The U.S. election results have raised questions about the conditions facing journalism, Donald Trump's continued influence, and the role of major technology companies in politics. Researchers Michael Karlsson and Henrik Örnebring discuss how the campaign was shaped by economic issues, why campaign spending does not always produce results, and what changes may lie ahead for both the media landscape and the Republican Party.
What can we expect regarding journalists' working conditions after the U.S. election results? Will they be able to regain public trust?
– It will be very difficult to regain trust, and not only because journalists have been vilified, says Michael Karlsson, Professor in media and communication at Karlstad University. The American political system has become increasingly fragmented and polarized since the 1960s. There is a structural process behind this development, and it is also related to the fact that different media outlets have maintained political leanings for a long time. MSNBC has leaned liberal and Fox News has leaned conservative. That has been the case since the 1990s, so it is nothing new.
– What has intensified under Trump, however, is the attack on journalists and journalism. I think that may ease somewhat because Republicans are now fully occupied with attacking one another and discussing what went wrong. That could give journalists some breathing room.
– It is primarily Republicans who have attacked journalism as an institution. We will have to see whether they change course in the future and try a different approach. It is difficult to predict, but there may be some kind of pause.
– It is important to remember that almost nothing happens suddenly from the perspective of those of us who study these developments professionally, says Henrik Örnebring, Professor in media and communication at Karlstad University. Everything follows trends that have been developing for a long time.
– Trump has now appointed Stephen Miller as his new Chief of Staff, and he has been one of the figures most hostile toward journalists. He has followed the far-right playbook by constantly attacking journalists as left-wing. He now appears to have gained even more influence. At the same time, Trump is highly unpredictable. Next week this discussion may be entirely irrelevant because Miller might no longer be Chief of Staff.
– My assessment is that the attacks on journalists will not stop. In both the United States and other parts of the world, attacking the media has proven to be an effective strategy for mobilizing voters.
Disliking the media has become a strong identity marker for many people on the political right. It appears to be an effective way to mobilize and engage supporters. Örnebring and Karlsson therefore believe that the American administration will continue to use this strategy as long as it remains a useful political identity marker and mobilization tool.
– But how much time can you spend attacking journalists when you yourself are under attack and must deal with a range of other issues? asks Henrik Örnebring. If there is, for example, an impeachment process against someone, the media will certainly be blamed, but attention will also have to be directed elsewhere.
Do you think the appointment of Stephen Miller is a response to the election result?
– It is difficult to say, says Henrik Örnebring. Trump's immigration policies have not been particularly popular, and he lost support among Hispanic voters, probably to a significant extent because of ICE. That was one of several factors behind the election defeat, and now Trump is elevating the person who was responsible for much of that policy.
– One interpretation is that the political line remains unchanged. Another is that Trump believes he has two years ahead of him during which he will face resistance and therefore wants someone by his side who is prepared to fight back. Or perhaps it simply reflected the mood Trump was in that particular day. I do not think we should overestimate the role of sophisticated long-term strategy when it comes to Trump. Quite often, it is more a matter of who he spoke with most recently.
– A great deal of the magic surrounding Trump has disappeared, and that means the Republican party must start thinking about what comes after him, says Michael Karlsson. Public opinion among voter groups has not really changed that much. The key issue is mobilization. Those who are best at mobilizing their supporters gain political influence. Many Democrats turned out to vote in this election, whereas fewer Republicans did. People's underlying views have not changed dramatically. The decisive factor is who succeeds in getting their supporters to the polls.
Elon Musk invested enormous amounts of money in campaign contributions, yet it did not help. Why do you think that is?
– The short answer is that people live in their own economy, says Michael Karlsson. You can describe it in many different ways, but people notice when things become more expensive. It is easy to evaluate whether filling your gas tank costs 200 kronor more than it used to. People do not like that, and economic conditions always have a major political impact.
– There is a great deal of research explaining why spending large amounts of money on campaigns does not always work, says Henrik Örnebring. One of the major puzzles in political science is often referred to as the ineffectiveness of incumbent spending.
– In simple terms, if you are the incumbent candidate, spending more money frequently has little effect. If you are the challenger, however, major campaign spending can make a difference. Researchers are not entirely sure why, but it is a well-established finding. Moreover, research on advertising effects is mixed. Sometimes advertising works, sometimes it does not. Just as in commercial advertising, it is very difficult to predict in advance what will be effective.
– The groups most influenced by political advertising are low-interest voters, party members, and economically dissatisfied voters. Advertising rarely changes people's opinions. What it does affect is whether people turn out to vote.
– If you look at Texas, much of the advertising focused on claims that Democrats are 'woke' and want to provide gender-affirming treatment to children in schools, and similar issues, says Henrik Örnebring.
– The question is which groups that message mobilizes. Probably not economically dissatisfied voters, who are instead asking how they can get more money in their pockets or how gasoline prices can be reduced.
– The Democrats' message was more focused on the economy, arguing that Republicans are corrupt and that ordinary people are becoming worse off financially. That is a much stronger message if your goal is to reach economically dissatisfied voters. A message that does not match voters' lived reality will neither persuade nor mobilize them, no matter how much money is spent.
How do you think the election result will affect Fox News and other media outlets closely associated with President Trump?
– If you apply the theory of elite cues and look at Republicans right now, there is an ongoing power struggle over how the election result should be interpreted, says Henrik Örnebring.
– Trump appears determined to stay and retain influence. At the same time, other Republicans immediately began signaling a different direction. The vice president, for example, almost immediately argued that the war was behind the defeat. That can be interpreted as a way of distancing himself from Trump.
– As for Fox News, they will likely do what many others do: wait and see. The Republican elite does not yet have a shared interpretation of the election result. Once it does, Fox News will probably follow that consensus.
– Trump will increasingly be joined by other voices on Fox News, says Michael Karlsson. There will likely be greater diversity of opinion for a period while people try to understand the election result. At the same time, Fox News remains closely tied to the political right in the United States. That will continue even if the message changes somewhat. It is not that Fox News has suddenly become independent; rather, it follows the direction of the Republican movement.
What would Republican political communication need to look like in order to regain some degree of respect among voters?
– There are essentially no traditional Republicans left, explains Henrik Örnebring. Trump has purged them from the party. They may return, but it is also well established that many have either become Democrats or left politics altogether. In practice, only Trump Republicans remain.
So the threshold is too high for them to come back and try again?
– If you look at Vance and Rubio, they are also strong culture-war Republicans, says Henrik Örnebring. They are not politicians whom Reagan would have recognized as obvious heirs to the old Republican Party.
– It is also a question of where the Republican Party is heading and when it can become competitive again, says Michael Karlsson. The Democrats won a very large majority, and without speculating about the next presidential election, the outlook is not particularly bright for Republicans at the moment. Even if there are no traditional Republicans available today, it may take years before the party is once again in a position to compete effectively. By then, the situation could look very different.
Technology companies have played a huge role in campaigns and political communication. How do you think that landscape will develop following this election result?
– That is a major question, says Michael Karlsson. Partly it concerns political communication in election campaigns, and I do not have a complete overview of that area. But there is also an ongoing debate about data centers and AI facilities in the United States, where local communities have often been skeptical of new developments. The road ahead may not be entirely smooth.
– We can look at public opinion right now, says Henrik Örnebring. One factor is growing criticism of technology companies. This criticism no longer comes only from academics and experts but increasingly from ordinary citizens. It may involve a large data center being built in a small town, concerns about noise, or effects on local water supplies. The criticism has become broader and more grassroots in nature. You could call it a form of populist criticism of big tech.
– The Democratic Party has been the most receptive to this criticism. As a result, there will probably be new initiatives and legislative proposals in this area. Whether they succeed is another question, but attempts will certainly be made.
– It is also important to remember that technology companies, like other large corporations, are opportunistic. When Trump was doing well, they were happy to follow his lead and downplay things such as fact-checking. When Biden was president, they adapted to him, and Silicon Valley did the same during the Obama years.
– For that reason, tech companies will probably adjust their rhetoric once again and try to present themselves as more responsible actors. They do not want to be regulated. A common strategy is to argue that they can regulate themselves rather than have the government step in. Globally, for example, technology companies have often supported various age limits for social media. However, that mainly regulates children and teenagers, not the companies themselves.
– There is also a global backlash against technology companies, says Michael Karlsson. We see age restrictions, the GDPR, and the EU's AI Act, all of which are designed to prevent tech companies from operating without constraints. There is a clear pushback against them, both in Europe and the United States.
– We have talked a lot about communication and symbolic issues, but we must also consider the economy, says Michael Karlsson. Gasoline, diesel, and natural gas prices have increased. Trump engaged in a conflict with Iran despite previously stating that the United States would avoid new wars. That contributed to higher energy prices. When people evaluate politics, they take such factors into account. Many feel that promises were not fulfilled. As a result, some people become disillusioned and choose not to vote.
– A third factor concerns tariffs, says Henrik Örnebring. It is fairly easy to see which states have been most affected by them. These are primarily Midwestern states such as Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, and Illinois. Many industries and agricultural businesses there have been negatively affected. Several of these states are also key swing states that are crucial for winning elections.
– For example, Iowa and Ohio, which had not voted Democratic for several years, did so again. This illustrates another challenge for Trump: his economic policies hit hardest in precisely the states he depended on to win the election.
