As the Berlin wall fell in early November 1989, the demise of communism was heralded across the western world. It was a triumph of democratic principles globally, while hailed a Republican victory in the United States. Images of Germans demolishing one of the most iconic emblems of communism transmitted around the world. It was a landmark moment in modern politics and a pivotal moment in the German national narrative. It is with little surprise, therefore, that few people gave much thought as a newly syndicated radio show joined the chorus of voices heralding this historic moment. From his New York studio, Rush Limbaugh echoed many of the bipartisan sentiments of the time, and his subsequent rise to prominence is due, at least in part, to the fall of communism. It is ironic, however, that Limbaugh, a conservative commentator, would usher in an era of media that would erode the social capital that forms the basis of civil society. More importantly, social media have been left to carry on and refine the legacy of traditional media, through the power of science and algorithms.
In 2023 Fox News had nearly $15 billion in annual revenue (Statista, 2024). Like many of their rivals, the network relies on a bevy of primetime commentators to attract viewers. And much to the chagrin of their rivals, Fox has continued to lead both CNN and MSNBC in nightly ratings, even as viewership has broadly declined for all networks. Despite the declining ratings, however, the networks have been slow to die. This is partly due to the durability of partisan media. Years prior, Rush Limbaugh proved that such an opinion-based, partisan format could be successful. For conservative networks, like Fox, his syndication proved that a national appetite for such programming existed. Traditional delivery like that of Larry King was suddenly bland by comparison. The subsequent rise of conservative commentary forced the major news networks to respond with a similar, commentary-led format.
The rapid evolution of television, fueled by the competition for viewers was brought about by the onset of for-profit newscasting. Fox News wasn’t the evening news, nor was it just commentary. It was also entertainment. And it lowered the level of critical engagement required by providing the viewer with a ready-made opinion. It was, to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh’s snarky review of his own show, not just the news, but what to think about it (C-Span, 2020). Ironically, this was precisely the criticism levied at Limbaugh throughout his rise. His show wasn’t news in the traditional sense. He was, as he put it, simply responding to the mainstream media (60 Minutes, 2020). This would become the format of dozens of hosts, from Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity to Don Lemon. Evening news was replaced by panels of guests with opposing opinions, often talking over one another in chaotic two-minute clashes before breaking. All the while revenues continued to climb, and the networks continued their partisan drift.
Thirty-five years after the rise of Rush Limbaugh, the consequences of partisan broadcasting are at least partially clear. The declining trust Americans place in the media has been widely reported as has the overall decline in ratings. More troubling, partisan media whether in the news or social media, have made Americans less trusting of one another and perhaps less trusting of our institutions. Havard Professor Robert Putnam (1995) describes such trust as social capital. In Putnam’s assessment, social capital has broadly declined with the rise of television. The partisan formula popularized by Rush Limbaugh was adopted by the nightly news and, eventually, reproduced algorithmically by social media. In other words, the media have changed, but the partisan formula remains the same.
Consider, for example, our growing ability to self-segregate through social media. Conservative and liberal groups isolate from one another while Facebook and Youtube algorithms ensure the divide is never crossed. As legacy media erodes and social media continues to grow, the entry point to group participation becomes increasingly important. In the 1980s, for example, groups might have been organized around parent-teacher associations, churches, or YMCAs. While some homogeneity should be expected based on the characteristics of the community, the group was still more or less random. Putnam’s (1995) study, however, shows a dramatic decline in social capital over the last 80 years, suggesting that fewer people are engaged in traditional group activities. Furthermore, physical places are no longer the genesis of group formation. Social media and the internet have replaced churches and community centers. And while the former are welcome to all, the latter are guarded by algorithms and administrators. Group formation, if it were to happen in the physical world, would likely be predicated on our digital affiliations. The polarization of media, therefore, affects not only our perceptions of the world, but our physical interactions within it.
The point of this argument is not to pin the demise of social capital on Rush Limbaugh. The proliferation of partisan commentary is only one aspect of a for-profit, entertainment driven news industry, whose legacy extends beyond cable television to social media and the physical world. Instead, it’s important to realize that polarization is occurring and likely occurring to each of us. It takes relatively little examination to point out the wayward drift in others, but a great deal of self-reflection to recognize it in ourselves. As American critic, Howard Rheingold said, “Unless a great many people learn the basics of online crap detection…I fear for the future of the internet as a useful source of credible news, medical research, financial information, educational resources, scholarly and scientific research” (Hobbs & McGee, 2014, p. 57). In other words, it’s incumbent upon each of us to consume the world in a responsible way.
In summary, the success of partisan national media provided the basis for continued partisan divide in social media. This divide extends not only to the information we consume, but the company we keep. While the decline in social capital is in part due to polarization, its remedy lies in our collective ability to recognize how media manipulates our perceptions and work to undo polarization in ourselves.
References
C-Span. (2020). User clip: Limbaugh tells you what to think. [Video]. C-Span.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4853284/user-clip-limbaugh-tells
Hobbs, R. & McGee, S. (2014). Teaching about propaganda: An examination of the historical
roots of media literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(2), 56-67. www.jmle.org
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in
America. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 664–683. https://doi.org/10.2307/420517
Statista (2024). Revenue of Fox Corporation in the fiscal years 2017 to 2023. Statista.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1270363/fox-corporation-revenue/
60 Minutes. (2020, February 5th). Rush Limbaugh: The 1991 60 minutes interview. [Video].