In a country saturated by the media, how is it possible that Donald Trump won the presidential election when all the media were critical of him? My reaction is another question: Who said that all the media were against Trump? It is true that the news bulletins and talk shows of the big networks as well as the editorials of the ‘best’ newspapers were against him, but that does not constitute all of the most influential media.

Trump is a celebrity created by the media, mainly commercial television. He was created and fashioned in the likeness not of the news media but of the media that really matter: the entertainment media.

People with a journalistic background live under the illusion that the public believes that everything revolves around the news programmes. Most people think otherwise. The term ‘reality TV’ is not ascribed to the news bulletins or to current affairs programmes. The term is used for a totally different genre which, however, perfectly captures the culture of our age. It is a programme that purports to show us reality but shows us anything but. Unfortunately, reality in this post-modern and relativistic age is totally subjective, totally manufactured and generally driven by market oriented media.

Trump excelled in reality shows because he is an intrinsic part of this culture which shows life as a perpetual make-believe. The reality genre is one that cares not for truth or for facts. The more you exaggerate or show off, the better. It increases your chance of becoming the darling of the audience and thus the champion. The way you pitch yourself is your trump card.

Trump did all this in The Apprentice, the reality show that showed him as the one “who made it big” in the “urban jungle”. The winners of The Apprentice were hosted in Trump’s golden-doored penthouse in the Trump Tower. He has now sold voters the illusion that he could build America with golden doors and invite them in.

They believed him when he said vote for me because you have nothing to lose. Voters believed that he can make America great. They feel that if you are successful on TV (which is larger than life) then you can be a successful president. Voters in the swing state of Ohio told Poppy Harlow of CNN that Trump was a successful businessman “first of all because he had a television show”.

Trump behaved as if he was still on The Apprentice. He did what had to be done to grab attention

Moreover, his lifestyle is made of the ingredients that would make a great reality show: extravagance, unconventional behaviour and a colourful romantic life. On top of everything, he is super rich. Voters felt that all this is a good substitute for political experience and exposure to international politics.

Trump is the kind of guy who can transmute from the TV persona to the physical life person with excessive ease. He equates both personalities and unites them in one. Since no one expects you to tell the truth in a televised reality TV show, no one should expect you to say the truth during an electoral campaign fashioned as if it were a reality show.

This is what Trump did. He behaved as if he was still on The Apprentice. He did what had to be done to grab attention even if that meant being totally economical with the truth or behaving in a crude, insulting and rough way. During his electoral campaign he provided “good television” when he gloated in cliffhangers and suspense. He actually said it on air: I will keep you in suspense whether or not I will accept the election result.

The news media, which mimic the entertainment media, feasted on Trump during the primaries. His eccentricities provided a tsunami of what commercial TV believes to be good television. When he, contrary to the expectation of “experienced” commentators, made it to the final stages they realised that they had fed a monster. But it was then too late. Voters just wanted more Trump.

The reality show type of electoral campaign does not only go down with the audiences of television but is great for the audiences of the social media. These are the dominant media. History shows us that the politician who masterfully uses the language of the dominant medium will be the successful candidate. This was true, for example, in the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and 1940s. As Governor of New York and later as president of the US, he used radio to bypass newspapers and establish a direct line with voters. He is regarded as one of the most effective communicators in radio’s history. His so-called “fireside chats” are the stuff of legend.

In the 1960s television became a more important medium than radio. John F. Kennedy mastered its language to become the first true TV president. Nixon won the voters who listened to the presidential debates on radio but Kennedy’s riveting rendering on television won the larger audience of voters who watched TV.

Barack Obama’s use of social networks out-manoeuvred republican candidate Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign. Trump recognised that this election cycle the public was getting more of their news from social media than ever before. In fact, 87 per cent of the American public is on the internet today and over 70 per cent of those internet users are on Facebook.

Trump mastered the language of Facebook and other social media. His personality matched the medium. Both are polarising, coarse, aggressive, decontextualising and selective in imparting information.

Studies show that on the social networks Trump offered broad generalisations or generic claims with little evidence to back them up. He is then liked and shared or re-tweeted as he indiscriminately used to re-tweet messages by his followers.

One hopes that all this will not lead to a presidency which changes the world into a gigantic reality show set. Not even Hollywood thought of such a monstrosity. Will Trump come up with it?

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt