How the media paved the way for Trump

I was sitting in the sauna after a swim, chatting with a friendly man from Nashville. After a while I dared to ask him if the United States is really as polarized as it seems. He sighed deeply and said, “You know what, it is probably worse than it looks.”

He told me he had stopped seeing his own brother. Their relationship had been torn apart by politics. Party identity has moved from being quite unremarkable to becoming a non-negotiable part of who you are. A sharp line has been drawn between “us” and “them”. You stay loyal to your own in-group and demonise the out-group. Hearing this made me sad. That politics can divide close families is sad enough in itself, but it also says something important about what is happening on a larger scale.

Humans have a natural tendency to split the world into simple opposites. We want clear answers, straight statements and easy conflicts – good versus evil, right versus wrong. It is simple, clear and easy to understand. The news media, which have always lived on capturing our attention, have adapted exactly to this. There is simply no room for nuance, reflective voices or complex reasoning. Effective news is simple news, where two clear sides face each other in conflict.

At the time of writing Donald Trump is president of the United States. You can say many things about him, but one thing is certain: he clearly breaks with the tradition of a rules-based world order and opens the door to politics driven by impulse and gut feeling. Only a few years ago that would have been unthinkable; today it is reality. How could we end up here?

The news media’s constant focus on sensation, conflict and drama has helped shape the modern political landscape. My hypothesis is that this very media logic has not only made Donald Trump’s path to power possible, it also keeps reinforcing polarisation from every side in the political debate. The news has paved the way for exactly the situation we experience today, a world where politics tears families apart and splits nations.

The news media’s logic is built on creating engagement, and few things are as engaging as a clear conflict. Therefore political discussions tend to be reduced to simple opposites with clear actors and sharp borders: right versus left, countryside versus city, conservative versus liberal, traditional values versus progressive ideas. There is seldom space for grey areas, doubt or reflective voices, because these do not produce equally clear headlines or generate clicks.

How news logic reshaped politics

This dramaturgy shapes not only how news is presented but also how politics works. Politicians who dare to say that issues are complex, or who show understanding for the other side’s arguments, quickly become invisible in the public conversation. They get less media time because their message is less dramatic and more complicated. On the other hand, to exaggerate, simplify and provoke is richly rewarded, no matter which party the speaker belongs to.

Trump is, as far as I know, the clearest example of this. His rhetoric is built on creating clear enemies and target groups. He triggers strong feelings, either enthusiasm or disgust, but rarely indifference. With every polarizing move Trump received massive media attention, because his behavior fitted perfectly with the news logic that craves conflict and drama. Each time the media reported his controversial remarks or tweets, his brand as the man who dares to “tell it like it is” grew stronger, a message that appealed to many voters tired of normal political diplomacy.

But Trump is not the only one who gains from this. His opponents are also rewarded for equally black and white rhetoric. Democrats who clearly present themselves as “anti-Trump” and describe him as an existential threat to the nation are also paid in clicks, donations and attention. Those who adapt to the polarized game are rewarded, and the climate becomes even more polarized. The result is a negative spiral in which the conflict logic of politics and media keeps feeding itself.

This logic is not new, but it has grown stronger in the digital landscape where algorithms favor emotionally charged content. In the constant hunt for clicks and engagement, politicians and media are pushed ever further toward the poles, and the space for reasoning and nuance shrinks fast.

That is how the playing field was set for Trump. The news created an environment where polarisation became a competitive edge, where provocative rhetoric was rewarded with free publicity, and where complexity and reflection were seen as drawbacks. This gave Trump a chance to dominate the conversation, a chance he used fully.

When Trump entered the Republican primaries before the 2016 election, few people took him seriously. His opponents, established Republican politicians, followed the traditional political rulebook and competed for the same voters. Because the candidates were so similar, they split the votes of the mainstream base and effectively knocked each other out of the race. Left standing was Trump, the only candidate who consistently ignored political tradition, played by his own rules and therefore clearly stood out from the crowd. The media rewarded him generously for that.

Trump’s mastery of the media

Early in the campaign the news outlets gave him a disproportionate amount of attention, simply because he constantly broke the norms for how a politician is expected to behave. His provocative and emotionally charged statements created instant attention—something the media could quickly convert into clicks, ratings and ad revenue. The more controversial his remarks, the more focus the media gave him, and the stronger his position became in voters’ minds. Trump knew, intuitively or consciously, how the news logic worked, and the media played along obediently—despite, or perhaps thanks to, his extreme and polarizing style.

Trump’s communication fitted perfectly with the rules of the news game. He used short, punchy and emotional messages—messages that were seldom questioned or nuanced by the media because they were too busy reporting the drama itself. Trump understood and deliberately exploited the news media’s appetite for simplification and sensation.

Trump projected a confidence and certainty that did not always match his actual competence or knowledge. But in the news logic, real expertise and complex reasoning matter little—what is rewarded instead is certainty, self-confidence and conflict. Trump’s lack of doubt therefore became a strength in a media climate where clear and simple answers are given priority over thoughtful and complicated reasoning.

It is ironic that even the outlets that openly criticised Trump indirectly helped him by giving his statements huge exposure and thereby further amplifying his message. In practice Trump got exactly the stage and attention he wanted. In this way he became not only a successful political actor but also a direct product of the rules of the news game.

When expertise loses to showmanship

The news media’s hunt for drama and emotional storms has gradually eroded respect for real expertise. When expert analyses repeatedly lose the battle against provocative statements and simplified messages, politicians have less incentive to rely on facts and long-term policy. Instead of rewarding competence and in-depth reasoning, the news format rewards conflict and controversy—the more polarizing, the better.

This has created a kind of Dunning-Kruger effect at a societal level: the less knowledge it takes to achieve media impact, the more successful a politician can be who does not recognize the limits of their own abilities. Donald Trump is the perfect symbol of this phenomenon. He is not only uninterested in complex reasoning—he actively dismisses experts and specialized knowledge as irrelevant, slow and boring. Instead he values loyalty and media profile.

Examples of this are many. When Trump returned to the presidency in 2025 he appointed Pete Hegseth, a former television personality with limited military experience, as secretary of defense. Hegseth was criticised for lacking the required competence and for creating chaos inside the Pentagon by firing seasoned officials and making controversial decisions that undermined the military’s morale and effectiveness.

Trump then named Kash Patel director of the FBI, even though he had no experience running a large agency and owed his rise more to political loyalty than to proven ability.

Education secretary Linda McMahon exposed her lack of knowledge in her own field when, during a panel on innovation in education, she referred to artificial intelligence as “A1,” like the sauce. In spite of this she was put in charge of leading a national push for AI in schools.

These examples clearly show the consequences when the media’s focus on drama and conflict downgrades expertise in favor of media impact and party loyalty. When competence is no longer a requirement for high office we risk losing trust in the institutions that are essential to a functioning society.

By consistently giving priority to opinions and drama over real knowledge the media have indirectly helped pave the way for Trump’s simplified politics. The result is that expertise has gradually become irrelevant, and the Dunning-Kruger effect is no longer just an individual psychological bias but a structural problem at the highest political level.

The constant drama and conflict of the news stream have not only opened the door for politicians like Donald Trump – they also carry a psychological and democratic cost that we all pay. When the media logic rewards the polarizing and spectacular, a public climate marked by worry, anger and distrust becomes normal. The news sells well in the short run, but in the long run it feeds a general sense of chaos and crisis.

The psychological toll of constant crisis

There is plenty of research showing that continual exposure to negative and dramatic news harms our mental health. Being fed daily with stories about conflict, threats and disasters produces chronic stress, which in turn leads to a heightened feeling of vulnerability and powerlessness. When people see the world as dangerous they become more likely to yearn for simple, quick fixes and strong leaders who offer clear answers – even when those answers are oversimplified, wrong or even dangerous.

This is the very dynamic that Trump has been able to exploit so effectively. By constantly painting a picture of a society in decline, with threats always just beyond the horizon, he comes across to many voters as the strong leader who can restore safety and order. The more the news highlights the dramatic and the frightening, the more attractive an authoritarian leader who promises to “fix” the problems in a simple, forceful way becomes.

Thus a vicious circle arises. The news undermines the general feeling of security, which in turn creates a climate where demand for polarizing and authoritarian voices grows. Democracy’s core values—reflection, nuanced discussion and trust in expertise—lose ground when drama and conflict dominate.

In the end it is not only our mental health that is sacrificed; the stability and long-term survival of democracy itself are at stake. The price we pay for the news industry’s hunt for drama and sensation is higher than many of us realise.

A bipartisan problem: left-wing polarization too

It is important to understand that Donald Trump is not the cause of polarisation; he is rather a symptom of a deeper fault in how news is produced and consumed. The problem lies deeper than any one person’s behavior or rhetoric. The polarizing media logic now permeates the entire political landscape, including the Democrats and the American left.

In a media climate where clicks, attention and drama are valued above reasoning and in-depth analysis, Democratic politicians are also rewarded for taking extreme or confrontational positions. Those who define themselves sharply and provocatively as the opposite of Trump quickly become media successes precisely because they offer clear lines of conflict and a dramatic story of a battle between good and evil.

A telling example is Democratic politicians such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. They have gained huge media reach largely because of a sharp, uncompromising rhetoric often presented in clear contrast to Trump and the Republican right. The media reward them mainly for their most radical, conflict-focused statements rather than for nuanced arguments. Whether you agree with them or not, it is clear that the media logic favors drama over balance and factual discussion.

A tragic consequence is that thoughtful and nuanced voices on both sides are pushed to the margins. Politicians who try to add nuance to debates or look for pragmatic solutions often end up ignored by the media because their messages are seen as too boring and hard to package.

Where nuance goes to die: the Andrew Yang case

Andrew Yang, leader of the relatively new Forward Party, is a clear example of this. Yang is educated, thoughtful and pragmatic. He presents new ideas, concrete proposals and a future-oriented policy in a balanced way. Is there any other politician who really looks ahead? Everyone else seems completely occupied with what has already happened. Yang rarely gets the attention I think he deserves, probably because he does not keep positioning himself through extreme or polarizing statements. His sensible tone makes him less attractive to the media, which is symptomatic of the fault we see in today’s media landscape.

The result is a political climate where extremes are rewarded and nuance is pushed aside. That hurts democracy and leads to a dangerous spiral in which conflicts intensify, compromise is undermined and the long-term conditions for democracy risk being weakened. It is a systemic fault that demands both awareness and resistance—otherwise we risk losing the important shades and reasoning on which democracy rests.

As a Swede I am not comfortable reviewing American media, yet it is obvious that something has gone badly wrong. The media’s hunt for conflict and sensation has contributed to a situation that not only splits families like my acquaintance from Nashville’s, but also undermines the whole United States and the stability of large parts of the world.

Almost every year Americans come to Sweden on 10 December to receive Nobel Prizes. I have personally nothing to do with that, but I still feel a kind of pride just because I am Swedish and “my” city invites, recognizes and celebrates people who have studied and researched year after year and actually helped make the world better. That ought to be the norm—to reward knowledge and deep insight rather than conflict and drama. (In the early 1900s the Nobel Prizes were handed out from the same stage on which I myself have stood—and talked about skipping the news, of course.)

Knowledge knows no national borders. We should cooperate more and see each other as good friends and partners. Sure, we do not always agree, but we should at least agree that we are not each other’s enemies. We really can be good for one another—if we choose to be.

Is there hope for a future with better news? Breaking this negative spiral is not easy, but it is not impossible either. The change has to begin with ourselves. We need to understand how news logic works and how it shapes our perception of reality. It will take a collective effort in which we actively reject the extreme, the polarizing and the dramatic in favor of more balanced, nuanced and fact-based information.

The news media will not change on their own. They follow what we as news consumers choose. As long as we keep clicking on sensations and conflicts, the media will keep producing exactly that. But if we start rewarding serious, thoughtful and less dramatic information instead, the news landscape can change, slowly but surely.

This will demand both awareness and discipline from us, because the news format is not only a commercial creation. It is also deeply rooted in our evolutionary instincts. Our brains are wired to react to threats, drama and conflict. That helped us survive for hundreds of thousands of years, but today the same instincts block a healthy democracy and a better world.

Overcoming this takes effort, but it can be done. We can train our critical thinking, choose our information sources more carefully and refuse to let our attention be dragged to the most polarizing voices.

We can choose what kind of news we reward and, by doing that, what sort of politicians and public climate we get. Our attention decides. As long as we keep clicking on sensational, conflict-driven and dramatic stories, that is exactly what the media will keep giving us. If we instead start asking for and rewarding nuance, accuracy and reflection, the media – and in the long run politics – will follow.

Lessons from Sweden’s ‘boring’ politics

Sweden is far from perfect, but it is still an example worth considering. We went from being one of Europe’s poorest countries in the mid-1800s to, half a century later, becoming one of the richest. Around 1970 Sweden was at the top of the world. Many countries later caught up, but since the 1990s Sweden has again done very well. Even though we are a small nation we have a strong industry and many globally successful companies – from Ericsson, H&M and IKEA to newer success stories like Spotify, Skype, iZettle and Minecraft. We also have a vibrant music scene that leaves its mark worldwide, from ABBA, Avicii, Roxette, Europe and the Cardigans to producers like Max Martin, RedOne, Shellback and Bloodshy & Avant, who stand behind many of the biggest hits.

How has little Sweden managed this? One explanation I have heard, and that sounds reasonable, is that Swedish politicians have historically been “boring”. But is that really an advantage? Yes, I think it is.

Swedish voters have generally rewarded politicians who take their duty seriously, who keep working, show a strong sense of responsibility and rarely chase attention with dramatic stunts. Populism exists here too, and the media try to cultivate it, but in general we are not as easily tempted by politicians who claim they can solve “everything”. Running a country is hard. It demands knowledge, care and respect for the complexity of the job. “Entertaining” politicians may create headlines, but they are seldom good at the core of politics – tackling the tough issues in earnest.

The news often rewards the loudest voices and the most spectacular promises, but we can choose to do the opposite. We should make a conscious effort to reward politicians who are “boring” but serious, those who respect complexity and know there are no easy fixes to hard problems. We should also be critical of how the media select their news. When we see articles that praise politicians promising the moon, we can simply choose not to click on them. With a bit of luck we can help create a political climate where fewer people think they can fix “everything”.

Ultimately we hold the power. The news media will not change by themselves, but if we as the audience start demanding better and more nuanced news, they will sooner or later follow. In the end the media will also benefit, because the alternative is that more and more people simply switch off.

The choice is ours. We decide what kind of news we want, what kind of politicians we reward and what kind of society we want to live in. It starts with what we choose to click on.