Some Americans enjoy the opportunities for political debate and engagement that social media facilitates, but many more express resignation, frustration over the tone and content of social platforms.
As the news media cover the turbulent 2016 presidential election, there’s been considerable debate around how much emphasis they should put on inaccurate or potentially offensive statements made by candidates.
In the aftermath of presidential debates, there is intense interest in gauging "who won." How can we know the answer to that question?
Americans are divided in what they consider the most positive and negative attribute of the news media, and much of that divide follows party lines.
Only a slim minority thinks the news media’s coverage of Trump and Clinton is too tough, a view the public also held in previous general elections.
How social media users see, share and discuss race and the rise of hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter
A quarter of U.S. adults (24%) turn to social media posts from either the Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump campaigns as a way of keeping up with the election, while 10% turn to their websites and 9% turn to emails.
Today’s presidential candidates are increasingly prioritizing social media outreach, while the role of campaign websites is shifting.
59% of Americans feel exhausted by the amount of election coverage, while 39% say they like getting a lot of coverage about the election.
We looked at the role of news on the site and how users were discussing the presidential candidates in the lead-up to the primaries. Here are 5 key findings.