After president-elect Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr for Secretary of Health and Human Services, the left-wing media has predictably begun its efforts to sway public sentiment against him. A viral “fact check” of RFK Jr.’s criticism of Froot Loops in America, has ignited a wave of criticism toward media attempts to shape public opinion.
A New York Times fact-check called U.S. and Canadian versions of Froot Loops "roughly the same," focusing on similar sugar content but ignoring the important differences in additives. People are scoffing because the fact-check invalidates itself by claiming the two versions are the same while listing the same important differences the MAHA movement attempts to highlight.
Americans mostly see the media’s treatment of RFK Jr. as typical of biased and politically motivated anti-Trump narrative shaping. This, they say, contributes to the degradation of journalistic integrity and erosion of public trust.
Online discussions frequently highlight how fact-checking efforts by the media frame Trump, conservatives, and their associates as “fringe,” “conspiratorial,” and “paranoid.” Rather than engaging with the substance of RFK’s critiques about the health system or regulatory practices, media reports often focus on tangential issues or minor inaccuracies. For many, this approach shows an unwillingness to address concerns Americans share about health governance and corporate influence.
The Left are now drinking bottles of Seed Oil in protest of RFK Jnr nomination for Secretary of Health. 🤡🌍 pic.twitter.com/kuSPwrpVHB
The perceived mismatch between media focus and public priorities inflames frustration. Audiences are increasingly wary of media outlets that appear to sidestep meaningful critiques of government and industry practices, often opting not to consume coverage at all. For RFK supporters, coverage seems less like a good-faith effort to inform the public and more like a deflection from core issues of health reform and institutional accountability.
Health Reform as a Unifying Vision
While Kennedy’s platform does elicit some polarized reactions among voters, his message resonates with many Americans concerned about chronic health issues and the transparency of health agencies.
MAHA critiques of the healthcare system—pushing for reform, accountability, and better health outcomes—have struck a chord with voters across ideological lines. Conversations frequently highlight MAHA's focus on rising rates of chronic illnesses, infant and maternal mortality, and declining life expectancy in the United States.
These concerns, increasingly dismissed by mainstream political narratives, unify a public disillusioned with the status quo. Kennedy’s willingness to address these challenges head-on has made him a symbol of hope for systemic change. His calls for evidence-based policies and independent oversight of health agencies resonate deeply with those who feel neglected by traditional political narratives.
Dr. Casey Means Wows Liberal Audience and Gets Them to CHEER for RFK Jr.'s HHS Nomination
“If we were crushing it [at health], we would not be spending 2x every other country in the entire world and have the lowest life expectancy of any developed country in the entire world.”… pic.twitter.com/160GKOHQMh
The media’s hypocritical treatment of RFK Jr. contrasts sharply with the substantive discussions among Americans. Legacy media outlets, which at one time highlighted Kennedy’s efforts, now focus on his controversial views as overly simplistic.
However, public discourse shows interest in the MAHA critique of vaccines and food and drug reform. Supporters view Kennedy as someone who prioritizes integrity and transparency, challenging both corporate interests and entrenched government practices that many believe have failed the American public.
Far from the caricature mainstream narratives presents, many Americans view Kennedy as a thoughtful and principled advocate for reform. His legal battles against corporate malfeasance, such as his successful lawsuits against Monsanto, serve as a testament to his commitment to protecting public health and the environment. For his supporters, these actions lend to his credibility as someone willing to confront powerful interests in defense of the common good.
Media Skepticism Tarnishes its Legacy
The controversy around Kennedy’s media coverage reconfirms the shift in how Americans consume and interpret information. Social media and alternative reporting have amplified voices that challenge establishment narratives, creating a space where audiences can scrutinize and discuss issues on their own.
Cultural shifts in media consumption and trust speak to the existential challenges facing traditional media outlets. As public trust declines, figures like Kennedy gain traction by addressing concerns Americans feel are ignored or dismissed. The debate about his candidacy and public statements offers a window into the changing dynamics of media influence and public discourse in America.
Governor Kathy Hochul’s revival of congestion pricing has sparked heated debate among New Yorkers, amid widespread frustrations with her administration.
Hochul’s proposal, set to begin in January 2025, introduces a $9 toll for vehicles entering Manhattan's Central Business District during peak hours. This is intended to reduce traffic congestion and generate approximately $15 billion for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's capital projects.
The initiative has faced criticism from various groups, including New Yorkers, with a viral clip of Hochul explaining the tax could have been $15, but instead is only $9. Many point out the incoherence of presenting this as a savings, when non-congestion pricing is nothing.
Did Kathy Hochul just do the Tik Tok trend “girl math” with congestion pricing? https://t.co/TSRfYqtTOq
New Yorkers see the $9 toll for entering Manhattan as a financial burden disguised as a cost-saving measure. While Hochul frames it as a reduction from $15, critics say, regardless of the cost, the tax disproportionately affects middle- and lower-income groups who depend on their vehicles for commuting. The toll, coupled with high living costs and inflation, adds to their already stretched budgets.
Distrust in Leadership
Many commenters express skepticism about Hochul’s fiscal priorities. Complaints focus on mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, highlighting issues like fare evasion on public transit and rising costs without corresponding improvements. New Yorkers see the toll as generating revenue at the expense of struggling residents.
Dissatisfaction with Public Spending
Critics frequently cite misallocation of state resources as a point of frustration. Funds directed toward illegal immigrant assistance are often contrasted with unmet needs in transit efficiency and public safety. This fuels sentiments that Hochul’s administration is out of touch with the struggle to afford living in New York.
Political Discontent
Leadership Critiques
New Yorkers and outside observers regularly criticize Governor Hochul as a perfect representation of extreme liberalism. They accuse her of being an elite, disconnected from voter realities. This perception is tied to broader frustrations with Democratic leadership in New York, which many view as prioritizing ideological goals over practical governance.
Economic and Crime Concerns
People view the congestion toll as part of a pattern of rampant governance failures. Critics link it to other policies they feel have worsened the quality of life, such as lenient bail reform laws and insufficient measures to address crime and public safety.
Ideological Priorities
The policy also intensifies debates about liberal dominance in state politics. Many call for a political overhaul and alternatives to what they view as corrupt and ineffective leadership. This dissatisfaction is a rallying point for voters considering Republican candidates.
Transparency and Incompetence
Revenue Allocation Skepticism
Distrust in how toll revenue will be used is a recurring theme. Many question whether funds will genuinely improve transit or if they will be lost to bureaucratic inefficiency. New Yorkers are offended at the audacity of Hochul to frame the $9 toll as a “savings,” calling it condescending and deceptive.
Messaging and Public Trust
Hochul’s communication around congestion pricing alienates voters who already feel neglected and taken advantage of by leaders. Many find the messaging tone-deaf, with comments suggesting the public is insulted by the idea that implementing a $9 toll is actually a win for government.
A 🧵looking at the Governor's statement announcing the return of the #CongestionPricing tax: 1) This isn't a "40% reduction in Congestion Pricing Tolls"... the toll is $0 today. This is a 100% increase in Congestion tolls to $9. This is Orwellian. pic.twitter.com/BhoGAAaZdF
Union members and leaders view congestion pricing as an unfair burden on working-class and middle-income families. They say a toll disproportionately impacts those who rely on vehicles due to limited public transit options.
Public Transit Issues
Union voices align with broader critiques of the MTA, citing fare hikes and declining service quality. They argue congestion pricing shifts financial responsibility onto vulnerable populations instead of addressing poor transportation management.
Union Opposition and Mobilization
Legal challenges, such as a United Federation of Teachers (UFT) lawsuit to stop the congestion pricing program, illustrate the growing opposition to New York governance from unions. Many Teamsters view Hochul’s policies as predatory, reiterating the shift away from Democratic politics which was clearly demonstrated in the 2024 presidential election.
Online discourse about the Ukraine conflict and U.S. foreign policy is taking an increasingly critical tone. President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use long-range missile against Russia, lightning passionate discourse among Americans.
Biden’s decision is widely viewed as a pivotal moment ushering in troubling U.S. entanglement in the war and escalating tensions with Russia. Conversations reveal a growing unease, with many questioning the wisdom of a strategy that could lead the United States into a potential direct conflict.
By authorizing long range missiles to strike inside Russia, Biden is committing an unconstitutional Act of War that endangers the lives of all U.S. citizens. This is an impeachable offense, but the reality is he’s an emasculated puppet of a deep state. https://t.co/5XDi0E16q1
Critics frame Biden’s decision to approve long-range missiles as a dangerous escalation, suggesting it signals desperation rather than a calculated effort to stabilize the conflict. It amplifies fears that the U.S. is treading on precarious ground, particularly with warnings from Russian officials. Online discussions paint the Biden administration as underestimating the geopolitical consequences of its actions and risking retaliation. Many on the right also speculate that Biden hope to leave Trump with an uphill battle in foreign policy.
War is a Racket
Many Americans say establishment foreign policy decisions are financially motived. They allege the Ukraine conflict is lucrative for defense contractors and the political class. This perspective aligns with a recurring skepticism about U.S. military engagements, which many see as prioritizing profit over human life and national security. People point to the prolonged nature of past conflicts like Afghanistan, saying the war in Ukraine is similarly perpetuated for financial gain rather than swift resolution.
Seeking Peace
Voter discussions are polarized over the role of the U.S. in global conflicts. While some see continued support for Ukraine as a moral imperative, many Americans take a cynical view of political motivations—especially when issues at home go unresolved.
Some contrast Biden’s policies with Trump’s, hoping a second Trump presidency might prioritize de-escalation and limit U.S. involvement in Ukraine. This anticipation for Trump’s “America First” foreign policy demonstrates shifting public sentiment toward establishment political norms.
Warhawk Fatigue
Overall, Americans express a sense of anxiety about the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy under Biden’s leadership. Conversations reveal apprehension over escalating military engagement and a critical view of Democratic motives. Increasing anti-establishment skepticism suggests Americans will not respond kindly to unnecessary conflict forced on the country by elites with conflicting incentives.
In fear of Trump’s second administration, Democrats are discussing creating a shadow cabinet to counter Trump’s divisive picks. Advocates view it as a strategic safeguard against perceived threats to democracy, while critics warn of the potential to exacerbate political divides and alienate voters.
NEW: Democrat on the House floor melts down over Trump's Cabinet picks, suggest Democrats create their own "shadow" Cabinet
"If Trump attempts to weaponize the justice system against his political opponents with Matt Gaetz at the helm - we can see incoming Senator Adam Schiff as… pic.twitter.com/XzzCJAjF0I
A significant amount of Democratic discourse champions creating a shadow cabinet as a necessary measure to counter perceived threats of authoritarianism from Trump.
Supporters, all of which are Democratic voters, constitute 45% of the discussion, arguing for a proactive defense of their ideals.
Many view the shadow cabinet as a symbol of empowerment, providing an alternative vision of leadership and energizing grassroots activism.
This group believes diligent oversight and resistance are essential to maintaining democratic norms in an increasingly polarized environment.
For advocates, a shadow cabinet is more just opposition—it is a rallying cry for progressive governance and voter mobilization.
Criticism and Skepticism
Critics view the idea of a shadow cabinet as politically motivated obstructionism which has no benefits but exacerbates divisions in an already polarized political climate.
Around 35% of the commentary contains skepticism and criticism.
Many voicing skepticism are also disillusioned with Democratic leadership.
Some say a shadow cabinet would alienate moderate and Independent voters who may interpret it as partisan infighting rather than principled opposition.
For critics, talk of a shadow cabinet is indicative of the Democratic Party’s inability to engage effectively with the electorate.
Indifference and Opposition
A smaller but notable portion of the discourse reflects indifference or outright opposition to the concept.
Around 20% of reactions view the shadow cabinet as political theatrics, dismissing it as lacking meaningful impact.
Another 10%—predominantly Trump supporters—frame the proposal as an attack on democratic norms, arguing it undermines the will of voters.
They say shadow cabinet would embody partisan overreach, reinforcing their alignment with Trump’s policies and governance.
Polarization
The debate about a shadow cabinet highlights ideological divides in American politics. Republicans largely oppose the concept, while Democrats are split between enthusiastic support and pointed criticism. This division mirrors broader societal fractures that have intensified in recent years.
Fear of Authoritarianism
Proponents view a shadow cabinet as a bulwark against what they perceive as the erosion of democratic norms under Trump. This anxiety about authoritarianism drives support for aggressive opposition strategies, even at the risk of further polarization or becoming the authoritarians they fear.
Nuanced Discussions
The proposal has also sparked a broader debate about the balance between strategic resistance and effective governance. Historical comparisons frame the shadow cabinet as part of a longer tradition of contentious power struggles in American politics. However, critics warn that while it may energize partisan bases, it risks entrenching political divides.
Calls for addressing core issues like economic inequality and healthcare highlight dissatisfaction with a Democratic strategy seen as overly reactive. For many, the shadow cabinet is a symbol of a party struggling to define its role in a rapidly shifting political landscape.
Trump's victory is causing a cultural and rhetorical shift, even among Democrats who have long called him a “threat to democracy” and likened him to Hitler. The most recent example of this hypocrisy went viral after MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski met with Trump at Mar-a Lago. After frequently comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler, the hosts of Morning Joe are generating controversy with their newfound willingness to dialogue.
Morning Joe then: Donald Trump is comparable to Adolf Hitler.
Scarborough and Brzezinski were among the most vocal critics of Trump during his presidency and since. Their rhetoric was often viewed by conservatives as hyperbolic, divisive, and disingenuous. Now they’re drawing accusations of hypocrisy as people on both sides accuse them of either caving to “authoritarianism” or revealing their insincerity.
Some frame the Mar-a-Lago meeting as a strategic necessity. They say the media is being forced to capitulate to Trump after his decisive win. However, many MSNBC viewers perceive Scarborough and Brzezinski’s willingness to speak with Trump as a betrayal.
Democratic Reactions
MIG Reports data shows:
75% of Democrats are outraged, calling Scarborough and Brzezinski’s meeting a betrayal of moral consistency. Common sentiments include accusations of hypocrisy and concerns about normalizing Trump’s leadership.
20% defend the meeting, citing the importance of dialogue in a polarized nation.
5% are indifferent, viewing the issue as secondary to more pressing concerns.
Many progressive voices within the Democratic base argue this move undermines important efforts to hold Trump accountable. They say the meeting diminishes the seriousness of Trump’s threat to the country.
Democrats fear:
Trump's return to power will have negative implications for American democracy.
Authoritarianism from a Trump administration that dismantles democratic institutions and practices.
Impending decline in American as in historical totalitarian regimes.
The erosion of civil rights, freedom of speech, and the integrity of government institutions.
Republican Reactions
Republicans see the media and Democrats as hypocritical:
68% of Republicans criticize Morning Joe for previous comparisons of Trump to Hitler, saying the rhetoric is overheated and hyperbolic.
25% say the meeting is an acknowledgment of Trump’s legitimacy and a step toward bipartisanship.
7% are skepticism about the media’s motives, viewing their actions as opportunistic rather than principled.
For Republicans, this meeting symbolizes the failure of Democrats and media figures to maintain consistent or principled stances. Many see it as vindication of Trump, saying Democrats are admitting they never believed their own claims about Trump as an authoritarian or a dictator.
Republicans fear:
Democratic leadership and media rhetoric has led to widespread political dissatisfaction and a divisive atmosphere.
There may be no true accountability or reform either in government or for negligent or malicious media practices.
Democratic voters will continue to double down on unrealistic fears about Trump and Republicans without allowing truth to impact their hatred.
Independent Reactions
Independents and moderates are disillusioned:
They largely express cynicism, criticizing both sides for partisan rhetoric over solutions.
Many say they’re fatigued with political theater, calling for policy actions rather than media and rhetorical fights.
Those in the middle represent a growing public distrust of both political and media institutions. They are wary of hyperbole on either side and want to focus on the economy, national security, and healthcare.
Plummeting Media Credibility
Scarborough and Brzezinski’s meeting with Trump is indicative of new leaves being turned in the media. As public trust in legacy media continues to erode, media figures are being forced to change their tactics.
The Democratic base says this shift is a failure to uphold the moral imperative. For Republicans, it reinforces perceptions that partisan media narratives are only as strong as the viewership and funding that props them up. They say with dramatically falling ratings, media outlets are facing the reality that they’re out of step with American voters.
In the wake of the 2024 election, Americans are considering what happened and what it means for the future. A continuing discourse has been a critique of the left writ large, and particularly whether leftism has gone too far. MIG Reports data shows the ideological divide among Democrats is widening.
The Democratic Party finds itself in a pivotal moment, grappling with the aftermath of their dramatic presidential loss. Discussions within the party show divergent views on the results of a campaign "autopsy." Determining the cause of failure, reassessing strategies, and potentially redefine the party’s identity all cause intra-party conflict.
Seeking Change or Doubling Down
Calls for Change
Most Democratic voices want introspection and reform, with approximately 45-60% emphasizing the need to reassess electoral strategies. These voices argue for focusing on economic issues, working-class concerns, and grassroots priorities.
Many point to a failure to connect with disaffected voters, particularly those who have shifted toward Republican messaging. Leadership figures like Bernie Sanders and other progressives call for bold reforms, prioritizing issues like wage equity and economic justice over current elitist strategies.
Defending the Status Quo
Around 30-40% of Democrats resist calls for reform, defending the party's existing strategies. They attribute Harris’s loss to external factors like misinformation, voter suppression, racism and misogyny, or media bias. They argue Democratic values remain fundamentally sound and view 2024 as an anomaly rather than an indicator of issues in the party.
Ambivalence and Compromise
Approximately 25% of the discourse reflects ambivalence, advocating for measured adjustments rather than a comprehensive overhaul. This group points to historical successes as a basis for continuity, suggesting a tempered approach that integrates innovation with traditional Democratic values.
Discussion Patterns
Frustration with Leadership
55% of comments voice frustration with Democratic leadership.
Figures like Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris are criticized for being out of touch with grassroots concerns, particularly on issues affecting the working class.
Many argue the party needs leaders who resonate with younger voters and marginalized communities, reflecting the priorities of an evolving base.
Identity Misalignment
45% of discussions highlight a disconnect between the party's values and voter priorities.
Critics suggest an overemphasis on social justice, without a strong economic message, risks alienating voters struggling to make ends meet.
Unity vs. Division
50% of Democrats emphasize the need for party unity.
They say the tension between progressive and moderate factions creates significant obstacles.
They say an inability to reconcile internal divisions weakens the party's appeal.
Rise of Progressive Voices
Progressive leaders and activists are increasingly vocal, championing bold reforms and economic equity as central to the party's platform.
Figures like Bernie Sanders advocate for this shift, drawing attention to the inadequacies of traditional Democratic strategies in addressing voter concerns.
Fear of Losing Core Support
A recurring concern is the potential to lose working-class voters, historically a key Democratic demographic.
Many within the party warn that failing to address these voters' needs could result in long-term political consequences, emphasizing the urgency for genuine reform.
The Democratic Party’s Identity Crisis
Progressive vs. Moderate Tensions
The most prominent theme is the ideological battle between progressive and moderate Democrats. This divide leaves voters questioning what the party stands for, creating confusion and weakening its electoral message. Progressives advocate for transformational change, while moderates prioritize incremental adjustments and risk aversion.
Inclusivity and Messaging
The party's commitment to diversity and inclusivity remains a defining feature. However, inconsistencies in delivering tangible results dilute the effectiveness of this message. Critics argue the party needs to draw back from DEI to focus on substantive policies that address voter priorities.
A Crisis of Vision
Approximately 60-70% of Democrats say there’s an identity crisis in the party. The failure to reach a cohesive vision undermines the party's ability to inspire and mobilize its base. Without clarity of purpose, the party risks alienating key constituencies and losing ground to more unified opposition forces.
Online discussions about the quality of modern films compared to past decades generate disdain fueled by nostalgia, cultural decay, and evolving industry standards. From emotional recollections of classics to admiration for contemporary storytelling diversity, American audiences remain divided but largely not entertained nor inspired.
Modern films prioritize current societal narratives over authentic storytelling.
Technology risks sidelining storytelling and removing human connection.
I need to be as clear & concise as humanly possible: #RedOne (🌟) is not just the single worst movie of 2024, it’s one of the worst movies I’ve seen in my life. Do not waste even half a second of your day on this movie- please. I beg you. I understand the responsibility that… pic.twitter.com/zNwG9xek8h
Nostalgia is a potent driver of sentiment, as many view films from the 1980s and 1990s as pinnacles of American culture and emotional resonance. This emotional anchor often skews opinions against contemporary offerings. Many view past favorites as ensconced in a "golden era" of filmmaking. People say, back then, movies were an art form but now Hollywood is just a factory churning out low-quality content.
Quality Versus Quantity
The industry's current output underwhelms viewers who lament a decline in narrative depth replaced by formulaic productions. While modern technology allows for prolific filmmaking, audiences struggle to find authenticity in a sea of commercialized content. Many people lament franchises, sequels, and licensed content, saying there’s a lack of original material for film and television.
DEI in the Movies
Some people appreciate the progressive narratives in contemporary films, which often tackle social issues and offer diverse perspectives. They see modern cinema as more inclusive and culturally aware society. However, a broader cultural shift away from progressive wokeism pushes back against cultural agendas in art.
Technology as a Double-Edged Sword
Technological advancements in visual effects evoke mixed reactions. While some marvel at the immersive experiences CGI and AI offer, others say it overshadows the essence of storytelling and character development.
Socio-Political Influences
Modern films increasingly mirror societal challenges, dividing opinions. While some viewers applaud their relevance, others want escapist entertainment that provides relief from real-world tensions.
An Inevitable Conclusion
While most Americans view older films as superior, a vocal minority highlights the value of diversity and contemporary relevance. This debate underscores the evolving relationship between culture, technology, and art, mirroring a dynamic cultural landscape. As the American demographic continues to change, audiences will grapple with these shifts. Their discourse reveals more than cinematic tastes—it offers a window into the changing fabric of society itself.
The American online landscape in the week since Trump’s reelection is quickly shifting perspectives toward traditional media and sparking transformation. Conversations show disillusionment with mainstream media over bias, sensationalism, and alignment Democratic political agendas. This discontent is accelerating a shift towards alternative information sources.
Distrust in Traditional Media
There is a prevailing online theme of distrust toward legacy media, with 65% of comments indicating a lack of confidence in mainstream outlets. Americans are frustrated with a media landscape they view as prioritizing progressive ideology.
The overwhelming sentiment is that legacy media has strayed from impartial coverage, often skewing facts to sustain a partisan agenda. Users point to a trend of sensationalized stories that sacrifice accuracy to capture attention, eroding trust in what was once a central pillar of information.
People say things like, "The legacy media ran an unprecedented and profound propaganda campaign that failed."
Shift Towards Alternative Media
As confidence in traditional media wanes, alternative sources like X have gained traction. Around 25% of comments reveal a growing preference for alternative media, which many perceive as authentic and less influenced by corporate power structures.
These sources, operating outside traditional frameworks, are seen as more responsive to public concerns and more representative of ordinary Americans' voices. Many believe social media is now where the real discussion and breaking news happens.
Indifference and Disengagement
About 10% of Americans say they’re indifferent toward the news media altogether, distancing themselves from both traditional and alternative outlets. This indifference stems from a belief that bias is inevitable across all forms of media. This causes them to disengage or take a selective approach to news consumption.
For the disenchanted, media as an institution holds diminishing relevance. They have a resigned outlook even toward the possibility of unbiased reporting from new sources. This group says things like, “Honestly, I don’t care about the media anymore, I just look for information elsewhere."
Accountability and Reform
Viewers want greater accountability and transparency in media reporting. A pattern emerges which advocates for structured fact-checking measures and reforms that emphasize honesty and clarity.
Reformers envision a transformed media landscape where rigorous standards protect public trust and limit the influence of misinformation. They want systems in place to verify claims and some way to combat and eliminate clickbait.
Political Polarization
The polarized political climate in the United States is also evident in media preferences, with users discussing media through the lens of ideological divides. People are frustrated with traditional outlets they perceive as elitist or disconnected from "America First" ideals.
Sentiments highlight an ongoing identity struggle in the media, as more people seek narratives that align with their values and worldview. The rise of identity politics further complicates this divide, with media often seen as reinforcing partisan divides rather than fostering open dialogue.
Social Media and Independent Outlets
Social media and independent news sources have become essential alternatives, praised for their perceived authenticity and depth. Approximately 50% of users report relying on social media for real-time news, while 35% gravitate toward independent outlets and podcasts
People prefer alternatives sources for their ability to provide detailed, nuanced discussions in real-time without commercial pressures. These platforms fill a gap left by mainstream media, appealing to those seeking unfiltered and relatable perspectives on current events.
Direct Engagement with Political Figures
There is a marked appreciation for direct access to political figures via social media. Around 20% of commenters say they prefer unmediated updates from politicians, which they regard as more transparent than traditional news coverage.
There is a shift toward personal engagement with political discourse, as Americans seek to bypass the filters of mainstream outlets in favor of hearing directly from leaders.
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)