With the holiday shopping season approaching, consumers appear conflicted about risking their usual shopping plans amid rising crime rates nationwide.
What the Data Says
Media Intelligence Group reports that public discussions reveal an emerging apprehension and caution regarding shopping dangers.
Reports of increased theft and organized retail crime in many major cities have been generating headlines all year.
Various reports also revealed that retailers lost more than $112 billion in 2022 due to crime.
Major brands like Target, Walmart, Nordstrom, Macy's, and others have closed store locations because of increasing theft.
Now, the danger of in-store criminal activity has people expressing their hesitation to shop during what has traditionally been the heaviest shopping season of the year.
Some people argue that positive economic indicators like 2.0% and 2.1% GDP growth in Q1 and Q1 of 2023 point to a hospitable environment for spending.
However, concerns also persist about inflation's toll on families’ spending power, making purchases challenging.
What Americans are Saying
The MIG report suggests caution rather than fear is the prevailing mood among Americans.
Shoppers seem alert to potential dangers but not fully deterred.
Many do say they’ll think twice before venturing out or spend less time browsing in stores.
Meanwhile corporations seem quiet in the public forum but are likely keeping a close eye on shrinking revenues.
People are hesitant due to increased risks of theft and organized retail crime.
Some express fear about potential mass shootings in places like malls and shopping centers.
And most Americans feel uncertain about the overall economy affecting their spending power.
Media Denial
At the same time, many media outlets push back on the narrative that retail crime is significantly increasing nationwide based on available data.
Many headlines suggest that retailers may be overstating or sensationalizing the issue.
Some journalists express a desire for “more objective” data collection on retail crime trends before concluding there is a major national surge occurring.
Despite media pushback, these pressures may cause retailers to see decreased profits through the end of 2023.
Stay Informed
Share:
More Like This
The Trump administration admitting white South Africans—primarily Afrikaner farmers—into the United States as refugees continues to cause controversy. Central to the debate are racial disagreements and how the media covers the issue. Across online discussion, Americans debate immigration decisions and the role of media as narrator, censor, and cultural gatekeeper.
🚨 HOLY CRAP! President Trump just DIRECTLY confronted the President of South Africa with videos of his government calling for WHITE GENOCIDE
"Turn the lights down and roll the video!"
"These are burial sites — crosses marking murdered White farmers"
Public commentary centers around what voters see as selective news reporting and ideological filtering. Particularly in right-leaning and independent spaces, a common refrain emerged is, “The media won’t touch this.”
Many on the right say mainstream outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and even segments of the international press treat the story of racial targeting against white South Africans with either ridicule or total blackout.
CNN: The video of a South African political leader calling for kiIIling white farmers doesn’t mean he’s calling for kiIIing white farmers. pic.twitter.com/FAZnFuCDdL
The term “white genocide,” invoked by Trump during a dramatic Oval Office confrontation with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, was described by media outlets as baseless, inflammatory, and conspiratorial. Critics of the coverage say this dismissive framing is evidence of anti-white bias. This, they say, allows media institutions to engage issues of race selectively, only when those narratives reinforce a progressive worldview.
The South African Minister of Agriculture confirmed in the Oval Office today that white farmers are being killed and that it’s a serious problem. Yet, this is what CNN puts out. pic.twitter.com/6M731FOIGs
Among Trump supporters and skeptical independents, the dominant belief is that the media has engaged in strategic suppression. Many claim even if the term “white genocide” is hyperbolic, the broader trend of land seizures, targeted farm attacks, and racial hostility against minority whites in South Africa is a serious concern—one worthy of honest reporting. Instead, legacy media outlets have treated the entire subject as a taboo, framing any discussion as either racist or fringe.
The South African President brought White golfers with him to try to prove there’s no systemic persecution of Whites in South Africa.
Golfer Retief Goosen then tells Trump that his dads farmer friends have been killed and farms are constantly being burned.pic.twitter.com/IS8JYBbFVG
Comments like “CNN won’t even say the word ‘Afrikaner’” and “They covered Ukraine refugees wall to wall, but not a word about Afrikaners fleeing violence” reflect a belief that editorial silence is intentional and ideological.
At the same time, some center-left and progressive voices mock the narrative altogether, accusing right-wing media of fabricating racial victimhood and importing apartheid nostalgia. This tension sharpens the divide over what counts as legitimate news and what is seen as narrative engineering.
The “Clownification” of the Media
A significant segment of comments mock media reactions in meme-driven language. Posts describe coverage of Trump’s Oval Office ambush as “theater,” while highlighting the irony of reporters refusing to investigate the refugees’ plight while openly criticizing their entrance. Media critics deconstruct reporting line by line, emphasizing that coverage calling the Trump’s refugee initiative as “racist” fail to admit the reality of violence in South Africa.
🚨 HOLY SHLIT: A reporter RUDELY interrupted President Trump's meeting on the genoc*de of white South Africans... Trump FUMES.
This happened directly after Trump played the videos of the white genoc*de over in S. Africa.
Some commenters accuse the media of “clownifying” the discourse—turning complex issues of racial violence, land rights, and refugee ethics into simplistic clickbait. For these Americans, the media’s superficiality is actively decaying serious discourse on important topics.
International Politics and Media Cynicism
Some suggest the media blackout is not primarily about race, but about foreign policy and geopolitical convenience. They speculate that the administration’s move may be linked to pressuring South Africa geopolitically—on issues such as Israel or BRICS alignment—and that media coverage is shaped to avoid highlighting racial dynamics that might complicate diplomatic narratives.
Others suggest there is collusion between media outlets and political elites, arguing stories like this are suppressed because they disrupt the DEI-aligned narrative of white privilege as a global constant.
A Tale of Two Realities
Public reactions to the immigration and media controversy over white South African refugees in America reflects two increasingly incompatible realities:
For many conservatives and disaffected centrists, the lack of media coverage or the dismissive tone is proof of biased coverage. They believe the press functions as a filter for acceptable outrage—amplifying some injustices while silencing others based on ideology.
For progressive and left-leaning Americans, the coverage is restrained because the underlying claim—white genocide—is seen as a dog whistle for nationalists to justify anti-immigrant or racist policy.
Between these poles is a growing group of Americans who are simply disillusioned. They no longer expect honesty from the press, and they increasingly view headlines as narrative warfare.
News of Joe Biden’s stage four prostate cancer diagnosis sparks immediate skepticism across online discussion. Americans have been critical of Democratic and media coverups regarding Biden’s health during his presidency. The news that Biden was only recently diagnosed with cancer strains credulity for many people.
Public Sentiment Breakdown
MIG Reports data shows:
58% of discussions believe Biden’s cancer is part of a long-standing cover-up.
40% treat it as a tragedy which warrants compassion.
2% are neutral or undecided.
Americans already do not trust legacy media reporting as unbiased or truthful. They also express sharp criticism toward the demonstrated coverup of Joe Biden’s overall declining health during his presidency. These two sources of distrust preceding Biden’s cancer announcement only serve to exacerbate skepticism.
Core Themes from the Right
Cover-Up and Incompetence
The dominant reaction among conservatives is disbelief that such a serious illness went undisclosed. Critics argue it’s implausible that a sitting president receiving regular elite medical care would not have been diagnosed with bone-metastasized cancer earlier.
This group views the diagnosis as confirmation that Biden's cognitive and physical decline had been serious and known for years. They say his team, media allies, and inner circle shielded the public from the truth.
Many say a cancer revelation is not news, but narrative control: a strategically timed admission meant to distract from other serious, ongoing Democratic and media failures.
Failure of Leadership
For critics, Biden’s health is emblematic of disingenuous official talking points. A president hiding late-stage cancer symbolizes the broader failures of leadership, accountability, and truth that define modern politics. The phrase “stage four presidency” began trending alongside the diagnosis—used both to mock and to signify a terminal decline in American executive competence.
Institutional Rot
Americans critique federally sanctioned medicine and elite institutions. Many question the role of Walter Reed and other top hospitals, asking how such a condition could go undetected. Many mock Jill Biden’s educational doctorate and the insistence of using “Dr.” in her name as trust in experts and the highly educated crumbles.
Reactions from the Left and Center
Supporters give their sympathies, urging compassion regardless of politics. Roughly 40% of the discussion mentions prayers, gratitude for his service, and calls for decency.
But even within this group, there is defensiveness. Many blame MAGA supporters preemptively for gloating, even where no such behavior occurs. Others claim Biden “sacrificed his health to save America from COVID”—a narrative meant reframe his illness as heroism.
Some use the diagnosis as a shield, suggesting any criticism of Biden’s legacy, corruption probes, or political decisions should now be off-limits.
Broader Narrative Trends
Media Distrust
Most cover-up believers cite media complicity. They believe Biden’s handlers weren’t alone in concealing his health—CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and other legacy media outlets were part of the effort.
Voters say an incurious media and the Democratic insistence on “moving forward” are designed to whitewash very serious corruption and coverup details. Many say it's impossible that Biden was competently enacting all his presidential duties. They can only conclude that an unelected shadow government was running the country for four years.
Foreign Policy and Gaza
In pro-Palestinian threads, some interpret Biden’s cancer as poetic justice. One viral post said: “Every child killer will get his.” While fringe, these voices reflect how intertwined moral judgment has become with personal fate. Others express detached sympathy, contrasting Biden’s access to elite care with Gaza’s bombed hospitals.
COVID, Lockdowns, and Vaccines
Several posts link the cancer to COVID vaccine side effects or claim delayed screenings during lockdowns contributed to late detection. A recurring theme is that millions of Americans missed cancer screenings during the pandemic. Why should the president be any different?
In that context, his diagnosis doesn’t feel like coincidence, but rather a consequence.
Strategic Implications
For Democrats
The diagnosis all but confirms a leadership vacuum. Sympathy will buy time, but not absolution. The cover-up narrative fractures the Democratic base, which is already uneasy about succession, especially with an uninspiring Kamala Harris waiting in the wings.
For Republicans
Tone discipline is key. This is not a moment for mockery, which will turn off moderates. However, it is an opportunity for principled critique. Focus on institutional failure rather than personal illness. The message should be: They lied, again.
In a recent interview, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino went on record declaring that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide. However, instead of disabusing the public of conspiracy theories, they reignited institutional distrust within their own base.
Patel and Bongino, who many view as two of MAGA’s most recognizable fighters, speaking in unison with the institutions they once attacked, raise suspicions. The backlash was immediate, emotional, and telling.
Public Sentiment of Disbelief
MIG Reports data shows:
67% of online discussion express disbelief that Epstein killed himself
33% accept the official suicide narrative
These sentiments reflect broken expectations. Voters who once celebrated Patel and Bongino as disruptors now accuse them of becoming part of the problem. They criticize AG Bondi’s failure to deliver on the Epstein files and the lack of credible transparency coming from administration figures.
Why the Public Doesn’t Believe Them
For many Americans, the facts remain suspicious: nonfunctioning cameras, sleeping guards, and Epstein’s extensive ties to political elites. People don’t believe all of these coincidences line up perfectly. They say these circumstances are more likely signals of a cover-up.
For MAGA voters, the flip-flop from formerly outspoken critics of the deep state is infuriating. Bongino, a former Secret Service agent and podcaster who railed against institutional rot, now declares Epstein’s death a closed case. Patel, once a scourge of Russiagate fabrication, echoes the same line. This pivot, without explanation or evidence beyond “we saw the file,” has ignited accusations of betrayal.
Public mockery is also strategic. Patel’s on-screen demeanor—described as “wide-eyed,” “like a terrified wombat,” or “just realized that fart was solid”—attempts to delegitimize his authority. The caricature is symbolic of public skepticism toward his role as FBI director.
Why a Minority Still Believes Them
Despite a majority uproar, 33% of discussions accept the official conclusion. Most cite trust in the process, saying Bongino and Patel, who reviewed the full FBI file, have reason to say what they’re saying. Others just want closure. A definitive word on Epstein’s death, even if unpalatable, allows them to move on from years of speculation.
A smaller segment sees their statements as necessary institutional discipline. Now in formal roles, Patel and Bongino must lead agencies, not podcasts. That shift, they argue, requires less noise and more certainty.
Cabinet Fallout and the Reform Illusion
The Epstein official line bleeds into a broader disillusionment with the Trump-aligned government-in-waiting. Bongino and Patel are Cabinet players now. Their transition to positions of bureaucratic power in the FBI has become a litmus test. Can outsiders retain credibility once inside the system?
For many anti-establishment voters, the answer is no. This group believes Trump 2.0 appointments were meant to signal reform. Instead, for many, they signal assimilation. Voters see silence on Russiagate prosecutions, no high-profile arrests, and ongoing secrecy around Epstein files. The gap between rhetoric and results is growing wide.
Calls for transparency persist, but the frustration may stretch beyond positive hope. Voters wanted arrests and files declassified—but many are losing faith any of those will come. Now, voters want MAGA officials to deliver or step aside.
A Breach That Won’t Heal Easily
Currently, there is a growing divide between the populist movement and the institutional machine some believe can be co-opted. Patel and Bongino were supposed to bring accountability to the government. But many now view them as defending it.
The suicide claim is beyond credulity for many who have been suspicious of Epstein’s death for years. The MAGA base is beginning to fear surrender to the deep state on cases like this. This perception has consequences for MAGA figures. If Trump 2.0 officials are seen as indistinguishable from the swamp they pledged to drain, the movement's trust will fracture further.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)