Now that the presidential race is behind us and we’ve had time to process Vice President Kamala Harris’ defeat to Donald Trump, the inevitable post-mortem period of finger-wagging begins. Was Harris too short on policy issues such as the economy, immigration or crime? Could her loss be chalked up to failed messaging to working-class voters or cultural divisions over trans rights? Was the war in Gaza a factor? Or was it Harris’ general weakness as a candidate? These conversations are all worth having, but no autopsy would be intellectually honest without discussing the undeniable role that our changing media landscape played in the 2024 Presidential election’s outcome.

For years, we’ve been told that mainstream media is dying, that there’s been a seismic shift in how Americans get their information. Indeed, social media platforms are where an increasing percentage of Americans are getting their news these days, and some non-traditional media sources such as podcasts now boast audiences that dwarf shows on major TV networks. Popular media personalities such as former Fox News host Tucker Carlson have left broadcast media to find massive audiences online. In recent years, digital outlets increasingly set the news agenda while many “legacy” media brands—besieged by layoffs, buyouts, closures and dwindling readership/viewership—now struggle to keep up, often by recycling news that first broke on digital platforms.

The 2024 election was an archetype example of this. For better or worse, our new media landscape was where some of the most pivotal developments in the election cycle were born. And to be clear: many of these developments fall under the “worse” category. Fake stories such as rumors about Haitian residents eating pets in Springfield, Ohio or relief funds intended to aid Hurricane Helene victims being redirected to house illegal immigrants stress tested the Harris campaign, and that camp’s failure to adequately combat this disinformation undoubtedly helped Trump.

In fact, at almost every turn in the election's final stretch, Trump benefitted from this informational divide, connecting with audiences on siloed, fact-free digital outlets that reinforce viewers' hermetic worldviews, while Harris largely reached the masses via a gate-kept media machine that is increasingly out of touch with mainstream audiences. These decisions reaffirmed the former's standing as an "anti-establishment" voice and the latter as a member of an "elite" class that's grown increasingly out of touch with most Americans.

Trump, who avoided a second televised debate with Harris after a bruising first round in September, took advantage of a digital-heavy media strategy in his final push, aided in part by Elon Musk’s near-constant cheerleading for him on his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter). Days before the election, Trump went on Joe Rogan’s massively popular podcast, a move that was allegedly turned down by the Harris camp over fears that appearing on the program might alienate a portion of her audience. Instead, Harris relied mainly on traditional messaging, including high-profile interviews with “60 Minutes” and with Fox News’ Bret Baier.

It’s clear whose strategy won out. Harris’ Fox News appearance garnered an estimated 7.8 million viewers and her “60 Minutes” appearance earned an estimated 5.7 million viewers. By contrast, Trump’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast received an estimated 47 million viewers. Trump won, in part, due to the Harris camp’s inability to recognize where most Americans get their information these days.

Presumably, there’s a reason Harris relied on a traditional media playbook. As it turns out, supporters of Harris and Trump are sharply divided not only across partisan lines but the mediums through which they get their information. An April NBC News poll discovered that the type of news media someone consumes practically predicts what candidate they’ll vote for. According to the poll, Americans who primarily consume traditional news typically had a more positive view of then-incumbent President Joe Biden (48 percent) than negative (44 percent). Among digital news consumers, however, only 35 percent viewed Biden favorably, while 54 percent saw him negatively.

The poll found that Biden supporters were far more likely to get their news from newspapers than Trump supporters (70 percent vs. 21 percent) and were also more likely to get their news from national network news (55 percent vs. 35 percent) and news websites (49 percent vs. 39 percent). Trump supporters, by contrast, were more likely to get their information from social media than Biden supporters (46 percent vs. 42 percent) as well as YouTube/Google (55 percent vs. 39 percent).

The poll also discovered Trump supporters were more likely than Biden supporters not to follow political news at all (53 percent vs. 27 percent).

Trump benefitted from a supporter base that relies heavily on digital media and crafted an outreach strategy that met audiences in the forums that are quickly becoming the most popular sources of news today. Harris’ camp largely targeted voters via legacy media giants whose influence is a shell of its former self. In a country where confidence in the news media is at an all-time low—according to an October Gallup/Knight Foundation poll, 36 percent of U.S. adults no longer trust the media at all, compared to 31 percent who expressed a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the media—media strategies today need to understand how our current information ecosystem works, meet audiences where they are and respond to online disinformation as it arises.