Everyone can agree that this election was undoubtedly influenced by the media. Recent comments from Hillary Clinton, however, have sparked a new discussion about news and the veracity of the media surrounding it. With people on both sides bitter about the lead up to the election and its results, it would seem that so-called "fake news" would be a non-partisan issue with people gearing up in search of the truth. Instead, it seems that Clinton's comments have only served to further polarize people and the question arises: in this new world, where the mainstream media is biased and myopic in its views, how will people not only get their news but get a chance to discern reality from falsehood?

Let's start with Trump. The President-Elect frequently criticized the media from the campaign trail, especially in those moments when it seemed that victory was only a dream and justifying an impending loss was the smartest thing to do. Even then, to many, the complaints seemed unfounded- why complain about million of dollars worth of airtime, given free because of the demand for an interview about the latest scandal or comment? Ultimately, it didn't matter what Trump said but how he polled and, if nothing else, this election accomplished one key thing. Trump's election completely discredited the mainstream media, whose inability to look in front of their noses resulted in Trump's "upset". I call it an upset for one very specific reason: I am not sure that Trump was ever truly down in the polls, at least not to the extent that was recorded and reported. But because of the failings of the media, not only did Donald win but he will be remembered for having overcome one of the largest predicted margins of loss ever. The media gave him a trophy that he needn't never have won if only they'd done their jobs.

The second part to this is clearly the Clinton factor. If the American people were shocked by Trump's clean slide to 270, Hillary was completely floored. And for the last several weeks after the election, she's been unusually quiet, composing herself for the reemergence into the public sphere. With discussions revolving around the media and how it failed to see the Trump Train coming (and Pizzagate), it only makes sense that she would attack the fake news. In many ways, it did legitimately hinder her campaign. Whereas Trump was constantly on edge, campaigning to fight the next headline and the bias against him, Clinton was comfortable. She didn't need to campaign in Pennsylvania or Ohio or Wisconsin. Why would she? Every projection placed that solid blue.Why bother talking to the press? She was already leading in every poll. Clinton could walk into most of the debates knowing the audience- and Donna Brazile- were on her side.

The media's role in the election was key, but now we must start looking to the future. DCLeaks, Wikileaks and Project Veritas became the hard-hitting sources of news for people because of the lack of transparency in all other places. Social media changed the way these stories spread. The non-mainstream media became more grassroots in appearance- anyone could start a blog, film a Youtube video, and be an activist. The President-Elect sets his daily agenda with a tweet. With all this change coming, it's no small wonder that there seems to be panic and excitement on both sides regarding the possibilities to change narratives and control the future news.

This leaves the United States and, ultimately, the world at a crossroads. The roles and reach of media are changing and the people writing the stories aren't interested in promoting the false narratives of the big wigs before them. It'll be interesting to see the directions we take in the coming months and years but for now,

Good Luck America.

Tune in next week for an exclusive with Project Veritas founder and president, James O'Keefe.