Online discussions about the quality of modern films compared to past decades generate disdain fueled by nostalgia, cultural decay, and evolving industry standards. From emotional recollections of classics to admiration for contemporary storytelling diversity, American audiences remain divided but largely not entertained nor inspired.

https://t.co/XBEKOEFf2A pic.twitter.com/UJflAaly3l

— The Right To Bear Memes (@grandoldmemes) November 14, 2024

Contributing Factors

The disintegration of Hollywood’s cultural influence is driven by several factors.

• Emotional attachments to formative years skew perceptions toward older films.
• The explosion of available movies creates an overflow of mediocrity.
• Modern films prioritize current societal narratives over authentic storytelling.
• Technology risks sidelining storytelling and removing human connection.

I need to be as clear & concise as humanly possible: #RedOne (🌟) is not just the single worst movie of 2024, it’s one of the worst movies I’ve seen in my life. Do not waste even half a second of your day on this movie- please. I beg you. I understand the responsibility that… pic.twitter.com/zNwG9xek8h

— Cinema Tweets (@CinemaTweets1) November 13, 2024

The Nostalgia Factor

Nostalgia is a potent driver of sentiment, as many view films from the 1980s and 1990s as pinnacles of American culture and emotional resonance. This emotional anchor often skews opinions against contemporary offerings. Many view past favorites as ensconced in a "golden era" of filmmaking. People say, back then, movies were an art form but now Hollywood is just a factory churning out low-quality content.

Quality Versus Quantity

The industry's current output underwhelms viewers who lament a decline in narrative depth replaced by formulaic productions. While modern technology allows for prolific filmmaking, audiences struggle to find authenticity in a sea of commercialized content. Many people lament franchises, sequels, and licensed content, saying there’s a lack of original material for film and television.

DEI in the Movies

Some people appreciate the progressive narratives in contemporary films, which often tackle social issues and offer diverse perspectives. They see modern cinema as more inclusive and culturally aware society. However, a broader cultural shift away from progressive wokeism pushes back against cultural agendas in art.

Technology as a Double-Edged Sword

Technological advancements in visual effects evoke mixed reactions. While some marvel at the immersive experiences CGI and AI offer, others say it overshadows the essence of storytelling and character development.

Socio-Political Influences

Modern films increasingly mirror societal challenges, dividing opinions. While some viewers applaud their relevance, others want escapist entertainment that provides relief from real-world tensions.

An Inevitable Conclusion

While most Americans view older films as superior, a vocal minority highlights the value of diversity and contemporary relevance. This debate underscores the evolving relationship between culture, technology, and art, mirroring a dynamic cultural landscape. As the American demographic continues to change, audiences will grapple with these shifts. Their discourse reveals more than cinematic tastes—it offers a window into the changing fabric of society itself.

The American online landscape in the week since Trump’s reelection is quickly shifting perspectives toward traditional media and sparking transformation. Conversations show disillusionment with mainstream media over bias, sensationalism, and alignment Democratic political agendas. This discontent is accelerating a shift towards alternative information sources.

Distrust in Traditional Media

There is a prevailing online theme of distrust toward legacy media, with 65% of comments indicating a lack of confidence in mainstream outlets. Americans are frustrated with a media landscape they view as prioritizing progressive ideology.

The overwhelming sentiment is that legacy media has strayed from impartial coverage, often skewing facts to sustain a partisan agenda. Users point to a trend of sensationalized stories that sacrifice accuracy to capture attention, eroding trust in what was once a central pillar of information.

People say things like, "The legacy media ran an unprecedented and profound propaganda campaign that failed."

Shift Towards Alternative Media

As confidence in traditional media wanes, alternative sources like X have gained traction. Around 25% of comments reveal a growing preference for alternative media, which many perceive as authentic and less influenced by corporate power structures.

These sources, operating outside traditional frameworks, are seen as more responsive to public concerns and more representative of ordinary Americans' voices. Many believe social media is now where the real discussion and breaking news happens.

Indifference and Disengagement

About 10% of Americans say they’re indifferent toward the news media altogether, distancing themselves from both traditional and alternative outlets. This indifference stems from a belief that bias is inevitable across all forms of media. This causes them to disengage or take a selective approach to news consumption.

For the disenchanted, media as an institution holds diminishing relevance. They have a resigned outlook even toward the possibility of unbiased reporting from new sources. This group says things like, “Honestly, I don’t care about the media anymore, I just look for information elsewhere."

Accountability and Reform

Viewers want greater accountability and transparency in media reporting. A pattern emerges which advocates for structured fact-checking measures and reforms that emphasize honesty and clarity.

Reformers envision a transformed media landscape where rigorous standards protect public trust and limit the influence of misinformation. They want systems in place to verify claims and some way to combat and eliminate clickbait.

Political Polarization

The polarized political climate in the United States is also evident in media preferences, with users discussing media through the lens of ideological divides. People are frustrated with traditional outlets they perceive as elitist or disconnected from "America First" ideals.

Sentiments highlight an ongoing identity struggle in the media, as more people seek narratives that align with their values and worldview. The rise of identity politics further complicates this divide, with media often seen as reinforcing partisan divides rather than fostering open dialogue.

Social Media and Independent Outlets

Social media and independent news sources have become essential alternatives, praised for their perceived authenticity and depth. Approximately 50% of users report relying on social media for real-time news, while 35% gravitate toward independent outlets and podcasts

People prefer alternatives sources for their ability to provide detailed, nuanced discussions in real-time without commercial pressures. These platforms fill a gap left by mainstream media, appealing to those seeking unfiltered and relatable perspectives on current events.

Direct Engagement with Political Figures

There is a marked appreciation for direct access to political figures via social media. Around 20% of commenters say they prefer unmediated updates from politicians, which they regard as more transparent than traditional news coverage.

There is a shift toward personal engagement with political discourse, as Americans seek to bypass the filters of mainstream outlets in favor of hearing directly from leaders.

Recent revelations in the Daniel Penny manslaughter trial have reignited public discussion. Revealed police bodycam footage suggests Jordan Neely, a homeless man with a history of mental health issues, was still alive when police arrived. For many Americans, this case confirms biases in the realm of policing, racial dynamics, and flaws of the justice system.

JUST IN: Police bodycam footage shows witnesses *defending* Daniel Penny for protecting them from Jordan Neely who they say was drugged out.

"The guy in the tan (Penny) did take him down really respectfully... he didn't choke him."

Penny was charged with m*nslaughter &… pic.twitter.com/OrYvgTz412

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 12, 2024

Summary of Events

This incident in question happened in 2023 when Daniel Penny, a former Marine, restrained Jordan Neely, a homeless man making violent threats and exhibiting erratic behavior, on a New York subway.

Penny placed Neely in a chokehold after Neely made violent threats to passengers on the subway. Ultimately, Neely died, sparking national debate on self-defense, mental health, homelessness, and race.

• Initial Public Reaction: At the time, right-leaning reactions largely defended Penny’s actions as self-defense amid rising crime concerns. Left-leaning voices criticized Penny’s restraint as excessive and racially motivated.
• Recent Revelations: Newly released bodycam footage shows passengers following the encounter defending Penny’s conduct, saying he restrained Neely “very respectfully.” It also shows police attending to Neely and saying, “he’s got a pulse” and “he’s breathing.”

JUST IN: Police bodycam footage shows witnesses *defending* Daniel Penny for protecting them from Jordan Neely who they say was drugged out.

"The guy in the tan (Penny) did take him down really respectfully... he didn't choke him."

Penny was charged with m*nslaughter &… pic.twitter.com/OrYvgTz412

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 12, 2024

These new revelations cause many observers to proclaim charges against Penny were brought unfairly and he is both innocent and a community hero. However, critics still maintain a guilty verdict would be justified.

Ideological Divides Drive Opinions

This controversial trial has become a symbol of ideological divides in how Americans view crime and race. For those on the left, Penny’s actions are yet another example of cultural bias. They also view Jordan Neely as exemplifying the economic and racial injustices that leave minorities struggling and homeless, as he was.

On the right, observers mostly view the case as an indictment of prosecutorial targeting and a cautionary tale about the erosion of self-defense rights.

Liberal Perspectives

From the left, criticisms are framed through a prism of systemic racism and perceived failures of policing and social systems.

Systemic Racism

• Left-leaning voters view the police’s failure to intervene sooner as emblematic of a systemic racial bias.
• Bodycam footage intensifies calls for reform, as critics assert black individuals like Neely are often subject to neglect or criminalization rather than support.
• Approximately 30-45% of left-leaning comments suggest Penny’s treatment compared to Neely’s as reflecting societal biases against marginalized groups.

Vigilantism and Self-Defense

• Many on the left see Penny’s intervention as “vigilantism,” arguing leniency on alleged self-defense incidents may normalize violence in public spaces.
• Critics express concern that excusing Penny’s actions could set a precedent, enabling rogue individuals to bypass police by using force in everyday conflicts.
• Around 45% of comments from this demographic call for accountability to prevent the misuse of self-defense laws, which they argue are already too permissive.

Mental Health and Homelessness

• Liberals say Neely’s death spotlights America’s failure to address mental health and homelessness. Penny’s actions, they argue, are symptomatic of a society that criminalizes rather than supports vulnerable populations.
• Around 15-23% of the discussion calls for a systemic approach to public safety, advocating mental health and homelessness reforms over punitive measures.

Conservative Perspectives

On the right, Americans interpret the case as a warning about the consequences of racial politics and judicial overreach. They view Penny’s prosecution as part of a justice system weaponized against political adversaries and weakening self-defense rights. This, they say, will have profound implications for public safety as good Samaritans will no longer step in.

The Right to Self-Defense

• Conservative perspectives defend Penny’s actions as legitimate self-defense, essential for public safety. They say self-defense rights are critical in high-crime areas where law enforcement cannot always respond swiftly.
• This group views Penny’s prosecution as an attack on self-defense rights, and a racially motivated political theater. They fear a guilty verdict will inevitably discourage citizens from acting in legitimate defense situations.
• Roughly 32-45% of comments from right-leaning voices emphasize the importance of self-defense, with many arguing prosecuting Penny sets a damaging precedent.

Weaponized Justice

• Those on the right say Alvin Bragg’s decision to bring charges is an instance of “weaponized justice.” They believe the legal process has been co-opted by partisan and racial politics.
• This group says Penny should never have been charged and the prosecution only did so due to social pressure from progressive activists.
• Around 40% of comments assert this case is ideologically driven, furthering widespread distrust in the impartiality of the courts.

Objecting to Racial Narratives

• More conservative reactions assert that witness testimony and police response verify Penny’s innocence. They say he has been demonized like others unjustly accused—such as Kyle Rittenhouse and Nick Sandmann—for racial politics.
• This group also points out the opposition’s unwillingness to acknowledge the dangerous and threatening histories of figures like Jordan Neely or George Floyd, sanctifying them as victims of systemic oppression.

The chasm in understanding between the right and the left regarding the same events causes a disparate view of causes and consequences.

The Media’s Role in Shaping Perceptions

How the media on stories like this only amplifies ideological divides. Each group finds validation through coverage that aligns with their chosen narrative, while public trust in legacy media continues to erode.

Left and Right Media Coverage

• Left-leaning outlets focus on racial justice and systemic inequality narratives, portraying Penny as overzealous and acting out of prejudice.
• Right-leaning media frames the case as a defense of self-defense rights, criticizing the prosecution as politically motivated.

Influence of Social Media

• Social media intensifies the polarization, creating echo chambers where each side encounters only content that reinforces its biases.
• This cycle makes it difficult for Americans to engage with sensitive issues from a neutral perspective, further widening the ideological rift.

Since October 7, 2023, online discourse about Hamas and military operations in the Middle East have remained polarized. Sentiment oscillates between strong support for decisive military action and profound concern for humanitarian consequences.

American opinions follow several themes:

• Support for Israel: Around 45% of Americans advocate for decisive operations against Hamas, citing security concerns and a broader fight against extremism. This aligns with pro-Israel narratives framing Hamas as a global terrorist threat.
• Humanitarian Concerns: 30% of discussions center on the ethical implications of military strikes, with civilian casualties in Gaza drawing widespread condemnation.
• Leadership Criticism: 60 view U.S. leadership since Oct. 7 as ineffective. While Trump’s policies draw both praise and criticism, pro-Israel voices express optimism for his return.

BREAKING🚨: Hamas has released Israel hostages…The Trump effect is already taking place.

— Officer Lew (@officer_Lew) November 14, 2024

Pro-Israel and Anti-Extremism Sentiments

Support for Israel’s military operations stems from fears of terrorism and narratives of existential threat. Discussions often intertwine Hamas’s actions with broader concerns about global extremism, reinforcing the need for a robust defense of Israel. This sentiment is echoed in reactions to Israel’s portrayal of recent violence in Amsterdam.

Israeli supporters frame the various confrontations as part of a broader trend of antisemitism, using incidents like the chants of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans to underscore their vulnerability. This dual narrative of victimhood and righteous defense exemplifies the complexity of pro-Israel advocacy.

Humanitarian Crises and Ethical Concerns

The humanitarian toll of military operations in Gaza, including civilian casualties and restricted aid, draws criticism from Palestine advocates. They detail the dire conditions in Gaza, where schools turned shelters have been bombed, and medical evacuations obstructed.

The imagery of destroyed classrooms and injured children evokes outrage, intensifying accusations of genocide against Israel. These discussions are not limited to moral debates but also challenge the U.S.’s role in enabling Israel through continued military aid.

Polarized U.S. Leadership Evaluations

Criticism of the Biden administration centers on perceived inaction and complicity, while Trump’s return to power elicits polarized reactions. Supporters herald Trump’s assertive stance likely to stabilize the region, while detractors fear an escalation of pro-Israel policies that neglect Palestinian rights. This divide creates a situation where U.S. leadership inevitably receives criticism from one side or the other.

Amplification Through Localized Incidents

The Amsterdam violence serves as a microcosm for broader tensions. Pro-Israel chants by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans escalated into violent confrontations, feeding polarized narratives. Pro-Israel voices frame the backlash as antisemitic pogroms, while critics argue it reflects justified outrage against Israeli aggression.

Dual Victimhood Narratives

A striking feature of these discussions is the competing victimhood claims. Pro-Israel advocates emphasize historical trauma and antisemitism, while pro-Palestinian voices highlight ethnic cleansing and apartheid accusations. These narratives are not merely oppositional but deeply entrenched, creating an impasse in public discourse.

The idea that "woke is dead" is gaining momentum in political discourse with cultural backlash against progressive forces. MIG Reports data shows 65% of voters reject "woke" ideology, labeling it divisive and elitist. This fall from vogue is demonstrated in figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez removing pronouns from her twitter bio.

It was all utter 💩💩💩 from day one.

Now they’ll all pretend they had nothing to do with it. https://t.co/RHlA2z40By

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) November 14, 2024

For many Americans, "woke" no longer signifies progress but a ridiculous and imposed distraction from pressing issues like inflation, national debt, and border security. Only 20% of those in online discussions maintain a positive view of woke themes like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and choosing preferred pronouns. The prevailing perception is that its time has passed.

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 65% of voters oppose woke ideology, citing societal fragmentation.
• 20% support woke principles, emphasizing equity and systemic reform.
• 78% express concerns about identity politics undermining meritocracy.

Transgender Ideology

One of the flashpoints in cultural discussions is transgender athletes in sports and education. A recent viral CNN exchange between Shermichael Singleton and Jay Michaelson demonstrated the cultural battleground. Singleton referred to transgender athletes as boys, sending the panel into chaos and hysterics.

I respect @abbydphillip but it’s not “transphobic” to state reality. A boy can’t magically become a girl through pronouns, drugs, or surgery—no matter how much @jaymichaelson says otherwise. @MrShermichael was right. Testosterone is not a social construct. pic.twitter.com/nytZaLOIqe

— Delano Squires (@DelanoSquires) November 9, 2024

Many viewers point out public backlash against forced speech, censorship, and a complete refusal to acknowledge reality among woke advocates. They use the liberal reactions on CNN as an example of how many Americans view transgender ideology as enforced by a cultural ruling class, who are now losing power.

• 70% of online discussions criticize trans ideology, with concerns centered on fairness in sports and girls’ safety.
• 20% advocate for transgender rights, emphasizing inclusion, and equality.

The most polarizing debates involve the conflict between transgender rights and women’s rights. Critics argue policies allowing transgender participation in women’s sports threaten hard-won opportunities for female athletes and put girls in harm’s way.

Corporate America and the Rollback of DEI

Corporations are also beginning to withdraw from DEI initiatives, signaling more tremors in the cultural landscape. Companies like Toyota, Boeing, Target, and Bud Light have been subject to boycotts and criticism for DEI complicity. This has caused many to abandon woke advertising and corporate policies.

Americans are making their voices heard against "woke capitalism," which they say causes businesses to pander to a woke progressive agenda that undermines traditional values. Culture war discussions celebrate the death of DEI programs, the return of “Merry Christmas,” and instances of progressives removing pronouns from social media bios.

Target has signs that say, “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays.”

The Golden Era has begun. pic.twitter.com/DQVPnsEXVQ

— Brittany Martinez (@BritMartinez) November 7, 2024

Identity Politics in Media

Many say cultural Marxists are on the back foot, retreating from a decisive outcry against wokeism which was sealed with the 2024 election red wave. Those on the right view liberals removing pronouns as a sign of retreat. They say announcing pronouns is a kind of enforced ideological conformity which is no longer socially acceptable.

💭
My therapist colleagues are removing pronouns from their bios. What’s going on?
💭

— Tania Marshall 🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿Psychotherapist Author (@TaniaAMarshall) November 15, 2024

Media narratives compound these tensions. There is overwhelming distrust toward mainstream outlets which advocate for progressive agendas and marginalize conservative voices. Recent reports that “The View” is searching for conservative voices, leads to both celebration and mockery of legacy media which people view as irredeemably out of touch and one-sided.

BREAKING: ABC News reportedly searching for conservative voices to balance the anti-Trump rhetoric spewed by the hosts on “The View.” pic.twitter.com/ErqxaFwtcA

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) November 14, 2024

Rooting Out DEI Hires

Another theme in online discourse is celebration over removing woke figureheads from government positions. Memes and jokes circulate about Trump's cabinet picks generating outcry in the establishment and media over “unqualified” and “unserious” candidates. Meanwhile, liberal appointees receive severe mockery for the shocking number of woke LGBTQ activists in Democratic government.

Liberals: Pete Hegseth shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Also Liberals: pic.twitter.com/WlCQunhcmx

— THAT SOUTHERN DUDE (@TSDmemes) November 13, 2024

Culture critics who push back against the progressive alignment with woke ideology say it’s time to relegate LGBTQ activists back to the fringes, instead of elevating them to positions of power and influence. This growing rejection of identity and gender politics coincides with similar trends where Americans want a return to traditional values and more conventional ways of life.

We put up with shit like this, they can deal with Matt Gaetz. pic.twitter.com/BXgfIgscDw

— CHIZ 🇺🇸 (@CHIZMAGA) November 14, 2024

Discussion is growing around Social Security as Americans worry about the future. While Social Security is a crucial safety net for many, public discourse reveals concern about sustainability and a desire for reform. Americans are anxious about economic stability, intergenerational equity, and whether government leadership is trustworthy.

💯"We're pretending and lying to the American people that the social security funds that are extracted from their checks is sitting in a lock box...The money is taken out of your check now, and that money is then given to those people who are retiring now!" pic.twitter.com/1HPIZZwVg7

— Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) November 12, 2024

Support with Concern

• Most Americans express loyalty and concern for Social Security, though the degree of apprehension varies.
• Roughly 55-70% of comments worry about the program’s long-term viability, fearing rising costs, inflation, and potential mismanagement could jeopardize future benefits.
• Many view Social Security as an essential pillar of American life that should be preserved, but question whether current economic conditions will allow it to sustain future retirees.
• Anxieties are amplified by discussions about inflation, with many calling for adjustments to benefits that better reflect the rising cost of living.

Reform and Modernization

• Americans who support Social Security largely agree on the need for reforms to secure its viability without compromising the core mission.
• Around 25% of voters want moderate reforms to improve efficiency, while another 15–20% urge for substantial overhauls.
• Proposals include raising the cap on taxable income, implementing means testing, and modernizing payment structures to adapt to demographic and economic shifts.
• Demands for reform are coupled with critiques of government waste and inefficiency, suggesting redirected funds could reinforce Social Security.

Generational Equity and Economic Tensions

• There is also a generational divide in viewpoints. Younger Americans, skeptical about the program’s sustainability, worry they may never receive benefits equal to their contributions.
• Some frame Social Security as a “pay-as-you-go” system at risk of insolvency due to shifting demographics and economic challenges.
• older generations emphasize that they have paid into the system throughout their working lives and deserve the benefits promised.
• Economic pressures also spark discussion about broader fiscal concerns like wage stagnation and inflation.

Political Divisions

Social Security discussions are further polarized along political lines, with partisan affiliations shaping views on reform.

• Conservatives typically favor budget restraint and cuts to ensure sustainability, while progressives advocate expanded benefits and funding.
• Recent reports reveal an added layer of division tied to leadership perceptions, with mixed expectations for Trump’s proposed efficiency-focused reforms.
• While some anticipate positive changes, others express doubts about the sincerity or impact of his administration’s policies.
• Discussions branch into related issues like tax policies and foreign aid, with some arguing resources allocated abroad could instead bolster Social Security.

Who is ready for tax cuts!?!?!
We are ending taxes on social security, tips, and overtime!

— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) November 14, 2024

Technology and Government Distrust

A recurring theme across discussions is lack of trust in government.

• Many Americans doubt current government structures can effectively protect Social Security, citing past inefficiencies and instances of mismanagement.
• Skepticism extends across party lines, with people questioning whether promised reforms will genuinely strengthen the program.
• Some say technology could enhance Social Security’s resilience by streamlining operations, reducing administrative costs, and increasing transparency, thus potentially restoring public trust.

Several leftist figures from news media like Don Lemon, Joy Reid, and The Guardian have announced their plans to leave X (formerly Twitter). This dramatic exodus is occurring against a backdrop of significant upheaval in traditional media.

Online discussions often view rumors of CNN facing layoffs, Comcast potentially selling MSNBC, major ratings declines, and Chris Wallace jumping ship from CNN as dying last gasps of legacy media. Elon Musk’s comment that “You are the media now!” captures a growing sentiment that corporate media is no longer the power center of information.

This platform is at all-time highs.

You are the media now. https://t.co/8Zy049xGAh

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 13, 2024

Making a Dramatic Exit from X

Reactions to prominent left-leaning figures leaving X are varied, but mostly unified against those leaving. This is demonstrated in a resounding ratio on Don Lemon’s announcement video and claims that Lemon didn’t actually leave.

Here's why I'm leaving Twitter... pic.twitter.com/VIope68L2k

— Don Lemon (@donlemon) November 13, 2024

Much of the commentary is negative, criticizing Lemon and others for abandoning X in a useless protest of the inevitable evolution of news. The lesser number of positive comments still criticize the Guardian, Reid, and Lemon, saying the chaff is separating itself.

Joy Reid just deleted her X account 🤣 pic.twitter.com/sqwZyJkBYA

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 14, 2024

63% Negative Sentiment

• Many view these exits from X as symptomatic of a biased new media who are incapable of withstanding opposing viewpoints.
• Negative comments accuse those leaving of running from the new reality of media, thus personifying legacy media’s failure to adapt and include all voices.
• People point out the shrinking pool of critical voices in media who are willing to hold politicians and institutions accountable. They say the leftist media would prefer to censor platforms like X, rather than integrate into the new media paradigm.

29% Positive or Neutral Sentiment

• About a third of responses voice approval over the X departures. They say it allows for new voices to emerge in an environment less dominated by leftist corporate media figures.
• This group says things like, “Good riddance to biased reporting” and “We need more diverse voices not tied to the mainstream.” They hope X will foster independent journalism not influenced by corporate or partisan forces.
• People view X under Elon Musk as a victory for free speech, seeing it as fertile ground for alternative perspectives and causing a tantrum among corporate media elites who are losing their grip on power.

8% Concerned Sentiment

• A smaller fraction of comments is ambivalent but acknowledges both the potential positives and negatives of these high-profile departures.
• There's a sense of uncertainty, as people grapple with the long-term impact on media quality and public discourse online.
• Many in this camp worry the total collapse of legacy media might contribute to ideological echo chambers and the proliferation of “misinformation.”

Declining Trust in Legacy Media

Reactions to these dramatic exits are compounded by an ongoing bloodbath in legacy media credibility.

• CNN Layoffs: Rumored CNN layoffs are seen as the continuation of a downward trend for legacy news, which struggles to maintain relevance post-election.
• Comcast Selling MSNBC: Reports that Comcast is looking to sell MSNBC reinforces beliefs that news outlets have lost their once-powerful influence.
• Ratings Declines: Major networks are reporting significant rating drops over the past year, further decimating the sentiment of distrust among viewers.
• Reshaping News: A major news figure like Chris Wallace leaving CNN and saying podcasts are the future also indicates growing realizations within media ranks of the shifting reality.

More Americans say legacy media is out of touch with and fixated on advancing specific agendas rather than delivering reliable news. Increasingly, people are opting for independent and grassroots media sources, which they find on platforms like X and view as more genuine and less beholden to corporate interests.

Independent and Decentralized Media

Americans, particularly those on the right, place more trust in independent and decentralized media channels that bypass legacy gatekeepers. They want platforms where their perspectives can be freely shared without censorship or derision.

• Direct Channels: Figures like Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson have built large followings by leveraging podcasts and social media as direct channels for unfiltered commentary. People see these figures as better alternatives to biased traditional media.
• Free Speech: Many Americans see decentralized platforms like X as essential to free speech. By allowing diverse voices without institutional curation, platforms like X provide what voters feel is a more balanced discourse.
• User Engagement Data: Social media engagement metrics show a steady increase in user participation on independent platforms, with conservative audiences comprising a significant portion of these active users.

The embrace of alternative media reflects a rejection of legacy media’s perceived elitism and disconnect from mainstream America. Online discourse confirms the sentiment as people move away from television news to online platforms.

Media Viewership vs. 𝕏

Trends indicate that people are moving away from the legacy media. pic.twitter.com/rhTnUdNdCH

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) November 8, 2024

Participatory Media

Musk’s “You are the media now” sentiment embodies the shift toward participatory media, which empowers individual users over institutional authorities. As a result, more Americans feel they have a direct role in shaping political discourse, further diminishing legacy media’s influence.

• Public Response: Many conservative voters view Musk’s statement as a call to action, empowering them to contribute directly to the public discourse.
• Participation: By eliminating traditional gatekeepers, participatory media encourages a free flow of ideas, allowing the people to interact directly with rich and powerful influencers like Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.
• Future Outlook: Many say legacy media will continue to lose relevance as younger generations abandon traditional institutions. They say the 2024 election sealed the fate of legacy institutions which were already crumbling.

In the week following Donald Trump’s reelection, social media discourse has continued to prioritize illegal immigration and other issues related to the border crisis. MIG Reports analysis shows heightened fears about cartel influence at the border, causing crisis and conflict.

Voters are deeply concerned that cartels don't just commit crimes but wield power across the border, exploiting lax policies for trafficking, violence, and economic gain. For many, the border is a front line where national security and American sovereignty are at stake.

Texas remains ready for any potential surge at the border by reinforcing vulnerable areas along the border with @TxDPS & @TXMilitary forces, resulting in deterrence & prevention by reducing illegal border crossings. Those efforts have led to an 86% decrease in unlawful border… https://t.co/WLiq0XAFsY pic.twitter.com/OkRGRpR7Ad

— Chris Olivarez (@LtChrisOlivarez) November 13, 2024

This Is War

The language around child trafficking, cartel power, and border chaos evokes a crisis narrative and feelings of institutional distrust. As with recent discussions of Trump’s role in restoring order, people now look to stringent immigration policies as a form of defense.

For many, the issue of cartels has become the flagship border issue, tying cultural preservation, national security, and moral order together. Voters want more stringent policy measures and a statement of strength against adversarial forces undermining the American way of life.

There’s a Lot to do... Like NOW

There is urgency among voters and a feeling that current immigration policies have failed to protect the public. This exacerbates fears of cultural erosion and national vulnerability. Many align this fear with historical moments when immigration was similarly framed as an existential threat. They recall earlier periods where immigration protection intensified in response to economic uncertainty or perceived loss of control.

The sense of an “invasion” is strongly resonant, increasing populist sentiments of “us vs. Them.” Americans view cartels as a symbol of the corruption and lawlessness that have weakened the nation. While there is a feeling of 1980s Reaganism—a resurging America—there is also fear of amnesty and other immigration failures from the 1986 immigration bill.

Reports alleging FEMA officials instructed workers to bypass homes displaying Trump signs during disaster relief efforts are generating controversy. Initially reported by Daily Wire, the story suggests conservatives in areas affected by Hurricanes Helene and Milton may have been passed over for federal support based on their political views.

The story ignited a larger debate about the impartiality of federal agencies, with conservatives viewing the incident as evidence of unacceptable biases inside FEMA. Voters widely distrust FEMA, calling for accountability and some suggestions of decentralizing disaster relief operations.

On Nov. 8, when the Daily Wire story was first published, public sentiment in discussions mentioning natural disasters and FEMA dropped to 33%, with increased discussion volume.

What Caused the Stir

• Voter Backlash: After Hurricanes Helene and Milton, Americans voiced strong dissatisfaction with FEMA’s lack of presence, failure to help, and active thwarting of hurricane relief efforts.
• Relief Discrimination: Weeks later, reports emerged that FEMA workers were instructed to avoid homes displaying Trump signs while providing relief Florida.
• Whistleblower Testimony: Initial reports were spurred by whistleblowers sharing screenshots of the discrimination directive, causing voter outrage and national news coverage.
• FEMA Official Fired: Following reporting on the story, FEMA made a statement denying systemic discrimination and fired the official involved. The official, Marn’i Washington, spoke out claiming FEMA leadership is throwing her under the bus.

The FEMA official who was just fired for telling workers to avoid homes impacted by the hurricanes in Florida if they had Trump signs says that it was not "isolated" and that FEMA workers were instructed to do it in the Carolinas too. pic.twitter.com/BpBdZFSSPR

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 12, 2024

Conservative Reactions

Conservative voters have largely responded with anger and frustration, viewing the FEMA allegations as a symbol of political bias infiltrating government services.

• Government Distrust: The claim that FEMA withheld aid from Trump-supporting homes has intensified conservative concerns that federal agencies are weaponized against them.
• Demand for Reform: Voters are calling for an investigation into FEMA’s disaster response protocols. Many want the agency to provide explanations for how aid is allocated fairly across all regions, regardless of politics.
• Decentralizing Disaster Relief: Many Americans who witnessed grassroots competence in performing rescue and relief after Hurricane Helene say FEMA is obsolete. They argue, if federal agencies are both politicized and incompetent, they serve no purpose, and programs should be outsourced or turned over to individual states.

Left-Leaning Perspectives

Liberal and left-leaning voters focus on FEMA’s overall effectiveness and disaster management reforms rather than allegations of partisan bias.

• Skepticism of Allegations: Many liberals question the credibility of discrimination claims, viewing them as politically motivated narratives aimed at discrediting the Biden administration.
• FEMA’s Performance: Rather than focusing on potential bias, liberals emphasize FEMA’s need to improve its efficiency and resource management.
• Defense of DEI: Liberals support FEMA’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, arguing they ensure fairer service distribution across all demographics.

Government Transparency and Accountability

The FEMA controversy coincides with larger criticisms about the lack of transparency and accountability in federal agencies.

• No Trust: Conservatives see FEMA’s alleged actions as typical of federal incompetence and politicization. This distrust extends beyond FEMA to public confidence in many other federal agencies like the FBI, CIA, and FDA.
• Future Disaster Response: If conservatives perceive FEMA as biased, they will likely be less inclined to cooperate with federal initiatives, impacting FEMA’s ability to coordinate effectively in future emergencies.

Americans do not trust FEMA’s operational integrity and effectiveness, pointing to a range of systemic failures in disaster response besides alleged discrimination. People demand defunding and thoroughly investigating NGOs and federal officials tied to these failures. 

Voters want transparency around funding mechanisms and the role of external organizations in distributing disaster aid.

Online discussions cite delays and misallocation of resources in disaster-hit areas as evidence that the federal response has been nearly nonexistent. The emphasis on state-level cooperation and bypassing FEMA exposes frustrations with chronic bureaucratic ineffectiveness.