Demonization: Great for Ratings, Terrible for Society
Sensationalism has become a cornerstone of modern media, driving engagement and boosting ratings. One of the most effective tools for generating outrage is demonization—casting individuals as villains or existential threats to society. While this may draw clicks and fuel heated discussions, it has dangerous consequences for society as a whole. Demonizing public figures fosters division, stokes anger, and can lead to radicalization, with very real and harmful outcomes.
The Demonization of Donald Trump
Donald Trump serves as a prominent example of how demonization plays out in the public sphere. Throughout his presidency and continuing into his post-presidency, Trump has often been portrayed by his critics as a direct threat to democracy. The frequent comparisons to Hitler only heighten this effect. Labeling Trump as the "new Hitler" isn't just inflammatory; it encourages dangerous moral logic. The hypothetical question of whether people would kill baby Hitler has been posed countless times, with many answering "yes" under the premise of preventing future atrocities. By applying this same reasoning to Trump, people may feel justified in extreme actions, including assassination attempts. This isn't hypothetical—there have been real attempts on Trump's life(
).
When a public figure is dehumanized to the point where they are seen as irredeemably evil, it fosters a dangerous environment where violence becomes more likely. In such a climate, demonization not only escalates hatred but also desensitizes the public to violence against the figure in question.
Demonization Fuels Radicalization
Demonizing someone as a threat does more than rally opposition; it radicalizes both sides. Those who support the demonized figure feel under siege, intensifying their loyalty and hostility toward critics. Conversely, those who view the individual as a threat may become more extreme in their opposition, feeling morally justified in taking drastic measures. This escalating cycle of demonization and radicalization polarizes society, creating divisions that are hard to bridge.
The Case of Russia and Vladimir Putin
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has been portrayed by much of the Western media as a near-Satanic figure, often labeled as the embodiment of authoritarian evil. While Putin’s actions as a leader may warrant serious critique, framing him as a supervillain who must be defeated at all costs pushes us toward a dangerous place. If Putin is viewed as a pure evil that can only be combated by war, it limits any diplomatic options and escalates the risk of conflict.
Russia is a nuclear power, and when rhetoric escalates to the level of nuclear brinkmanship, the stakes are life-threatening on a global scale. Demonizing Putin in this way makes it almost impossible for the U.S. and other nations to engage with him pragmatically. While the U.S. and Russia will likely never be best friends due to their competing interests, they must at least coexist without the constant specter of nuclear war hanging overhead.
The Cost of Sensationalism
The media’s constant focus on demonization works for one reason: it sells. Demonization generates strong emotional reactions, which, in turn, drive ratings and clicks. People are drawn to narratives that frame conflicts in simple terms of good versus evil. But these narratives are simplistic, and they distort reality. People and countries, no matter how problematic, are rarely as black-and-white as the media would have us believe.
The danger is that this kind of demonization, while great for short-term engagement, leads to long-term social fragmentation and dangerous radicalization. It turns every political disagreement into a moral battle between good and evil, leaving no room for compromise or dialogue.
Conclusion
Demonization may be a quick way to drive engagement, but it comes at a steep cost. By casting public figures like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin as pure evil, we create an environment where radical actions, even violence, seem justified. The media’s role in promoting this narrative must be acknowledged for the damage it does to social cohesion and international relations. A more pragmatic approach, where public figures are critiqued fairly without descending into hyperbole, is essential if we hope to foster a healthier and more balanced society.