By Margarita Artoglou 

The 2016 Presidential Election saw more than its fair share of scandal and an incredible amount of media coverage. Many commentators have remarked at how bad this election has been in terms of mudslinging.

I am sure I am not the only person who is sick of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. I am definitely not the only one who is disgusted by all the accusations of sexual assault against Donald Trump. I never want to hear another breaking news story about the explosive language that comes out of his mouth.

I could go on and on with examples of the nastiness of this election. But I will not, because it is over now. However, it is time to acknowledge how detrimental presidential election coverage is to the democratic process on the local level.

As a result of minute by minute presidential poll coverage, and hours and pages of airtime and newspaper space being allocated to the sexual assault allegations against Trump and Clinton’s email scandals, we have heard very little about the races for any office besides the Oval Office.

This year, my ballot asks me to choose a candidate for POTUS, US Senate, US House, New York Senate, New York Assembly and Justice of the Supreme Court of my district. Of these races, the presidential race took up an overwhelming amount of media coverage.

Local politics are covered on a more local level — so the races for my district in Queens would be better covered by local newspapers. It is likely that the best way to inform myself about each candidate would be to go on each of their websites to read their platforms.

And yet, as someone who loves politics, I felt no inclination to do so, because by the time I remembered that I would be casting a vote for people other than Clinton or Trump, election coverage was no longer interesting. It had become bothersome and disheartening, and I wanted nothing to do with it.

However, local politicians arguably affect people’s everyday lives more than the president. Still, the candidates vying to represent Americans in state assemblies and state senates have fallen between the cracks.

In New York, Democratic incumbent Chuck Schumer faced Republican challenger Wendy Long. And while a Schumer defeat was a long-shot, more people should have paid attention. During his time in the Senate, Schumer has done a lot for everyday New Yorkers and Americans, including championing assault weapons restrictions and getting health care for 9/11 first responders who experienced health issues in the aftermath of the attacks.

Should the Democrats take the Senate with a majority of seats, Schumer will become the majority leader, which is a big deal for New Yorkers and Democrats everywhere. But as a result of obsessive presidential campaign coverage, many voters might not have been aware of these circumstances as they went to the polls.

While it might seem that media outlets should make more of an effort to bring audiences local news, many of them do cover local politics. These stories, however, were often overshadowed by presidential stories. It is up to readers to seek out local stories to make sure they stay informed.
We as news consumers must pay more attention to these smaller elections.

Our generation is especially reliant on social media when it comes to staying informed. While Facebook posts and tweets are important methods of information-sharing, the most viral stories are the outrageous ones. Policy plans specific to a small district are not nearly as shareable, but are still extremely significant.

In our internet culture of sharing, we need to remember, for the next local election, that being informed is vital. Next time, we must not let mudslinging get in the way of a fair democratic process.

Margarita Artoglou, FCRH ’18, is a communication and media studies major from Queens, New York.