Legacy Media Still Doesn’t Realize It’s a Laughingstock
May 02, 2025.png)
Key Takeaways
- The White House Correspondents Dinner and the media’s self-congratulations around reporting on Biden’s cognitive decline is tone deaf and laughable.
- Americans, particularly those under 35, do not take the media seriously and are heavily critical of media figures in the same “elite” class they should be holding to account.
- Even on the left, defending the media has gone by the wayside, coming across as lackluster or primarily anti-Trump where it crops up.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
2,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
2 Days
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 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.
.png)
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.
.png)
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.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)