As of 2022, only 3.4% of journalists
were reported to be Republicans.

In recent years, the trust Americans place in their media has plummeted to unprecedented lows, sparking widespread debate on the role media plays in shaping democratic institutions. According to a Gallup poll in 2023, only 32% of Americans express confidence in the media’s ability to report news fully, fairly, and accurately. This erosion of trust, coupled with a record-high 39% stating they don’t trust the media at all, points towards a significant crisis in media credibility. Here, we delve into how Democrat-influenced media reporting might be at the heart of this trust deficit.

Reductio ad Hitlerum (aka: playing the Nazi card, Hitler card)

Comparing any contemporary political figure, such as Donald Trump, to historical figures like Adolf Hitler, can be seen as both irresponsible and dangerous to democracy. Drawing parallels between contemporary figures or ideologies and Hitler or the Nazi regime often aims to discredit the subject through association with one of history’s most infamous villains.

By labeling a figure like Trump with Hitler’s name, journalists risk alienating those who support or sympathize with that figure, not on ideological grounds but for other reasons like policy preference or perceived economic benefits. This can deepen divides, making political discourse more about demonization than debate, which undermines democratic dialogue.

Creating an equivalence with Hitler might foster a sense of moral panic or existential threat, which can lead to extreme reactions. This might not only radicalize Trump’s opponents but also his supporters, who could see this as an unjust vilification, potentially leading to increased support out of defiance or a siege mentality.

Rhetoric that positions a political leader as a tyrant or akin to Hitler might implicitly or explicitly justify extreme measures against that figure or their supporters, potentially leading to violence or undermining the rule of law.

New York Magazine, July 7, 2016: How Hitler’s Rise to Power Explains Why Republicans Accept Donald Trump

Like Hitler, Trump is a radical, authoritarian figure who lies outside the normal parameters of his country’s conservative governing class. Thus, there is a parallel between the two men’s unexpected rise to power that is worth considering: Why would traditional conservatives willingly hand power to a figure so dangerous that he threatened their own political and economic interests?

The Composition of Newsrooms

A stark statistic often cited in discussions about media bias is the political affiliation of journalists. As of 2022, only 3.4% of journalists identified as Republicans, a figure that contrasts sharply with the general population’s political composition. This imbalance raises questions about whether newsrooms, predominantly staffed by individuals with a liberal-leaning, can adequately represent or even understand the perspective of the conservative half of the country. This demographic skew might not only influence story selection but also how stories are framed, potentially alienating a significant portion of the audience.

Des Moines Register: Majority of media identify as Democrats, and that bias shows
Wayne Nosbisch, Menlo: Letter to the Editor

True reporters of fact would note recent surveys showing that about 90 percent of media members identify themselves as Democrats. And that bias shows.

Examples include the Washington Post writer assuring his friends at the Democratic National Committee that they will be pleased with an upcoming story or Politico writer Ken Vogel who submitted stories to the Democratic National Committee before his own editors.

Then they get personal: An MSNBC co-host likened Donald Trump to a suicide bomber, a New York Times writer called Melania Trump a hooker and a CNN contributor called the president a “piece of s___.”

Some in the press are true journalists, deserving of our trust. Many are little more than copy readers sharing the latest liberal talking points. A growing number are simply what this farm boy calls “manure spreaders.”

Media Trust by Party Affiliation

Observations from X posts and broader sentiment analysis suggest a significant trust gap along party lines. Democrats, as noted, tend to trust mainstream media outlets more than Republicans, with independents falling somewhere in between. This trust divide didn’t just happen; it’s been widening, especially since the polarization became more pronounced around 2016. The trust from Democrats towards media outlets has curiously increased or remained stable, despite, or perhaps because of, the media’s perceived role in countering Republican narratives. However, this trust isn’t mirrored among Republicans, who increasingly view these outlets with skepticism.

Elon Musk, a figure often engaged in media critique on X, has frequently criticized what he perceives as biases in mainstream media outlets. For instance, his comments on Scientific American turning into a “social activist magazine” or his jest about the legal implications for parody on SNL reflects a skepticism towards mainstream media’s objectivity.

Musk’s posts, which challenge the narratives or perceived biases in reporting, especially those aligned with Democratic viewpoints, contribute to the narrative that mainstream media cannot be trusted by Republicans.

Democrats generally have a higher trust factor in news media

The higher trust Democrats generally have in news media compared to Republicans or Independents can be attributed to several interconnected factors, based on observations from both traditional research and posts on X:

Demographic Composition of Media: There’s a noted skew in the political leanings of journalists, with a significant majority identifying as Democrats or liberals. This demographic imbalance might lead to reporting that resonates more with Democratic views or policy preferences, fostering greater trust among Democrats who feel their perspectives are represented.

Confirmation Bias and Echo Chambers: Media consumption often aligns with pre-existing beliefs, creating echo chambers where individuals are more likely to trust news that confirms their worldview. Democrats, encountering more media that aligns with their political ideology, might naturally trust these sources more due to confirmation bias.

Media as an Institution: There’s a historical trend where Democrats view media institutions, which often lean liberal, as part of their cultural and political fabric. Conversely, Republicans might see these same institutions as part of an establishment that they feel has moved away from traditional conservative values, leading to distrust.

In summary, the trust disparity largely stems from a combination of the media’s demographic composition, the nature of contemporary political discourse, confirmation bias, differing perceptions of the media’s role in society, and the evolving landscape of where people get their news. This complex interplay of factors has led to a situation where media trust has become as polarized as politics itself.

Gallup: Democrats’ Trust in Media Dwarfs Republicans’ and Independents’

Partisans’ trust in the media continues to be sharply polarized. Currently, 68% of Democrats, 11% of Republicans and 31% of independents say they trust the media a great deal or fair amount. The 57-point gap in Republicans’ and Democrats’ confidence is within the 54- to 63-point range for the two groups since 2017.

Confidence in the media among Republicans over the past five years is at unprecedented lows. After a brief recovery in trust among Democrats and independents early in the Trump administration, their trust has fallen off a little in recent years. Democratic trust remains well above where it was before Trump came into office and made attacks on the media a core message of his presidency.

Impact on Democracy

The media’s role in democracy is not just to report but to inform, providing the electorate with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions. When a significant portion of the population feels the media doesn’t represent them or worse, actively works against their interests, this function is compromised.

Bias in Reporting: If media outlets, consciously or not, lean towards narratives that favor one political ideology, they risk not just alienating viewers but also skewing the public’s understanding of events. This selective reporting or framing can lead to a fragmented reality where “truth” depends on which channel you’re watching.

Duluth News Tribune, September 8, 2024: Point/Counterpoint: Media bias by omission always seems to benefit Democrats.

A long time ago, the American people expected reporters to gather and report the facts, explain the arguments of political parties, and keep their opinions out of it. Today, reporters openly express their opinions, in their stories and in nearly every utterance on television and social media.

The “objective” media’s long, slow descent into public distrust comes from their self-important belief that the people cannot be trusted to choose leaders for themselves. They must be guided by a highly educated elite who represents the lifeblood of democracy. Criticize the media elite, and they imply you signal your preference for authoritarianism. They never seem to recognize that criticizing the media is part of a vibrant democracy.

Two types of bias are the most dramatic: bias by commission and bias by omission. Everyone can see the commission of bias when journalists insist, for example, that Donald Trump is comparable to Adolf Hitler or when writers compare the coolness of Kamala Harris to Beyonce and Taylor Swift. It’s the bias by omission that can be more difficult to detect.

In 1992, CBS News correspondent Betsy Aaron warned, “The largest opinion is what we leave out.” She said, “I always say (to) worry about what you’re not seeing. What you are seeing you can really criticize because you’re smart and have opinions. But if we don’t tell you anything, and we leave whole areas uncovered, that’s the danger.”

Media bias has affected every modern American election, but in recent years, even before the arrival of Trump, the Republican candidates have openly campaigned against the “mainstream” media’s blatant favoritism for extremist Democrats.

Calling these unofficial Democratic Party publicists the “enemy of the people” is too harsh. Still, they are obviously the enemy of Republicans. They display contempt not only for Republican politicians but for Republican voters, who they imply are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and theocratic.

Echo Chambers: The media’s influence extends beyond mere reporting to how it shapes public discourse. When reporting reinforces existing biases (as evidenced by the trust statistics across party lines), it creates echo chambers, where individuals are less exposed to diverse viewpoints, potentially deepening political divides.

Here are several generalized examples focusing on how media reporting can reinforce biases and create echo chambers:

Selective Coverage of Political Scandals: News outlets might cover political scandals differently based on the party involved. For instance, if a Democratic politician is involved in a minor scandal, it might be downplayed or framed in a way that minimizes impact, while a similar or lesser issue involving a Republican might receive exaggerated coverage, highlighting perceived corruption or incompetence. This selective emphasis shapes viewers’ perceptions, reinforcing their biases against one party while excusing the other.

Framing of Social Issues: Media narratives around social issues like gun control or immigration can vary significantly. A network might frame gun control as a matter of public safety, focusing on victims and statistics that support stricter laws, appealing to Democrats. Conversely, stories on the same topic might emphasize Second Amendment rights or focus on criminal justice issues when discussing gun-related incidents, resonating more with Republican viewers.

Echo Chambers in Coverage of International Events: The reporting on conflicts like the Israel-Hamas situation can show stark bias. Outlets might consistently portray one side more sympathetically or frame the conflict in terms that align with political ideologies. For instance, emphasizing civilian casualties on one side while downplaying them on another, or using specific terms like “militants” versus “freedom fighters,” can reinforce viewers’ pre-existing biases and reduce exposure to the complexity or alternative perspectives of the conflict.

Polarization in Election Coverage: During election cycles, a candidate favored by one political spectrum might be portrayed heroically, focusing on their policies’ positive impacts or personal integrity. Their opponent could be linked with negative outcomes or scandals, regardless of actual performance or context. This selective reporting creates an echo chamber where voters hear only what reinforces their existing beliefs.

Investor’s Business Daily, 10/10/2018: Media Trump Hatred Shows In 92% Negative Coverage of His Presidency

Anti-Trump Media: To say that the big networks haven’t exactly had a love affair with Donald Trump, as they plainly did with President Obama, is an understatement. A new survey shows that not only is coverage of Trump overwhelmingly negative, but the president’s biggest accomplishment — the roaring economy — gets almost no attention.

Unfortunately, the Fourth Estate seems eager to relinquish its claim to fairness, balance, evenhandedness and factual truth. Instead, it embraces the increasingly far-left politics of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which has recently veered into socialist territory by pushing Medicare for All, open borders, worker control of corporations, and a host of other crazy ideas that would bring ruin and falling living standards to America.

There was a time when the media at least made an attempt to be fair to both sides in the political debate. Sadly, that time is now dead and gone. And it shows in the contempt many American now have for the media. Even so, don’t shed a tear for the media’s seriously tarnished reputation: They’ve brought it on themselves.

Fox News: 95% negative coverage of Trump on ABC, CBS, NBC after 2nd assassination attempt

Network coverage of former President Trump has been overwhelmingly negative since the second assassination attempt against him Sunday, according to one report.

Analysts at the Media Research Center (MRC) reviewed 69 minutes of campaign coverage on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts between Sept. 15 and Sept. 17.

MRC reported that although the thwarted assassination attempt took up 70% of all campaign news on the networks, a significant amount of that coverage was negative towards Trump.

“Over the three nights, we tallied 21 evaluative comments about the GOP candidate, 20 of which were negative, which computes to a 95% negative spin score,” the MRC reported.

NBC News, Oct. 2, 2017: Trump’s Right: His Media Coverage Is Mostly Negative

President Donald Trump frequently complains about media coverage of his administration, and a study released Monday confirms his suspicion: Most of it has been negative.

The Pew Research Center, in a content analysis of the early days of the Trump presidency, found that 62 percent of the coverage was negative and only 5 percent was positive.

In contrast, President Barack Obama’s coverage in early 2009 was 42 percent positive and 20 percent negative, the study said.

“It certainly shows that where people turn for news has implications for what they’re hearing about President Trump,” said Amy Mitchell, Pew’s director of journalism research.

These examples illustrate how media, through selective reporting, framing, and narrative control, can inadvertently or deliberately create environments where political biases are reinforced, leading to echo chambers that deepen political divides rather than fostering an informed electorate.

Accountability and Objectivity: The principle of journalistic objectivity is under scrutiny. If journalists, by virtue of their political leanings, are less likely to scrutinize figures or policies from one side of the political spectrum, then accountability, a cornerstone of democracy, falters.

ZeroHedge: CNN Journalist Suggests It’s Unfair to Ask Kamala About “Policy Detail”

Ahead of tonight’s debate, a CNN journalist suggested it was unfair for people to ask too much “policy detail” of Kamala Harris and that it was the media’s “job” to point that out.

The comments were made by Natasha S. Alford during a discussion of what to expect during this evening’s head to head between Harris and Trump.

“How does she have an opportunity on the one hand to do what needs to get done and also straddle that?” Alford was asked.

“Well I think this is where the fourth estate comes in, this is our job, right, as journalists tomorrow?” she responded.

“To actually push on the policy questions because what I do feel is that people are pushing for a higher standard of policy detail that they’ve actually pushed Donald Trump for,” she added.

In other words, don’t give Kamala too many hard questions about policy, despite that literally being the entire point of the debate.

Also, don’t grill her too much on things that matter, despite that being the entire point of journalism.

Conclusion

The case for Democrat-influenced media reporting as a primary culprit behind the decline in media trust isn’t just about partisan journalism; it’s about the broader implications for democratic processes. When trust in media wanes, so does the public’s faith in the democratic system itself. The solution might not lie in simply demanding more Republicans in newsrooms but in fostering environments where the pursuit of truth transcends political lines, and accountability is evenly applied. Until then, the media’s role in informing rather than dividing the populace remains in jeopardy, with significant consequences for how democracy functions in America.