top of page
Writer's pictureBahar Almasi

From Headlines to Heartlands: The Defeat of Media Messaging in 2024



Celebrity and Media Support for Harris

In the 2024 presidential election, Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign received substantial backing from prominent figures in Hollywood, the music industry, and mainstream media outlets. High-profile celebrities, including Meryl Streep, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Chris Evans, Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, and Bruce Springsteen, publicly endorsed Harris, aiming to mobilize younger audiences and fans. Additionally, influential publications such as The New York Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Houston Chronicle formally endorsed Harris, praising her qualifications and policy positions (Pew Research Center, 2024).


Media’s Role in Shaping Harris’s Public Image


Beyond traditional news outlets, Harris also benefited from appearances and favorable mentions on popular talk shows and late-night programs. Hosts like Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Kimmel, and The Daily Show cast her in a positive light, often highlighting her policies and framing her as a forward-thinking, progressive leader. This favorable treatment contributed to a broader media landscape that supported Harris, with television networks such as MSNBC, CNN, and ABC providing extensive coverage. Shows like The Rachel Maddow Show and Anderson Cooper 360° emphasized her leadership and vision, thereby reinforcing her appeal among liberal and younger demographics (Pew Research Center, 2024; Media Tenor, 2024; AllSides, 2024).


Bias in Media Coverage


Mainstream media coverage exhibited a notable bias, evident in the differences in tone and focus between Harris and her opponent, Donald Trump. According to Pew Research, 60% of stories about Harris were positive, with an emphasis on her leadership and policies, while only 30% of Trump’s coverage was positive, with much of his portrayal centered on controversies (Pew Research Center, 2024). Similarly, Media Tenor found that Harris’s media representation was 60% positive, 25% neutral, and 15% negative, in contrast to Trump’s 30% positive, 20% neutral, and 50% negative coverage (University of Rochester, 2024). Analysts suggest that "scandal fatigue" may have normalized Trump’s controversies, leading media and audiences to regard these issues as background noise (Wall Street Journal, 2024). Some commentators also highlighted gender bias in Harris's coverage, noting a focus on her appearance and likability—traits less emphasized in male candidates (Wall Street Journal, 2024).


Audience Interpretation and Stuart Hall's Theory


Stuart Hall’s encoding-decoding theory provides a framework for understanding audience responses to Kamala Harris's 2024 campaign. According to Hall, audiences interpret media messages in three ways: dominant-hegemonic, negotiated, and oppositional readings. In a dominant-hegemonic reading, audiences align fully with the intended media message. Negotiated readings involve partial agreement, with audiences adapting the message based on personal beliefs. Oppositional readings involve rejecting the message entirely, often resulting in interpretations that challenge or oppose the original intent.


The Challenge of Oppositional Readings


Applying Hall's framework to Harris’s campaign raises questions about shifting audience engagement with media. As election results are finalized, a closer analysis is required to identify which social sectors interpret mainstream media messages oppositionally and whether this trend is reversible. Donald Trump’s landslide victory, despite extensive media criticism, suggests that a significant portion of the public now distrusts media narratives, perceiving them as biased or dismissive of their concerns.

This oppositional reading is frequently observed in authoritarian regimes, where citizens are skeptical of state-controlled media. For example, citizens in the former Soviet Union, contemporary Iran, and Venezuela under Maduro often read state media critically, seeking alternative sources to counter perceived propaganda. Alarmingly, similar trends are emerging in the West, where increased media censorship may be contributing to public skepticism. For instance, 62% of Americans feel the news is "censored" (Pew Research Center, 2023), 54% of the UK public believes media freedom has declined (Ofcom, 2023), and Canadian government agencies have increased content takedown requests by 30% over the past year (Canadian Journal of Communication, 2024).


A Call to Reassess Media Censorship and Public Trust


The rising trend of media censorship in the West is driving public distrust and fostering oppositional interpretations, which threatens democratic discourse and erodes trust in public institutions. If left unchecked, this divide between media and the public may weaken the foundation of an informed citizenry.

To address this, policymakers, media leaders, and citizens must prioritize transparency and accountability. Governments should protect media independence from corporate or political influence, while media organizations need to balance reporting to rebuild public trust. Moreover, critical media literacy and open debate should be promoted to empower individuals in assessing information accurately.

Strengthening these standards will help bridge divisions and ensure that media can support a healthy, democratic society by preserving an open, balanced public discourse.


References


AllSides. (2024). Media bias in the 2024 election cycle: A closer look at coverage trends. AllSides.

Canadian Journal of Communication. (2024). Governmental influence and media censorship in Canada. Canadian Journal of Communication.

Media Tenor. (2024). Analysis of media tone in 2024 U.S. presidential campaigns. Media Tenor.

Ofcom. (2023). Media freedom and public perception: Annual report. Ofcom.

Pew Research Center. (2023). Public perceptions of media censorship. Pew Research Center.

Pew Research Center. (2024). Media coverage analysis of the 2024 presidential election. Pew Research Center.

0 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page