Former ESPN anchor Sage Steele recently alleged on Fox News that her 2021 interview with President Biden was completely scripted. Steele claims the interview questions were prepared in advance and required strict adherence by the president’s communications team. Her comments about the interview, which originally aired on ESPN, are generating controversy in the field of journalism, opening discussions about the authenticity of the interview and journalistic integrity.

It also fans the flames of concern many Americans have about Joe Biden’s mental fitness for office. Many voters believe Biden’s cognitive acuity is rapidly declining, necessitating tight control over what the President says and what questions press are allowed to ask him.

In traditional journalism, it is considered unethical to provide interviewees with scripted questions beforehand. This is because it allows guests to prepare answers, which can potentially manipulate the narrative and mislead the public. The objective of journalism is to uncover truth and hold those in power accountable, which may be compromised when interviewees are given prepared questions.

In the case of President Biden, it also highlights concerns over his ability to answer questions extemporaneously, without confusion or large lapses in memory. Instances of Biden seeming disoriented during public appearances are a growing concern for many voters on both sides of the aisle.

The situation with Sage Steele and Joe Biden represents a recurring issue for Biden as more accusations emerge of scripted interviews with the press. In this instance, people speculate whether ESPN, as a major news outlet, allowed its journalistic standards to be undermined for a high-profile political figure. This has potential implications for the credibility of ESPN and any journalist who allows prepared questions for the president.

The controversy also raises questions about the role of media in politics. Many people believe if media outlets are accepting scripted questions from the Biden administration, it will lead to unfair bias, favoring the White House agenda over journalistic inquiry. This can lead to a lack of trust in the media and further polarize political discourse.

MIG Reports analysis of the original interview identified:

• The questions were tailored to convey specific messages.
• Themes included COVID-19 vaccination, sports-politics intersection, and family anecdotes.
• There was an emphasis on promoting vaccination and addressing election issues in Georgia.
• Concerns were raised about potential propaganda or manipulation.
• There were obvious elements of political messaging present in the interview.

The scripted nature of presidential interviews implies a corrupt relationship between politics and media in the modern era. While political leaders seek to control their messaging and shape public opinion, media organizations have a duty to prioritize journalistic integrity and independence.

This event highlights the importance of journalistic integrity and the potential implications of compromising unbiased reporting. It suggests a dereliction of duty by media outlets in holding the powerful accountable and providing the public with unbiased information.

LSU’s women’s basketball team left the court during the national anthem, stirring up controversy in a longstanding debate within sports about patriotism and social justice. The conversation reveals various perspectives and interpretations of why the team may have done so.

Viewpoints ranged from strong support to vehement disagreement. Some people perceived this act as a form of protest against social injustices. Others saw it as disrespectful to the flag and national anthem.

Several commenters expressed concern over the rising influence of woke, social justice culture, arguing it is eroding traditional values and creating divisions in society. They believe such actions disrespect the country and its symbols, undermining unity and patriotism. Some also criticize the progressive ideologies that encourage these types of protests. This group often says liberalism has been hijacked by illiberal forces.

There is some commentary defending the LSU team, arguing it’s normal to not be on the court and has nothing to do with the flag or anthem. This instance of LSU players leaving during the national anthem apparently is not an isolated event. Local reporter Chesse Boucha stated, “If you ever go to an actual LSU game you’ll see that they’re never on the court for the anthem. It’s that simple. I’ve covered them for three years and they’ve never been.” Head Coach Kim Mulkey offered “Honestly, I don’t even know when the anthem was played.”

Those defending LSU players also tend to challenge the use of “woke,” saying it’s a derogatory term and asserting it symbolizes rejecting oppressive norms.

An element of the online conversation also criticizes the focus on culture wars and identity politics. Some suggest it distracts from more pressing issues. They argue such debates are fueled by propaganda outlets owned by powerful individuals with vested interests. These commenters warn against being drawn into divisive narratives and urge people to stay informed and critical.

The nationally televised game illustrates how polarized America is on topics of culture and politics – which are becoming frequently intertwined. The conversation about patriotism in sports highlights how differently Americans see social issues like race and activism.

An accidental strike by Israel in Gaza that hit a group of World Central Kitchen workers has sparked a flurry of reactions online. The issue was trending on twitter with World Central Kitchen and IDF both receiving nearly half a million tweets. Responses to the tragedy tend to fall along party lines, although most people express sympathy and condolences for the loss of life.

Overall, Democrats and progressives are enraged at Israel and the IDF for allowing causing these civilian deaths. They largely blame Israel for unnecessary casualties and take the opportunity to continue pushing for a ceasefire.

Republicans and more pro-Israel moderates general blame Hamas for generating conflict amid civilian territories. They tend to view the tragedy as a heartbreaking reality of war, which Israel does its best to avoid.

• Typical trends of American sentiment on issues related to the Israel-Hamas conflict see approval in the low 40% range.
• After the accidental strike with aid worker casualties, both security issues and Israel-Palestine approval dropped to 39%.
• Discussion about both subjects has remained high, reaching nearly 10,000 mentions daily for the last week.

Democrats Double Down on a Ceasefire

Following the aid worker casualties in Gaza, Democrats are primarily emphasizing human rights violations, condemning the strike as an act of indiscriminate violence. They express deep disgust for what they call a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and call for an immediate ceasefire.

Many who identify as progressives or Democrats also criticize the U.S.'s seemingly one-sided support for Israel and lack of condemnation for civilian casualties. They advocate for a more Palestine-friendly approach that would prioritize the rights and needs of Palestinians.

However, there is an internal divide within the Democratic party. More progressive members tend to be vocal or activist in support for Palestine, calling for Biden and the administration to stop taking an Israel-sympathetic approach. Many of them are even dropping support for Biden and voting "Uncommitted" in Democrat primary elections. Moderate and traditional Democrats are more likely to remain pro-Israel, condemning Hamas and its terror attack on October 7.

Democrats online emphasize the importance of protecting non-combatants in conflict zones. They are criticizing the lack of precision in military operations by the IDF and call for increased oversight and accountability. They are also praising the World Central Kitchen workers, blaming the IDF for stopping them from bringing aid to Gaza.

Most people on the left highlight the proportionality of Israel's response to Hamas. They are quick to condemn the accidental strike, citing it as a clear example of overreaction by the IDF. This group is more likely to criticize Israel's policies and America’s pro-Israel stance in the conflict.

Republicans Lament the Tragedies of War and Terrorism

Republicans and more moderate Democrats are more likely to reiterate their support for Israel. They hold the accidental strike as tragedy and an unfortunate result of Israel's right to self-defense against Hamas terrorism. These voters tend to blame Hamas for initiating the war and for placing civilians needlessly in the crossfire.

Israel supporters argue Hamas uses civilians as human shields, which makes military precision difficult and leads to unnecessary civilian casualties. Some Republicans are also criticizing Democrats for their misguided promotion of Palestinian aggression and misunderstanding the complexities of Middle East conflict.

Republicans tend to lament the unfortunate reality of collateral damage in conflict situations. They stress that the incident underscores a need for decisive action to resolve the conflict and to eliminate conditions which force such operations in the first place.

This group argues the incident is a consequence of Hamas' tactic of using civilian areas for military purposes. Republicans are more likely to support continued U.S. military aid to Israel – although that view is not universally held by more isolationist Republicans.

Many assert the solution to the conflict involves defeating Hamas and other terrorist groups. However, most people express their condolences for the tragic loss of life and hope for a thorough investigation into the incident.

Economic Issues

The concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been increasingly popular in recent years as the world grapples with rising living costs, the potential displacement of workers due to automation, and objections to income inequality. UBI is a government program providing every adult citizen with a set amount of money regularly. This stipend is given regardless of a person’s income or employment status. The goal is to provide a basic safety net, reducing poverty and providing financial security.

MIG Reports analysis of online commentary shows people's concerns about taxes, the perception of government misuse of tax money, and the struggle of ordinary citizens to meet their obligations. Many voters are raising questions about the fairness of tax systems, with some claiming they are being “taxed to death.” Many also assert that wealthy Americans are able to evade taxes through loopholes or illegal means.

There is a sense of disillusionment with the government as people complain, "What are you people in government doing with our money?" This signifies a lack of transparency and trust in how tax money is being used. It also suggests a disconnect between the government and the people, with the latter feeling overburdened and underrepresented.

Conversations also touch on the complexities of the current tax system. Some voters find it difficult to navigate, potentially falling into debt as a result. There are also concerns about changes to the tax system during an election year, suggesting a link between politics and financial policies.

Interestingly, some are advocating for illegal activities such as tax evasion and hacking as a form of resistance to unfair treatment. This indicates a level of frustration and distrust, as well as a willingness to resort to breaking the law to alleviate financial burdens.

Overall, American voters are grappling with financial pressures and a mistrust of government handling of taxes. It suggests people are in favor of reforms – whether UBI is a good solution in people’s minds is less clear.

• MIG Reports data indicates sentiment about Economic and Banking Issues is relatively stable.
• However, discussions around more nuanced topics like Monetary Policies and Minimum Wage are more likely to swing.
• This is likely due to lower volume and potentially heated, emotional topics along with newer instruments, such as UBI.

Minimum Wage

Recent discussions of a $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers in California also highly polarizing., There are strong opinions emerging from both supporters and detractors of a higher minimum wage. The situation is further complicated by broader conversations about UBI and the affordability of living, particularly in high-cost areas like California.

Proponents seek to debunk arguments against raising the minimum wage, asserting concerns about businesses being unable to afford the increase are unfounded. This group often frames the increase as a matter of fairness and social justice. They say large corporations can afford to pay their employees more.

Opponents of the wage increase believe it will lead to job losses and business closures. They argue small businesses will struggle the most to afford increased payroll costs. This, they say, will lead to layoffs or even bankruptcy. Critics also suggest the cost of wage increases would be passed on to consumers, leading to higher prices and negating any benefits for workers.

There’s also discussion of the impact of wage increases on poverty levels. Some argue that even with a $20 minimum wage, many workers will still struggle to make ends meet, particularly in areas with a high cost of living. They believe that a more comprehensive solution, like a UBI, may be necessary to truly address poverty and income inequality.

Lastly, there is a narrative of anticipation and observation. Some are keenly watching to see the real-world impacts of the wage increase on employment rates, business performance, and workers' quality of life.

Monetary Policy

The role of the Federal Reserve, interest rates, and the economic impact of UBI also factors into the discussion. This conversation emerges against the backdrop of Fed Chair Jerome Powell's announcement that interest rate cuts are not imminent. The announcement sparked various reactions across the financial and political spectrum.

Some voters express skepticism and frustration towards the Federal Reserve's actions, questioning its ability to manage the national debt. They speculate it could potentially reach a staggering $50 trillion by 2024. However, Powell's stance also raises questions about the feasibility and implications of UBI.

Some argue implementing UBI would require borrowing more federal dollars, inevitably exacerbating the national debt. This is a contentious issue, as many struggling Americans desire immediate financial support, which hampers managing the long-term economic health of the country.

Because UBI is deeply intertwined with broader economic policies and politics writ large, particularly those concerning the Federal Reserve and interest rates, it is likely UBI will remain a divisive topic, especially given previous government aid during COVID.

The narrative around gun violence in mainstream media reports is heavily centered on mass shootings and the politicization of the Second Amendment. The discourse often revolves around debates about gun control, mental health reform, and the responsibility of lawmakers in implementing policies to curb gun violence.

However, there is a glaring lack of attention to the rampant gun violence that plagues inner cities. Meanwhile, there is an abundance of reporting on mass shooting incidents like the one in downtown Indianapolis, which left seven juveniles injured.

Americans largely perceive that media reporting is skewed towards sensationalized mass shootings, often ignoring the daily violence that affects marginalized communities in urban areas while also advocating for illegal immigrants to own guns.

Mainstream narratives rarely include the thousands of gun-related deaths and injuries that occur in, largely blue, urban areas. Stories about daily shootings in places like Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore rarely make national headlines. This contributes to a perception that these incidents are normal or expected, thereby reducing the urgency to address them.

Online discourse often devolves into partisan debates about gun rights and controls. For instance, some voters accuse Chuck Schumer of using a fallen NYPD officer's death to push for gun control. Many claim Schumer and other Democrats politicize the issue. The Second Amendment is frequently invoked in these discussions, with some arguing gun control measures infringe upon constitutional rights.

The mainstream media's failure to highlight inner-city gun violence seems to perpetuate a skewed understanding of the issue. It often favors sensationalized incidents over the chronic violence affecting specific communities. This can lead to policies that do not adequately address the root causes of most gun violence, such as socio-economic disparities and inadequate policing.

Many Americans believe the mainstream media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion and policymaking regarding gun violence. It crucial for voters to have access to comprehensive and balanced new coverage – especially on issues like guns in America. Honest, unbiased reporting on urban gun violence would not only help raise awareness about the extent of the problem, but also promote more effective strategies to combat it. However, many people feel the media often draws false conclusions from a politicized point of view.

Online discussion among American voters and independent journalists often seems to directly dispute media narratives about gun violence. Some point out that most mass shootings are gang-related and occur in African American neighborhoods. This contrasts with the mainstream media's typical portrayal of mass shootings as random acts of violence committed by white, “lone wolf” perpetrators with extremist manifestos.

On Good Friday, the Biden White House announced its plan to honor “Transgender Day of Visibility,” celebrating, “The extraordinary courage and contributions of transgender Americans.” The announcement also proclaimed the day would fall on Easter Sunday, a move which many conservative Christians perceived as an affront to religious norms in America.

Many saw the announcement as an example of "wokeness" or progressive agendas gone awry. They argue overlapping a clearly political observance with important Christian holiday is an inappropriate politicization of religious tradition. Many also accused the administration of intentionally trying to bait Christians into outrage by disrespecting Easter.

Thinly Veiled Hostility Toward American Christians

Traditional Christians voiced strong opposition to Trans Visibility as an affront to their religious traditions and a challenge to the biological realities of gender. They argue the Biden administration is prioritizing secular, progressive values and gender ideology over Christian ones. Many Americans view the Transgender Day of Visibility, along with “Pride” month in June and “Transgender Day of Remembrance” in November, as an intentional way to disrupt traditional moral norms and the sanctity of family life.

Conservatives argue the administration’s choice to make a big deal of the day is purely part of a political agenda. They see government recognition as political encroachment of secular values upon their religious freedoms. This group feels the White House promoting progressive values and ignoring or suppressing Christian values indicates a certain hostility to American Christians.

• Over Easter weekend, discussion about “transgender rights” with mentions of Joe Biden spiked significantly to 1,200 from a normal baseline of almost zero.
• Sentiment toward Joe Biden regarding trans and LGBTQ issues remained steady.
• Sentiment toward Biden regarding religious issues dipped to 45% in the last week, recovering to 54% on Easter Sunday.

Many conservative and religious groups objected to the timing of Biden’s proclamation. They asserted it was a deliberate attempt to overshadow the significance of Easter. They believe the administration is prioritizing political correctness over religious traditions. Some even suggested the move was intended to further polarize the country, exacerbating the divide between traditional religious people and secular, progressive activists.

Evangelical Christians seem to be among the most vocal group to take offense. Many of them perceive this event as a slight or even a direct attack against their faith, questioning the "blasphemy" of the proclaimed Catholic Joe Biden.

Accusations of Political Pandering

Some also view Biden’s proclamation as a strategic attempt to pander to progressive and LGBTQ voters. These commenters claim the Biden administration is attempting to solidify its base among liberal and younger demographics who are more likely to support LGBTQ+ rights.

There are claims the timing of Biden’s announcement isn’t politically motivated as it likely alienates moderate and conservative voters who are uncomfortable with the juxtaposition of a religious holiday and a political statement. However, others insist this alienation is intentional and an attempt to force traditional and religious views out of the political square.

Progressive voters are more positive and supportive toward Transgender Day of Visibility. This is particularly true for those who identify as Democrats or liberals. This group notes the importance of recognizing the rights and identities of transgender people. They see the announcement as a step towards inclusivity and recognition.

Liberals also tend to criticize more conservative voters, accusing them of hatred or bigotry towards trans people. Progressive Christians also claim that modern "inclusion and equity” is in line with the teachings of Jesus. Some even express a belief that Jesus himself would not mind sharing the day.

Prior to COVID lockdowns, religion played a significant role in the lives of many Americans. For Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others, religious beliefs or lack thereof often shape worldview, political leanings, and day-to-day decisions. The intersection of religion and politics, particularly for evangelical Christians, was a contentious issue pre-2020. Those who supported then-president Donald Trump were often criticized. This was especially true when his actions and attitudes seemed antithetical to evangelical beliefs.

COVID lockdowns brought about a shift in religious sentiment among Americans, however. With churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship closing their doors by mandate, many turned to online platforms to practice their faith. This period of isolation and uncertainty also led to an increase in spiritual seeking for some, while others questioned their beliefs.

Lockdowns combined with the subsequent economic crisis brought about a shift in focus. Discussions around job creation, economic recovery, and the role of government in these areas became more prominent. Some religious individuals linked their faith to these civic issues, citing the importance of caring for God's creation – including the economy and the environment. 

Predictive Analysis Vs Mainstream Narrative

The future of religious people in America will likely continue to be influenced by political and social issues. The intersection of faith and politics, particularly for evangelical Christians, will likely remain a contentious issue. However, it is possible the results of COVID may be a shift in priorities, with more focus on social justice, environmental stewardship, and economic equality.

Factors that shape religious sentiment for Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others will likely remain diverse and complex. These may include personal experiences, societal trends, political climate, and interpretations of religious texts. The rise of online religious practice may also continue, altering the way Americans engage with their faith.

The impact of lockdowns on religion in America has been significant. It seems to have led to permanent changes in religious practice and sentiment. The future of religion in America is somewhat uncertain and will likely be influenced by many factors.

Mainstream media narratives suggest that Christianity, which has historically been the dominant religion in America, is waning. News reports point to decreased church attendance as an indicator of archaic ways of life receding into the past.

Mainstream reporting suggests demographic shifts such as increasing racial and ethnic diversity in America likely leads to increased religious pluralism. There is also a suggestion that secularization will continue to increase, particularly among younger generations who are less likely to identify with traditional religious institutions.

However, external data indicates this narrative does not tell the whole story and may actually be cynical. Some studies show an increase in younger generations attending church services.

• Non-white Millennials drive the largest increase in church attendance.
• 45% of non-white Millennials are attending church weekly, compared to 35% of white Millennials.

Percent Attending Church Weekly

Political dynamics may also shape the future of religion in America. The intertwining of religion and politics, particularly on the Christian right, could further polarize religious communities. Conservative Christians often find themselves at odds with the rise of social justice movements which prompt many faith communities to engage in activism and advocacy.

Technological advancements, from online worship services to religious apps, could transform how people practice their faith. These technologies may make religion more accessible to some. However, they also seem to be raising new questions about the nature of religious community and worship.

In terms of religious sentiment, various faiths continue to hold different views on morality, social justice, and the role of religion in public life. These differences are often shaped by theological beliefs, cultural backgrounds, and personal experiences.

For example, Christians may continue to grapple with issues like LGBTQ rights and racial justice, with different denominations and individuals having differing views. Jews and Muslims may continue to face challenges related to religious discrimination and prejudice, which could shape their religious sentiments and practices. Atheists, meanwhile, may continue to advocate for secularism and the removal of religion from government practices. 

Demographics and Mass Attendance

While Protestant numbers have decreased, Catholicism remains steady and may be trending upward. Furthermore, a possible resurgence of Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) attendees seems to be leading the potential increase. A survey conducted from 2019 to 2021 of TLM parishes across the country identified:

• 2019 average attendance across 59 parishes was 145.
• 2020 average attendance across 61 parishes was 163.
• January 2021 average attendance across 69 parishes was 174.
• June 2021 average attendance across 75 parishes was 196.

In short, the rate of TLM attendance increased by 34% and the number of parishes offering TLM increased by 27%.

“So, at a time when general Mass attendance was decreasing,” the report pointed out, “attendance at the TLM was dramatically increasing." Church attendance also differs among generations. However, this may be an indicator of continued increases in faith since Millennials are less likely than Boomers to stop attending church all together. They are, however, more likely to attend multiple churches.

The economy also seems to be an influencing factor, likely delaying family creation, as well as causing increased housing prices and other general costs of living. These hardships may be encouraging Americans back to faith.

Given difficult economic conditions and societal disillusionment being exacerbated by COVID lockdowns, searching for meaning is a plausible counterreaction to recent societal turmoil for many Americans. Despite the mainstream media's insistence to the contrary and negative portrayal of religiosity, many Americans are clinging to their faith.

Recent events in media expose the growing dissatisfaction Americans have with news and entertainment outlets. Data suggests that viewer trust in mainstream media outlets is precipitously low as viewers feel media elites despise average people.

There is also a perception among many that the mainstream media is biased in its coverage. People point out examples when news highlights any Biden surge in the polls, rather than scrutinizing his policies. There is a sentiment that Trump's actions and policies are often unfairly criticized or misrepresented by the media.

Media Bias Against Trump

There is a strong sentiment among right leaning and conservative Americans that media coverage of Trump is unfairly negative and strongly biased against him. They accuse outlets and commentators of spreading lies and being part of a "witch hunt" against the former president. This sentiment is particularly strong among older demographics and those living in traditionally conservative states.

This group sees Trump as a champion for their beliefs and values. They are harshly critical of what they perceive as liberal bias in the media. Many also express a belief in Trump's innocence in the face of ongoing legal issues and investigations, often attributing these to political persecution.

On the other hand, critics of Trump, who tend to identify as liberals or Democrats, are supportive of recent media coverage, particularly regarding his ongoing legal issues. They accuse Trump of corruption and believe his actions deserve scrutiny.

This sentiment is prevalent among younger demographics and those in traditionally liberal states. Critics also express frustration with what they perceive as the media's "soft" approach on Trump, arguing that he should be held more accountable for his actions.

Elite’s Disrespect for Average People

A recent example of Stephen Colbert's fundraising efforts for Joe Biden fuels voter perceptions that entertainment and media figures ignore the transgressions of Democrats while constantly harping on conservatives. Many criticize Colbert for using his cultural influence to sway political outcomes.

The interview between former CNN host Don Lemon and the owner of X, Elon Musk, has also spurred a significant response from the American public. The interview sparked conversations about media bias, with conservatives accusing networks like NBC of suppressing conservative voices and liberals accusing networks like Fox News of promoting misinformation. This indicates a deep distrust between the two sides and the media.

People are also discussing a recent controversy involving comedian Jon Stewart’s hypocrisy in discussing Trump’s New York legal case. Stewart reportedly overvalued his home in a similar way to what Trump is accused of doing. Many accuse Stewart of promoting a double standard and negatively shaping media perceptions. Some argue Stewart should be held to the same standards as Trump and pay back taxes.

There is also criticism directed at NBC for hiring and promptly firing former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel. Discussions criticize the network for acquiescing to the complaints and laments voiced by NBC and MSNBC hosts like Chuck Todd, Kristen Welker, and Jen Psaki.

Normal Americans Feel Misrepresented

Another grievance many Americans express against mainstream media and entertainment is their elitism. There is a growing sense among working and middle-class voters, particularly conservatives, that media elites are out of touch with "normal" people.

This sentiment is fueled by perceived liberal bias in the media, with critics arguing media elites look down on traditional values and the everyday concerns of Americans living outside major urban centers. However, some still argue the media plays a crucial role in holding those in power accountable.

Despite some defense of mainstream media, the theme of "media elites" versus "normal Americans" is recurring in online discussions. Average people in middle America or suburban and rural communities feel marginalized and believe the media doesn't represent their perspectives or concerns.

While some simply feel media elites are distant from the realities of ordinary life, others perceive a targeted animosity from media figures. Many feel comments from figures like Joy Reid, Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, and others reveal a certain disgust for average people.

There is also a prevailing sentiment that media elites “hate normal Americans” who align with conservative values. Some give examples of media figures insulting the intelligence of conservatives, deriding their traditions or religious beliefs, portraying negative stereotypes of them, and attributing false motives to their actions.

Dismissing the Sins of Their Allies

Many criticize the media for what they see as a bias towards the left and a tendency to downplay or ignore the transgressions of Democratic politicians. Middle-class voters often express feelings of being overlooked or undervalued, while victimizing and harmful actions by elites are justified and dismissed.

Mainstream media is perceived as propagandizing policies favoring the wealthy and powerful. This sentiment is reflected in discussions about the lack of representation for blue-collar Americans in the media and politics.

There are some who laud the media's efforts to hold the government accountable, however. This group praises the resilience of figures like Joe Biden in the face of intense scrutiny.

Boeing’s PR disaster in recent months over recurring safety complications is not letting up. American voters are feeling overwhelmingly negative about the jet company – expressing fear and criticism. There is a strong sense of frustration and disappointment with the company's handling of the safety issues. One particular issue people bring up is the incident involving the door panel of a Boeing 737 Max plane blowing out mid-flight.

• Boeing sentiment has been hovering in the mid 40% range while online discussion continues to grow more negative.

Safety Concerns for American Travelers

There is a clear concern about how safe Boeing planes are for passengers, particularly the 737 Max. People recurringly mention a near-collision incident involving a Boeing 737 Max and a Boeing 777, which, among other events, is fueling safety concerns. Some Americans question the safety of Boeing aircraft and often express nervousness about traveling in them.

Following the death of Boeing whistleblower John Barnett, more people are discussing their view of a decline in Boeing's quality and the impact of rushing projects. People are relating the problems to poor management and the company's focus on profits over audits and worker wellbeing, and a growing sense of incompetence in modern society.

The disapproval of safety standards at Boeing are not generally partisan, however right leaning Americans are more likely to bring up DEI, criticizing its woke impact on Boeing's operations. They suggest that DEI is partially responsible for the company's difficulties and call for its removal.

Reactions to Boeing CEO’s Resignation

The public seems to believe Boeing's priorities are more focused on production than on safety and quality. Some even go so far as to suggest that all Boeing aircraft should be melted down and started over.

Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun’s resignation is seen by many as a positive step. But there is also skepticism about whether this will lead to any real changes in the company's approach to safety.

American appear to have a generally negative view of Dave Calhoun and his leadership at the company. They also criticize the executive and management levels of leadership broadly.

There is some public relief at the news of Calhoun's resignation, and some suggest the entire company needs a complete overhaul or "start over." Public views on the company’s brand value indicates widespread dissatisfaction with Boeing's current image.

While some see Calhoun’s resignation as an appropriate response to the company's troubles, others question the timing and express cynicism about the executives' motives.

There is also criticism of large exit packages for departing executives, especially in the light of perceived gross negligence in handling safety issues. Some express concerns about the future of Boeing as a leader in the industry given the ongoing crises.

General Criticism of the Company

There are calls for more accountability and transparency from Boeing, with some suggesting that more information should be released about safety incidents and negligence allegations. Some even raise questions about potential criminal charges or ethical investigations related to safety issues and suspicion around John Barnett’s death.

Overall, public sentiment indicates a lack of trust or confidence in Boeing and its leadership, as well as increasing fear of boarding a Boeing jet. The way the company handles this crisis and its commitment to safety and quality moving forward will likely influence public perception and trust in the company.