Do voters even need the media anyway?

[Commentary] The Internet laid waste to newsrooms across America, but it eventually led to experiments in journalism for the social age. Aided by money from venture capitalists, native ads and wealthy benefactors, some are actually growing again. TweetDeck is the new Newswire, posting to your Facebook feed is the new paper route, and it's once again safe to encourage college students to study journalism (we hope). President Barack Obama doesn't necessarily need newspapers, magazines, radio or television to get his message out. With social media, the White House can bypass the other outlets entirely.

The night of his State of the Union address, rather than giving the press advance embargoed copies of his speech, the White House published it on Medium (est. 2012). And lest you think this practice won't live in with the next President, witness Hillary Clinton. The Democratic frontrunner also chose to bypass the traditional media with her initial response to the controversy surrounding her use of a personal e-mail account while Secretary of State. Some might cheer politicians' ability to speak directly to the voters without the media's interference.

A September Gallup poll found only 40 percent of Americans believe they can trust the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly. The drama of 2016 will play out in newspapers and newsfeeds, on TV and Twitter at an unprecedented level, and with ingredients of a large, hungry press corps reporting on guarded candidates for a distrustful public. It's sure to be pivotal, revealing what the new media reality we've created really means, politically speaking. And it's hard to see how the Obama Administration's approach won't live on.