The media has been in the business of dividing people and creating a group mentality since before America was America. Newspapers and pamphlets were crucial in fostering anger towards Great Brittan, and ensuring the unity of the thirteen colonies making the Revolutionary War as successful as it was. Robert G. Parkinson discusses the issues of division, unity, and the role of the media during the Revolutionary War. He states that the newspapers and pamphlets of the day were effectively used to create an “us versus them” mentality of Americans versus Great Brittan which served to both heighten tensions and anger between the two as well as unite the ideologically diverse and independent colonies against a common enemy.

This sentiment is demonstrated in the quote from Parkinson’s article “Print, the Press, and the American Revolution” where he states that “Because of the unstable and fragile notions of unity among thirteen mainland American colonies, print acted as a binding agent that mitigated the chances that the colonies would not support one another when war with Brittan broke out in 1775." In other words, the media of the day served the purpose of both uniting and dividing much as they do in today’s society. In the late 18th century the “us versus them” was Americans versus the British, and the media fanned the flames between the two sides ensuring unity of each side as well as destroying any chance of reuniting the two sides.

Today the two dominant political ideologies take center stage in the battles of modern America, again with the media fanning the flames ensuring the unity of each side and preventing any compromise. In colonial America there was the fear that the thirteen independent colonies would not join forces against the British, or would not be able to fight as a unified force, so the media used fear and emotions to ensure unity.

In a more modern example, the Cold War was considered to be one of the tensest geopolitical events, and the American media capitalized on this opportunity greatly. David Smith describes this situation in detail in his article “American Nightmare: Images of Brainwashing, Thought Control, and Terror in Soviet Russia” where Smith explains what the American media was doing during the Cold War. The media’s agenda at the time was to drive a wedge between America and the USSR or simply between capitalism and communism.

The fear tactics used in that day resulted in the average American believing that average Russian was controlled by their government in every way, and through their entire lives. The media made life in the USSR appear nightmarish at best and the thought of life under the totalitarian rule of the Kremlin was enough to put the fear of communism into the American populace.

Americans hated communism and communists with a strong and unified passion, and this did not happen by accident. The Russians were America’s allies in World War II; they were the good guys, the brave Russian army going off to fight Hitler. America was loyal to Russia and visa versa. There was a good and mutually beneficial relationship between the two countries, so how then did Americans come to hate the USSR with such fervor?

Quite simply, this fear was put in place by the media. The media highlighted the worst parts of Russian society, emphasized their most deplorable practices, and every time a world leader spoke negatively of the USSR, or any time a USSR leader spoke badly about America the media would take it and, like a dog with a bone, never give up talking about it until every American believed that every Russian felt badly about America, and that everyone in the world felt badly about the USSR.

The media is and never has been a stranger to driving people apart. It is sensational, and effective in getting listeners. Fortunately in the past the media has pitted Americans against other countries, but now the media has pitted Americans against Americans in their most recent efforts. They have set the two political ideologies at war with each other, and the resulting conflict is arguably tearing the country apart.

After the Revolutionary War, it took decades if not generations before there was any trust or peace between America and England, and many people are still fearful and hateful towards the Russians as spillover from the media’s efforts in the Cold War. How long will it take before Americans once again trust each other despite their different ideologies? How long before the violence and anger has subsided? The media is far too good at its job of driving people apart, that many fear the damage may be irreversible.

The second part of driving people apart is criticizing and condemning anyone who seeks peace. Peace makers have no place in American society according to the media, and anything less than pure and abject loyalty to one side or the other is seen as weakness at best. At worst, disloyalty is considered helping the “other” which is practically unthinkable in today’s society. If a Republican politician does not want to be reelected, a sure fire way is to help or agree with a Democrat and the reverse is true as well.

Once again this is nothing new to the American media; this issue existed as early as the Revolutionary War. Anyone who thought that war might not be necessary or the best option was immediately labeled a Tory and was believed to be loyal to England. It may not seem like that was such a terrible thing; however, once someone was labeled a Tory the consequences could range from distrust, public ridicule, being run out of town, or even publicly tarred and feathered. Peace was not an option, and anyone who thought otherwise must be corrected, coerced, or threatened into changing their minds. The consequences of disloyalty in the Cold War were even worse.

In David Smith’s article “American Nightmare: Images of Brainwashing, Thought Control, and Terror in Soviet Russia” Smith describes the American’s pure and abject terror of all things Russian, believing them to be outright evil and totalitarian. Smith describes that this image is the result of the fact that “American images of the USSR were often simplistic, one sided, and charged with emotion." The American media was fear mongering the populace to the point that Americans believed the Russians to be able to even control the very thoughts of their citizens.

Images of the Kremlin and its leaders were so grossly exaggerated that Stalin was believed to be a crazed murdering psychopath, and his citizens were no better than slaves or prisoners. This fear was then projected onto anyone who believed anything other than what the media insisted. People who were not afraid of Russia, or did not believe that it was as bad as the media said were believed to be either under the Soviet mind control, or believed to be secretly communist. In the first red scare of the early nineteen hundreds, people suspected of communism were tried and convicted of crimes against America. In the Cold War internal tensions did not run as high as to convict these suspected traitors in a criminal trial; however, they were hated by all who knew them.

Outcasts and pariahs, they sought comfort in the company of those who felt similarly to them giving rise to even more suspicion about communist groups and organizations forming. In today’s society the gap between the two sides has become so insurmountable that in some places to even speak about the other side’s ideas it can be met with harsh punishment and persecution from authority. Anything that makes a listener uncomfortable can be labeled as a micro-aggression and the speaker of such ideas will be punished and made an example to others.

If formal action is not taken then the victims may take revenge on their own. This issue is discussed at length in Greg Lukinoff’s article “The Coddling of the American Mind” where he illustrates that the fear of ideas and the power of those in fear to suppress ideas has extremely detrimental effects of society. He explains how this enforced fear is “creating a culture where everyone must think twice about speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse."

People are so absurdly loyal to their own side that they will attack anyone who says something other than what they believe. Everyone who is anything short of pure loyalty is attacked and criticized disallowing any attempt to deescalate the situation.

Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States of America. This has made a great many people upset and been widely regarded as a bad move, yet for all the people who have been blamed, the media and their advertisers have not received enough attention in this matter.

Because the media is a slave to advertisers it must resort to driving people apart in order to receive viewers which has extremely detrimental effects on society. How then, does this make the media to blame for who is president? One thing about Donald trump that is agreed upon is that his views represent the more extreme ends of the spectrum. Those policies that would be considered outrageous a few years ago are now acceptable and considered selling points for the candidate who holds those views. This can all be brought back to the media. The media divides people. This division results in an escalation from both sides as they try to exceed the other.

This escalation results in each side becoming more and more extreme and more and more polarized. Every time Republicans win the Democrats feel more threatened so they move farther to their extreme ideas, and visa versa. Donald Trump is the personification of this increasing division as he himself is a reaction to eight years of a Democratic run government. Since his election the Democrats have felt so threatened that there have been violent protests, and more people who were once moderate becoming extreme. If this trend is not stopped quickly the situation will only continue to escalate with each side responding to the other in kind.

The one thing that could end this would be a peaceful and moderate individual; however the media has ensured that anything less than pure, unquestioning loyalty is met with harsh criticism. Regrettably this is the responsibility of a free market news industry and the alternative to that would be a government run media organization which would have very obvious faults, but if nothing is changed then Donald Trump and these violent protests are only the beginning.