The Media’s Unwavering Bias: A Case Study in Trump’s First 100 Days and Beyond
The tradition of evaluating a president’s performance within their first 100 days in office has become a staple of political analysis, a period often seen as a harbinger of things to come. While such an early assessment may be premature for definitive pronouncements, certain patterns and trends quickly emerge, offering insights into the administration’s approach and the media’s portrayal thereof. One such pattern, readily discernible, is the pronounced and persistent negative bias displayed by major broadcast networks towards President Donald Trump, a phenomenon that extends well beyond his initial 100 days and casts a shadow over the objectivity of news coverage.
The author highlights an example of CBS News on April 30 featuring a report focused on economic concerns, emphasizing the fears of individuals outside Motor City regarding a potential downturn. Such a selective focus, the author argues, contributed to a broader trend of negativity. A Media Research Center study of ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts during Trump’s second term found that a staggering 92.2% of evaluations were negative.
To further illustrate the disparity, the author contrasts this with the coverage of President Joe Biden’s early days in office. The same networks, according to the study, offered Biden 59% positive coverage. For example, Biden’s COVID-19 spending package received 86% positive coverage. Instead of critically examining the policy, the evening news coverage largely consisted of showing people happy to receive $1,400 checks and other benefits, with little to no mention of the growing deficit.
The author also points out that the sheer volume of negative coverage directed at Trump, totaling 1,716 minutes compared to Biden’s 726 minutes, intensifies the negative perception. This disparity, the author suggests, is particularly striking given that Trump granted broader access to the press, a move that seemingly backfired.
The article further examines a contentious interview between Trump and ABC’s Terry Moran, where Moran raised concerns about a trade war with China and its potential economic impact on American families. The exchange turned heated when Moran suggested that Trump had damaged America’s standing in the world, prompting a sharp rebuke from the president, who accused ABC of being "fake news."
Adding another layer to the media criticism, the author delves into the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant identified as a member of MS-13. The media’s focus on Garcia, the author argues, is disproportionate and ignores the victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. The author cites Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller’s condemnation of the press for their "obsession" with Garcia and their neglect of stories like that of Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old girl allegedly murdered by illegal immigrants. The author claims that CBS has not reported this murder, but it was brought up by Alabama Sen. Katie Britt and by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and suggests that the media’s focus on Trump’s immigration stance as "controversial" overshadows the stories of women murdered by illegal aliens.
The author then explores the use of the adjective "controversial" by PBS News Hour, noting that it was disproportionately applied to Trump and Republicans compared to Democrats and Biden. The author found that 45 of 54 uses of the word "controversial" in the study period applied to Team Trump or the Republicans. For Democrats, Biden drew one "controversial" on January 3 for his decision to block Nippon Steel’s attempt to buy U.S. Steel – a position he shared with Trump. That’s 45 to 1. The author argues that this reflects a broader tendency to portray Trump and Republicans in a negative light while glossing over potential controversies surrounding Democrats.
The author concludes by questioning the need for taxpayer funding of PBS and NPR, arguing that they resemble taxpayer-funded versions of MSNBC, characterized by bias and repetitive narratives. The author voices hope that efforts to defund these organizations will finally succeed.
In essence, the author presents a compelling case for the existence of a pervasive media bias against President Trump, evident in the disproportionately negative coverage, the selective focus on certain issues, and the language used to frame events. This bias, the author contends, undermines the media’s credibility and raises questions about the fairness and objectivity of news reporting. The author uses specific examples, data points, and comparative analysis to support their argument, urging readers to critically examine the information they consume and recognize the potential influence of media bias on public opinion. The author uses language that creates a sense of urgency regarding the media bias.
