mainstream-media Articles
-
The Democratic Party post-2024 is battered, fragmented, and struggling to find narrative control. After a decisive loss in the presidential election and significant erosion across key swing states, Democrats now face a serious credibility crisis. Voter trust is collapsing, the leadership bench appears hollow, and symbolic figures once propped up as cultural assets now stand exposed or irrelevant.
The party that once campaigned on restoring norms has become a study in contradictions. Democrats are trapped in a cycle of performance politics disconnected from voter sentiment. The base feels abandoned. Independents, particularly those who defected to Trump in 2024, express disdain for Democrats' failure to articulate any cohesive vision, even as internal fractures grow.
Biden’s Autopen and Absent Leadership
Joe Biden’s notorious use of the autopen during his presidency has become symbolic of the lack of clear leadership among Democrats. In prior administrations, the autopen drew little attention. Under Biden, it has become a viral flashpoint, which voters see as evidence of absentee governance.
BREAKING 🚨 Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt just confirmed Trumps DOJ is investigating the autopen
— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) June 3, 2025
TICK TOCK… all of those Autopen Pardons will be null and VOID
pic.twitter.com/Y8rSfPNI12A recurring narrative online suggests Biden was “replaced” in 2020 by a cabal of unelected shadow figures. Many say he served only as a ceremonial figurehead while far leftist activists governed behind the scenes.
This sentiment is amplified by recent media and Democratic revelations about Joe Biden’s mental health. Particularly in tell-all books by people like Jake Tapper and Karine Jean-Pierre.
- 60% of discussions related to Biden's autopen express negative sentiment.
- 25% include conspiracy framings (e.g. body double, AI control, secret cabinet governance).
- There is a crossover with Independents who don’t embrace full conspiracies, but question Biden’s autonomy.
- Recurring language includes “ghost presidency,” “phantom executive,” “rubber stamp government.”
Online discussion portrays Biden as passive, silent, and shielded. People say he was incapable of managing the burdens of office. Critics on both the right and the center-left argue using the autopen distances Biden from responsibility, particularly on executive orders involving contentious issues like immigration, economic regulation, and military deployments.
Karine Jean-Pierre and the Optics of Failure
Karine Jean-Pierre’s new book, along with the attempt to rebrand herself as politically independent, lands with a thud. The former Biden Press Secretary, Jean-Pierre now exits the party with little credibility and waning support. Online, the response is dismissive at best, derisive at worst.
COVERUP: Karine Jean-Pierre, Biden’s former White House Press Secretary has left the Democrat Party to publish her tell-all book about the president. She was a central figure responsible for defrauding the US government and the American people.
— @amuse (@amuse) June 4, 2025
pic.twitter.com/HcD6nfvGjnThe public doesn’t see Jean-Pierre as a figure with convictions. They see her as a mouthpiece—an extension of an administration known for scripted evasion and pre-approved talking points. Many mock her book title as unintentionally ironic. The idea that someone who spent years delivering White House talking points without deviation could now claim “independence” reads as a late-stage career maneuver, not a meaningful shift.
- Less than 1% of online discussions mention Jean-Pierre’s memoir or her political defection.
- Tone is overwhelmingly sarcastic with jokes that she’s “independent of facts,” “independent of follow-up questions,” or “independent of relevance.”
- Disengagement is the key theme as voters say her role never felt substantive to begin with.
Critics view Jean-Pierre as a failed operative and a case study in the hollow identity politics that have come to define the Democratic apparatus. Her appointment was framed as historic—first Black, openly gay woman to serve as press secretary—but her performance reinforced a perception that the administration was more invested in symbolism than effectiveness. Voters critique her by citing dodged questions, fumbled names, or cited briefing notes for basic queries.
Even Democratic loyalists aren’t speaking of Jean-Pierre’s departure as a betrayal. They view it as inconsequential. Her fade into obscurity reflects a broader collapse in confidence toward party figures.
George Clooney and the Cultural Delusion
Recent comments from George Clooney are also adding to the deluge of criticism toward Democrats. His assertion that “Trumpism” will die with the end of Trump’s second administration is circulated widely among Democratic influencers and media personalities. But outside of leftist enclaves, the comment lands flat. To most voters, Clooney is a celebrity with waning clout—the same criticism he launches at Trump.
NEW: George Clooney claims MAGA is dead after Trump finishes this term.
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) June 5, 2025
ANDERSON COOPER: “Do you think Trumpism lasts beyond this term?”
CLOONEY: “Don’t think so. I think it’d be very hard to do it.”
Clooney then put on his “expert” hat to explain why he thinks that is:
“He… pic.twitter.com/F35uso4HxWThe response to Clooney’s remark illustrates the broader issue that Democrats lean too heavily on celebrity figures to define their political messaging, especially in moments of defeat. Clooney’s statement further confirms, for many, the loss of cultural power among the celebrity and political classes.
- Liberal audiences treat Clooney’s claim as hopeful and emboldening.
- Conservatives and Independents react with ridicule, often using Clooney’s statement to mock elite detachment.
- Comments include things like, “If Clooney says it, it must be false” or “Hollywood is the DNC’s last line of defense.”
Rather than reassess why their coalition is shrinking, Democrats elevate symbolic gestures that resonate only in safe cultural spaces. In that context, many see Clooney as narrating a fantasy.
Democratic Voter Sentiment on Future Leadership
Significant cultural and narrative failures by the media and Democrats are causing growing concern for Democratic voters. Many point out infighting or the breakdown of unity in things like Jean-Pierre's book. They also say Democrats have failed to produce a single breakout figure capable of restoring trust, commanding attention, or articulating a post-Biden vision.
Voters across the spectrum, including disaffected Democrats, Independents, and younger progressives, are expressing frustration at the party’s lack of direction. The absence of any coherent succession plan only amplifies concerns that the party is relying on inertia to carry itself to a future victory.
- Kamala Harris remains deeply unpopular and is rarely invoked in positive terms. Her visibility has decreased, reaching an average of less than 500 mentions in MIG Reports data over the last 30 days.
- Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg receive occasional speculation, but with no enthusiastic base. They're seen more as media constructs than organic leaders.
- Some mention AOC, but there is not enough momentum to bring hope to the party writ large.
- Independent and swing voters see the party’s leadership apparatus as lifeless—more interested in managing decline than winning hearts.
Instead of an internal reckoning, the party projects manufactured enthusiasm. Voters suggest celebrity commentary fills the space where leadership should be. The sentiment is increasingly that political energy has shifted toward Trump’s movement. Even among younger liberals, attention is fragmented, with no figure commanding serious loyalty.
Institutional Disintegration and Cultural Drift
The whole picture for the Democratic Party suggests structural freefall. Despite protests from partisan loyalists, this isn't a messaging problem. Democrats are suffering from a credibility collapse. Voters no longer see Democrats as capable of leading the country.
- Executive power is perceived as vacant. Biden’s autopen controversy serves to symbolize the view that Democrats no longer govern but submit to the hivemind.
- Communication is performative. Jean-Pierre, once touted as a historic press secretary, only serves to deepen skepticism of authenticity among leaders.
- Cultural proxies have replaced political leadership. Voters see Democrats' reliance on celebrity surrogates like Clooney as desperate, not inspiring.
- There is no future figure. Sentiment suggests voters are resigned to a sense that the party may not produce a credible successor by 2028.
11
Jun
-
The Los Angeles ICE protests damaged public trust in both state leadership and federal enforcement. Following chaos over the weekend, the story quickly became a national flashpoint, exposing the breakdown of institutional trust across party lines. Figureheads on both sides like Gavin Newsom and Tom Homan draw sharp criticism from the opposition.
Timeline and Trigger Events
The protests started as a response to a coordinated immigration enforcement campaign by the Trump administration. Discussion around deportations escalated as anti-ICE protesters took to the streets.
- Federal ICE actions spark backlash. Viral footage of arrests and aggressive enforcement tactics, fueling protests at detention centers and federal buildings.
- Protest optics intensify the narrative war. Rioters waving Mexican flags, chanting anti-American slogans, and destroying police cars. Creating national controversy.
- Allegations of coordination. Online discourse flags possible NGO involvement, raising suspicions that the protests are neither spontaneous nor civilian-driven.
The LA Riots are not organic pic.twitter.com/mChM0l0mVh
— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) June 9, 2025Trump moves swiftly:
- National Guard debate. Trump offers to send federal troops to support ICE operations and secure federal property, stirring hysteria among Democrats.
- Tom Homan goes scorched earth. Homan warns protestors obstructing enforcement: “You will be detained, and you will be deported.”
🚨#BREAKING: California Governor Gavin Newsom has just dared former ICE Director Tom Homan and President Trump to arrest him for allegedly aiding and abetting undocumented immigrants in the state. “Get your hands off these poor people, they’re just trying to live their lives and… pic.twitter.com/77jaGNw3cd
— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) June 9, 2025Newsom sentiment tanks:
- Newsom dares arrest. In a press event, Newsom declares, “Let them arrest me,” positioning himself as a martyr figure. But the performance draws more ridicule.
- Credibility collapses. As looting and street chaos spread, Newsom’s calls for calm appear disconnected from reality. Democrats and the media deny violence and vandalism, drawing incredulity from the public.
My statement on what's unfolding in Los Angeles. pic.twitter.com/rujs8mrVPK
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 8, 2025Online Reactions to the Protests
Public reactions are overwhelmingly negative, sweeping up Republican figures like Trump and Homan in negativity toward ICE. But liberal leaders like Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass are also receiving severe backlash.
There is outrage, fear, and exhaustion in public discussion. The debate over immigration enforcement exploded into a broader reckoning with civic order and national identity. Each ideological bloc responds according to its core worldview, but a shared undercurrent emerges that no one believes the system is functioning as it should.
On the right, people describe the events as “a riot by foreign nationals,” fueled by open borders policies and Democratic complicity. Footage of protestors waving Mexican flags, looting stores, and setting fire to federal property goes viral as outrage ramps up.
- Terms like “invasion,” “anarchy,” and “domestic terrorism” dominate right leaning discourse.
- There are renewed calls for mass deportations, ICE raids, and full use of federal authority, including the Insurrection Act.
- A subset of right-leaning voices glorifies vigilantism, invoking imagery from the 1992 LA riots—most notably the “Rooftop Koreans” meme.
Make Rooftop Koreans Great Again! pic.twitter.com/UFRhMPCYLb
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 9, 2025On the left, pundits frame the protests as moral resistance to an authoritarian crackdown. Activists and progressive influencers claim immigration enforcement is being used as a political weapon. Trump and Homan are cast as agents of state repression.
- The rhetoric shifts toward warnings of fascism and ethnic cleansing.
- Narratives emphasize historical injustices, with some claiming the land “was stolen from Mexico” and framing ICE as an occupying force.
- However, even among progressive circles, concerns emerge about the optics—particularly the aggressive imagery and potential alienation of swing voters.
The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor.
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 9, 2025
This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.
I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward… pic.twitter.com/tsTX1nrHAuAmong Independents and disengaged moderates, the response is more cynical. There is little support for the protest tactics, but there is equal skepticism toward state and federal responses.
- Many frame the protests as a breakdown of order caused by years of leadership failure.
- These voices often express disgust with both parties, seeing the entire incident as a sign that no one is in control.
- However, despite media and Democratic criticism, Trump’s public support on immigration is holding strong.
President Trump’s net approval on immigration has skyrocketed.
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) June 9, 2025
Turns out Americans like a president who defends Americans from illegals.pic.twitter.com/oxCoWY6K2OMedia and Democratic Response
Legacy media coverage of the ICE protests amplifies the fragmentation already visible in public sentiment. Progressive outlets frame the unrest as a justified reaction to heavy-handed federal enforcement or downplay it.
This clip is for all my L.A. friends who texted me tonight saying things like "I'm sure you know this, but 99.9% of LA is going about their Sunday normally" pic.twitter.com/9NwaRzMruK
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 9, 2025Democratic leaders struggle to maintain narrative discipline. Gavin Newsom’s media appearances—ranging from defiant press conferences to vague condemnations of violence—land poorly. His now-infamous “let them arrest me” line is widely mocked, not only by conservatives but also by moderates who view it as theatrical and unserious.
Media coverage aligned with the Democratic establishment compounds the problem:
- Footage of foreign flags, looted businesses, and ICE buses under siege are ignored or reframed as “community pushback,” which alienates Californians.
- Conservative discourse highlights this as proof that the media is protecting the left, reinforcing accusations of a coordinated narrative shield.
Meanwhile, local Democratic figures scramble to convince the public that local law enforcement has everything under control.
JUST IN: California Rep. Judy Chu (D) says the LAPD has the situation in Los Angeles under control as MSNBC plays a split screen of multiple cars on fire.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 9, 2025
Don't believe your lying eyes, folks. pic.twitter.com/z9lJUIuigZEven left-leaning voters grow restless. A subset of liberal voices warns that the party’s handling of the protests could cost them Independents and alienate working-class voters who fear rising disorder.
Ideological Narrative Split
Public discourse follows ideology, each side interpreting the same events according to predefined beliefs. Discourse is not a debate, but a tripartite split in how Americans perceive reality—each group assigns blame, defines legitimacy, and interprets violence in ways that reinforce its worldview.
For the Right, the protests validate long-held warnings about open borders, leftist chaos, and Democrat-run cities. They also view the riots as potentially astroturfed or coordinated by activist groups. The right mocks media coverage for downplaying threats and deliberately obscuring the facts on the ground.
Progressives elevate the protests as necessary resistance to a creeping authoritarian state. They view ICE as inherently illegitimate and see the federal response—particularly Trump’s use of the National Guard—as confirmation of a racist, fascist agenda. Their frustration does extend to liberal leaders like Newsom for doing nothing.
Independents increasingly express fatigue with the entire political structure. They see a system incapable of maintaining order or delivering truth. In their view, the media manipulates, elected officials posture, and the public pays the price.
Collapse of Leadership Symbols
The ICE protests accelerate a trend already in motion where American trust in leadership is quickly decaying. While both right and left leaning figures drew volatile responses, liberal leaders are getting the brunt of public anger.
Tom Homan and Gavin Newsom both took a sentiment hit after the weekend, but Newsom dropped to 35% support while Homan only fell to 41%.
Homan’s no-nonsense posture and unapologetic stance win praise from law-and-order voters who see the protests as taking advantage of soft law enforcement under Democrats. Gavin Newsom suffers stronger public wrath. His sentiment decline comes atop already-low trust levels. Newsom remains the poster child for failed governance—a man more concerned with optics than outcomes.
Broader Political Fallout
The fallout from anti-ICE protests extends far beyond California. Initially a localized confrontation, these events are causing the political class scrambling to reorient, but the public has already drawn conclusions.
On the right, the protests reignite calls for uncompromising immigration enforcement.
- Expect a surge in proposals for mass deportations, expanded ICE operations, and executive crackdowns on sanctuary cities.
- GOP-aligned influencers push the narrative that California has become a failed state—an emblem of what happens when ideology trumps enforcement.
On the left, the protests expose the limits of Democrats' grip on their own coalition.
- Democratic leaders struggle to control the messaging, caught between condemning disorder and signaling support for “the cause.”
- The fracture between party leadership and grassroots activists widens as activists want open confrontation while elected officials issue tepid statements.
This tension creates strategic confusion heading into the 2026 elections. Democrats risk alienating moderates who crave stability while failing to satisfy far left progressives.
Independents—already skeptical—grow more disillusioned.
- Online discussion among swing voters reflects a mix of fear and disgust, with phrases like “no one’s in charge” and “collapse of authority.”
- The longer the protests drag on without resolution, the more these voters drift toward any candidate promising decisive action, regardless of partisanship.
10
Jun
-
For the last decade, DEI has enjoyed broad institutional acceptance and increasing social obligation. From elite universities to federal agencies to Fortune 500 boardrooms, diversity, equity, and inclusion policies were treated as necessary, even morally unquestionable. That era is over.
Across social platforms, MIG Reports analysis shows DEI now sparks overwhelming hostility, with 80% of public commentary expressing opposition to DEI. The backlash has gone from a silent minority to a nationwide cultural realignment.
Americans do not view DEI as a tool for inclusion but as a mechanism of exclusion which privileges identity over merit, ideology over competence, and bureaucracy over performance. Once sold as equity, voters now perceive DEI as ideological enforcement by elite institutions which should no longer be immune to democratic accountability.
Voters Want Meritocracy
The prevailing critique of DEI rests on its dismissal of meritocracy. Americans say it is reverse discrimination wrapped in corporate jargon. “DEI hire” has become a slur, serving as shorthand for someone assumed to be unqualified but selected to meet an identity quota. For critics, this causes standards to be lowered in pursuit of political optics.
Opposition narratives emphasize fairness, unity, and shared standards. They frame DEI mandates as corrosive to institutional excellence and social cohesion. Americans increasingly agree that DEI is designed to divide rather than unify.
Instead of elevating individuals based on ability, DEI re-ranks opportunity based on race, gender, or ideology. Critics say this punishes ambition and excellence. Resentment is especially acute in education and government, where hiring and admissions decisions affect public trust.
The DEI Symbol Shift
As backlash intensifies, DEI has become a cultural signifier—grouped alongside critical race theory, pronoun mandates, and ESG investing as part of a broader elite orthodoxy. In this environment, rejecting DEI signals alignment with the populist priorities of fairness, constitutionalism, and national cohesion.
BREAKING: MIT shuts down DEI office, per NYP. pic.twitter.com/Hyn0myUaxt
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 28, 2025This symbolic shift place DEI front and center in ongoing culture wars. Conservatives treat it as an existential threat to American values. Moderates and independents don’t go that far, but they question its purpose, cost, and outcomes.
Voters often link DEI to institutional failures. They describe elite universities like Harvard as racially obsessed and detached from merit. They view federal DEI programs as bloated and ineffective. Many also credit President Trump with initiating the downfall of such woke mandates.
The Media Trust Gap
Discussions also increasingly criticize how DEI is covered by legacy media. Axios reports that companies keeping DEI commitments are seeing gains in public reputation. The Axios Harris Poll measured slight increases (1.5 to 2.3 points) in brand perception for these firms, crediting continued DEI efforts.
This framing falls flat with a public growing hostile to progressive ideology and mainstream media. Right-leaning voices see reports like these as elite self-congratulation and attempts to reestablish woke narratives which have lost cultural power.
To DEI critics, the idea that “reputation” gains among media-aligned pollsters indicate broad approval is proof of how disconnected the press is from public mood. Reputation, in this view, is a bubble shaped more by ideological bias than real-world performance.
Online discourse accuses outlets like Axios of filtering reality through an ideological lens. Rather than acknowledging growing skepticism toward DEI, these reports focus on corporate virtue metrics and executive sentiment. That choice reinforces the perception that legacy media acts as a shield for elite narratives rather than an objective observer.
Trump’s Anti-DEI Offensive
Political implications are already visible as Trump and MAGA Republicans reframe DEI as a threat to national competence and integrity. Trump’s critiques—particularly around military readiness and federal hiring—present DEI as a national security liability. His messaging is strong and resonates strongly with voters who want DEI policies reversed.
Governors and lawmakers in red states are capitalizing on the momentum created by Trump’s populist platform. DEI programs are being cut, suspended, or scrutinized. New legislation aims to bar race- or identity-based criteria from admissions, hiring, and procurement. Supportive voters see these proposals as a return to neutrality.
DEI experts can't find jobs. Thousands laid off.
— Grummz (@Grummz) May 28, 2025
DEI experts lament lack of hiring and DEI "retreat" in major corporations.
- 2,600 laid off
-13% of positions closed
- More than 9 months an no new job openings for one DEI expert.
The woke mind virus is in decline and they are… pic.twitter.com/Mn16Evoa9eStrategic Outlook
For policymakers, there is political upside in proposing race-neutral hiring and budget transparency. For campaigns, DEI rollback offers a populist rallying point with swing voters disillusioned by institutional excess. Framing is simple, emphasizing fairness without favoritism.
For institutions, the reputational calculus is shifting. Public-facing DEI initiatives now carry risk rather than insulation. There is rising pressure to justify outcomes over diversity optics. The days of declaring progress by publishing demographic ratios are ending. Stakeholders want competence, performance, and apolitical governance.
03
Jun
-
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.
22
May
-
The corporate press has long prided itself as the gatekeeper of democratic norms. But in the last few years, their “sacred airwaves” have curdled into guardianship of a failing elitist establishment. Jake Tapper’s latest book “Original Sin” and an unconvincing media pivot toward acknowledging Biden’s cognitive decline leave Americans scoffing.
Voters see the media for its efforts to save face after the unequivocal tarnishing of a president they once protected. Legacy outlets are now attempting to rewrite the narrative, deflecting from their continued chronic bias in every story to isolating a “tragedy” after being caught out regarding Joe Biden.
The Narrative Shield
From 2021 through much of 2024, media institutions actively framed Biden as “sharp,” “seasoned,” and “empathetic.” These descriptors were used to dismiss real concerns about his declining mental acuity. White House staff stumbling to cover for public gaffes, verbal confusion, or disappearing from major events were treated as “bad optics” rather than serious red flags.
Critics who raised alarms early on were labeled conspiracy theorists or right-wing agitators. At no point did major outlets investigate claims about physical deterioration, wheelchair use, or near-constant teleprompter dependence. Americans are adamant that the press functioned as crisis managers, not reporters.
Admissions by the media only began after the 2024 election cycle ended—and even then, the recalibration has been more about preserving institutional reputations than informing the public.
Jake Tapper’s Book
Jake Tapper’s book “Original Sin” has become a lightning rod, not for what it reveals, but for what it confirms. The book details Biden’s performance in private settings, internal White House dysfunction, and staffers' quiet panic over his ability to finish his term. These admissions came long after conservative outlets and social media users documented similar evidence.
The public reaction has been scathing. Comments across platforms suggest 75-80% of voters believe media figures like Tapper knew all along and chose silence for political reasons. Only about 20-25% argue the press was deceived alongside the public.
In this environment, Americans view Tapper’s book as opportunistic narrative control. They say it’s damage control in hardback.
Public Sentiment and Media Collapse
The legacy press is moving from distrust among voters to mockery. The backlash against outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times stems from the belief they deliberately protected Biden to block Trump and steer public opinion. That belief is now widespread, including among Independents and some Democrats.
Social media posts in the past 72 hours show a common refrain: “They’re only telling the truth now because it’s safe.” This collapse of trust was already underway, but the Biden coverup accelerates it. His obvious decline, paired with the media’s refusal to cover it in real time, turns healthy skepticism into outright contempt.
Voters now see no meaningful distinction between Democratic messaging and media reporting.
Rewriting History, Redirecting Blame
The timing of these revelations is also a cause for incredulity. With Biden retired and unelectable, voters say the media is attempting to preempt accountability. By focusing on Biden’s health now, they hope to deflect attention from other previous and currently ongoing anti-Trump narratives.
Americans are discussions suspicions that the media actively shields other Democrats—especially potential 2028 candidates—from inherited blame or scrutiny. People also see Biden’s decline as symbolic of institutional rot. They say his administration, which was propped up by unseen decision-makers, along with the media’s complicity, suggests institutions cannot self-correct.
Alternative Media and the Realignment
Obliterated trust in legacy media outlets has created fertile ground for alternative platforms—Substack writers, independent podcasts, and decentralized media hubs. The audience for these outlets is growing both out of ideological alignment and necessity. Americans want information, not curated narratives.
In 2025, legacy media still clings to the idea that trust is a branding problem. However, Americans are making it clear this is a performance problem. When people feel lied to, they don’t ask for better PR—they leave.
19
May
-
President Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries has once again stirring global narratives around American power. A diplomatic trip is being spun by the media as a political spectacle—complete with a luxury jet from Qatar, denunciations of Western influence, and high-stakes ceasefire pressure in the Middle East. Voter sentiment began to climb with Trump’s public appearances and speech, defying how media outlets frame Trump’s foreign policy moves.
Rising Sentiment and Strategic Timing
In the last 30 days, voter sentiment toward Trump has been on an upward trajectory. MIG Reports analysis shows voter moods on tariffs, the border, and recent events like Trump’s Big Pharma EO are pushing an upward trajectory for his public sentiment.
After weeks of hovering near the 39% “critical” threshold, sentiment is consistently pushing into the 40% range, which is positive for such a divisive figure. The surge suggests Trump’s foreign relations efforts resonate with Americans, especially as Trump leaned into ceasefire negotiations, dropped sanctions on Syria, and signaled a broader break with U.S. foreign policy norms.
Supporters praise Trump for his showman style, which always seems to create maximum impact with the public and the media. In this case, people see his performance on the world stage as intentional play to recast America’s role in the world while reinforcing “America First” credibility.
Corruption or Realignment?
The gifted Qatar jet—a $400 million luxury 747 reportedly offered for Air Force One retrofit—is a public flashpoint. Critics say this is a textbook Emoluments Clause violation. Many say accepting a gift of a luxury 747 from the country that ran two 747s into the Twin Towers on 9/11 is outrageous. Others view the gesture as symbolic of Trump of selling out American sovereignty.
Trump’s defenders scoff. They say the plane is not personal property, but a state gift—no different than military partnerships or infrastructure support. They argue liberal and media anger is performative and rooted in double standards. To them, Trump is not violating laws or norms but successfully creating public attention for his administration and agenda.
For many, the Middle East trip is either the latest episode in Trump’s self-enrichment saga or a strong rejection of the post-WWII liberal order. His speech condemning “Western influence” struck a chord. Supporters heard defiance of globalism while critics heard a demagogue justifying cozying up to authoritarian regimes.
I rarely praise Trump but this is a genuinely incredible speech pic.twitter.com/1SgAtVBu3v
— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) May 14, 2025
I've been arguing for close to a decade that the single biggest reason for the growing divide between the West and "the rest" was the West's inability to accept diversity (the genuine kind,…Congress, Media, and Institutional Paralysis
A recurring theme in online discussions is that Trump acts while Congress dithers. Many voters accuse the House of being performative, feckless, and corrupted by donor interests. In contrast, they see Trump’s unilateral moves as necessary and even virtuous.
This populist framing extends to the media. Critics accuse mainstream outlets of failing to cover the Qatar jet story honestly or downplaying ceasefire developments to avoid giving Trump credit. Supporters claim the media exists solely to frame Trump’s actions as criminal, while ignoring far more egregious behavior from others in power.
Middle East Power Plays and Global Optics
There's also discussion of Trump pushing Israel toward a ceasefire and lifting sanctions on Syria—moves voters say set him apart from Biden and the typical diplomatic playbook itself. Posts praising Trump describe him as dragging world leaders “kicking and screaming” into deals.
However, Trump’s foreign policy tactics are not universally celebrated. Critics say partnering with regimes known for sponsoring terrorism or perpetrating human rights abuses sends the wrong message.
For the most part, Americans say Trump appeared strong, decisive, and unbound by the institutional clutter that hamstrings traditional diplomacy.
Trade, Tariffs, and the Economy
Trade policy remains at the fore as voters connect Trump’s foreign travel with broader economic strategy. Public sentiment is still split. Supporters view tariff adjustments as flexible negotiations that force concessions from China and secure Middle East investment. Detractors see instability, conviction swings from the administration, higher consumer costs, and lingering consequences for small businesses.
Even so, the narrative that Trump’s deals are transactional rather than ideological resonates with his base. In this context, a Saudi-backed investment or a tariff reversal to strike a deal isn’t a betrayal. It’s leverage.
16
May
-
The tide of opinion has been surging against the legacy media for some time. Now, self-serious media outlets congratulating themselves on their coverage of Joe Biden’s mental decline is drawing ridicule.
Americans say the mainstream media whitewashed and covered up President Biden’s cognitive decline but are now claiming credit for exposing it. Voters say events like the White House Correspondents Dinner show the press for what they are—courtiers protecting the palace.
The Dinner Party Problem
A subset of discussion about legacy media in general directly references the White House Correspondents Dinner. These comments present the dinner as an increasingly out of touch and self-congratulatory ritual.
Posts describe the dinner as “stagecraft,” “a media circus,” and “optics for the elite.” For many voters, it reinforces their belief that the press is too invested in political relationships to function as an adversarial force.
Americans view the media’s actions as evidence that media figures view themselves as elites, among the same class they are tasked with scrutinizing. The image of reporters in tuxedos joking with presidents and politicians while ignoring voter concerns plays poorly outside the Beltway. Among those under 35, the event is dismissed as a “ceremony for people who don’t have to worry about gas prices.”
The sentiment is widespread among voter groups. In all conversations across multiple topics, approximately 60% express overt disdain for legacy media institutions. Only 15% discuss them neutrally or positively.
The Silent Collapse of a President
The coverage—or more accurately, the glaring non-coverage—of President Biden’s mental decline in the waning years of his presidency is a flagship grievance for many people who are critical of a politically captures media. Posts mocking his cognitive performance often come with a caveat: the media enabled the problem by refusing to acknowledge it.
The contrast is frequently drawn with Trump. Commenters note that Trump’s every misspoken word are front-page news, while Biden’s slurred sentences, visible confusion, and dazed appearances were waved away as “normal aging.” When Biden stumbled through a speech or forgot where he was, outlets used euphemisms like elder statesman,” “slower delivery,” “candid moments.”
That reluctance to apply equal scrutiny to partisan powers has damaged institutional credibility. A prominent refrain across discussions is: “If Trump had done this, it would be nonstop coverage.” Voters believe the media shields Democrats out of political loyalty, not journalistic rigor.
MIG Reports data shows:
- 60% of discussion is negative about how the media covers Democrats, particularly mentioning Biden’s cognitive decline.
- 25% are frustrated at selective framing, especially independents and younger demographics who resent legacy power.
- 15% defend Biden, relying on either moral relativism—“Trump is worse” —or casual dismissal of the media’s failure to cover his decline.
Generational and Partisan Drift
The divide in media trust is widening in both ideological and age groups. Americans under 35 are moving decisively away from legacy outlets. They say they consume content through decentralized platforms like Truth Social, Bluesky, YouTube, and X. Their tone is cynical but informed. They don’t just reject legacy narratives—they deconstruct them in real time.
Older conservatives remain critical of the media but are more likely to recall a time when institutions operated under some assumption of balance. That nostalgia has been replaced by the grim realization that the press now performs its credibility, rather than earns it.
This generational shift is cultural and logistical. Young voters don’t wait for evening segments or Sunday roundtables. They dissect gaffes in chats and post replies, repost contradictory headlines on TikTok, and spread independent analyses with more reach than a primetime CNN spot.
Narrative Management as Policy
Critics no longer view media behavior as lazy or unprofessional. They view it as calculated. Events like the Correspondents Dinner, therefore, is confirmation that the press sees itself as part of the ruling class. Americans say Biden’s gaffes were not ignored accidentally—they were actively managed.
Overall, voters believe that media institutions are actually succeeding at their real goal, which is to serve as narrative enforcers for the political elite.
Even among moderate Democrats and left-leaning voters, fatigue is growing. Defending the media is no longer an act of civic pride, but one of desperation, more performative than backed by conviction.
02
May
-
April’s media coverage paints a grim picture of the American economy. Axios reports an 11% drop in the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index—the fourth straight month of decline. CNN echoes, citing inflation expectations at a 40-year high and widespread economic despair cutting across demographics. According to the establishment narrative, President Trump’s tariff policy is responsible for crushed confidence, rattled markets, and spooked consumers.
But MIG Reports data shows real-time voter conversations are telling a more layered story. Online discourse shows frustration but also resolve, adaptation, and even pockets of optimism. In contrast to the media’s portrayal of national helplessness, voters are split in their fundamental view of what drives economic security.
Media Narrative: A Disastrous “Confidence Collapse”
Mainstream outlets have tethered April’s consumer confidence plunge directly to Trump’s tariff policies. Axios suggests these moves are pushing the U.S. toward “historic inflation,” while CNN frames the response as universal panic.
The headlines are creating a unified narrative that consumers are worried, inflation is spiraling, and Trump’s economic unpredictability is to blame. There’s no recognition of voter nuance, policy debate, or the deeper roots of economic anxiety. The public is cast not as participants, but as casualties of a reckless experiment.
Online Discourse is Polarized but Purposeful
MIG Reports analysis shows recent online comments are far more complex in their reactions:
- 35% express hope: They view tariffs as leverage to force fairer global trade terms and restore U.S. manufacturing.
- 30% maintain a neutral stance: They focus on real-time data without clear emotional framing.
- 35% are in despair: They see Trump's economy as driven by malpractice, raising costs and eroding middle-class security.
This is not uniform gloom. It’s a contested terrain, where nationalism, economic survival, and distrust of elite narratives intersect. MIG Reports analysis prior to the election showed negativity, particularly among younger voters. According to online sentiment, Americans are worried but not significantly more than they have been in recent months.
Strategic Tariffs vs. Regressive Tax
Supporters frame Trump’s 90-day tariff pause (excluding China) as a calibrated move. They cite market rebound as proof of strategy, not chaos. Meanwhile, Democrats accuse Trump of insider trading.
Critics say Trump's tariff policies function as a backdoor sales tax. Price hikes on essentials—like auto parts and eggs—fall hardest on families. Many accuse the administration of flip-flopping for market timing, citing Trump’s “buy now” messages as signals of insider manipulation.
An insider trading scandal is brewing.
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) April 10, 2025
Trump's 9:30am tweet makes it clear he was eager for his people to make money off the private info only he knew. So who knew ahead of time and how much money did they make? pic.twitter.com/AJbtEq372nStill, even among critics, there’s recognition that Trump's tactics might work.
Congressional Failure and Institutional Distrust
At the same time, voters are livid with Congress for abdicating its constitutional role in trade policy. Across ideological lines, many now accuse legislators of enabling executive overreach while enriching themselves through insider trading.
While this has been a complaint on the right for many years, in the wake of Trump’s controversial policies, people on the left are beginning to adopt the cry. This causes some conservatives to accuse Democrats of shaping their policy positions on opposition to Trump, rather than pragmatism, logic, or values.
Either way, there's growing momentum behind dramatic institutional reform on:
- Term limits
- Bans on congressional insider trading
- Restoration of tariff authority to Congress
Outside of the tariff conversation, this isn’t anti-Trump sentiment but anti-elite and corruption. In many instances, economic discussions merge with institutional criticism.
Media vs. Voters: Who's Really Out of Touch?
Media outlets are painting a picture of the sky falling. Voters, however, are as divided as ever. While they acknowledge inflation and market swings, they resist the narrative of helplessness. Many see the media as stoking panic for political ends.
The Axios-CNN consensus treats voters as consumers of fear. But the digital public sphere shows Americans seeking agency, searching for reasonable analysis, and demanding accountability—not only from Trump, but from the entire governing class.
In swing-state discussions, Trump still garners strong support, even among those nervous about the economy. Economic pain hasn’t translated into political abandonment. Instead, it has amplified demands for structural correction and realignment.
18
Apr
-
Despite liberal claims that Trump supporters are beginning to regret their votes, MIG Reports data shows the President’s political standing has only crystallized. Public discourse about his leadership, both supportive and critical, shows an electorate no longer swayed by conventional markers of competence or decorum.
Americans are increasingly aligning around symbolism, cultural signaling, and ideological authenticity. While critics grow more alarmist, supporters have grown more loyal. Those who embrace Trump now do so more fervently as the administration enacts its agenda.
Conservatives Double Down
Getting What They Voted For
Those who may once have supported Trump pragmatically are growing to support him out of genuine enthusiasm. Before the 2024 election, support was strong but conditional—based on jobs, trade performance, and law-and-order promises. Today, that support has solidified with fast and decisive actions on all required fronts by Trump 2.0.
This sentiment persists even in the face of scandals like "SignalGate," which the media and Democrats cling to as an indictment of Trump’s Cabinet. However, instead of provoking alarm, many voters interpret the coverage as overblown distractions. Some even say it's strategic provocation by a desperate Democratic party which is losing public favor.
Cultural Disruption as Political Strength
Trump supporters increasingly value chaos as a cleansing force. SignalGate and similar controversies no longer carry reputational cost. Instead, they validate Trump’s outsider status and fuel distrust in legacy institutions.
The White House recently tweeted using a viral Studio Ghibli-style AI image of a drug dealer’s arrest, causing histrionics among liberals. Many on the right, however, say this further illustrates the shift in political aesthetics. Supporters appreciate the tongue-in-cheek style, viewing it as cultural savvy and understanding new media.
I guarantee you the people crying over this are the same people who wished for my death when I didn't get the covid shot. https://t.co/zmruw6JKlY
— Frasier Payne (@MeinGottNiles) March 27, 2025The symbolic style resonates with meme culture and a voter base which feels liberated from the self-serious rhetoric of the political left over the last decade. It reinforces an understanding that politics has fully collided with culture via the internet.
AHHH I VOTED FOR TRUMP IN EVERY ELECTION BUT I REGRET IT NOW BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE POSTED A GHIBLI MEME OF A FAT FENTANYL DEALER GETTING ARRESTED AHHH IM RETARDED pic.twitter.com/68Pqf5AgzB
— 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐂𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝕏 (@normposter) March 28, 2025Tariffs as Sacrifice, Not Cost
Trump’s return to trade warfare also does not rattle his base. A 25% tariff on imported automobiles draws criticism across the aisle for its inflationary impact, but supporters say it equates to economic patriotism.
Critics note the price hikes on consumer goods, especially in agriculture and automotive sectors. Yet few among his core constituency are defecting. They see temporary pain as evidence of long-term strength—a stark departure from pre-2024, when economic metrics still held sway in voter behavior.
Liberal Vitriol Intensifies
From Critique to Alarmism
Trump’s critics have abandoned incremental critique. The rhetoric is existential. Commenters label him a fascist, a traitor, a Putin asset. Concerns over tariffs or cabinet qualifications have been supplanted by claims of democratic collapse.
Publicly, Democratic narratives insist that Trump voters are beginning to regret their votes. However, discussion among those same voters appears only to confirm their growing support.
Bulwark reporter “I'm hearing a lot of Trump voters saying "I didn't really vote for this."
— Spitfire (@DogRightGirl) March 17, 2025
Anyone hearing about Trump voter regret? Personally Im thrilled!
pic.twitter.com/ge5Vcag2WISignalGate is a particular point of focus for Democrats who hope to stir backlash against the administration. Critics point say unsecured military group chats are proof of systemic collapse and national endangerment. They call for resignations and accountability, pushing Trump voters to admit their mistake.
When Democrats tell you that MAGA has voter regret, they are lying. In fact Dem registration fell recently. People think we are headed in the right direction. pic.twitter.com/DcWz31gCHg
— 🦉⭐️ Melissa Dawn ⭐️🦉 (@GenXNewsOnX) March 19, 2025Institutional Collapse Narrative
Democrats frame Trump’s leadership as autocratic. Commentary increasingly connects policy decisions to structural erosion—overuse of executive orders, loyal cabinet appointees over qualified ones, and overt defiance of institutional norms.
This framing extends to symbolic acts as well. Democrats condemn the Studio Ghibli-style tweet as trivializing systemic issues like drug trafficking and incarceration. Rather than seeing it as creative messaging, critics say it's a propagandistic ploy to bypass substantive debate.
03
Apr