The polarization, vitriol, and distrust that characterize the current political news media landscape accelerated to a mind-spinning pace this month. Social media algorithms and personalized news feeds serve as major contributing factors. In bringing a microphone to previously marginalized people and untold stories, social media upended the established order of centralized news coverage. It also enabled misinformation and conspiracies to erode a shared sense of truth and facts, as well as hateful perspectives on the fringes to gain broader reach and impact. 

Voters have access to more information and perspectives than ever before; yet, when Havas Media surveyed them after the first – perhaps only – presidential debate, they were dubious. Only 56% of Democrats, 27% of Republicans, and 30% of Independent/Other agreed with the statement that they were “confident in the media’s ability to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their elected officials.” When it comes to specific media outlets, this election reinforced partisan choices. Almost a quarter (24%) of Biden supporters chose to watch on CNN, with a similar proportion of Trump supporters tuning into Fox (23%); only 4% of Trump supporters tuned into CNN and just 2% of Biden supporters watched Fox. As expected, social media played a critical role in post-debate coverage, but, interestingly, undecided voters marked the largest block turning there after the debate. 

Advertisers must understand the importance of forging the path to a more civic-minded and consciously curated media landscape. It will require shedding some old habits to foster new ones built on three key principles:

1. Commit to Financially Supporting Quality Journalism. 

In times of recession, many advertisers divest from media, and newspapers’ subscription revenue determines their survival. There is ample evidence that advertisers who maintain media investment in a downturn can benefit in terms of market share. But the benefit is larger than the bottom line.  

Advertising revenue is critical to information access. When major subscription newspapers made their coronavirus coverage free, this sent an important message: people should have access to certain information, regardless of their ability to pay. We need to support providing all citizens with comprehensive perspectives on difficult topics. Further, we need to identify and underwrite publishers in under-covered news deserts and historically marginalized communities.

2. Reimagine Brand Safety. 

Brands that avoid controversy and negativity shouldn’t have to avoid politics. The current tenor of news is not an excuse to hide in the recipe section because you’re in a certain category or to invest only with the most centrist or neutral publishers. To better fund better journalism, brands will need to pay more attention to media plans and partnerships than in the past.

One important journalistic approach to watch is election coverage that replaces “game of thrones” style reporting with a “citizen agenda,” as explained by NYU Journalism professor Jay Rosen of NYU. While national news media have struggled to break the cycle of covering the president’s constant news-making tweets and actions, many local news organizations have made progress identifying and covering the issues that matter to citizens first, then evaluating candidates policies and proposals afterward. 

Separating important coverage of serious yet sensitive topics from biased reporting or misinformation in the current ad buying marketplace will require investment in better technological solutions as well as media plan curation. Digital media blocklists based on keywords are blunt instruments. Media planning requires deep familiarity with the coverage that a range of publishers and journalists provide. Demand that of yourselves and your media agencies.

3. Use and Develop Technology Responsibly.

Evidence around social media’s deleterious effect on discourse and mental health has continued to grow. The Center for Humane Technology is raising awareness of this issue, not least with the new film The Social Dilemma.  

When we design advertising products and media experiences, let us apply the Center’s guidelines for designing products with an honest accounting of the impact on human sensitivities and group dynamics. Breaks in the endless scroll, for example, would give users the ability to swim confidently through the current of information and ideas rather than drown in it, as Stanford University Communications professor Fred Turner phrased it. Product improvements that enable swift removal of posts that violate community guidelines, in-feed fact checking, and a consideration of the user’s mental health signal a promising start to a less damaging environment.  

As advertising organizations and individuals, we have the power to put pressure on social media platforms to design a more citizen-oriented experience. No doubt some changes are in tension with marketers’ incentives to capture and keep consumer attention, and others will require expanded industry regulation. It’s worth it.

The stakes are high.

Democracy and a robust free press remain profoundly interconnected: An informed citizen base requires widespread access to credible information; and widespread access to credible information requires advertising support. We cannot predict the outcome of the election or the future of news media with certainty, but we have a critical role to play in both. 

Conversations are happening in meetings with every political advertiser about what it will take to generate a winning outcome this election cycle. While these sorts of talks are nothing new, they are happening during unprecedented circumstances. 

The pandemic has thrown a proverbial wrench in the campaign strategies for candidates. Amid the public health emergency, COVID-19 has forced political advertisers to accelerate the adoption of digital channels. Not only is the greater adoption of digital channels necessary for advertisers to make up for lost opportunities to connect with voters in-person through rallies and canvassing, but it is inevitable as content consumption on digital channels rises.

Political advertisers have a handle on some digital channels, and there are other channels they are just starting to figure out. One of those channels (which also turns out to be surging 60% since the COVID-19 outbreak) is connected TV — internet-
connected TV sets or devices.

When CTV first entered the media landscape, advertisers were concerned that it lacked scale. Fast forward a few years and, today, reach through CTV is extensive thanks to the growing number of publishers and massive adoption of streaming. CTV viewers are looking more and more like linear TV viewers and are expected to climb to over 200 million viewers, or 60% of the population by the end of 2020, per Extreme Reach. 

While political advertisers are still investing heavily in linear TV, it’s no longer a surefire way to reach voters — especially young voters, who are expected to break turnout records. A strategy to reach the 61% of young voters who have “cut the cord” relies squarely on digital channels like social, display, video and now CTV.

Yes, there is a mix of digital channels political advertisers can use to reach
voters, but let’s take a look at why CTV is poised to make a significant impact on the effectiveness of political advertising campaigns in 2020.

CTV rides on the coattails of TV, the most trusted media channel: There is a lot of mistrust in political advertising, especially on digital channels. With growing concerns over fake news, advertisers can reach voters while streaming TV with the same level of targeting expected from display or social, but in a more trustworthy environment. 

CTV upholds the element of storytelling: Storytelling is the key to effective advertising. For political advertisers, storytelling is a critical component of changing voter opinions and conveying how a policy will impact voters personally. Political advertisers investing in linear TV can benefit from extended reach to “cord-cutter” and “cord-never” audiences while upholding the integrity of stories and messaging best suited for longer-form video formats. 

CTV is low(er) cost: Unlike other categories where ad spend has dipped, political ad spending in 2020 is booming and expected to hit $6.7 billion, according to a May joint report from Advertising Analytics and Cross Screen Media. But that doesn’t mean political advertisers aren’t trying to do more with more, or, in some cases, more with less. With CPMs as low as $20, CTV investments are a fraction of the cost of linear TV investments where you can expect to pay CPMs of over $50.  

CTV extends omnichannel reach: Here’s the thing. While cost savings are an essential factor for advertisers, it all comes down to the ability for political advertisers to reach more eligible voters. CTV advertisers are getting access to audiences and targeting capabilities that are simply not available through linear TV. 

Political advertisers can apply cross-device targeting tactics to reach voters with sequential messaging, use look-alike targeting to reach high propensity voters, and apply geolocation data to heavy up regions that are politically divided lean towards a specific political party. And the targeting capabilities don’t end there. 

This is not the political year advertisers expected, but the shift towards more digital channels, like CTV, is a sea change that’s been a long time coming. The threat of cord-cutting and political ad bans on social platforms like Facebook have challenged political advertisers to get creative and embrace emerging channels with a new sense of urgency. Although not yet perfect (ahem, measurement and fraud protection), CTV has come a long way in the past five years to bring advertisers closer to their audience. And if you’re a political advertiser looking to advance on the political battleground, there is no better time than now to make a move on CTV. λ

Fox News Channel was the main source of news for 40% of the voters who put Donald Trump into the White House, while Hillary Clinton's supporters got their news from a number of outlets, with none of those getting more than 20%. Only 3% of Clinton supporters said Fox was their main source of news.

That's according to a new Pew Research Center survey, conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 12 among a representative sample of 4,183 adults.

The next most common main news source for voters who elected Trump was CNN, which the President-elect has attacked as fake news, though that network was cited by only 8%.

The full Trump voter breakdown was FNC, 40%; CNN, 8%; Facebook, 7%; NBC, 6%; Local TV, 5%; ABC, 3%; CBS, 3%; and local radio, 3%.

RELATED > Former Apprentice Contestant Sues Trump

CNN was the main source of news for Clinton voters, cited by 18% of respondents. MSNBC, Facebook, local television news, NPR, ABC, The New York Times and CBS were each cited by between 5% and 9% of those respondents as their main source.

The full Clinton voter breakdown was CNN, 18%; MSNBC, 9%; Facebook, 8%; local TV news, 8%; NPR, 7%; ABC, 6%; The New York Times, 5%; CBS, 5%; NBC, 4%; local newspapers, 4%; and FNC, 3%.

Across voters for both candidates, 19% said FNC was their main source, followed by CNN at 13% and Facebook at 9%, although Facebook does not produce its own news.

RELATED > Survey: Trump Should Dump Tweets

Prominent online sites that do produce news did not make much of a dent in the "main source" list.

Breitbart was named by only 1% of respondents as the main source of news, as was The Huffington Post. Buzzfeed was not named by a single member of the sample. Those sites were part of the larger news diet for some of those respondents.

The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 2.7 percentage points, Pew said.