Irresponsible Rhetoric: The Media Gaslights Democrats
September 19, 2024.png)
Key Takeaways
- Media reporting, consistently slanted toward Democratic political narratives deeply influences voters who trust legacy reporting.
- 80% of Democrats continue to believe media claims that Springfield bomb threats are serious, even after Governor DeWine announced them as hoaxes.
- Multiple data sources suggest Republicans largely do not accept media narratives, preferring alternative and independent reporting.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
15,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
1 Day
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
The stark division between partisan narratives and trust in the media has grown clearer in recent weeks. Previous MIG Reports analysis showed Democrats remain one of the few groups which consistently trust mainstream media.
.png)
With 64.8% of all voters expressing strong distrust toward mainstream media, the 24.9% who say they do have trust is largely composed of Democrats. This is consistent with 2023 Gallup data showing:
- 11% of Republicans trust media
- 29% of Independents trust media
- 58% of Democrats trust media
.png)
This divergence raises significant questions about how media narratives, especially those with a partisan slant, can shape voter opinion and electoral outcomes. Media narratives, which many Americans believe are biased toward Democratic viewpoints, disproportionately influence voters who still trust these outlets.
Whether Democrats continue to trust media narratives because of confirmation bias, or those who trust media lean Democratic because they are influenced by narratives is unclear. However, the correlation of Democrats trusting the media and media promoting Democratic narratives remains.
Through selective framing, coverage time, and emphasis, the media plays an active role in shaping political perspectives, often long after stories have been debunked or corrected. MIG Reports analysis shows three recent examples of media narratives shaping Democratic voter opinions on key political issues.
Hook Line and Sinker
Migrants Eating Pets in Ohio
Following the presidential debate, rumors of Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, dominated media coverage. Mainstream media, including ABC debate moderators who fact-checked Trump, largely positioned the story as unfounded or even fabricated.
Despite copious local resident allegations, certain police reports documenting missing pets, and the Springfield city manager acknowledging claims of pets being eaten, many Democratic voters still align with media narratives critical of the story and Republicans.
Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:
- Nearly 53 hours covering the Springfield city manager’s denial in the three days following the debate.
- Only 9.5 hours covering allegations of migrants eating cats.
.png)
There is a slight increase in mentions of the Springfield city manager after footage emerged from March of 2024 in which he acknowledged resident claims. However, these media mentions only total six hours compared to 23 hours the day after David Muir’s fact check against Trump during the debate.
MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:
- 80-90% Democrats still say pet consumption is unproven.
- 10-20% Democrats admit pet consumption is legitimate or indicative of larger immigration issues.
- 10-20% Republicans still say pet consumption is unproven.
- 80-90% Republicans believe pet consumption is legitimate or indicative of larger immigration issues.
.png)
The way media outlets frame the story—blaming Trump for “unproven allegations”—illustrates how media impacts perceptions. Democrats largely still dismiss the story as rumor, aligning with media talking points. Republicans, who largely distrust mainstream media, instead view the story—regardless of whether the pet consumption allegations are true—as an indictment of the Biden-Harris administration’s immigration policy.
The Danger of Bomb Threats
Following the media frenzy over pets in Ohio, narratives turned to bomb threats in Springfield. The media framed multiple bomb threats as a result of “dangerous” and “xenophobic” rhetoric by Trump and Republicans.
A viral clip of CNN’s Dana Bash shows her directly blaming J.D. Vance for drawing violence to Ohio through his allegedly divisive comments.
Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:
- 175 hours covering bomb threats in the last five days.
- 17 hours clarifying threats as a hoax after DeWine’s announcement.
Following Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s announcement that the bomb threats were a hoax committed by foreign actors, media coverage continued to mention bomb threats for more than 100 hours while only mentioning them as a hoax for 17.3 total hours and a mere 17 minutes two days after the revelation.
.png)
MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:
- 60% of Democrats are discussing the bomb threats as real.
- 20% of Democrats are discussing the bomb threats as a hoax.
- There is no quantifiable number of Republicans discussing the bomb threats as real, but 31% express concern about community safety.
- 70% of Republicans are discussing the bomb threats as a hoax.
.png)
Again, biased coverage by mainstream outlets highlights how crafted narratives push slanted perspectives on voters who trust legacy reporting. This phenomenon is exacerbated by outlets spending far less time correcting falsehoods.
Democrats, a majority of whom still trust the media, show a greater tendency to internalize the mainstream narrative without scrutiny. Republicans, who largely distrust the media, are more likely to dismiss narratives which are proven biased by independent reporting.
Golf Course Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump
The second assassination attempt on Donald Trump triggered another wave of intense media coverage. While many Democrats expressed concern about the attempt, they strongly focus on linking the event to Trump’s divisive rhetoric.
Narrative battles again erupted as Republicans claim Democrats and the media are “victim blaming” Trump by saying his own language caused the assassination attempts. Fox News reporter Peter Doocy’s confrontation with White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about how Democrats choose to discuss these events—continuously calling Trump a “threat”—demonstrates the partisan messaging clash.
Analysis of media coverage time according Grabien data shows media outlets spent:
- 818.5 hours covering the assassination attempt on Donald Trump in the three days following.
- 328 hours covering Trump and mentioning his “rhetoric.”
- 671 hours covering Trump and mentioning him as a “threat.”
- 96 hours covering Trump and mentioning “threat to democracy.”
- 2.8 hours covering the assassination and mentioning “Democrat rhetoric.”
Combined hours of coverage mentioning Trump with “rhetoric,” “threat,” and “threat to democracy” total 1,095 hours compared to coverage of the assassination alone and mentions of “Democrat rhetoric” at just more than 820 hours.
.png)
MIG Reports data shows, in the last day:
- 24% of Democrats are mentioning the assassination attempt.
- 60% of Democrats are mentioning Trumps divisive rhetoric.
- 57% of Republicans are mentioning the assassination attempt.
- 21% of Republicans are mentioning Trumps divisive rhetoric.
.png)
Once again, Democratic reactions suggest legacy media has strong influence over voter views with focus on Trump’s rhetoric rather than the assassination attempt itself. For Democrats, media framing reinforces pre-existing beliefs that Trump’s language incites violence. For Republicans, it further deepens distrust of both the media and Democrat credibility.
Media in the Tank for Democrats
.png)
Multiple data sources suggest the mainstream media’s framing of high-profile stories has a profound impact on the electorate—particularly Democrats who continue to trust these outlets. The disproportionate airtime given to narratives that align with Democratic viewpoints continues to foster anger and distrust among non-Democratic voters.
People use terms like “gaslighting,” “media bias,” and “we’re being lied to,” in discussions about how legacy outlets report on American political and cultural issues.
Increasingly, voters say they believe mainstream outlets attempt to control which stories gain traction and how long they remain in the spotlight. They suggest bias in favor of Democrats is intended to influence voter opinions and, ultimately, election outcomes.
However, given that Democratic voters compose the dwindling segment of Americans who consistently believe mainstream media narratives, some conclude the media’s influence and credibility is declining.
This is demonstrated by:
- Democrats often voting in alignment with issues amplified by the media, such as abortion, social justice, and government spending programs.
- Republicans repeatedly expressing distrust in media, driving them to seek alternative sources of information on platforms like X.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)