​

 

 

In an age where news travels faster than the truth, the media’s role in shaping public opinion has never been more consequential—or more contested. From network broadcasts to influencer reels, the information battlefield surrounding U.S. elections is as polarized as the politics it covers. But what happens when the platforms we trust become the very engines of misinformation?That question drove this investigation: How does the media exacerbate political misinformation in U.S. elections? Through a mix of survey data, interviews, and secondary research, this report uncovers the complex web of biases, algorithms, and human behaviors that distort political realities.The Decline of Traditional Media and the Rise of the Algorithm.

 

Since 2020, traditional media outlets have faced a dramatic fall from grace. Once pillars of public trust, they are now often accused of peddling sensationalism or towing ideological lines. This decline, accelerated by the pandemic and digital disruption, opened the floodgates for social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) to dominate the conversation.Younger audiences, especially Gen Z, have turned away from legacy news outlets, opting instead for fast, digestible content from influencers, podcasters, and peers. This migration isn't just about convenience—it reflects a deeper mistrust of institutional narratives and a craving for perceived authenticity. But this shift brings its own risks, especially when entertainment and opinion are mistaken for facts.Surveying the Misinformation LandscapeTo explore these dynamics, I conducted a survey of 25 individuals aged 18-45 from Middlesex University, along with interviews spanning political aides, journalists, and media professionals.

 

 

The results reveal how social media both informs and misinforms—often in the same scroll.

 

Key Insights:65% of respondents aged 18–24 cited social media as their primary news source, with Instagram surprisingly leading over TikTok and X.News websites remained popular among the 25–34 demographic, while traditional TV held sway only in the 45–54 bracket.Print media and radio? Virtually absent.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​​

​

​

 

One respondent admitted they “just happen to come across political content” and look it up “if it interests them,” while another preferred listening to “podcasters whom I share common views with.” These habits expose a reliance on emotionally resonant, personalized news rather than fact-checked, balanced reporting.And yet, platforms like BBC still hold value. Some participants praised it for being “accurate” and offering “the whole story,” signaling a hybrid model where traditional outlets supplement social feeds.When Influence Becomes Interference/

 

 

The 2024 election was defined by digital strategy. Both parties weaponized platforms like Instagram and TikTok to court younger voters. Flashy visuals, influencer collaborations, and values-driven messaging popping up all over the internet.In one example, campaign outreach made up 33.3% of engagement strategies, driven largely by celebrity and influencer endorsements. These personalities became trusted surrogates for political messaging—sometimes more influential than party spokespeople themselves.But this new form of campaigning wasn’t without controversy. One viral claim, accusing the Democratic Party of enlisting a Chinese national to fraudulently vote, exploded across X and Facebook. It spread via unverified screenshots and user-generated posts—classic signs of misinformation born from digital echo chambers.Freedom of Speech or Algorithmic Censorship?Several interviewees flagged growing concerns about censorship on platforms with political agendas. On the left, platforms like Meta were seen as amplifying progressive values. On the right, Elon Musk’s X was praised for its “free speech” stance—even as it was accused of favoring conservative voices.This raises the central question: Who decides what’s misinformation?Take the example of anti-vaccine content removal during COVID-19. Was it a public health necessity—or a suppression of dissent? Similar dynamics played out around Israel-Palestine content and election integrity narratives. Algorithms decide what trends, but those decisions are often hidden, making platforms as political as the posts they host.

 

 

​

 

 

I also asked by audience about their opinion on Role of influencer/celebrity endorsement in building voter engagement? As you can see the most popular answer was big youtbers such as Joe Rogen and Megyn Kelly who had big Trump supporter names like Theo Von, Tucker Carlson and  Candace Owens who all relate with the Gen Z audience. Ex news people such as Piers Morgen were also very popular during this cycle as they have experienced presidential campaigns themselves so they know whats going to heppen and they have had people on from both sides of the political sphere. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Some people say social media regulates free speech through things like content moderation, post removals or account suspensions, which they perceive as censorship ultimately stifling discourse. For instance, platform X removed millions of posts in 2022 for policy violations, raising concerns about inconsistent enforcement or external influences. Other people however defend moderation as essential to prevent harm, like harassment or misinformation, stating that these platforms are private entities free to set rules, and users can seek less-regulated alternatives. The debate hinges on balancing safety with open expression, with differing views on where to draw the line.

According to Stanford Law attorney Marie-Andrée Weiss thesis in the Stanford Law school website (SLS). ‘’While freedom of speech is the general rule in the U.S. and in the European Union (I), there are nevertheless exceptions to this freedom on both sides of the Atlantic (II). Some of these national exceptions aim at preventing hate speech, defamation, or threats, while others aim at preventing speech which is considered in other countries as the mere expression of an opinion, albeit unsavory, but nevertheless legal. Social media sites allow the rapid spread of all speech, whether protected or not, and such messages spread around the world, and sometimes stir people into action.’’

​

Along with the candidates in my University I interviewed some experts on the field specifically ​

 A congressman staffer, one journalist, one reporter from Prager U a conservative media outlet, one chair woman of the Arizona Young Republicans Club and a Investment banker. 

​

The interviews revealed nuanced perspectives on the media's role in U.S. elections, particularly regarding political misinformation. Participants widely agreed that social media platforms, especially Twitter (now X) and Facebook, played the most significant role, often serving as both amplifiers of information and misinformation. The media was described as a double-edged sword, with its potential for positive impact—such as voter education and engagement—often overshadowed by its susceptibility to spreading polarizing or false narratives. Influencer and celebrity endorsements were highlighted as critical in mobilizing voter engagement, with their reach and perceived authenticity swaying public opinion, particularly among younger audiences. Both parties utilized targeted ads and algorithm-driven content to boost voter turnout, often creating echo chambers. Concerns were raised about freedom of speech, with political biases in platform ownership leading to allegations of censorship or selective amplification of certain viewpoints. Participants emphasized the public's role as media consumers in perpetuating misinformation, often through uncritical sharing of content. These insights helped address the overarching question by illustrating how media, particularly social media, exacerbates political misinformation through structural biases, amplification of divisive content, and the unchecked spread of misleading information.

​

​

​

​

 

One powerful takeaway: Media literacy matters. Whether it’s fact-checking, diversifying sources, or understanding  how algorithms work, informed consumers are the frontline defense against manipulation.

 

 

Inside the Interviews: Five Voices, One ConcernAmong those interviewed:A congressional staffer described “a double-edged sword” effect, where social media boosted civic engagement but also deepened misinformation.A journalist lamented the erosion of trust in mainstream outlets, while a PragerU reporter praised alternative platforms for offering “perspectives the media won’t show.”The Chairwoman of the Arizona Young Republicans warned of censorship’s chilling effect.An investment banker highlighted the economic incentives behind polarizing content, where “clicks mean cash—even if it’s fake.”All agreed: the system is broken, but repairable—with education, transparency, and accountability.Conclusion: Toward a More Informed FutureThe 2024 U.S. election painted a vivid portrait of a media landscape in flux. On one hand, social platforms democratized access to political discourse. On the other, they turbocharged misinformation, weaponized algorithms, and widened societal divides.One particularly jarring moment was when outlets like CNN and MSNBC dismissed early reports of voting machine failures in Georgia—only for viral videos to suggest otherwise. Whether fact or fiction, the damage was done: trust eroded, and confusion reigned.Moving forward, solutions must involve a multi-pronged approach: platform transparency, smarter regulation, and a renewed push for media literacy. The future of democracy depends not just on the information we receive—but on how we choose to engage with it.