The arrest of Sean "P Diddy" Combs on charges of sex trafficking and racketeering has sparked widespread discussions. Americas voice many reactions from disgust, outrage, to disillusionment.
Many view the allegations against Diddy as a turning point in holding powerful figures accountable. Others express cynicism regarding the outcome. The discussions both include opinions on Diddy and views of broader issues tied to the justice system, media coverage, and human trafficking.
BREAKING: @Diddy is now spending his days in New York’s most notorious jail, known for its “barbaric conditions.” 300+ grand jury subpoenas later, Diddy can’t wiggle his out of this one. And he’s not the only one… pic.twitter.com/M64EDxQUbh
5%: Tying Diddy’s arrest to other topics like border security
Shock, Outrage, and Disgust
The majority of online conversations focus on shock and outrage. People react strongly to the charges, expressing disgust at the alleged actions of a celebrity like Diddy. Many condemn his behavior, viewing his arrest as a critical moment for justice.
These reactions reflect a collective demand for accountability, particularly in relation to the heinous nature of sex trafficking. Voters demand justice, some calling for a harsh sentence, seeing this case as representing broader issues of exploitation in powerful circles.
Validation of Long-Held Suspicions
Many Americans express a sense of validation. They say they have long suspected Diddy of inappropriate behavior, adopting an, “I told you so" attitude. For this group, Diddy's arrest confirms rumors and accusations that have circulated for years.
This group views Diddy’s downfall as inevitable, reinforcing preconceptions about corruption and abuse of power in the music industry. These suspicions, now appearing substantiated, fuel arguments about systemic wrongdoing among celebrities and elites.
Criticism of Media and Justice System
There is also widespread frustration and distrust toward the media and justice system. Observers claim both institutions often protect wealthy, powerful individuals from facing serious consequences. Some view the media as complicit, either ignoring damaging stories or failing to investigate them thoroughly.
Many doubt whether Diddy will truly be held accountable, fearing his influence and wealth may shield him from the full weight of the law. This cynicism is common in conversations connecting Diddy’s case to overarching failures of justice for victims of trafficking.
Skepticism and Division
Although less common, some conversations reveal skepticism about the allegations. This group questions the legitimacy of the charges and the motivations behind the accusations. This contributes to a sense of division, as people debate whether Diddy is being targeted unfairly or whether the allegations are true. As with most topics, not everyone immediately accepts the narrative presented by prosecutors or the media.
Tying to Broader Topics
A smaller subset of conversations shifts the focus away from Diddy specifically, tying the story to broader political or social issues. One common connection is trafficking across the border and government immigration failures. These links point to larger concerns about human trafficking, using Diddy’s alleged actions as an example of how political decisions and systemic failures allow exploitation to flourish. Though not a dominant theme, this attachment reveals how some people frame high-profile cases like Diddy’s within wider political debates.
The recent pager and beeper explosions targeting Hezbollah members across Lebanon and Syria have ignited widespread reactions among Americans. As Israel’s operation unfolds, Americans and international observers engage in heated debates. Pro-Israel voices express admiration for the operation's precision while pro-Palestine advocates condemn the attack. Voter discourse shows:
45% of Americans speak out against the attacks
35% support the operation
30% are neutral
Supporting the Operation
Israel supporters praise the ingenuity and boldness of the beeper operation. They marvel at Israel’s ability to infiltrate Hezbollah’s communication network and conduct simultaneous detonations across multiple locations. Many describe the operation as a masterstroke, calling it "audacious" and comparing it to scenes from a spy thriller.
Some believe this is a game-changing blow to Hezbollah’s infrastructure, framing the operation as a significant victory for Israeli intelligence. The use of technology to exploit Hezbollah's vulnerabilities resonates with those who see the attack as a critical move to disrupt terrorist activities and protect regional security.
Supporters say targeting Hezbollah operatives with precision, while avoiding large-scale collateral damage, demonstrates Israel's military capability and strategic advantage in modern warfare.
Against the Operation
Those condemning the attack, typically pro-Paletine Democrats, express outrage over its indiscriminate nature and the resulting civilian casualties. Critics label the operation a "war crime" and accuse Israel of terrorism, pointing out the explosions not only targeted Hezbollah members but also injured and killed innocent civilians, including children and medical workers.
The ethical implications of using such technology raise alarm for this group. They argue remote detonation of devices blur the line between targeted strikes and indiscriminate violence. Some see the operation as a disproportionate response, reflecting a broader pattern of aggressive military tactics by Israel.
This group also draws attention to what they perceive as a double standard in how international media and governments react to such incidents. They say if a similar attack had been carried out by Hezbollah, it would have been universally condemned as terrorism.
Neutral Perspectives
Neutral observers take an analytical approach, focusing on the broader implications of the operation and the Israel-Hamas conflict overall. These discussions explore the strategic use of technology in modern warfare, noting the ability to detonate devices remotely represents a significant evolution in combat tactics.
Some express concern about the precedent this sets for future conflicts, questioning whether such tactics could be used against civilians or exploited in other theaters of war. Others analyze the potential geopolitical consequences, speculating on how Hezbollah or other groups may retaliate and what the long-term effects could be for Israel. Americans allyship with Israel sparks debates about the potential for escalating tensions.
Days prior to Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s announcement of a 0.5% rate cut, many reports speculated about the impending announcement. Americans just before the announcement, Americans were expressing outright skepticism and frustration at the idea.
Today, the national mood reflects widespread dismissal, with many questioning the government’s motives and doubting the effectiveness of Fed interventions. While there is scant support for the rate cut—though not wholesale support for the Fed—it is overshadowed by concerns interventions are politically motivated. Many say government actions primarily serves corporate and political interests rather than struggling Americans.
The Federal Reserve cut interest rates massively, just 48 days ahead of the election. Thank god for the independence of the Fed! 😅
Funny how some of us last year predicted exactly this would happen.
Skepticism is the dominant theme across both housing and economic conversations. MIG Reports analysis shows 66.7% of voters view the rate cuts as a political maneuver designed to boost the economy ahead of upcoming elections.
In housing-specific discussions, skepticism focuses on the belief that rate cuts will benefit corporations more than ordinary families. Across multiple data sets, concerns about affordability, rising housing costs, and inflation surface repeatedly. This fuels feelings that the government is out of touch with the everyday challenges facing Americans.
Supportive-ish Tones
Though skepticism is dominant, there is a smaller but notable group—around 21% to 31%—who view the rate cuts positively. These voters say interest rate cuts are a necessary step to stimulate economic growth and help families.
However, even within this more optimistic group, concerns about broader economic issues and banking turmoil remain. This suggests fragile public trust in government initiatives.
Day Late, Dollar Short
The conversations also consistently highlight inflation, economic inequality, and housing affordability. Americans across various online discussions express frustration at the rising cost of living. They voice frustration about everything from groceries to healthcare rising in costs and becoming unaffordable.
Many argue government and Fed intervention, including rate cuts and housing assistance proposals, fail to address the root causes of these problems. Some say these supposed “fixes” often worsen problems by benefiting corporations and government more than average citizens. This sense of economic insecurity reinforces a narrative of distrust, where political decisions are perceived as disconnected from the needs of ordinary people.
The relationship between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and their relationship with Mexican cartels and other transnational criminal organizations is complex. MIG Reports analysis shows significant American concerns about these issues, particularly human trafficking and government complicity in crime activity.
There is a noticeable focus on the perceived failures of both NGOs and the Biden-Harris administration in addressing cartels furthering human trafficking and illegal immigration. This analysis highlights discussion trends, dominate concerns, and public sentiment about border security and the role of NGOs.
How Americans Feel
Voter discussions across thousands of comments is overwhelmingly negative:
39.4% of the conversation focuses on human trafficking
50.1% conveys belief in illegal activities by cartels and NGOs
27.8% focuses on criticizing the Biden-Harris administration
28% links cartels to fentanyl trafficking, emphasizing the connection between the opioid crisis and border security concerns.
The conversations reflect deep skepticism toward the government’s ability to protect citizens and frustration with the perceived complicity of NGOs in facilitating illegal activities through funding channels and logistical coordination.
Government Criticism and Accountability
Many Americans mention the Biden-Harris administration negatively in conversations about illegal cartel activity and border issues. They blame the administration’s border policies for enabling human trafficking and fentanyl smuggling. Voters argue the government’s refusal to secure the border has led to a rise in both trafficking and opioid-related deaths.
Americans are particularly vocal about their frustration with Democratic inaction. There is sharp criticism and concern that Biden-Harris policies prioritize the needs of immigrants over the safety of American citizens. This harsh critique reveals a widespread sentiment that government leadership is not concerned about protecting vulnerable Americans or addressing pressing border control problems.
NGOs and Their Role in Immigration and Trafficking
NGOs come under heavy fire in these discussions, with 50% linking them to illegal immigration and human trafficking. Americans believe NGOs, often funded by taxpayer money, facilitate illegal activities either through direct involvement or by offering support that allows traffickers and cartels to operate freely.
Many express outrage over NGOs profiting from the very problems they claim to solve. The conversation also highlights concerns that NGOs are enabling child exploitation by allowing traffickers to use legal loopholes to smuggle children across borders. This widespread criticism of NGOs reflects a deep sense of betrayal, as users perceive these ostensibly humanitarian organizations as working against national interests and using public funds.
Human Trafficking and Fentanyl Crisis
Human and drug trafficking is another deeply negative conversation. Nearly 40% of the discussion focuses on illegal trafficking. Americans are angry and worried about the exploitation of vulnerable populations, especially children. Many view child trafficking as a growing crisis which the government does nothing to solve.
Voters say government negligence, coupled with the actions of NGOs, is exacerbating the problem. Conversations are deeply emotional, often sharing personal stories or using vivid imagery to convey the severity of the safety issues for kids.
Drug trafficking, specifically fentanyl smuggling, is also linked to cartel activity and border security. Americans view Biden-Harris policies as directly contributing to the fentanyl crisis ravaging communities and families across the country. The connection between human trafficking and drug trafficking is a recurring theme, reinforcing the idea that these are intertwined issues which government has failed to address adequately.
The assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump have sparked a firestorm of online discourse. Recently, a U.S. Secret Service representative, while speaking at a press event, delivered a remark that continued the unsettling mood:
“There could be another geopolitical event that could put the United States into a kinetic conflict or some other—uh—some other issue, that may result in additional responsibilities and protectees of the Secret Service.”
NEW - Acting U.S. Secret Service Director: "There could be another geopolitical event that could put the United States into a kinetic conflict or some other- uh- some other issue, that may result in additional responsibilities and protectees of the Secret Service." pic.twitter.com/2KT4VJEqHP
MIG Reports analysis shows reactions are intense and divided with widespread skepticism towards agencies like the Secret Service and growing fears of violent conflict. This analysis dissects key themes and sentiments driving voter conversations, highlighting how Americans view the federal government’s relationship with Americans.
Top Discussion Topics
Polarization and Division (30%): The most dominant theme, reflecting deep political divides and hostility between opposing groups.
Distrust of Institutions (25%): Many Americans don’t trust the federal government, the Secret Service, or the media, speculating about perceived deceptive narratives.
Fear of War (20%): There is significant concern about potential violence or civil war, adding to the national anxiety.
Assassination Attempts and Accountability (15%): Discussions focus on blame and responsibility for Trump’s attempted assassination.
Media Bias (10%): Voters also discuss media manipulation and bias, contributing to the broader sense of corrupted institutions.
These themes collectively illustrate a nation gripped by uncertainty, fear, and blame. Most voters discussing the Secret Service and the recent Trump assassination attempt blame Democrats and the media.
62% blame Democrats and the media
21% blame Trump’s rhetoric
Polarization and Division
Routh’s assassination attempt intensifies already stark divisions between political parties. Both sides of the political aisle are quick to assign blame, with many on the right accusing Democrats of fostering an environment that encourages violence.
Left-leaning groups argue Trump's own divisive rhetoric is responsible for inflaming tensions. The conversation is steeped in animosity, as voters lash out against opposing ideologies. This polarization underscores how deeply fractured the nation is, with little room for compromise or shared understanding.
Distrust of Institutions
A majority of Americans express distrust toward institutions and agencies like the Secret Service and the FBI, claiming the media helps them present deceptive narratives. Many question the competence of the Secret Service in protecting Trump, with some even suggesting a mole or intentional negligence.
Skepticism extends to the media, where accusations of bias and propaganda are rampant. This pervasive feeling of animosity feeds into speculations about corrupt establishment motivations as voters question if they're being lied to. The lack of faith in these legacy institutions only deepens divisions between Americans.
Fear of Civil Unrest and Kinetic Conflict
Amid the blame and distrust, the potential for civil unrest or even civil war looms. Many conversations express anxiety over the country teetering on the edge of violent conflict. These fears are inflamed by comments like that of acting Secret Service director Ronald Rowe.
Terms like "kinetic conflict" appear frequently, suggesting a fear that corrupt government officials are willing to allow continued safety breaches to further their political ends. This theme reflects a growing unease about the future of the nation, where political violence could become the norm rather than the exception.
Assassination Attempts and Accountability
While assassination attempt is driving conversation, it is often paired with debate over who should be held accountable. Some call for greater security measures, citing the two recent and egregious attempts on Trump as evidence of institutional negligence.
Others argue that, whether from Trump or Democratic leaders, plays a significant role in fostering the climate of violence. This group calls for accountability, but there is disagreement about where the blame truly lies. This lack of clarity contributes to a broader sense of frustration and fear.
Media Bias
The media’s influence in shaping public perception is another recurring theme. Many on the right accuse mainstream media outlets of downplaying the seriousness of the assassination attempts. Those on the left decry media for not holding Trump and his supporters accountable for inciting violence.
Many express a belief that legacy media is complicit in spreading false narratives and stoking division. These criticisms reinforce distrust in institutions as people increasingly view media outlets as aligned with Democratic political agendas. The result is American voters seeking alternative news sources which often confirm their biases.
Potential Outcomes
A possible conclusion for recurring discussion themes of distrust is that Americans may be growing increasingly reactionary. Strong suspicions against institutions like the federal government and media, coupled with a desire to reverse perceived societal decline, points to more than just frustration.
Discussion often includes conspiratorial speculations and fears of civil war, which are common markers of reactionary movements. These conversations indicate longing for a return to a more "stable" past, rejection of progressive changes, and an inclination to view modern institutions as illegitimate or corrupt.
Together, these elements suggest the nation is increasingly embracing reactionary thinking, where the goal is not merely reform but a reversal of recent political and social developments. If this sentiment grows, it could lead to a movement that seeks to dismantle much of the progress made in recent decades.
An ABC whistleblower affidavit alleging the Harris campaign colluded with ABC to cheat in the presidential debate is generating controversy. MIG Reports analysis shows deep mistrust of the media and government institutions, with voters reacting to the polarized political environment.
Yesterday, ABC made a statement regarding the whistleblower affidavit. The only thing ABC said was that they did not give the questions or the topics to the Harris campaign. Well, nobody accused ABC of doing that. ABC has been accused of the following:
1.) Giving the Harris…
— Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS (@DocNetyoutube) September 17, 2024
There is strong sense of skepticism and disillusionment, particularly among Trump supporters. They often express beliefs that the establishment is working against him. Conversations also highlight a growing narrative of "waking up" to the realization that systemic bias and corruption permeate media coverage and political processes.
Endorsements from prominent anti-establishment figures like Elon Musk and certain rappers and businessmen also generate enthusiasm from voters who do not necessarily view themselves as conservative but align with Trump’s anti-establishment image.
What Voters are Saying
35% of discussions express distrust toward the media and establishment politics, highlighting widespread skepticism of institutional credibility.
25% mention polarization and tribalism, illustrating sharp divisions among factions.
20% discuss the concept of "waking up" to establishment bias, saying they now see through media manipulation for the first time.
10% voice distrust of political parties and the rise of conspiracy theories.
Negative sentiment related to the “whistleblower” keyword is not directed toward the individual, but the information revealed in the affidavit which, if true, strongly condemns ABC and Disney.
Media and Establishment Loses Credibility
35% of discussions express distrust toward the media and establishment.
Distrust of mainstream media and the political establishment underpins most voter conversations about the ABC whistleblower. Many believe the media, particularly outlets like ABC, actively work to manipulate public opinion against Trump.
People use words like "bias," "fake news," and "deep state." This exemplifies concerns that legacy institutions are not untrustworthy and involved in a coordinated effort to undermine Trump's candidacy. Negative sentiment extends both to media bias and a rejection of establishment politics as voters feel disconnected and disillusioned.
Polarization and Tribalism
25% mention polarization and tribalism.
Both pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions engage in deeply tribal behavior. Conversations are emotionally charged, with voters using inflammatory language to attack the opposing side. Rather than fostering nuanced debate, these interactions often devolve into accusations of "communism," "racism," “threats to democracy,” and "fascism."
Party loyalty often overshadows good faith conversations, reinforcing an "us vs. them" mentality. Entrenched divisions in the American electorate show each side increasingly views the other as an existential threat to the country’s future.
"Waking Up" Narrative
20% discuss the concept of "waking up" to establishment bias.
Many voters say they are "waking up" to institutional and establishment corruption. They believe the media, political elites, and other institutional forces are aligned in opposition to Trump’s re-election.
This group often says they have only recently become aware of this anti-Trump coordination. New and longstanding Trump supporters see themselves as having pierced through the veil of establishment propaganda. They see themselves as champions of truth and defenders against an oppressive establishment.
Distrust Toward Political Parties
10% voice distrust of political parties and the rise of conspiracy theories.
There is noticeable frustration with political parties—especially the Republican Party for not defending Trump. Some conversations reveal dissatisfaction with the GOP, where voters express disappointment that establishment Republicans do not push back against liberal media and political forces.
This internal criticism highlights a fragmentation in partisan politics, which aligns with previous reports of political realignment away from parties and in favor of ideology. Republican Party leaders—especially RINOs—are seen as either complicit or ineffectual in protecting conservative values.
Conspiracy theories and misinformation often generate discussion along with partisan disillusionment. Many share and discuss speculations about the deep state working with the media to rig elections, spread disinformation, or otherwise undermine Trump.
These theories often tie into broader fears about globalism, socialism, or corporate influence over politics. This element of the conversation suggests a growing distrust of official narratives to explain current events.
This sentiment is evident in reactions to Governor Ron DeSantis announcing an independent state investigation of the most recent Trump assassination attempt, citing distrust in the same federal agencies which many believe are targeting Trump.
BREAKING: Governor DeSantis Moves Trump Assassination Case Under State Jurisdiction
This means that Ryan Routh can be prosecuted for attempted m*rder, not just federal charges.
The Governor explained his rationale, saying, "In my judgment, it's not in the best interest of our… pic.twitter.com/TjvhX3aLWR
MIG Reports analysis of sentiment and support for Kamala Harris among Democratic voters reveals an enthusiasm gap. While some express strong support for her policies and leadership, most are not driven by Harris’s personal or candidate appeal. Instead, much of the enthusiasm stems from dislike for Donald Trump and his MAGA agenda.
Harris, who was deeply unpopular among Democrats during her 2020 presidential bid and in her tenure as Biden’s VP, seems to still be struggling with positive voter perceptions. This analysis explores key patterns behind voter support for Kamala Harris, highlighting how anti-Trump sentiment shape Democratic voter behavior.
Can Harris Pull Out a Win on Trump Hatred?
In the 2024 election, Kamala Harris faces similar challenges to those in 2016 and 2004, where negative sentiment against the opposition wasn’t enough to drive turnout. In both elections, opposition to Trump and Bush was strong, but lack of enthusiasm for Clinton and Kerry respectively resulted in lower Democratic turnout.
Google search trends indicate, in the previous two election cycles, the highest spikes in user searches for “register to vote” happened in mid to late September.
This year, mail-in ballot requests in critical states like Pennsylvania are down for Democrats, both compared to Republicans and compared to Democrats in 2020.
Harris's policies on immigration and Palestine are controversial within her own party, with many Democrats either finding her too liberal or disagreeing with her foreign policy. If her campaign relies solely on Trump hatred without generating positive enthusiasm for her candidacy, voter turnout may fall short. This may result in a repeat of the 2016 and 2004 elections, where Democrats were surprised to find opposition wasn’t enough to secure victory.
Enthusiasm is Actually Anti-Trump Fervor
Conditional Support for Kamala Harris
Kamala Harris has a base of support among Democratic voters, according to MIG Reports analysis of online discussions. Many voters praise her performance in the debate, her background as a prosecutor, and her stance on issues like social justice and healthcare.
Discussions of Kamala Harris which do not focus on the election show 43.6% express direct support for her. However, this support is not as stark with deeper analysis. In conversations mentioning Harris's policies or leadership positively, reactions also focus on the political climate over her accomplishments.
Criticism of Trump as a Driving Force
Much of the conversation among Democrats which mention Kamala Harris are not about her but rather about Donald Trump. In election-specific discussions, 25% of conversations focus solely on criticizing Trump. They label him as representing "terror" and "lies.” Harris supporters largely incorporate this sentiment in all their supportive mentions of Harris.
Voters frame Harris as a necessary opponent to Trump, positioning her as a vehicle for resisting Trump’s influence rather than rallying around her personal achievements or vision. This pattern suggests, for many Democrats, Harris represents the best hope for defeating Trump, rather than an inspiring candidate on her own.
Voter Behavior Motivated by Opposition
In conversations mentioning Trump and Harris in a head-to-head race, there is a mix of positive and negative sentiments about Harris. While 42% of the conversation was positive, much of that positivity is focused on her role as a foil to Trump. Voters view her as a champion against his policies.
Broader trends in Democratic voter enthusiasm show an urgency to reject Trump outweighing affirmative support for Harris.
Kamala as a Symbol of Opposition
In many cases, Kamala Harris's support appears to be symbolic, with voters rallying behind her as a replacement for Biden and a figurehead of the Party. While some say they appreciate her leadership and policies, 23.5% primarily criticize Trump and his allies. In addition to her role as a political opponent to Trump, Harris’s identity as a woman of color adds to the symbolic nature of her candidacy.
For many Democrats, her race and gender are celebrated as markers of progress, positioning her as a trailblazer in American politics. However, her identity also draws skepticism for others, with some feeling her symbolism outweighs her qualifications. This divide underscores the conditional nature of her support, where enthusiasm hinges on what she represents rather than her achievements.
After a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, public discourse turns to the media’s role in covering such violent political events. Across multiple platforms, voters are voicing concerns about the media’s culpability in raising the national temperature and whether they adequately address the gravity of the situation. Many criticize biased coverage which tends to blame Trump’s own rhetoric for the attempt on his life.
What Voters Are Saying
MIG Reports analysis shows:
63.72% of voters say the media contributes to violent events by using inflammatory rhetoric and demonizing political opponents.
42.96% of voters expect the media to ignore or downplay this assassination attempt against Trump.
Voter frustration stems from a perceived media bias, particularly regarding how the press covers threats or violence directed at Trump compared to other political figures. Many point out examples like Dana Bash accusing J.D. Vance of causing bomb threats in Springfield, OH, while also denying the media’s role in heated political rhetoric that may have urged violence from assassins.
I can’t stop watching this. Dana Bash jerking her head around like a bird because her target didn’t accept her Narrative’s premise. Vance rejects the premises. Then he attacks the premises. Just beautiful. pic.twitter.com/gsNOV4hiwJ
Some also point to clips of Democrats, celebrities, and media figures promoting inflammatory rhetoric against Trump and Republicans, while blaming them for causing violent reactions among extremists.
2.5 minutes of Democrats explicitly calling for using political vioIence.
Many voters express concern over the portrayal of Trump as a "threat to democracy," which they argue creates an environment of hostility and encourages violent acts. Right leaning Americans feel the media carries water for Democrats while blaming Trump and Republicans.
People attribute the media’s reluctance to thoroughly report on these events to political alignment against Trump. They accuse mainstream outlets of downplaying threats against Trump while amplifying narratives that politically benefit the Democratic Party.
There are recurring discussions of the media “memory holing” events that make Trump look sympathetic, while hysterically and irresponsibly covering stories that present voters and Republicans as villains.
Erosion of Trust in Media
The public’s skepticism about the media's ability to report on sensitive issues without bias is growing. In overall conversations MIG Reports data shows 75% of voters believe the media contributes to violent events through inflammatory language and divisive rhetoric.
This perception is not just about Trump but reflects broader mistrust in how news outlets frame stories, with voters arguing media narratives are politically skewed and antagonistic to average Americans. This theme continues from previous stories of media prejudice like biased debate moderators, media running cover for Joe Biden, and plummeting trust in media.
One particularly notable sentiment is that the media allegedly “memory holes” events—a reference to George Orwell’s 1984. Many believe media outlets ignore stories that do not align with their preferred political narrative. There is outrage at this selective coverage as voters feel ignored, invalidated, and demeaned.
Implications for American Politics
Voter perceptions of bias in coverage reinforce pre-existing political divides, making bipartisan dialogue increasingly difficult. For many, the media’s reporting on Trump’s assassination attempts is emblematic of the growing divide between how average citizens view the world and how the political and elite classes portray it.
As voters lose confidence in institutions, they are turning to alternative platforms like X for news and reporting. Many discuss the importance of independent media to ensure facts and important stories come to the fore, despite mainstream media’s refusal to cover them.
They point to examples of independent reporters gathering facts and evidence more thoroughly than large media corporations. Many are also discussing instances of independent journalists like Nick Sortor confronting mainstream figures about their alleged lies.
🚨 NEW: I PERSONALLY confronted the MSNBC “reporter” here in Springfield, Ohio who is now on TV with Lester Holt blaming President Trump for his own ass*ss*nation attempt
Last week, a USA Today reporter called my video on the Venezuelan gang activity in Aurora ‘largely disproven.’ This week, 8 gang members have been arrested, and a city statement describes the damage, but the reporter and her editors have doubled down, refusing to acknowledge the… pic.twitter.com/UqnKCHIhDs
MIG Reports shows voters are comparing crime rates during the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations. As people engage with the topic of crime, themes of political bias, media manipulation, and immigration policies surface as focal points. These discussions highlight overarching concerns about how crime is managed, reported, and perceived in the current political climate.
Views of Crime Under Democrats
Data shows public sentiment leaning heavily toward skepticism about Biden-Harris policies for handling of crime.
62% of the MIG Reports data sample express distrust in crime statistics reported by the Biden-Harris administration.
45% believe crime has increased in discussions mentioning “crime under Trump.”
The disparity between the views of each administration focuses on immigration, political agendas, and media bias.
What Voters are Saying
When comparing crime under Trump versus Biden-Harris, many view Trump’s administration as maintaining stronger law enforcement policies. They mention border security and stricter immigration controls.
In contrast, Americans perceive Biden-Harris policies as too lenient, particularly regarding immigration and sanctuary cities. Around 62% of commenters blame Democrats for increasing crime. People link rising crime to border policies, citing specific instances of migrant crime. They say current policies embolden criminals and endanger public safety.
Discussions also emphasize widespread distrust of media and official crime statistics—like rampant distrust in job numbers. Many Americans feel the media is downplaying or manipulating crime data to protect the Biden-Harris administration, including David Muir in the recent debate.
These perceptions about incorrect data further generate discontent. 45% suggest that media bias plays a significant role in shaping public opinion about the administration’s effectiveness.
Conversations don’t contain any noticeable defense that media is not shaping public opinion. Many also question the accuracy of reported crime stats, citing the number of large metropolitan areas which don’t report crime statistics to the FBI.
There are examples, like one from 2022. Among 19 of the largest law enforcement agencies—all of which are responsible for more than 1 million people—seven were missing from the FBI's crime data.
Voters are also concerned about politicization of law enforcement. Many believe the justice system under Biden-Harris is biased, with certain groups receiving preferential treatment. This idea of unequal justice adds to the frustration and deepens the divide between supporters of the two administrations.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)