Social Media, Fear Appeals, and Polarization in the 2016 Election
Natalia Drobnjak
This chapter is dedicated to my mom for encouraging me to ask questions and voice my opinion even when it may feel uncomfortable.
Keywords: Social Media, Fear Appeals, Polarization, 2016 Election
I was fifteen years old when Donald J. Trump won the 2016 American Presidential Election. As a sophomore in high school and ineligible to vote, I was privileged to not have to know much about politics. Regardless of which political party would hold the majority in our government, policies passed would be less likely to affect my life because of my race and socioeconomic status. My limited knowledge was that Serbians despise the Clintons for bombing Belgrade in the 1990’s and my family was in direct danger. Growing up and politically “waking up” under the Trump Administration was tumultuous. The political neutrality I held left me branded as a racist, xenophobic, and various other slurs of awful words in a predominantly liberal northeast town. As I was becoming more aware of the United States political atmosphere, the presence of social media was ever expanding. Similar to other high school students, I regularly used Instagram, Snapchat, and occasionally searched through Twitter. Insights such as likes, reshares, engagement etc. were becoming more widely accessible. With the growing prevalence of social media in our daily lives, it became intertwined with the 2016 Election.
The American nation was polarized through fear appeals on social media during the presidential campaigns for the 2016 Election. This paper focuses on tactics such as horror framing and fear mongering that drove Americans into choosing distinct political sides with no acceptance for a nuanced position. Messages ahead of the 2016 election from both candidates contained horror framing and fear mongering while social media perpetuated this issue by creating echo chambers of thought. Each political end of the spectrum remained convinced as a result that they were on the “correct side” which created deeper faults within the nation. My generation grew up with the Obama family in office with civil global discourse and then our eyes were opened in the 2016 election to the public monstrosity of politics. We came of age to be politically active in a time of fear and anger. This has stunted our generation in knowing a productive and civil nation when examining political discourse from 2016.
Rhetoric of fear happens when an individual tries to create support for an idea, person, or movement by raising fear towards the alternative option. In other words, this is the act of scaring individuals into deciding on a certain choice. The use of this rhetoric has proven to be successful over the decades. Fear is often used to incite support for wars, disdain for other candidates, and to ostracize different groups of people. For example, the 2016 presidential election created fear appeals through the use of horror framing in the campaign videos of both candidates.
Campaign videos are a critical component of every presidential election. On the campaign trail advertisements have, “enabled ‘candidates to build name recognition, frame the questions they view as central to the election, and expose their temperaments, talents, and agendas for the future in a favorable light’” (Montgomery, 2019). Media from both candidates during the 2016 election exemplified horror framing tactics, classic or conflicted in their campaign videos. Classic horror framing relates to elements portrayed in classic horror movies like Dracula or Frankenstein where there is a clear “monster.” Conflicted horror framing is where the line between human and monster, the one causing the horror, is blurred which is more present in contemporary horror films. Political campaigns took on horror framing in showing one candidate with happy imagery in the back such as blue skies and green fields while the opposition is pictured with decrepit cities. Advertisements like these from both candidates pushed audiences into constantly viewing two extremes. The 2016 election additionally transformed social media platforms into a space for political discourse since the campaign videos were posted on sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
With about 2.91 billion active users, Facebook is a highly successful international social media platform that has intensified polarization in the United States (“Facebook MAU Worldwide 2021” n.d.). Over the years, as social media has risen in widespread use and popularity, it has transformed to meet a variety of needs aside from just social networking such as shopping, gaming, and acting as a news source. The pitfall of relying on social media as a news outlet is that “news stories are often filtered through social and algorithmic recommendation systems instead of traditional editorial news gatekeepers” (Beam, Hutchens, and Hmielowski, 2018). Algorithms monitor social media usage and filter recommendations based on your previous searches, likes, and interactions with other users. Polarization as a result is intensified through social media since it will lead to thought bubbles with little space for thoughtful discourse. Additionally, more than 62% of adults refer to social media as their news outlet (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017). With the invasive amounts of “fake news” and no national agreement on “fact-checking,” this is a worrisome statistic because of the messages that can be relayed through social media news outlets and then shared with friends. This has led to effective polarization with a political party’s increasing dislike for the other party.
Twitter, another social media giant, has served as a key platform for fear mongering during the 2016 election. Since both political figures have clear national stances on issues, Forbes author Peter Siuciu raised the question of whether their tweets and public comments are worth inciting the fear in the masses. After all, with clear national stances what more can Clinton’s and Trump’s tweets provide other than fear? Social media has furthered the divide between “us” and “them” with tweets to oust Trump supporters. Left-wing individuals like @ifindkarma post on social media that they are actively searching for right-wing extremists and threatening to report them to the authorities all for being a “trump supporter” (Siuciu, 2021). With the power of cell phones, recordings, and screenshots as a nation there has been a manhunt within us. The climate of political discourse that we know today, one where manhunts exist between users to seek out certain political party affiliations, was exacerbated since the 2016 election.
Fear rhetoric across campaign videos and social media may be beneficial for American politicians to evaluate their support from the nation ahead of elections, but since it comes at the expense of the nation’s unity there needs to be an end to this practice. The political gain of an individual should not outweigh the integrity of United States citizens.
From personal experience growing up in a liberal thought bubble, I found it extremely difficult to ask questions. My intense curiosity and attempts at debating to come up with new solutions to age old issues were met with hatred. The prevalence of social media in our lives has left us as a nation divided into thought bubbles. It’s simple to block what bothers us online and continuously engage with others who share the exact same thoughts and experiences.
During my sophomore year of high school, while we were on a two-week French class exchange program in France, I was effectively canceled by my peers. We were on a bus ride early in the morning when news broke out that Donald Trump won the presidential election. Within seconds, fifty of my classmates had begun crying or frantically calling their parents. As previously mentioned, I grew up in an area where my peers and I were very fortunate to not have to know much about politics at fifteen. In silence, I sat and observed the chaos around me in shock. The outcome of the election would not have warranted an emotional reaction from me if either candidate had won. Quickly, my classmates caught on that I was silent and lacked a public emotional response. One girl turned around and demanded to know why I wasn’t distraught at the news. I quickly explained I wasn’t following the election and that the limited knowledge I had wasn’t favorable for Hilary Clinton anyways. After all, some buildings are still in ruins in Belgrade from the Clinton bombings and I am reminded of it every time I go to visit my family in Serbia. Without hesitation, she quickly branded me as a racist, xenophobic, and various other slurs of awful words to describe a terrible person. As soon as we stepped off of the bus, my sophomore peers refused to acknowledge I existed and I was ostracized for the remainder of the trip. From these experiences and observances of cancel culture, I was fearful of voicing my opinion and I was even more fearful of voicing them on social media. Once something is posted online it never truly disappears. I’ve witnessed the power of social media and no matter what you believe there will always be an opposition.
Americans were berated with constant fear appeals during the 2016 presidential election, and this rhetoric was able to reach masses of individuals through the immense popularity of social media. Widespread international usage and a culture of sharing made Facebook and Twitter critical news sources to the American masses. While social media is praised for bringing people together, during this election these platforms allowed for horror framing, fear mongering, and deeper polarization of the American nation. As we continue to learn the power of social media, it is imperative that we learn to discern reputable news sources from fake news. As previously mentioned, 62% of adults refer to social media as their news outlet (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017). While there have been efforts to introduce “fact checkers” to social media, it released a myriad of questions and emotions. Who checked the fact checkers? Who could set the correct answer for questions like, “who was truly the better candidate in the election?” We are all still adjusting to the prevalence of social media and this may be a time for experimentation in how to validate certain individuals and sources. What we can do is teach one another how to distinguish a news source from “fake news.” It is important to read past headlines, check the publication date, and verify supporting evidence. Additionally, in consulting various articles on the same topic you may compare the information and evidence presented. It is crucial that we work together to eliminate fake news from our political arguments, so that we may return to productive and respectful political discourse. This issue is greater than political party affiliation and fear appeals that have played a role in keeping our nation divided. We should question our politicians why they are making certain decisions in certain ways. We should ask one another why we have certain beliefs. We should ask why in a bid to improve solutions.
To this day, our nation has been balancing social media as a valid news source and it will continue to play a role in future elections. In 2016, the early emergence of social media such as Facebook and Twitter as news sources allowed for horror framing and fear mongering to polarize the American nation. It’s up to us as Americans to bring back peaceful political discourse with the goal of making our country the best it can be for all Americans. It starts with asking questions like, why?
Works Cited
Allcott, Hunt, and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 31 (2): 211–36. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211.
Beam, Michael A., Myiah J. Hutchens, and Jay D. Hmielowski. 2018. “Facebook News and (de)Polarization: Reinforcing Spirals in the 2016 US Election.” Information, Communication & Society 21 (7): 940–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783.
“Facebook MAU Worldwide 2021.” n.d. Statista. Accessed November 9, 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-wo rldwide/.
Montgomery, Fielding. 2019. “The Monstrous Election: Horror Framing in Televised Campaign Advertisements during the 2016 Presidential Election.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 22 (2): 281–321. doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.22.2.0281
Suciu, Peter. 2021. “Fear Mongering on Social Media Threatens to Further Divide America.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2021/01/18/fear-mongering-on-social-media-threatens-t o-further-divide-america/?sh=2378ea0a5fd9.