More than Sane: Rethinking Our Relationship to Media Post-Trump II
As we move ever closer to Donald Trump’s inauguration and his second term as President, it seems unlikely that U. S. politics will become less polarized. Yet, while political figures often take the blame for division, Alicia Juarrero reminds us that context matters. Our media environment, more than any single leader, shapes the way we think, act, and respond to the world around us. For Christians, this calls for a reorientation—not just to sanity, but to a theological perspective in a digital age.
While media has always been a part of our overarching context, the way we have become participants in and with the information has changed radically in so much as it has become increasingly ubiquitous and interactive. Yet, there were signs along the way that the media could be used as a tool to advance or diminish the common good. As I note in Thinking Christian, “The digital age and its tools, then, are not so much the culprit, but the mechanism by which our collective mis-thinking regarding a number of matters has become more evident.”
In essence, there are common challenges that span the “analog,” “digital,” and now “AI-powered” ages. We cannot ignore the consequences of such contextual changes. They will likely require us, as Christians, to adjust and adapt so that we remain connected to reality rather than falling into the delusional political world driven by our media use. As Russel Moore recently notes, “The constant flow of (real and fake) information spikes our adrenaline, activating our ‘lizard brains.’ We throw our limbic systems into the sense of having to support or to oppose something—when, much of the time, there’s actually nothing we can do about it.”
To highlight some of the challenges media poses, we may look briefly at three critics: Edward R. Murrow (1958), Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1978), and Carl Bernstein (1992). Spanning multiple decades, these three individuals identified a shared concern: the transformation of the media from a means of connecting people to reality to a tool used for distraction and manipulation. Their insights remain relevant today as digital platforms have amplified some of the tendencies each of them recognized in the media of their day.
What Can Three Media Critics From the Past Teach Us about Today’s Digital Challenges?
1. Murrow’s “Wires and Lights in a Box” (1958)
In 1958, veteran broadcaster Edward R. Murrow expressed his concerns with the technologies of his day. Murrow recognized the challenge of merging “show business, advertising, and news,” highlighting the influences of political and economic interests. For instance, he suggests that advertisers are not simply buying “six minutes devoted to his commercial message” but “determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour” so that “if he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologists will continue to make winsome speeches about given the public what it wants or letting the public decide.” Popularity, in other words, replaces wisdom or, perhaps worse, becomes wisdom.
2. Solzhenitsyn’s “A World Split Apart” (1978)
In “A World Split Apart” (1978), Alexander Solzhenitsyn critiques the Western Press noting, “Unrestrained freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership, because newspapers mostly transmit in a forceful and emphatic way those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and that general trend.” He goes on to suggest that the Western press justifies its sensationalism through “the slogan ‘Everyone is entitled to know everything.’” Solzhenitsyn, however, sees this as “a false slogan of a false era” because it has overtaken the more valuable ‘’right of people not to know, not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk.”
3. Bernstein’s “The Idiot Culture” (1992)
Bernstein’s critique of the media highlights themes similar to those of Murrow and Solzhenitsyn. He sees the demands for “speed and quantity” as poor substitutes for “thoroughness and quality, accuracy and content.” In Bernstein’s views, reporting has surrendered substance so that “the really significant trends in journalism have not been toward a commitment to the best and the most complex obtainable version of the truth, not toward building a new journalism based on serious, thoughtful reporting.” Journalism has given up its role in challenging the culture. It no longer “stretches and informs” readers and consumers. Murrow’s concern about radio and television programming has, according to Bernstein, been realized.
Bernstein also resonates with the challenge Solzhenitsyn noted in 1978. Bernstein suggests that the sensationalized forms of journalism in his day lean back on the First Amendment, concluding, “In a free country, we are free for trash, too.” While the people were still free not to listen or consume, the media outlets and platforms of Bernstein’s day didn’t make it easy. Bernstein notes, “On the day that Nelson Mandela returned to Soweto and the allies of World War II agreed to the unification of Germany, the front pages of many ‘responsible’ newspapers were devoted to the divorce of Donald and Ivana Trump.” Despite being “probably the most powerful of all our institutions today,” the media “They—or more precisely, we—have abdicated our responsibility, and the consequence of our abdication is the spectacle, and the triumph, of the idiot culture.
3 Keys to Avoid Being Shaped by Modern Media Narratives
After a contentious election season, it seems likely that we will be entering a similarly contentious political environment. The so-called “mainstream” or “liberal” media will likely offer the worst possible spin on anything Trump does in office, while “conservative” media will be more generous. In between, there will surely be those who attempt to offer more nuance. While it may be tempting to think that, as Christians, we only need to be reasonable, our first priority is to be theological…to be Christian first.
Being Christian first is made challenging because some of the tendencies of media have been amplified in our current digital age.
1. Stay Grounded through Discipleship
First, while it has always been possible to read just one newspaper or listen to one news broadcast, the proliferation of “channels” via independent content creators and the platforms that host them likely reduces the overlap in the information each of us receives. Even if we are all aware of a given event (e.g., the re-election of Donald Trump), we don’t know it ‘in fact’ but from a particular point of view that seeks to reinforce or reorient the way we understand the event. This lack of overlap creates problems because society begins to lose a common center.
On a societal level, that creates a number of problems; however, societies will divide over time regardless. Christians, however, are coordinated through discipleship. The individual members of the body of Christ and the body as a whole learn to live under Christ’s authority so that we experience peace, repentance, forgiveness, and generosity. Without Christian discipleship, we can fall apart as easily as the world. The solution, then, to the potential separation and isolation media tends to cultivate is not the elimination of media (thought they may also be wise), but a recommitment to discipleship.
2. Focus on Glorifying God
Second, sensationalism has become the norm. We are asked to give our attention to matters over which we have little control or influence. In giving our attention, we are also urged to express indignation and outrage. Calm, thoughtful conversations may not be impossible, but they are discouraged.
When I see Christians taking a defensive stance, I generally appreciate their passion. At the same time, our aggravation doesn’t necessarily proclaim the gospel. We need to make our first thoughts less about the situation presented to us in the media or even the actual situations facing our nation and more about pointing to and glorifying the Triune God. Nations will fall. Political parties will shift positions. Such matters are not trivial, but they are not ultimate either. As such, we must seek to bear witness to the God we serve, even if that means losing some political battle.
3. Step Away From the Noise
Finally, though Murrow was concerned with the influence of business interests on media, it isn’t clear that he could have anticipated the deepening linkage between advertising and our attention. In his day, televisions weren’t portable. You couldn’t carry a functionally inexhaustible amount of content in your pocket. Radio and television were still captivating, but not in the way the small glowing rectangles to which we seem inextricably attached are today.
Christians need to recognize that giving attention is a theological act. When we scroll “mindlessly” on our phones, it has become our focus when God is to be our focus. We need to step away from technology and media as Jesus often stepped away from the crowds following him during his ministry. We need time to pray, study, and reorient ourselves to life in God’s presence.
Keep Christ at the Center of Your Witness
The media, even Christian media, tends to bury the theological lead. It is always tempting to legitimize our own pursuits and concerns by finding the right Bible verse or claiming to be pursuing justice. Yet, if we pursue justice and righteousness while leaving God behind, what have we accomplished? If “our side” wins, does that mean that God gets the glory? It isn’t clear to me that it does.
In today’s media environment, it can be easy to lose perspective amidst all the information. For Christians to offer faithful testimony, we need to remain focused on the primary task set before us: being and making disciples of Jesus Christ. As we learn to live under Christ’s authority and teach others to do the same, we will be in a better position to avoid the trappings of media and to show the world the difference Christ makes.
Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/Brothers91
