Before the Media Megaphone

How Politics Worked in a Less Consolidated Media World

When we talk about today’s political dysfunction — hyper-polarisation, outrage cycles, personality politics, permanent campaigning — we often point to social media or Donald Trump as the rupture point.

But Trump didn’t enter a stable media ecosystem and blow it up.

He entered one that had already been fundamentally reshaped by decades of media consolidation, deregulation, and centralisation. To understand our current political climate — especially the 24/7 outrage machine — we need to understand how political parties and the media used to relate to one another before the era of mega-owners, national chains, and algorithmic gatekeepers.

Because politics didn’t always operate like this.

The Media System Parties Once Lived In

Before the consolidation waves of the 1990s–2010s, Western media systems were structurally different in three crucial ways:

1. Ownership Was More Fragmented and Local

News ecosystems were built around:

• Locally owned newspapers

• Regionally run radio stations

• TV affiliates with greater editorial autonomy

Editorial cultures varied from city to city, region to region. Even when papers had ideological leanings, they reflected local political identities rather than a national corporate line.

There wasn’t one dominant narrative pipeline — there were many.

2. Party–Media Relationships Were More Direct and Personal

Political parties didn’t operate solely through national media consultants. They:

• Maintained ongoing relationships with local editors and journalists

• Responded to local press agendas

• Relied on regional coverage to communicate with voters

Politics was mediated through community institutions. Reporters and politicians often moved in overlapping civic circles. Access, trust, and reputation mattered.

Today, that relational model has been replaced by broadcast confrontation and viral visibility.

3. Partisan Alignment Was Often Explicit

This is important: the past wasn’t some golden age of neutral media.

In many countries, newspapers had clear political identities:

• Labour-aligned papers

• Conservative papers

• Union-linked or church-linked outlets

Readers understood the lean. Bias was visible and plural, not hidden behind a universal brand voice. The diversity came not from neutrality — but from the existence of multiple, competing editorial identities.

What Consolidation Changed

Over time, deregulation and market pressure enabled:

• National chains absorbing local papers

• Cross-ownership (TV + radio + print under one company)

• Centralised editorial production

• Fewer owners controlling more outlets

The result wasn’t necessarily a single ideology dominating.

It was something subtler and arguably more powerful:

A narrowing of the range of editorial cultures.

Local variation gave way to:

• Shared national narratives

• Standardised story selection

• Content pipelines from central hubs

• Reduced local political coverage

Politics became less about local governance and policy and more about national spectacle.

How Political Parties Had to Adapt

As the media became centralised, parties changed their behaviour in response.

Then

• Build relationships with local editors

• Tailor messages regionally

• Policy details mattered locally

• Campaigns had rhythms

Now

• Court national producers & digital platforms

• Craft simplified national narratives

• Emotional resonance drives coverage

• Campaign mode never ends

Parties moved from community politics to attention politics.

The key skill shifted from governing competence to narrative dominance.

Enter the 24/7 Media Cycle

Rupert Murdoch, the unelected editor-in-chief of Western politics.

Consolidation helped create the infrastructure for permanent political theatre:

• National networks need constant content

• Fewer gatekeepers but larger audiences

• Competition for attention over depth

• Politics framed as episodic drama

This is the environment Trump stepped into — and mastered.

He did not have to build a personality-driven politics.

The media system already rewarded it.

What Changed for Citizens — “We the People”

Before consolidation:

• You encountered politics through the local context

• Issues felt tied to your community

• Media agendas varied by place

Now:

• You experience politics as a continuous national crisis feed

• Personalities dominate policy

• Outrage scales faster than deliberation

Citizens didn’t just become more polarised.

They became audiences in a national political performance.

The Crucial Shift

The biggest transformation wasn’t ideological.

It was structural.

We moved from:

Many editorial centres shaping politics in parallel

to:

A few powerful narrative hubs feeding a continuous national storyline

That system is perfectly suited to:

• Charismatic disruptors

• Conflict entrepreneurs

• Emotional mobilisation

• Permanent campaigning

Which brings us to Trump — not as the cause of media chaos, but as the political figure most attuned to how the new system actually works.

---