In town for a team meeting, Charles Sennott and Gary Knight, founders of GroundTruth, shared their commitment to training up-and-coming talent in global correspondents in an age when digital media seems to cast doubt on the reliability of political news.

Calvin Sims, seasoned US foreign correspondent and chair for the evening, identified a ‘tectonic shift’ in global politics as a ‘pandemic of populism’ now affects elections in the UK, Europe, and US.

The ensuing debate asked how successful mainstream and off-beat media channels are in producing meaningful political analysis for a generation typically craving entertainment.

The panel (left to right): socio-political journalist and author Laurie Penny, eminent American broadcast journalist Michael Goldfarb (The New York Times, NPR), GroundTruth Co-founder and Managing Editor Kevin Grant, and – joining us stateside via Skype – freelance Bloomberg journalist Matt Negrin.

Election as spectacle

Sims’ began by asking how appropriate it is to engage with humour in covering this election.

A visibly excited Matt Negrin enthused that he is likely the only person left in New York not yet weary of wall-to-wall media coverage of the election, ‘It’s so much fun. The race is close enough that it’s still interesting to cover.’

Grant went someway in agreeing, expressing the collective surprise many in the media have felt witnessing Donald Trump’s continued extremist statements even after being selected as the GOP’s candidate. ‘Trump is not normal, he has never been normal his entire life,’ he said, ‘The only way to cover this race is to be a little bit stupid,’ arguing a level of incredulity is helpful for real analysis.

Penny echoed the feelings of some in the audience saying she was ‘disturbed’ by the ‘excitement angle’ expressed. ‘It’s a real mistake to see this as fun in any way. Politics is a bad drug,’ she said, distasteful of a media frenzy that lacks sober questioning.

Goldfarb countered, it is essential the media depict Trump ‘as the threat to democracy that he is.’ The broadcaster went on to draw comparisons with the recent Brexit result and the imminent American decision, saying ‘resentment has nowhere to go’ for young angry men displaced from traditional ways of life, leading to extreme choices at the polling station.

Language can be unthinkingly recycled by media outlets without real discussion of its meaning – particularly in relation to voter demographics. ‘Critique of media is abysmal in America,’ said Goldfarb.

Several short videos produced by GroundTruth show that humour can capture an audience and convey real political information – as seen in a ‘Fact-Checking’ sketch with memorable dialogue.

Social media and youth in a digital age

‘The digital space was supposed to make things more democratic’ – and yet often a paucity of voices seems to dominate the debate, even online. ‘What should the media consumer do?’ asked Calvin.

Acknowledging that ‘journalism is in the grip of a massive financial crisis,’ Penny argued the media has not found a way of monetising meaningful critique for a mass audience.

Grant held that the media still has a way to go, and often ‘doesn’t get to the heart of policy matters,’ partially because ‘there’s no clicks in unemployment stories’. Media Matters found that roughly 0% of US TV coverage of the election had to do with policy.

Social media is growing in importance as an ‘alternative’ to ‘the shouting match on TV’ for many millennials seeking political discussion, according to Grant.

New opportunities are emerging on digital platforms, and there is hope yet for intelligent nuance in the ‘crass, uncivil discourse’ (in the words of Sennott) which election coverage so often appears to be.

The evening will begin at 8pm but make sure you are set for a long night and book a table in the restaurant. Book a table via the restaurant page, or call 020 7479 8950.

Tickets are £5 standard and free for Frontline Club members however booking online is required.

On Wednesday 20 January 2016, in front of a sold out audience at the Frontline Club, a panel of experts – chaired by journalist Michael Goldfarb – set out to discuss what is in store for this election year in the United States.

With Donald Trump a serious contender for the Republican ticket, and Bernie Sanders challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democrat candidacy, much of the discussion focused on exactly how and why this unprecedented turn of events had arisen.

Chair Michael Goldfarb kicked off the discussion by asking: “Hand on heart, a year ago had you any idea that this is where we’d be in the presidential campaign of 2016? With Donald Trump well ahead of the pack of the Republican party, and with Bernie Sanders gaining traction on Hillary Clinton?”

“No… but perhaps we should have been,” said Xenia Wickett, head of the US programme at Chatham House.

Peter Trubowitz, professor of International Relations at LSE, highlighted the depth of white resentment “on both sides” of the political spectrum as a reason for Trump’s success. On the right, Trump is tapping into the blue collar and evangelical demographic; on the left, it’s the “college age, highly educated (…) turned off by Hillary and turned on by Sanders or at least some alternative (…) They want something that is more progressive,” said Trubowitz.

“I think they are angry both on the right and on the left, because they believe the political system isn’t working (…) I don’t think it is white resentment, I think it’s a matter of issues and it’s more complicated,” said William Lowery, vice-chair of the Republicans Overseas UK.

“People are sick and tired” of the current state of politics, said Lowery – Trump is successfully tapping into that.

The panel then discussed whether Trump would continue to feature so heavily on the agenda in six weeks time. Trubowitz pointed to Iowa as a potential turning point: “If they [Trump supporters] show up there then something serious is happening.” Washington-based journalist Adam Brookes agreed, and commented that “the bubble will pop” if Trump were to lose in Iowa.

With Clinton’s name most likely on the Democrat ticket, Goldfarb posed the question: “Who can beat Hillary?”

Wickett responded that the candidacy will be Clinton’s to lose, but that “she’s doing a really good job of losing.” The panel agreed that the abortion issue and Clinton’s gender will ultimately pull voters. Women – whether Republican or Democrat – will be more likely to vote for Clinton.

However, Lowery argued that “anyone can beat Hillary Clinton” – as Americans are reluctant to return to the drama of the Clinton family. Lowry also commented that Republic voters often believe that any of their candidates can – and will – beat Hillary Clinton.

V informative & thought-provoking @frontlineclub panel this evening on #USElection looking at how much more polarised US politics is getting

— Emily (@emily_wight) January 20, 2016

“Presidential elections are won in the swing states and at the centre,” said Brookes. The Vice President nomination for both the Republican and Democrat candidate could be vital for winning the swing states. The panel pointed to Michael Bloomberg as one to watch as a potential independent candidate.

In terms of implementing genuine change through policy, the panel noted that the topic of immigration seemed to present the most significant opportunity.

One audience member asked the panel to comment on how American citizens tended to vote – with a view to policy, personality or history? Lowery observed that the portion of voters motivated by policy is diminishing: “it’s very hard to make a policy re-tweetable.”

With just under a year to go until the presidential elections, Brookes concluded that there are still “all kinds of possible outcomes.”