Recent news of airplane manufacturer Boeing’s guilty plea for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government is enraging Americans. The plea, in connection with two deadly 737 Max crashes, resulted in fines and penalties which, most Americans, feel is a meager punishment.

Despite the rare moment when a corporate giant admits to criminal wrongdoing, the two catastrophic crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which killed 346 people, are only a small part of why Boeing’s brand value continues to plummet.

American sentiment toward Boeing consists of anger and disappointment. Many perceive Boeing's agreement to pay a $243.6 million fine is outrageously lenient given the magnitude of the tragedy and the $24.8 billion victims’ families hoped for.

There is a significant outcry that the punishment does not fit the crime, particularly since no one is facing jail time. The company already faced $2.5 billion in penalties and payouts in 2021, but critics argue financial penalties alone are inadequate to hold the company accountable for the loss of human lives.

• With news of Boeing’s guilty plea, online mentions skyrocketed aspublic sentiment crashed down to 36%.
• Ongoing scandals and negative press coverage continue to erode public views of Boeing, which faces negativity more severe than American hatred of Mexican cartels.

Destroying Public Trust

American view of Boeing and consequently, air travel, has been severely compromised. Ongoing scandals, safety incidents, and rumors about the dead whistleblowers cast a long shadow over Boeing's reputation.

The aviation industry's overall safety and integrity now face heightened scrutiny. The idea of boarding a Boeing 737 Max or any aircraft manufactured by Boeing terrifies many travelers. Incidents like the recent aborted takeoff of an American Airlines Boeing 737 due to a blown tire amplify these concerns.

This incident occurred as the aircraft accelerated for takeoff, resulting in a catastrophic tire failure, which later caused a fire. The immediate danger of the situation was compounded by a delayed response from emergency trucks. This heightened concerns over the readiness and efficiency of ground support systems in handling such emergencies.

JUST IN: American Airlines flight 590 out of Tampa, Florida narrowly avoids disaster after multiple tires blow out during takeoff.

As the plane was picking up speed and seconds away from liftoff, the tires blew out.

The pilot slammed on the brakes as the plane barreled towards… pic.twitter.com/P5kZ3N6pUO

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 10, 2024

The FAA's order to inspect 2,600 Boeing 737 planes over potential oxygen mask failures further erodes confidence in air travel, suggesting systemic quality control issues within the company. Many are also discussing recent news that Boeing’s Starliner capsule will be stuck in space, possibly until mid-August, due to technical issues.

Another recent incident where two planes nearly collided mid-air resurfaced fears about the impact of DEI initiatives in the aviation industry.

Remember when the FAA threw out over 700 qualified Air Traffic Controller applicants (who passed the test) just because they were white? https://t.co/KaECGX3uke

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) July 10, 2024

Vitriol Over Disproportionate Punishments

The juxtaposition of Boeing's insignificant penalties with other high-profile cases also fuels ideas of a two-tiered justice system. Americans increasingly believe corporate entities receive lenient treatment compared to individuals—especially for those who hold the "wrong" ideology.

Most people view Boeing's fine as a "sweetheart deal" that fails to hold anyone accountable to the victims' families. Critics argue this penalty amounts to a slap on the wrist for Boeing, a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and fails to deliver real justice or corrective pressure.

The sense of injustice is exacerbated by the fact that no individual executives face criminal charges or jail time. In contrast, some people point out Trump's fine of nearly $500 million including interest for his valuation of Mar-a-Lago.

They fined Donald Trump 2x more for accurately appraising the market value of his home than Boeing got fined for killing people. https://t.co/jhfbrI7DZy

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 8, 2024

Many, especially on the right, view these disproportionate penalties as clear evidence of favoritism and politically motivated justice. These reactions frame the justice system as being unfairly weaponized against anyone who doesn’t align with the “Uniparty.”

U.S. voter views of border security and immigration are mostly negative, with sentiments ranging from anger to calls for stringent policy reforms. MIG Reports data shows deep frustration and concern, particularly among conservatives who feel Biden's immigration policies jeopardize national security, economic stability, and sovereignty.

Border Security Discussions

Taxpayer Dollars

Alleged misuse of taxpayer money is a recurring theme, with numerous claims that government funds are being funneled to supporting illegal immigrants at the expense of U.S. citizens. This includes allegations of social security benefits and other welfare programs being extended to illegal immigrants. These notions spark outrage among taxpayers who believe these funds should benefit American citizens, particularly veterans and the elderly.

The Open Border

Significant uproar continues over the lack of effective border security. Most Americans, including an increasing number of Democrats, say Biden’s policies have led to a crisis at the border.

An open border, many say, is worsening rising crime rates and societal instability. Phrases like "illegal immigrant crime wave" and "migrant invasion" are common, portraying the situation as a crisis requiring urgent and drastic measures like a border wall and mass deportations.

Violent Crime

Public safety is a major concern, with numerous stories highlighting violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants, including murders and human trafficking. The sentiment here is one of fear and the belief that stronger border enforcement is necessary to protect American lives.

Economic Strain

Outside of these viral stories, the broader conversation continues to focus on the economic impact of illegal immigration. Many argue illegal immigrants undercut wages and take jobs that would otherwise go to U.S. citizens. This exacerbates unemployment and economic challenges for native-born workers.

Discussions also touch on the strain illegal aliens place on public services, including healthcare and education systems. This further intensifies fiscal pressures on states and local governments.

Election Integrity

The political dimension is ever-present, with claims that Democrats are using illegal immigration as a strategy to secure future votes by offering free services and benefits to immigrant communities. This accusation includes assertions of an ongoing effort to allow non-citizens to vote, which is perceived as a threat to the integrity of the electoral system.

Worry About Violent Crime

Public sentiment generally oscillates between deep anxiety and frustration. There are discussions often suggesting mass illegal migration is a result of broader systemic and political failures in the U.S. Many people also discuss high-profile cases of illegal alien crimes.

In Texas, there was a tragic shooting at a Chick-fil-A where two workers were shot dead. The alleged perpetrator, Oved Bernardo Mendoza Argueta, is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador. The victims, Brayan Godoy, a father of four, and Patricia Portillo, a grandmother, lost their lives, igniting anger about lax border controls.

The Texas Department of Public Safety also captured numerous wanted fugitives who entered the U.S. illegally and committed various crimes within the state. This crackdown highlights the persistent issue of criminal elements infiltrating the U.S. through the border.

Another crime stirring public outrage is the horrific murder of Brayan Godoy who was gunned down by an illegal immigrant. People also continue to discuss the murder of Rachel Morin, Laken Riley, and Jocelyn Nungaray. Many American parents are worried for their children—especially young girls who are often victims of these crimes.

There is also growing fear of war criminals and human rights abusers entering the United States. Illegal aliens from Central America, Africa, and Asia, have been implicated in a myriad of serious crimes. There are allegations of extrajudicial killings, rapes, recruitment of child soldiers, forced abortions, and violence against civilians. The strain on resources to locate and arrest these individuals underscores the burden on the U.S. immigration system due to lax border enforcement.

The narrative is amplified with assertions that lax border controls are escalating dangers to national security. Many people are also fearful of cartel activity involving human and drug trafficking.

Steve Bannon’s compliance in an order to report to prison for a 4-month sentence has sparked intense reactions across various American voter groups. Bannon, like Donald Trump, is a polarizing figure, but his imprisonment is raising questions about politicized prosecutions.

Among conservative and Republican-leaning voters, the mood is one of fervent indignation and a sense of injustice. Bannon's supporters view his incarceration as emblematic of a weaponized Department of Justice (DOJ) that selectively prosecutes anyone aligned with Trump.

Many argue Democratic political figures, like Merrick Garland, have committed comparable offenses but remain free, betraying a two-tiered justice system. This sentiment is fueling narratives of political persecution and martyrdom, likening Bannon to a political prisoner subjected to a biased legal system.

• Liberals and anti-Trump voters are happy to see repercussions for MAGA leaders like Bannon.
• Sentiment toward Bannon increased slightly just prior to his surrender but dropped back down to 43% following his incarceration.
• Sentiment toward Trump on the topics of his legal issues and allegations against him wavered as well, suggesting concerns among voters about Trump’s ongoing legal cases.

Conservatives Fear Foreshadowing for Trump

Conservative voters, especially those who support Donald Trump, perceive Bannon's imprisonment as politically motivated. For some within this group, Bannon's imprisonment is a continuation of broader efforts to undermine figures they view as MAGA-aligned.

On the right, there is a strong sense of indignation and outrage. Many voters perceive the legal actions against Bannon as indicative of Democrat designs on Trump. They fear the possibility of liberal and Democratic overreach in the impending sentence Trump faces for his convictions.

There is widespread concern over the glaring hypocrisy of selective prosecution and law enforcement. Voters believe Democrats benefit from a double standard which shields them from accountability.

Many view Bannon’s prison sentence as part of an ongoing saga where political elites use legal mechanisms to suppress dissenting voices and political rivals. This group often views Bannon as a martyr for their cause, someone who is unjustly targeted for his political beliefs and actions.

Democrats One Step Closer to “Getting” Trump

Among progressive voter groups, there is a sense of vindication and affirmation of the rule of law. Many see Bannon's imprisonment as a necessary step in holding Trump sympathizers accountable for their actions. They emphasize the importance of legal processes and view Bannon’s incarceration as a win for their side or a win for justice.

Democrats largely see Bannon as a key architect behind damaging political strategies and misinformation campaigns. For them, his imprisonment is a legal victory symbolic of their feelings towards Donald Trump. The sentiment here is one of relief and triumph, reinforcing the belief that political opponents should face consequences.

Left leaning voter sentiment is often intertwined with broader calls for accountability for former President Trump and his other allies. This indicates a Democratic desire for a more extensive reckoning against the GOP.

Political Implications for the Election

The implications of Bannon reporting to prison could further deepen the divide among Americans about justice. For conservatives, it may galvanize a base increasingly wary of what they consider judicial overreach and bias. For liberals, it reaffirms confidence in the justice system's ability to win.

For undecided voters who dislike Trump and fear the erosion of democracy embodied in the events of January 6 and figures like Steve Bannon, this could potentially galvanize them in favor of Democrats. For undecided voters who fear the courts being weaponized against political opponents, Bannon’s imprisonment may ignite support for Trump.

Despite the sense of injustice on the right, this event can potentially be used to underscore arguments about judicial biases and energize voters who feel disillusioned with the current administration.

These political dichotomies are likely to intensify as the 2024 election approaches, with both sides using the incident to mobilize their base.

MIG Reports data shows online discourse on crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the United States is growing. A significant portion of the conversation focuses on allegations that illegal immigrants are responsible for high rates of violent crimes such as rape and murder.

These violent crime narratives are particularly evident among conservative voices who attribute these crimes directly to leniency and inefficacy in Biden administration border policies. Many liberals and immigration advocates counter these discussions with studies which ignore immigration law violations.

A recent trend in voter concerns is the growing focus on specific cases of violence, which are largely ignored by liberals and the media.

Border Security

Discussion trends reveal a strong correlation between alleged crimes committed by illegal immigrants and criticism of Democratic leadership, particularly President Joe Biden. Within these discussions, there is a recurring assertion that the administration's actions have led to an "open border" situation, which is allowing criminals to enter the country unchecked.

This perspective often comes with claims that the influx of illegal immigrants is a direct cause of increased crime rates. People say it poses an immediate threat to American citizens, particularly women and children.

Several key topics dominate the narrative:

1. People associate high-profile crimes with illegal immigration. Americans frequently cite specific crimes, like the rape and murder of minors, to emphasize the immediate threat.
2. Many also point to an erosion of law and order, saying the Biden administration has failed to maintain national security and protect American citizens.
3. There is a strong focus on the political failures and dishonesty of President Biden on border security, particularly the Border Patrol’s stance towards him.

Immigration Issues

Conversation is continuing around President Biden’s claim that the Border Patrol Union endorsed him. Many voters accuse Biden of lying to gain support, and these assertions are typically accompanied by reposts of the Border Patrol Union’s denial on X. This false claim seems to be a flashpoint, igniting further debate about presidential honesty and competency.

Sentiment Trends

The sentiment among those engaged in border discussions is overwhelmingly negative. The rhetoric is heavily laden with anger, frustration, and fear. There is a significant focus on individual cases, such as Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin, and other young children, to underscore the dangers. These cases are used as poignant examples to criticize Biden's immigration policies and to galvanize support for stricter border control measures.

American feelings lean heavily towards anger and betrayal. Many voters are outraged over the lies and the dangerous consequences they attribute to Biden’s open-border policies. This anger is amplified by specific instances of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants, which are frequently dismissed or not covered by mainstream media.

Political Impact

Continued emphasis on crime and personal safety resonates with visceral and emotional responses. The stories of victimized American women and children at the hands of men who should not be in the country can be compelling for many voters who prioritize security issues.

Undecided voters who are particularly concerned about immigration and public safety may find these arguments persuasive and might lean towards Trump's tighter immigration controls and more robust law enforcement.

Julian Assange’s release from HM Prison Belmarsh in London on June 24th ignited a firestorm on social media. Assange’s plea deal with U.S. prosecutors has generally been met with enthusiasm from free-speech crowds. However, online discourse cascades into deeper conversations about more than just Julian Assange.

MIG Reports data shows the discourse around Assange's release generates intense debates over free speech, freedom of the press, global politics, and government transparency. Much of the conversation is shaped by political orientation and national identity.

How People Are Reacting to Assange’s Freedom

Much of the online conversation celebrates Assange's release as a victory for freedom of the press and free speech. Many Americans praise Assange for his role in exposing government secrets and misconduct. They view him as a hero who has suffered unjustly for his commitment to transparency. This group often includes references to government overreach and the importance of safeguarding journalistic freedom as a cornerstone of democracy.

There is also skepticism and outright disapproval of Assange, questioning his methods and the legality of his actions. This sentiment often comes from those who believe Assange's activities endangered lives and compromised national security. For these Americans, Assange's release is a troubling precedent that could embolden similar actions in the future.

Both sides of the argument include emotional intensity with passionate language and strong opinions from those involved. Many posts include references to past grievances with political establishments, underscoring deeper, long-standing frustrations with issues of governance, accountability, and civil liberties.

Demographic Patterns

Younger generations, particularly those active on digital platforms like X and Reddit, tend to champion Assange as a symbol of the fight against corrupt institutions. This demographic often aligns with more libertarian or left-leaning political views and is deeply concerned with issues of digital rights and government surveillance.

Older demographics, particularly those with a military background or conservative leanings, are more likely to voice concerns about Assange's impact on national security. This group often promotes narratives of patriotism and the protection of state secrets as paramount to national safety, reflecting a more traditional perspective on law and order.

Impact Analysis

For some, Assange's release is a catalyst for deeper reflection on their political beliefs and actions. Assange supporters indicate this event reinforces their distrust in government institutions. They also say it increases their likelihood of supporting candidates who prioritize transparency and civil liberties.

For others, particularly those concerned with national security, the release reaffirms their support for tougher policies on government whistleblowers and classified information leaks. Moderates and independents show a strong interest in the issue, as it speaks to governmental accountability and civil liberties. These topics are becoming increasingly central to American political discourse.

Based on current trends, these demographics will likely remain engaged with the issue, potentially influencing their voting behavior in future elections. They might lean toward candidates who emphasize civil liberties and whistleblower protection, seeing the issues as important to democratic principles.

Reactions also highlight potential interest from undecided voters and Independents. While Assange's release might not be the sole consideration for their votes, it could influence these segments. Framing themes of government accountability and personal freedom will likely appeal to this group.

Those who are disillusioned with both major political parties might view Assange's predicament as indicative of systemic issues that need addressing. This could cause them to gravitate towards candidates who advocate for reform and transparency.

Allegations are spreading online that a notorious hacking group called LockBit claims it hacked the Federal Reserve, breaching 33 terabytes of data. While the hack has not been confirmed, many Americans are discussing whether it could be real and, if so, what the implications might be.

The Fed, which is touted as a cornerstone of the U.S. financial system, claims to maintain robust security and stability, given its prominent position in global finance. Allegations of a breach at such a critical institution are naturally alarming and some speculate the Fed would never admit to a hack, even if it was true.

• Sentiment towards banks and the economy has leveled out since a dip on June 22, despite news of the possible hack.
• Meanwhile, crypto sentiment has increased to 53%, suggesting those looking for alternatives to traditional institutions are motivated by such news.

Do Americans Believe the Allegations?

Nefarious actors potentially accessing sensitive information and or causing disruptions to the Feds operations is a huge threat to privacy and national security. Hacking claims have not been officially confirmed by the Federal Reserve, nor have they been wholly dismissed. This ambiguity leaves voters grappling with potential data exposure and leadership incompetence.

Some Americans believe the allegations are credible, citing previous instances where government agencies were targets of sophisticated cyberattacks. This group contends if these rumors hold any truth, it underscores a grave vulnerability within the nation’s most crucial financial infrastructure, potentially jeopardizing not only national but also global economic stability.

Others are skeptical, saying the rumors lack concrete evidence and might be part of misinformation campaigns. They emphasize the Fed, given its importance, would likely have robust cyber defenses in place to thwart such threats. This group also claims hackers have an incentive to take credit for hacks which did not happen or were thwarted.

Sentiment About U.S. Financial Security

Most people react with anxiety, scrutiny, and speculation. Online conversations weigh the potential consequences if a security breach did occur. Many fear destabilization in the financial markets, loss of sensitive data, and a potential ripple effect on the global economy. This anxiety demonstrates underlying concerns Americans have about the integrity of the

News of a potential Federal Reserve hack spurs online speculation about the U.S. financial system and government competence.

Although unconfirmed, the allegations have many Americans expressing worry about the ability of government and banking agencies to protect American interests.

The discourse highlights an ongoing skepticism and distrust many voters harbor toward government institutions, increasing support for opt-out solutions like crypto.

Americans are reacting to California providing plastic straws in free drug kits for addicts, despite banning them in general use over environmental impact claims. This contradiction is generating public reactions of ridicule and disgust.

Many people are pointing out the inconsistency in policy implementation. Critics say banning plastic straws for environmental reasons while supplying them freely to drug addicts reveals a lack of conviction in California's environmental priorities. This contradictory stance also leads some to believe California’s stated reasons for its policies are disingenuous and politically motivated.

A viral video showing what is provided in California’s free drug kits elicited reactions of disbelief and anger. Many people criticize programs that claim to make drug use “safer” or that safe use fights addiction. They say these programs simply enable addicts at the taxpayer’s expense. All the while, the state penalizes average citizens for the alleged environmental impact of drinking out of plastic straws.

To fight climate change California Democrats took away plastic straws…

But to fight drug addiction they give free drug kits with plastic straws.

Make it make fvcking sense.
pic.twitter.com/u38JdT4DRy

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) May 17, 2024

Arguments About Hypocritical Policies

Some voices support the state including plastic straws in “safe drug kits.” They claim it is a pragmatic approach to harm reduction. Advocates argue providing these kits, which aim to minimize health risks for drug users, is a necessary public health measure. They claim the immediate health benefits outweigh any environmental concerns, stressing the primary goal is to save lives and reduce the spread of diseases.

These discussions also bleed into broader debates about the effectiveness of California's environmental policies and governance. Some are skeptical about the long-term impact of banning plastic straws, viewing it as a superficial and performative measure.

There are also some who support climate initiatives who say there are more important systemic environmental issues to address. They argue for a more comprehensive approach to tackling plastic pollution and climate change rather than focusing on smaller, symbolic actions.

Criticisms About Government Spending

When voters learn of plastic straws being provided free in drug kits, many react with anger at tax dollar spending and misplaced government priorities. Critics say taxpayer dollars could be better used elsewhere, criticizing such a controversial use of resources. Many suggest the funds and efforts invested in harm reduction are ineffective and patronizing to citizens in need of help.

Progressive voters who support the harm reduction approach highlight their belief that marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by drug use. They claim these groups need compassionate and immediate care. They also advocate for integrating harm reduction efforts with environmental policies, which can lead to more holistic and equitable outcomes.

Resistance to “Harm Reduction” and Regulations

Right leaning and conservative voters are more likely to criticize government spending on supposed “harm reduction” initiatives. Often the same voters who criticize environmental plastic straw bans, this group views public funding for drug kits as a heinous perpetuation of the drug addiction epidemic—especially in blue cities and states.

Many argue the government should focus on addressing core issues underlying drug addiction like border security or comprehensive rehabilitation programs. They say facilitating safer ways to consume drugs is only detrimental. This viewpoint asserts harm reduction enables and legitimizes drug use rather than helping Americans to overcome it.

These Americans also tend to view the larger straw ban as an overreach, questioning the government's role in regulating everyday items and behaviors. They see a sharp hypocrisy in government facilitation for drug addicts but restrictions on all other citizens when it comes to straw use.

Voter conversations about California Governor Gavin Newsom in recent days have been intensely critical. There are multiple issues negatively influencing opinions, but one of the most severe is the alarming increase in antisemitic incidents. Jewish communities have faced violent assaults from protesters, especially in Los Angeles. The outrage has been palpable, with citizens questioning Newsom's stance and demanding immediate action to curtail hate crimes on the streets of LA.

• In the last 10 days, Newsom’s overall support has averaged 40%, dipping down from 44% to 38% with a spike in online mentions.
• Sentiment toward Newsom regarding Israel-Palestine issues dropped dramatically from 50% to a low of 27%.
• Voters are also extremely negative about the economy and crime, with Newsom’s sentiment respectively reaching lows of 33% and 30%.

Antisemitic Protests

Public discourse about Gavin Newsom is intensely focused on incidents of violence and tension between pro-Palestine protesters and the Jewish community in Los Angeles. Many disapprove of the violent clashes where pro-Palestine protesters reportedly assaulted Jewish individuals near synagogues, particularly in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood.

There are vivid descriptions of chaos, including instances where Jewish women have been pinned to the ground and injured. These events sparked alarm and outrage from Californians. Many are questioning where Gavin Newsom and other leaders are during these times of crisis.

People are also discussing the broader issue of antisemitism. There is palpable anger toward Newsom for not publicly denouncing antisemitic actions. Protesters blocking the entrance to synagogues and verbally or physically harassing Jewish attendees exacerbate fears and frustrations.

Many argue these disturbing protests cross a line beyond political protest and enter religious and ethnic discrimination.

Top Issues Impacting Newsom Support

The issue of rising antisemitism in California has been at the forefront of conversation in recent days. However, there are several ongoing issues which land blame at Newsom’s door, making voters angry.

Economic Struggles

There is considerable anger toward California leadership for how they are handling economic matters. High unemployment rates, exacerbating income disparities, and a surging cost of living fuel discontent. Many Californians say Newsom's policies are accelerating the decline of a state once renowned for its economic vitality and prosperity. Voters direct particular ire at legislative decisions, such as those surrounding the controversial SB7, which some argue undermines voters' rights concerning taxes, housing, and utilities.

California Senate Bill 7 (SB7) removes county and city government abilities to object to state-determined housing needs and reduces review times. Supporters claim it will address the housing crisis more effectively. However, opponents argue it undermines local autonomy, imposes a one-size-fits-all approach, and overburdens smaller governments. They also worry about potential community resistance and legal challenges regarding the erosion of local control.

Crime and Public Safety

Another pain point for Californians is the issue of public safety and infrastructure. Crime is alarmingly high, there is widespread homelessness, and ineffective policing leaves many citizens feeling unsafe and neglected. A gun violence incident in Oakland, where a family was attacked with an AK-47, has generated pronounced negativity. Many call for Newsom to address the growing menace of violent crime, which Californians feel he has utterly failed at.

Environmental Grievances

Environmental and energy issues also generate harsh criticisms for Newsom. People accuse him of prioritizing the interests of large energy firms over public rights, causing distrust. Recent rulings by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding rooftop solar have only intensified these frustrations. The sentiment that California is being mismanaged extends to perceptions that Newsom failed to capitalize on the state's natural resources sustainably.

Distaste for Newsom Himself

Many Californians also place intense scrutiny on Newsom’s personal conduct and political aspirations. People castigate him for his failures in governance and his gauche ambition for higher political office, including the presidency. There are many allegations of corruption within the Democratic leadership in California, amplified by recent high-profile raids, further tarnishing Newsom's reputation. Many say the state's political landscape has become increasingly chaotic and dysfunctional under his leadership.

There is also sharp criticism of Newsom’s communication methods and ways of addressing state issues. His decision to deliver his State of the State address via a pre-recorded video rather than a traditional speech has been met with disdain. People interpret the choice as indicative of Newsom’s off-putting lack of transparency and accountability. Voters see Newsom as a member of the political elite who absolve themselves of blame and wrongdoing while citizens bear the consequence of their poor governance.

A thread that combines these various strands of discontent is how voters view Newsom’s hypocrisy and lack of accountability. Whether it's the accusations of failing to support healthcare workers, the disenchantment over neglected public services, or his cancelled State of the State address, it seems trust in Newsom is at an all-time low. The overarching narrative is that California, under Newsom's leadership, is grappling with deep-seated social, economic, and political crises, causing many people and businesses to leave the state.

News of U.S. prosecutors recommending the Justice Department criminally charge Boeing for violating the settlement on fatal 737 Max crashes, is generating discussion. On June 18, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun testified in the U.S. Senate about numerous issues which sparked widespread public reactions.

Public commentary focuses on the aviation giant's apparent safety lapses and retaliatory tactics against whistleblowers. Americans seem deeply concerned and outraged over the company's negligence and the emerging whistleblower claims, which add fuel to an already blazing fire of public discontent.

Sentiment Trends

American attitudes are predominantly negative towards Boeing. There is a strong sense of betrayal, with people feeling Boeing's leadership, including Calhoun, place profits above human lives and safety. The CEO's large salary amid these allegations only exacerbates public anger. This highlights a stark disconnect between Boeing's top brass and any serious consequences for their actions.

Many Americans draw parallels between Boeing's corporate practices and broader systemic issues within American political and business practices. Americans believe Boeing's safety issues represent a larger problem in which corporate malpractice goes unchecked due to weak regulatory oversight and prioritizing corporate profit over public welfare. The speculation about favoritism and insufficient criminal prosecution by the Justice Department fuels the narrative of systemic corruption.

Belief in corrupt corporations leads calls for a more extensive overhaul, beyond penalizing Boeing. Public opinion suggests holding individuals at the top levels of management accountable, including demands for Calhoun's resignation, could be a starting point. However, transforming this sentiment into a broader movement against systemic corporate and political negligence requires strategic framing.

Corporate Corruption in America

Many voters believe Boeing's quality control issues and lack of repercussions are emblematic of larger problems in corporate America. There are recurring mentions of corporate greed, regulatory failure, and political complicity. Voter suspicions include:

• Whistleblower deaths and retaliation show grave moral and legal corruption.
• Boeing's situation with other corporate malpractice cases reveals a pattern of corporate negligence under weak administration.

While the public's immediate reaction is one of anger and disappointment towards Boeing, there is potential to channel this sentiment into a broader movement against corporate hubris. People seem to want robust regulatory governance, which they hope can lead to a significant systemic overhaul.

Online discussion about corporate corruption isn't limited to Boeing. Many people draw parallels between Boeing's situation and other issues like corporate tax evasion, legal loopholes, and the perceived inadequacy of regulatory frameworks.

Some Americans further associate these corporate malpractices with a corrupt political establishment. They believe politicians across party lines tend to protect the interests of big corporations over those of ordinary citizens.

This negativity seems to be impacting Boeing’s stock, which is down in 2024. It also remains lower than when the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) between Boeing and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was announced on January 7, 2021. The agreement required Boeing to pay more than $2.5 billion to resolve the criminal charge of conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).