question might suggest. Trump and his followers were largely ignored by the media, but they have now sparked a divisive battle inside the Republican Party about the extent to which the Iraq War was a colossal blunder and the extent to which America should focus on preserving Cold War alliances with Europe and Asian countries. The question is whether the media leads or follows public perception of what is taking place abroad. Another example would be the reaction inside the United States to the terrorism that took place in San Bernardino County by Islamic radicals. That sparked a wave of fear and apprehension in America, as did the more recent attacks in Belgium. I don’t think that the American media was trying to stem alarm about these attacks. I think there was a gut level response among Americans, which was that they are under siege. My suspicion is that much of the mainstream media, the journalists who occupy positions in the media, would dispute that notion.

Politik: So it could be said that the mass media less shapes public opinion and more reflects it?

JH: I think they scramble to catch up with it. None of these questions are new. Walter Lippman wrote about this, for example. He was very skeptical of the ability of the media to report reliably about what was taking place abroad and he thought that it often misinforms the

public.

Politik: Is this also the case with more focused media like Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and The National Interest?

JH: I think that Foreign Affairs is an establishment journal who isn’t really focused on picking up trends in the American electorate. Foreign

Policy is somewhat more nimble. Of the three, The National Interest is probably the closest to the ground when it comes to covering domestic political developments. There are also a variety on the liberal and progressive side, smaller journals like The American Prospect, which were more attuned to the emergence of Bernie Sanders than say The New York Times and the Washington Post. I think the media was caught just as flat footed by the rise of Sanders as it was with the meteoric ascent of Donald Trump.

Politik: So in a certain sense, some of these more focused forms of media may actually have a better understanding of public opinion than the mainstream media?

JH: Absolutely! That is because they are often attuned to slices of the electorate rather than trying to look at the biggest picture possible. If you have a magazine which has an ideological mission, like National Review, then it’s going to be very intensely focused on certain candidates. While it was pretty dismissive of Trump, it has been pretty close to Ted Cruz all along. So they may have closer connections to those campaigns. Conservatives often accuse the New

York Times of bias, but my impression of the mass media is that it is more often than not simply struggling to comprehend ideological movements. These movements are so far off its radar screen, that it isn’t necessarily biased against them, but simply unable to grasp that people could hold beliefs that are antithetical to the political mainstream. Now again, in this election cycle, that’s starting to change because the mass media has recognized that it was caught flat footed by the developments in both the Democratic and Republican parties. For example, it’s interesting that the Washington Post has now gone out of its way to hire journalists who are more affiliated with the conservative movement. So there is a recognition that they have to become more adept at assessing and writing about unusual political trends.

Politik: Is it fair to say that if the mainstream media has a minimal impact on public opinion, it has even less influence on government policy?

Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of The National Interest, a foreign affairs magazine, and author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise

of the Neocons. In the past, he served as senior editor at The New Republic and was a member of the Los Angeles Times editorial board.


JH: I think the way it can influence policy is in reflecting what the electorate thinks or believes. But is the Obama administration influenced by the constant spate of editorials from the Washington

Post denouncing it for being too passive in foreign policy? No. I think the impact of these editorials is nugatory.

Politik: In relation to that, you mentioned the rise of Donald Trump. Do you think that his ascendancy along with that of Bernie Sanders has changed the way the media operates, the way it approaches certain subjects? If so, how?

JH: I think Trump has had a healthy effect. Initially, the mainstream media dismissed him as a buffoon. Since then, however, it has begun to recognize that even if Trump himself is a somewhat outlandish figure, the issues that he’s addressed and the concerns he’s raised, in particular when it comes to the anger of the white working class voter, justified or not, can no longer be ignored. He has also had a healthy effect in reminding America’s allies that they shouldn’t take the United States for granted. So I think Trump has upended the debate and forced the media out of its complacency.

In some ways, there is overlap between Trump and Sanders as far as American foreign policy commitments abroad and posture towards Israel are concerned. Trump has focused on the demise of the white working class and Sanders essentially appeals to many of the the same voters. He too is skeptical of free trade for example, which another issue Trump and Sanders have brought to the fore. His greatest contribution to the discussion, and the most popular stance amongst his base, is the idea of Wall Street constituting an exploitative and corrupt elite class in America. Both Sanders and Trump represent a populist revolt against elites.

Politik: There are undoubtedly a lot of Hopkins students who will read this interview and who want to work in the media after graduating. What should they know about this business and what advice would you give them?

JH: Beware. It’s a very tough field to enter. But the greatest opportunities are obviously in web publications and social media. Print media continues to be a dying enterprise.


Documents

Spring 2016 Special Issue