How the media, in the digital age, help fuel a climate of anger and violence

The media are part of the problem.

What problem? Well, theres a long list. Take your pick.

In the pre-digital era, I used to say that encouraged inflammatory rhetoric by lawmakers because so many of them wanted to break through the static and get their sound bite on the air.

Things are a thousand times more with the rise of podcasts, group chats, Snapchat, TikTok, X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, YouTube and Substack. But the principle remains the same. How, amid this deafening noise, do you get heard?

Its a much angrier atmosphere now, and some attribute that to . But he didnt create this environment, he just exploited it, with constant attacks on journalists, political opponents and a retribution campaign against his enemies. He is also on the receiving end of a decade of denunciations depicting him as a Nazi, fascist, dictator, danger to democracy and not a very nice person.

Another major shift is that there are so many more journalistic stars now, from legacy media to online influencers, to the point that some lawmakers have quit (or been retired) to become network and cable contributors, even anchors.

Thats why this essay in the Atlantic, by Michael Scherer, is so revealing.

Scherer, who previously reported for Time and the Washington Post, says he feels “complicit” in the new world of endless attacks. He wrote this after attending the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner that erupted in gunfire in the third assassination attempt against President Trump – and unleashed a torrent of comments from idiots who claimed the assault was somehow “staged,” though we watched it unfold on live television. 

He listed a spate of political murders, from to the CEO of United Healthcare, and sees the cycle of political violence getting worse.

Scherer once co-authored an article about Trump comparing himself to Napoleon, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, with no hint of political violence, that triggered a wave of obscenity-filled attacks against the president. 

Heres the formula: “The more a story taps an emotional vein—usually outrage or grievance—the more traffic it will tend to attract from social media. I am in the business of writing long and complicated stories full of nuance. Yet I am at the mercy of platforms that want to turn my words into cortisol and endorphins, often for people who will never click the link to read what I wrote. Regardless of my intentions, my work can fuel the false division I despise.”

And arent most journalists guilty of this to some degree, whether its squeezing a short line onto the platform previously known as Twitter, or slapping a tendentious headline on a podcast? Thats part of the escalation. 

Meanwhile, Kash Patels lawsuit may be taking a troubling turn.

MS NOW reported yesterday that there is concern among FBI agents that the bureau has “launched a criminal leak investigation” aimed at the Atlantic journalist who wrote the offending piece, Sarah Fitzpatrick. 

That would be strange, because the story contained no classified information. It was a negative portrayal of his conduct in office and alleged drinking habits. This would, if accurate, mean that Patel was in charge of the alleged probe while pursuing a $250-million suit against the magazine.

A bureau spokesman denied the story, saying: “This is completely false. No such investigation like this exists and the reporter you mention is not being investigated at all.” 

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE’S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY’S HOTTEST STOR