Americans have a negative view of media outlets overall, but mostly in traditional institutions which reflect the lowest sentiment.
Digital news platforms and social media likely have the largest and most profound effect due to their widespread use, personalized content, and emotional connection.
Social media platforms provide a space for fact-checking and are a critical aspect of contemporary politics, especially for sharing statements made by politicians and holding them accountable.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
13,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
7 Days
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
In the current political climate, American sentiment towards political opponents is increasingly polarized, showing a lack of trust between voters, leaders, and pundits. This trend can be seen across all forms of media, from mainstream news outlets to social media platforms, and even in personal conversations.
Many Americans voice a profound sense of distrust specifically towards mainstream media and traditional institutions like academia and government agencies. This is particularly pronounced among supporters of President Donald Trump, many of whom perceive mainstream news outlets as biased against their candidate. Sentiments of mistrust often extend to other traditional institutions, such as the judiciary, which are seen as being manipulated by political opponents.
The way the media and electorate portray political opponents is negative, often bordering on vilification. Incendiary and strong rhetoric has become commonplace in American political discourse. This is particularly apparent in news coverage and discussion of Donald Trump's ongoing legal issues.
Among mainstream media outlets, Trump’s legal challenges are invariably presented in a way that paints him as guilty before proven innocent. This narrative, coupled with the perceived leftist bias of mainstream media, further fuels distrust and animosity towards political figures, institutions, and the media itself.
Online discussions show the highest volume of mentions regarding conservative and right leaning individuals like pundits, journalists, and influencers.
Mainstream media outlets like cable news and online publications also generate significant discussion.
Public sentiment toward conservative individuals and outlets is slightly higher than toward mainstream individuals and outlets.
Conservative media sentiment seems to fluctuate the most, averaging 45% with a high of 50%.
Mainstream media sentiment fluctuates less and stays lower, averaging 43% with a low of 41%.
Furthermore, there has been a marked increase in the use of inflammatory language and rhetoric when discussing political opponents. This type of discourse serves to further exacerbate division and mistrust among Americans, leading to a climate of hostility and confrontation.
MIG Reports analysis suggests that, unless there is a concerted effort to foster dialogue and understanding between opposing political camps, the level of polarization and mistrust is likely to persist. This could have serious implications for the functioning of American democracy, as well as the overall social cohesion in the country.
Stay Informed
Share:
Analysis
Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban went viral for saying inflation was not caused by "price gouging," defying the Democratic platform, for which he is known to act as a surrogate. He said on CNBC that unprecedented levels of government spending on things like the Inflation Reduction Act, for which Kamala Harris was the tie-breaker vote, are the true cause.
OMG. Mark Cuban accidentally admits the truth, says inflation was not caused by "price gouging," but rather record spending (which Kamala was the tie-breaking vote on.)
MIG Reports data shows Democratic views of inflation in two categories:
The seriousness of inflation
How talking about inflation impacts their candidate
Discussion among Democrats is carefully crafted to maintain voter confidence and achieve electoral success. Rather than a straightforward engagement with the economic realities Americans face, inflation becomes a rhetorical tool used to shift blame, deflect responsibility, and bolster the Democratic Party’s campaign narrative.
In recent interviews, Harris herself has deflected from answering questions about the economy, price gouging, inflation, and how she plans to help Americans.
What does this even mean…?
Kamala Harris: "Well if you are... hard working... if you... have... uh... the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations of what I believe you do, you're in my plan." pic.twitter.com/vgnZpe1EKu
Democrats often acknowledge inflation, but the depth of that engagement varies. Many gloss over or reframed it as a problem inherited from the Trump administration. They frame the Biden-Harris administration as stabilizing the economy in the aftermath of Republican mismanagement.
By casting inflation as a residual effect of Trump’s policies, Democrats downplay the immediate economic concerns of Americans in favor of campaign messaging about aspirations and hope.
This approach is particularly evident in the way Democrats focus on government job reports, stock market gains, and a gradual decrease in gas prices. These elements distract from inflationary pressures, suggesting the current administration has things under control. However, Harris risks alienating voters who are directly impacted by rising costs of living, from groceries to housing.
Electoral Victory Over Economic Engagement
Many Democrats also prioritize winning the election over finding immediate economic solutions. Discussions show a focus on preventing a second Trump term rather than addressing the root causes of inflation for American voters.
Casting blame on Republicans reveals a defensive posture, with Democrats more concerned about economy narratives than offering actionable solutions. This allows them to use inflation as a talking point against Trump rather than as a policy issue in need of immediate attention.
The strategic deflection of blame reduces urgency and accountability to the American people. Instead, economic discussions are geared toward mobilizing voter sentiment, often simplifying complex financial realities into digestible, partisan soundbites. This reliance on political calculation places importance on a second Democratic administration over answering voter concerns.
Real Voter Concerns
While Democrats are clearly using inflation as a political tool, there are some expressing genuine concern about its impact on middle-class families. There is particular focus on housing and food costs for lower income Americans.
However, even these concerns are often accompanied by broader narratives of economic success under the Biden-Harris administration. By emphasizing solutions like tax credits or small business support, Democrats frame a positive electoral message rather than presenting them as pressing crises.
These trends create a dual narrative in Democratic discourse where some are forced to acknowledge the economic pain of voters, but quickly pivoting political messaging that downplays its severity. This tension between caring about economic realities and pursuing political success is a central feature of Democratic discussions on the economy.
Polarization and the Use of Blame
Partisan rhetoric drives Democratic conversations. By consistently blaming Trump, Democrats simplify the conversation, framing it as a political battle rather than a serious issue. This shifts voter attention away from current failures and pushes a narrative that a Harris administration would bring change.
This tactic, while effective in galvanizing the base, is also dismissive of the real economic challenges voters face. The risk here is that by leaning too heavily on partisan blame, Democrats may lose the opportunity to connect with voters.
The ongoing discourse about Ukrainian President Zelensky’s perceived campaign against Donald Trump exposes partisan divides in the United States. As conversations unfold among voters from all political affiliations, tensions cause strong reactions to Zelensky’s actions, viewed through ideological lenses.
Many are discussing the apparent fervent support for President Zelensky among Democrats, hinting at a stronger alliance between Ukraine and a potential Harris administration.
Worth noting that Zelenskyy was flown to Pennsylvania on an U.S. Air Force C-17.
The Biden-Harris admin is using military assets to fly a foreign leader into a battleground state in order to undermine their political opponents. https://t.co/OSebVUuBEgpic.twitter.com/biMGTfAc1J
Zelensky’s actions are widely seen as foreign interference, fueling anger and reinforcing support for Trump. More than 60% of Republicans indicate their intention to vote for Trump, viewing Zelensky’s involvement with politicians as an attack on U.S. sovereignty.
Democrats
Zelensky’s opposition to Trump aligns with their criticisms of Trump’s foreign policy—especially regarding Ukraine and Russia. While this validates their stance and energizes some, Democrats were already largely opposed to Trump, making the impact on turnout less significant compared to Republicans.
Independents
More divided, Independents have varied criticisms. Some support Zelensky’s critique of Trump, while others worry about foreign influence in U.S. elections. Moderate enthusiasm is lower, with about a third considering voting for a third-party. This suggests frustration with the polarized political landscape.
Pennsylvania stands with Ukraine as they defend their homeland and fight for freedom. https://t.co/IaCpOtR1Ao
Across all voter groups, there is a growing sense of polarization, with partisan lines remaining entrenched. Discussions often highlight fears of foreign interference, causing a surge of nationalism, particularly among Republicans. These dynamics may or may not impact on voter behavior, with Republicans and Democrats rallying around their respective candidates while Independents increasingly withdraw from the political process.
Voter Discussion Analysis
Beyond surface-level reactions to Zelensky’s opposition against Trump, discourse shows further sociopolitical undercurrents shaping voter behavior in the United States. There is both a reaction to a foreign leader's involvement in American politics and broader existential concerns among the electorate.
Republicans
Zelensky's actions have become a proxy for wider anxieties about national sovereignty, globalism, and the perceived erosion of American exceptionalism. More than 60% of Republicans say Ukraine relations make them likely to turn out for Trump. This reflects the image of Trump as both a candidate and a symbol of resistance against external forces, both foreign and domestic.
Democrats
Zelensky’s critique of Trump serves as confirmation of Democrats’ existing narrative which frames Trump as damaging America's standing on the global stage. They believe he has weakened democratic alliances and emboldened autocratic regimes.
While Democrats are already motivated to oppose Trump, Zelensky’s involvement adds righteous moral dimension to their cause. They claim to vote for the preservation of democratic values under siege from authoritarianism—both within and outside the U.S.
Independents
The reaction among Independent voters is complex. Their ambivalence reflects a broader societal fatigue with the binary, hyper-polarized nature of American politics. Many Independents are skeptical of both sides, recognizing Zelensky’s actions as problematic but also viewing Trump’s foreign policy as flawed.
Internal conflict among Independents reveals disillusionment with Trump and Harris, but with also political system overall. Their disengagement is a response to Zelensky’s actions and a reflection of dissatisfaction with both political parties.
There is a sense that neither party adequately addresses the nuanced realities of global politics or the multifaceted concerns of American voters. Independents who say they plan to abstain or vote third-party highlight the withdrawal of many who view politics overly simplistic and manipulated by underlying agendas.
Snapshot of the Trajectory
More abstractly, Zelensky’s involvement in this election serves as a demonstration of national politics which can no longer be disentangled from global events. Voter reactions to Zelensky are not merely about Ukraine or Trump but part of a larger narrative about globalization, foreign interference, and the decline of traditional nation-state autonomy.
Both Republican and Democratic voters struggle with this reality. Republicans through a lens of protectionism and anti-globalism, Democrats through a framework of moral internationalism. Independents are caught in the middle, divided between their desire for nuanced political discourse and a binary political system.
There is also a sense of the mediated nature of public discourse, where social media acts as an echo chamber, amplifying existing biases and simplifying complex geopolitical issues. Confirmation bias, biased media, emotionally charged rhetoric, and eroded trust in traditional institutions all contribute to a tribal public dialogue.
The Zelensky versus Trump narrative does more than mobilize voters—it exposes the conflicted nature of American political cohesion and deepening divides between voters and institutions. This raises questions about the future of governance, the role of foreign influence in national narratives, and whether the U.S. is capable of engaging in complex global realities without further fracture.
The stark division between partisan narratives and trust in the media has grown clearer in recent weeks. Previous MIG Reports analysis showed Democrats remain one of the few groups which consistently trust mainstream media.
With 64.8% of all voters expressing strong distrust toward mainstream media, the 24.9% who say they do have trust is largely composed of Democrats. This is consistent with 2023 Gallup data showing:
11% of Republicans trust media
29% of Independents trust media
58% of Democrats trust media
This divergence raises significant questions about how media narratives, especially those with a partisan slant, can shape voter opinion and electoral outcomes. Media narratives, which many Americans believe are biased toward Democratic viewpoints, disproportionately influence voters who still trust these outlets.
Whether Democrats continue to trust media narratives because of confirmation bias, or those who trust media lean Democratic because they are influenced by narratives is unclear. However, the correlation of Democrats trusting the media and media promoting Democratic narratives remains.
Through selective framing, coverage time, and emphasis, the media plays an active role in shaping political perspectives, often long after stories have been debunked or corrected. MIG Reports analysis shows three recent examples of media narratives shaping Democratic voter opinions on key political issues.
Hook Line and Sinker
Migrants Eating Pets in Ohio
Following the presidential debate, rumors of Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, dominated media coverage. Mainstream media, including ABC debate moderators who fact-checked Trump, largely positioned the story as unfounded or even fabricated.
Despite copious local resident allegations, certain police reports documenting missing pets, and the Springfield city manager acknowledging claims of pets being eaten, many Democratic voters still align with media narratives critical of the story and Republicans.
Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:
Nearly 53 hours covering the Springfield city manager’s denial in the three days following the debate.
Only 9.5 hours covering allegations of migrants eating cats.
There is a slight increase in mentions of the Springfield city manager after footage emerged from March of 2024 in which he acknowledged resident claims. However, these media mentions only total six hours compared to 23 hours the day after David Muir’s fact check against Trump during the debate.
MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:
80-90% Democrats still say pet consumption is unproven.
10-20% Democrats admit pet consumption is legitimate or indicative of larger immigration issues.
10-20% Republicans still say pet consumption is unproven.
80-90% Republicans believe pet consumption is legitimate or indicative of larger immigration issues.
The way media outlets frame the story—blaming Trump for “unproven allegations”—illustrates how media impacts perceptions. Democrats largely still dismiss the story as rumor, aligning with media talking points. Republicans, who largely distrust mainstream media, instead view the story—regardless of whether the pet consumption allegations are true—as an indictment of the Biden-Harris administration’s immigration policy.
The Danger of Bomb Threats
Following the media frenzy over pets in Ohio, narratives turned to bomb threats in Springfield. The media framed multiple bomb threats as a result of “dangerous” and “xenophobic” rhetoric by Trump and Republicans.
A viral clip of CNN’s Dana Bash shows her directly blaming J.D. Vance for drawing violence to Ohio through his allegedly divisive comments.
Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:
175 hours covering bomb threats in the last five days.
17 hours clarifying threats as a hoax after DeWine’s announcement.
Following Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s announcement that the bomb threats were a hoax committed by foreign actors, media coverage continued to mention bomb threats for more than 100 hours while only mentioning them as a hoax for 17.3 total hours and a mere 17 minutes two days after the revelation.
MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:
60% of Democrats are discussing the bomb threats as real.
20% of Democrats are discussing the bomb threats as a hoax.
There is no quantifiable number of Republicans discussing the bomb threats as real, but 31% express concern about community safety.
70% of Republicans are discussing the bomb threats as a hoax.
Again, biased coverage by mainstream outlets highlights how crafted narratives push slanted perspectives on voters who trust legacy reporting. This phenomenon is exacerbated by outlets spending far less time correcting falsehoods.
Democrats, a majority of whom still trust the media, show a greater tendency to internalize the mainstream narrative without scrutiny. Republicans, who largely distrust the media, are more likely to dismiss narratives which are proven biased by independent reporting.
Golf Course Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump
The second assassination attempt on Donald Trump triggered another wave of intense media coverage. While many Democrats expressed concern about the attempt, they strongly focus on linking the event to Trump’s divisive rhetoric.
Narrative battles again erupted as Republicans claim Democrats and the media are “victim blaming” Trump by saying his own language caused the assassination attempts. Fox News reporter Peter Doocy’s confrontation with White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about how Democrats choose to discuss these events—continuously calling Trump a “threat”—demonstrates the partisan messaging clash.
Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:
818.5 hours covering the assassination attempt on Donald Trump in the three days following.
328 hours covering Trump and mentioning his “rhetoric.”
671 hours covering Trump and mentioning him as a “threat.”
96 hours covering Trump and mentioning “threat to democracy.”
2.8 hours covering the assassination and mentioning “Democrat rhetoric.”
Combined hours of coverage mentioning Trump with “rhetoric,” “threat,” and “threat to democracy” total 1,095 hours compared to coverage of the assassination alone and mentions of “Democrat rhetoric” at just more than 820 hours.
MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:
24% of Democrats are mentioning the assassination attempt.
60% of Democrats are mentioning Trumps divisive rhetoric.
57% of Republicans are mentioning the assassination attempt.
21% of Republicans are mentioning Trumps divisive rhetoric.
Once again, Democratic reactions suggest legacy media has strong influence over voter views with focus on Trump’s rhetoric rather than the assassination attempt itself. For Democrats, media framing reinforces pre-existing beliefs that Trump’s language incites violence. For Republicans, it further deepens distrust of both the media and Democrat credibility.
Media in the Tank for Democrats
Multiple data sources suggest the mainstream media’s framing of high-profile stories has a profound impact on the electorate—particularly Democrats who continue to trust these outlets. The disproportionate airtime given to narratives that align with Democratic viewpoints continues to foster anger and distrust among non-Democratic voters.
People use terms like “gaslighting,” “media bias,” and “we’re being lied to,” in discussions about how legacy outlets report on American political and cultural issues.
Increasingly, voters say they believe mainstream outlets attempt to control which stories gain traction and how long they remain in the spotlight. They suggest bias in favor of Democrats is intended to influence voter opinions and, ultimately, election outcomes.
However, given that Democratic voters compose the dwindling segment of Americans who consistently believe mainstream media narratives, some conclude the media’s influence and credibility is declining.
This is demonstrated by:
Democrats often voting in alignment with issues amplified by the media, such as abortion, social justice, and government spending programs.
Republicans repeatedly expressing distrust in media, driving them to seek alternative sources of information on platforms like X.
.png)
.png)
.png)
_Later_(3).png)
_Later_(4).png)
_Later_(5).png)
_Later_(2).png)
_Later_(1).png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)