Is the media for the masses?
The premise of this piece is that the media should reflect every constituency, but that may not be its purpose.
Here’s how I see it:
In the past, the media certainly didn’t reflect every group and every individual, because they set the national agenda. People read/listened/watched the media to know what was happening in the nation or city, not to see themselves reflected back (except maybe in the opinion pages).
In a way that approach is terrible because it’s top-down and ignores the interests and experience of individuals while claiming to talk for everyone.
On the other hand, the idea that the media could possibly reflect every single constituency — the reluctant Clinton supporters, and the adulating Clinton supporters, and the feminist Clinton supporters, and the female Clinton supporters who aren’t voting for her only because she’s a woman, not to mention the undecided, and the Trump supporters, and the Trump supporters who are not Angry White Males, and the racist Trump supporters, and every faction within every minority etc. etc. etc. — is impossible.
And it’s not clear that that’s the purpose of the media either — especially in political reporting. It’s the media’s job to attempt to find out the truth about the things that are under debate. If people want to express their love for Hillary Clinton, they have the whole internet, why do they need the media?
The interesting point is that this expectation now exists — our changing conception of community/identity/individual is now tied to the acceptance and expression of that community/identity/individual in a public setting.
But that’s not what the mass media was designed for, because how could possibly be the voice of an endlessly diverse society?