The relentless media is searching for ways to make sure another Trump never gets into the Oval Office ever again. Politico thinks they found one solution and that is to do something about the local news media and the so-called “news deserts”.
Politico chronicles the rise of so-called “news deserts” throughout the country in an article by Shawn Musgrave and Matthew Nussbaum. They contend that where there is an absence of strong local media, Trump thrived and defeated Hillary Clinton. They believe that the void was filled by social media and “partisan news outlets.”
A news desert is defined by Politico as “places with minimal newspaper subscriptions, print or online.”
It must be noted here that people don’t care about the local news in a number of areas. They don’t want it, thus they don’t subscribe. Local newspapers are struggling to survive as a result.
A response from Nieman Lab says the Politico article doesn’t show what it claims to show. “The presidential race has been the dominant turf of national media for literally decades.”
Local news just isn’t the go-to place for national news, especially with the Internet so readily accessible.
As Tammy Bruce wrote, “Politico’s claim of a news desert is based in the argument that only a select few legacy news outlets, which also provided columnists and news stories to local newspapers, are real, actual news.” It’s simply more arrogance from the legacy media who are finding themselves in competition and is intent on driving it out.
This story should serve as a cautionary tale. The authors confused correlation and causation. The truth is people in smaller rural communities are more likely to share Trump’s views and believe in his agenda. They will vote for him for that reason, not because of an imaginary “news desert”.
This is a story with lots of factual information that comes to the wrong conclusion based on misuse of information.