Fractured Platforms, Unified Narratives
Examining the 2024 election through the lens of storytelling and identity politics, the migration from X to Bluesky, a CITAP book review on January 6th & more.
Emotional Resonance and Missed Connections: Tressie McMillan Cottom on the 2024 Election
Tressie McMillan Cottom appeared on The Daily Show shortly after the election to explain Trump’s appeal and the Democrats' missteps in the 2024 election. She attributed Trump’s success to his ability to tap into voters’ underlying needs and fears. Trump, she argues, is particularly skilled at understanding “what people really want, not what they say they want,” offering them a sense of winning and protection, even without concrete policies. This emotional connection, she explained, resonates more with voters than policy details.
Tressie criticized the Democrats for assuming that fear of Trump would drive voters to their side, observing that “most Americans just want a really good story about how their lives are going to be better.” She highlights how Trump’s story was simple and memorable: “Things are bad. I will make it good.” This clear narrative, she argues, was more compelling than the Democrats’ complex, policy-heavy approach. Tressie also noted that Trump effectively used “identity politics,” but for a white identity, suggesting that Democrats must similarly engage the identities and desires of their base if they want to resonate with voters in the future.
The Democrats keep thinking they can govern with PowerPoints.
Tressie also appeared on the podcast “What Now? with Trevor Noah” to discuss the results of the 2024 election and explain Trump’s 2024 election success. Tressie argued that Trump “understood intuitively that what people want is they want to feel good,” offering a clear, reassuring narrative that spoke to voters’ need for stability and victory. This emotional appeal, Tressie suggested, was far more effective than the Democrats’ complex policy pitches. “The Democrats keep thinking they can govern with PowerPoints,” she remarked, noting that voters crave simple, direct answers rather than exhaustive explanations.
Tressie also criticized the Democrats’ “we’re not Trump” strategy, calling it “fake humility” that alienated voters. She pointed out that many Americans felt their anxieties—about issues like immigration, the economy, or cultural change—were dismissed as unworthy of serious discussion. “If you’re going to speak to people’s fears, at least acknowledge them first,” she explained, emphasizing that voters need to feel seen and respected. This perceived dismissiveness, she argued, cost Democrats critical trust and credibility, allowing Trump to step into the void with a message that, while often divisive, gave people a sense of being heard.
In The New York Times article “The Way Harris Lost Will Be Her Legacy,” Tressie reflected on Kamala Harris’s historic yet unsuccessful bid for the presidency, examining the complexities of running as a Black woman in American politics. Harris presented a moderate, law-and-order platform aimed at appealing to a broad spectrum, including white identity voters, which muted the transformative power of her candidacy.
But this election was about enthusiasm and diagnoses. The long-term trajectory of our country has not changed. Millions of middle-class people feel working-class. These Americans have no way to describe what is happening to them. Is it the borders? Is it supposedly dangerous cities? The loss of God in the classroom? Cultural Marxism? Wokeism? Inflation? Tariffs? Women?
Nature abhors a vacuum. But political opportunists thrive in vacuums.
This election was about who told a better story about the fundamentals without promising anything to fix those fundamentals. That is the sweet spot for an opportunist like Trump and his party. Sell everything, promise nothing. Keep them coming back for more.
Tressie observed that while American politics is steeped in identity politics, white identity remains the unspoken center, which Harris’s campaign attempted to accommodate. Tressie discussed how this attempt to balance embracing and downplaying identity ultimately left Harris’s message feeling ambiguous and prevented her from connecting fully with voters looking for bold change, noting, “If you have to hide the light of your race and gender behind the metaphorical bushes to come vaguely close to being the first Black female president, then identity still matters very much indeed.” More broadly, Tressie reflected on the role of Black women in leadership, who are often called upon in moments of crisis but without the resources or support to succeed, a reality that Harris’s campaign echoes. Tressie concluded that while Harris’s campaign did not achieve its historic goal, it underscored the importance and resilience of Black institutions and raised questions about the kind of political change Black women might lead in the future.
In a New York Times discussion on “The Opinions,” columnists Lydia Polgreen and Tressie analyzed the Democrats' strategic missteps in the 2024 election, which led to significant Republican gains. They argued that Democrats misread the electorate’s desire for substantial change, overlooking the power of clear, emotionally resonant narratives like those offered by Donald Trump. Instead of addressing deep-seated voter anxieties about economic and social instability, Democrats relied on moderate, incremental policy solutions. They noted that this cautious approach failed to inspire, leaving a vacuum that Trump filled with a “return to greatness” message that strongly appealed to working-class and rural voters across racial lines.
Tressie delved into why the Democrats’ narrative fell short, emphasizing that Trump gave voters an “articulate story about toxic anger.” She argued that Democrats need to reclaim “a righteous anger” that connects with voters’ frustrations but directs it constructively rather than divisively. Tressie dismissed economic anxiety as an oversimplification, stating instead that “there is a deep wellspring of anxiety about the fundamentals of American social institutions not being sustainable, not being predictable.” She criticized the Democrats for shying away from populist messaging, observing that they took the wrong lesson from past elections by dismissing the left’s call for bold change: “We’re going to retreat into this tinkering around the edges because when we presented a grand vision, America rejected it.”
The Election and a Fragmented Media Environment
In “Who’s the real loser in the 2024 election? Mainstream media”, author Simon Montlake examines how traditional media's role in political campaigns has diminished, especially in the 2024 election. With declining trust in mainstream outlets, candidates are increasingly turning to digital platforms and influencers to reach audiences. Donald Trump relies heavily on podcasts and alternative media to communicate his message, bypassing conventional news sources.
As Daniel Kreiss explained, “The legacy media simply does not have the reach and influence that it once did, but no outlet does.” Trump’s appeal lies in his consistent narrative that resonates in a fragmented media landscape: "It’s always about these forces that are threatening white Americans, white Christian Americans, white rural Americans, that ‘us and them.’ It’s a clear, compelling story in a very clear moral universe."
The Hill looked into the media environment leading up to the election, specifically, the prevalence of podcast appearances. Trump has chosen shows popular with young male audiences, while Harris appeared on “Call Her Daddy,” a podcast with a young female following. By opting for podcasts, both candidates aim to present a more relatable and informal image, hoping to resonate with new demographics.
Shannon McGregor explained that podcasts provide a unique opportunity for candidates to highlight their personalities in a way that traditional interviews cannot. “It gives listeners a better sense of what the candidates are like than the CNN interview with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, especially for people who aren’t super interested in politics.” Shannon adds that podcast listeners often feel a close, “parasocial” connection with hosts, which can positively influence their perception of guest candidates.
PolitiFact covered the spread of election misinformation in Pennsylvania leading up to election day, fueled by baseless claims of cheating. Former President Donald Trump, among others, repeatedly suggested there was voter fraud in the state, despite election officials’ assurances of secure processes.
Shannon McGregor noted the role of misinformation among Republicans: “Republican officials can be effective in countering falsehoods from fellow Republicans, but other Republican leaders are still sharing some disinformation.” Fragmented media enables certain leaders to propagate misleading claims without accountability, allowing misinformation to gain traction within closed networks, especially when credible voices are drowned out.
The Great X-odus
As misinformation and far-right activism flood X, a digital exodus is underway, with users flocking to Bluesky, Threads, and other platforms for a breath of fresher air. The Guardian’s Luca Ittimani investigated this platform migration, noting that Bluesky has “picked up more than 700,000 new users in the week following the US election.”
Axel Bruns, Professor in the Digital Media Research Centre at Queensland University of Technology, highlights that Bluesky appeals to users because “it’s become a refuge for people who want to have the... social media experience that Twitter used to provide, but without all the far-right activism, the misinformation, the hate speech, the bots and everything else.”
On a *completely* unrelated note, CITAP has made our way to Bluesky and just recently popped up on Threads. Go say hi!
A Scholarly Review of “Media and January 6th"
A.J. Bauer, CITAP affiliate and an Assistant Professor at the University of Alabama, reviewed “Media and January 6th" (Oxford University Press) in American Journalism, highlighting the book’s exploration of media's role in shaping the political climate that led to the January 6 Capitol insurrection.
Edited by Khadijah Costley White, Daniel Kreiss, Shannon C. McGregor, and Rebekah Tromble, “Media and January 6th" situates media channels—from traditional news to social platforms—as central players in amplifying Trumpist politics and motivating those involved in the Capitol attack.
Bauer underscores the interdisciplinary approach of the book, which combines perspectives from political communication, rhetoric, and computational social science to capture the complexity of media influence in modern politics. He notes that “Media and January 6th" does not question whether scholars should engage politically; rather, it asserts that they must, emphasizing that journalists and academics have a responsibility to defend democratic institutions. Bauer asserts that the book not only provides an in-depth scholarly analysis but also serves as a call to action, underscoring the importance of media accountability in supporting democracy.
Affiliate Highlights
In Sarah Whitmarsh’s recently published paper, “Disinformation and the Ghost of Margaret Sanger” (Social Media + Society), Whitmarsh investigates how disinformation around Margaret Sanger is spread on social media, emphasizing the narrative that abortion is a form of “Black genocide” targeting Black communities. Whitmarsh’s analysis, covering social media activity from April 2018 to April 2023, found that mentions of Sanger’s name totaled around 10,611 unique messages, generating over 81.7 million views and 2.1 million interactions. Peaks in activity aligned with news events, such as the removal of Sanger’s name from Planned Parenthood of Greater New York in July 2020, and notable court decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned Roe v. Wade. During these peaks, messages frequently relied on “injustice frames” to present abortion and Planned Parenthood’s services as racially targeted actions against Black communities. These frames resonated emotionally and were easily integrated into broader anti-abortion and anti-Planned Parenthood campaigns.
Whitmarsh’s qualitative analysis reveals that these messages are often framed to portray Sanger as a racist and eugenicist. One frequent theme, exposing abortion as "Black genocide," highlights Sanger’s alleged “extermination plans” against the Black community, supported by misattributed and out-of-context quotes. A popular 700 Club video shared by anti-abortion advocates, for example, encourages viewers to consider the geographic location of Planned Parenthood clinics in relation to Black communities, suggesting a deliberate targeting strategy. This narrative, Whitmarsh notes, has fueled calls to defund Planned Parenthood and delegitimize abortion rights advocates by linking their motives to racial injustice, revealing how historical figures like Sanger are used to reframe current debates on race, abortion, and social justice movements.
Whitmarsh argues that the “deep story” surrounding Margaret Sanger is dangerous because it weaponizes her complex legacy to frame abortion as a racial injustice against Black communities, fueling a narrative of "Black genocide." This portrayal, rooted in selective and often misleading historical references, positions Sanger as an antagonist within anti-abortion and far-right discourse, aligning her with racist intentions that Planned Parenthood and abortion rights advocates are accused of perpetuating. By resonating emotionally and leveraging language from social justice movements, this narrative gains significant traction on social media, shaping public perception, and potentially influencing policy discussions. Whitmarsh asserts that this “deep story” is especially harmful as it taps into racial and social tensions to delegitimize reproductive rights and undermine trust in health services like Planned Parenthood, with implications for both public discourse and policy.
Coming Soon
‼️THIS FRIDAY‼️ | “Experience vs. Expertise: Authenticity, Authority, and Gender in Social Media Communication” with visiting Fulbright Scholar, Dr. Marie Heřmanová.
Date & Time: Friday, November 15 at 3pm EST
Location: Freedom Forum, Carroll Hall OR Zoom Webinar
Eligible for CLE credit for UNC undergraduates