Donald Trump’s decision to declassify documents related to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. Is reawakening long-standing questions about government transparency.

Many see Trump’s actions as a bold step toward accountability, but critics say the timing and motives behind the decision are questionable. The declassification shows Trump’s desire for bringing accountability to government and giving the people what they want.

Republicans Want Transparency

Among Republicans, Trump’s decision has been overwhelmingly well-received. Approximately 69% of Republican voters express strong support, viewing the declassification as a long-overdue corrective to government secrecy. For many, this is both positive for accountability and reinforces Trump’s image as a leader willing to challenge entrenched power structures.

Supporters use phrases like “draining the swamp” and “finally getting the truth,” positioning the declassification as part of exposing deep-state corruption. This sentiment aligns with the populist undertones that have defined Trump’s political brand.

Republicans also see the declassification as an act of justice, with many framing it as an opportunity to validate suspicions about historical government misconduct. The narrative of “government coverups” resonates strongly within conservative circles, where skepticism toward institutional authority is deep.

Democratic Skepticism

Democrats are far less enthused as 70% express negative sentiment. Critics see the declassification as a distraction tactic aimed at diverting attention from Trump’s ongoing legal and political challenges. Or as part of a drastic overreach of excessive executive orders.

The phrase “fake transparency” appears frequently in Democratic commentary, implying distrust of Trump’s intentions. Rather than celebrating the disclosure of historical information, critics worry exposing files trivializes complex historical narratives for short-term political gain.

Concerns over misinformation also dominate Democratic discourse. Skeptics fear the declassification could oversimplify the legacies of RFK, JFK, and MLK, weaponizing their histories to serve contemporary political objectives.

Independent Have Lingering Doubts

Among Independents, reactions are varied. While there is some alignment with Republican enthusiasm for transparency, many Independents share Democratic concerns about Trump’s motivations. Around 55% of reactions are negative and 45% positive, reflecting a deep ambivalence that could have implications for Trump’s support among moderates.

Independent skepticism often centers on the perceived self-serving nature of Trump’s actions. However, they also express curiosity about the content of the declassified documents, suggesting the potential for new revelations could sway opinions over time.

Trust, Transparency, and Division

The polarized reactions to Trump’s declassification highlight three key themes that dominate the current political landscape:

Transparency as a Double-Edged Sword

While voters across the spectrum express a desire for transparency, interpretations of Trump’s motives differ sharply. For Republicans, exposing government documents shows Trump’s commitment to accountability. For Democrats and many Independents, it raises questions about whether a form of transparency is being used as a political tool rather than a genuine pursuit of truth.

Historical Narratives as Political Weapons

The declassification underscores how historical events are often reframed to serve contemporary political agendas. For Republicans, the disclosure reinforces their critique of government overreach and secrecy. For Democrats, it exemplifies the risks of manipulating history for partisan gain.

Partisan Distrust and Institutional Erosion

Both sides share a common thread of distrust—Republicans toward the so-called deep state and Democrats toward Trump’s motives. This mutual skepticism reflects a broader erosion of faith in political institutions, further exacerbating America’s ideological divide.

Implications for Trump’s Strategy

Trump’s decision to declassify these documents is emblematic of his tendency to energize his base through bold, polarizing actions. By positioning himself as a champion of transparency, Trump reinforces his populist appeal while drawing sharp contrasts with his political opponents.

However, the mixed reactions among Independents suggest potential limitations to this approach. While the declassification resonates strongly with his core supporters, it risks alienating those who view him as too divisive and rash.

The long-term impact of this decision will depend largely on the content of the declassified documents and whether they deliver the “hidden truths” many voters hope for. If the revelations substantiate long-standing suspicions about government misconduct, they could bolster Trump’s narrative. Conversely, if the disclosures are seen as inconsequential or politically motivated, they may reinforce criticisms of his leadership.

Political violence in the United States has seen a troubling resurgence, with assassination attempts now extending across the ideological and professional spectrum—from president-elect Donald Trump, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and now far-right commentator Nick Fuentes. These events reflect a dangerous trend in political and social discourse, where rhetoric and actions converge to destabilize public life. This analysis explores the reactions to the Fuentes assassination attempt, focusing on general public sentiment and an emphasis from nuanced left-of-center perspectives.

A brief timeline of events:

• Nov 8: several Twitter accounts began sharing the home address of Nick Fuentes (remained on the platform to include through time of this publication)
• Nov 10: Maria Rose shows up at the home of Nick Fuentes, he pepper sprays her
• Dec 6: Nick Fuentes charged with battery
• Dec 18: John Lyons attempts to enter home of Nick Fuentes with a pistol and crossbow and is eventually killed by police (police believe he previously murdered 3 people that day)

Last night an armed killer made an attempt on my life at my home, which was recently doxed on this platform.

The gunman carried a pistol, crossbow, and incendiary devices. I believe he intended to kill me.

He is now dead. I am okay!

— Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) December 19, 2024

General Reactions

Public responses to the Fuentes assassination attempt are starkly polarized, echoing broader societal divisions:

• Outrage at Violence: Many Americans across ideological divides expressed alarm and condemnation of political violence, emphasizing the need for civility and safety in discourse.
• Martyrdom Narrative: Among Fuentes’ supporters, the incident is framed as an attack on free speech and conservative values, amplifying his status as a symbolic figure in the culture wars.
• Criticism of Fuentes’ Rhetoric: Opponents argue that his inflammatory views contribute to societal division and violence, with some dismissing the attack as an inevitable consequence of his provocations.
• Skepticism Toward Media and Law Enforcement: Distrust in media framing and law enforcement's ability to fairly address politically charged violence permeates discussions, reflecting a crisis of confidence in institutional neutrality.

People have continued to doxx Nick Fuentes even after it was announced that his doxxing led to an attempted assassination

A lot of people need to go to jail for a long time pic.twitter.com/Cndl1l4GXe

— Spinachbrah 🥗 (@basedspinach) December 20, 2024

Leftist Perspectives and Rhetoric

Leftist commentary provides a more cerebral and interconnected critique, framing the event within larger systemic and ideological structures:

• Intersectionality of Identity Politics: Fuentes’ far-right rhetoric and identity as a white nationalist figure polarize reactions. Leftist commentators link the incident to broader societal dynamics, including racial and ideological conflicts, framing it as a symptom of systemic failures rather than an isolated event.
• Focus on Responsibility and Rhetoric: There's an emphasis on the role of extremist rhetoric in fostering environments conducive to violence. They argue that figures like Fuentes normalize hate speech, necessitating accountability not just for actions but also for words.
• Skepticism of Martyrdom Narratives: While condemning violence, leftist voices critique the right-wing portrayal of Fuentes as a victim, suggesting this framing deflects from his divisive role in American political life.
• Economic and Governance Overtones: Discussions connect political violence to broader anxieties about governance and economic instability. The assassination attempt becomes a focal point for critiques of systemic inequities, from fiscal policies to societal fragmentation.

NEW: The man accused of attempting to m*rder streamer Nick Fuentes is 24-year-old John Lyons.

Very dangerous times especially when we have degenerates praising Luigi Mangione for executing a man in the back.

Lyons reportedly traveled 140 miles to Fuentes' home after allegedly… pic.twitter.com/k4lVhEq1Ff

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) December 20, 2024

Predictive Analysis

The assassination attempt on Nick Fuentes is not an isolated event but part of a growing trend of politically motivated violence that risks further destabilizing public discourse. Key predictions include:

• Intensified Polarization: The incident will likely deepen partisan divides, with each side entrenching its narratives—whether framing Fuentes as a martyr for free speech or an emblem of dangerous extremism.
• Rise in Radicalization: Fuentes’ supporters may rally around him, fostering further radicalization within far-right circles. Conversely, leftist movements may use the event to push for stricter regulations on hate speech and political rhetoric.
• Legislative and Cultural Shifts: This event could catalyze debates around free speech, accountability, and violence, potentially leading to legislative proposals aimed at regulating inflammatory rhetoric. Resistance from free speech advocates, however, may spark additional conflict.
• Splintering Within Political Movements: Fractures within both conservative and liberal factions may emerge as figures like Fuentes polarize internal discourse. Traditional conservatives may distance themselves, while far-right groups could become more insular and militant.
• Increased Security Measures: Rising fears of violence may prompt heightened security protocols for public figures across the spectrum, reflecting a broader societal shift toward self-protection in public life.

Don't doxx people
Nick Fuentes wasn't harmed, but the suspect fled police to his neighbor's house, shot at the guy and killed his 2 dogs pic.twitter.com/3jv36KjZRM

— MAGA M&M (@MAGAmegaMAGA) December 20, 2024

The assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson casts a dark shadow over the fraught relationship between Americans and their healthcare system. Reactions to this unprecedented are angry, disillusioned, and fearful.

Thompson’s death has become a symbol for a growing and intense public reckoning with systemic dysfunction and ethical dilemmas in healthcare.

The CEO of insurance giant UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, who was fatally gunned down in Manhattan today, was under DOJ investigation.

Was he about to take a plea deal and reveal all about congressional favors that gained them their monopoly?

Someone check on Nancy Pelosi. pic.twitter.com/BAKHomedGf

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) December 4, 2024

The Healthcare System Under Fire

Public sentiment is overwhelmed with an unflinching disdain for the U.S. healthcare system. Critics discuss the high costs of care, inaccessibility, and a perceived indifference from health insurance companies toward the struggles of ordinary Americans.

Personal stories of financial devastation due to denied coverage or inflated bills saturate these conversations, creating a tapestry of collective outrage. The healthcare system is viewed not as a lifeline but as a labyrinthine structure designed to prioritize profit over humanity. This shared frustration links directly to Thompson’s assassination in the minds of those who view it as a manifestation of the anger simmering within society.

The narrative of corporate greed dominates these discussions. Many see health insurance companies as profit-first, sacrificing patient well-being for shareholder dividends. This group views the assassination as a breaking point for a society driven to desperation by systemic failures.

Discussion is unrelenting and often accusatory, placing blame on the shoulders of the system and its figureheads, like Thompson. Many make a cursory gesture of regret, while others express no sympathy for a CEO who was targeted for his role in the healthcare system.

@ unitedhealthcare assassin pic.twitter.com/iyevXaOHZp https://t.co/Y0JX4xAQTD

— brandon* (@brndxix) December 4, 2024

A Crisis of Ethics and Accountability

Thompson’s assassination also reignites debates about the ethical responsibilities of corporate leaders and the precarious balance between profits and public accountability. The intense focus on leadership ethics shows a tension in American society.

CEOs like Thompson are seen as business leaders but also moral actors whose decisions impact millions. Many argue these decisions, rooted in maximizing profits, carry profound societal consequences. They say powerful decision makers and elites create environments where average people get exploited.

In United States, when a healthcare CEO is assassinated, everyone laughs pic.twitter.com/NuiVaSO2XM

— Rap Game Edward Bernays (@Edward__Bernays) December 4, 2024

Violence in a Strained Society

This shockingly violent act prompts urgent conversations about the workplace and public safety. Concerns about security are pervasive, with many suggesting the incident is not merely a failure of safety protocols but a symptom of deeper societal fractures.

Some argue the stresses of oppressive systems and a lack of access to essential resources—healthcare among them—create conditions ripe for acts of desperation and violence. Many also decry the decaying rule of law particularly in New York—where the assassination occurred.

Discussions about mental health surface, drawing connections between systemic inequities and the psychological toll on society. Many frame inadequate mental health care as both a cause and consequence of the current healthcare crisis. This sentiment emphasizes a vicious cycle: a broken system perpetuates the very problems it fails to address.

The Role of Media and Political Undertones

Media narratives surrounding the assassination further complicate public perception. Sensational coverage often oversimplifies the motivations of both corporate decisions and what is known about the alleged assassin.

Some worry this event risks becoming a spectacle, overshadowing the urgent need for reform. Political dimensions also surface, with voices on all sides framing the incident within partisan or ideological battles. Healthcare reform, corporate ethics, and public safety laws all emerge as contentious topics.

A Grim Reminder of Systemic Failures

The reactions to Thompson’s assassination and the man identified as a person of interest express despair and urgency. Americans grapple with the human cost of systemic inequities and the moral implications of public reactions.

The crime magnifies the fractures within America’s healthcare and corporate structures, sparking calls for reform and discussions about the national mood. The collective anger and fear surrounding this event are more than reactions to a single act of violence—they speak to collective anger from citizens who feel at the mercy of predatory systems.

Thompson’s death is a lens into the discontent Americas feel about power, corporate greed, a corrupt healthcare system, and vigilantism.

The narrative that Iran is responsible for plotting to assassinate Donald Trump is generating heated discussion online. There is a divide between skeptics and those who believe Iran is an active danger. News that Donald Trump was briefed on intelligence about Iranian plots to kill him and reports that the Secret Service knew about these plots prior to the Butler, PA attempt, is causing consternation among voters.

🚨Just In: According to Federal sources, an Iranian assassination plot on President Trump's life was communicated internally within the Secret service prior to Butler, PA rally. pic.twitter.com/6PUJuOQ6bQ

— Real Mac Report (@RealMacReport) August 23, 2024

Skepticism About Assassination Plots

Most Americans are skeptical about the alleged Iranian plot against Trump, with approximately 60-70% expressing doubt. The primary reason people cite is distrust of political narratives.

Many say reports only serve as a distraction from domestic issues, such as economic problems, crime, and immigration. These, Americans believe, are more pressing concerns than foreign threats. This cynicism is exacerbated by widespread accusations of “fake news” and disinformation. Some say political leaders are using Iran as a convenient scapegoat to manipulate public sentiment.

Skeptics also cite a lack of credible evidence to support the claim that Iran is actively targeting Trump. Lack of concrete proof leads many to believe reports are exaggerated or completely fabricated to serve partisan agendas. This perception of manipulation is especially prominent among critics of Biden's foreign police. Overall, there is disillusionment with both U.S. leadership and media. People view political leaders as incompetent or corrupt and the media as complicit.

Some base their skepticism on a broader understanding of geopolitical dynamics. They say Iran plotting against Trump is unlikely given the current state of U.S.-Iran relations. They view allegations of assassination plots as part of a larger pattern of fearmongering by playing up the threat of foreign adversaries. This group is weary of foreign intervention narratives, viewing them as tools to manipulate public opinion prior to the election.

Belief that Trump is Under Threat

Despite the prevailing skepticism, 30-33% say they believe Iran poses a legitimate threat to Trump. This belief is bolstered by views of Iran as a long-standing adversary of the U.S. and a direct threat to national security. This group highlights Trump’s tough stance on Iran, particularly withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and overseeing the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani. To this group, Iran is targeting Trump as retaliation.

Believers see the alleged plot as a continuation of Iran’s efforts to destabilize U.S. politics and undermine its global standing. They say Trump’s aggressive foreign policy made him a target, and assassination plots are not only plausible but expected. Many frame Iran as a persistent threat to U.S. interests and a dangerous and hostile actor.

Many say the media portraying Trump as a victim of foreign threats as an essential part of his political narrative. They say targeting by Iran fits into a broader storyline of him standing up to adversaries, both foreign and domestic. This reinforces support for Trump and fuels a desire for stronger national security policies that prioritize defending the U.S.

Polarization and the Role of National Security

Division about where threats to Trump’s life are coming from reflects ongoing polarization in American political discourse. Discussions about Iran’s alleged plot are colored by political views and opinions on national security.

• Skeptics align with a more critical stance toward the U.S. government and media, seeing both as complicit in manipulating public opinion.
• Believers are more likely to support strong national security, viewing Trump as a defender of American interests against foreign threats.

Polarization is complicated by the perception of foreign influence in domestic politics. Many, regardless of whether they believe the allegations, express concern about the broader implications of foreign actors meddling in U.S. elections and politics.

Even those who are doubtful of the Iranian plot, acknowledge Iran could be working to destabilize U.S. politics through indirect means. This intersection of foreign and domestic narratives creates a complex environment where discussions about national security, political motives, and media credibility all converge.

Language Usage in Belief and Dismissal

An analysis of the language used in voter discussions about the alleged Iranian plot reveals a similar division in verbiage. First-person language, such as "I believe" or "we should be concerned," is predominantly used by those who believe in the narrative.

Around 78% of belief-oriented comments use first-person pronouns, indicating a strong emotional or personal investment in the idea that Iran is targeting Trump. This personal connection suggests believers view the issue as an extension of their identity or values, aligning their political stance with national security concerns.

Third-person language, like "critics claim" or "the administration has exaggerated," is more commonly found in comments that dismiss the narrative. 78% of dismissive comments rely on third-person pronouns, indicating a more detached and analytical approach. Skeptics often critique the narrative from a distance, questioning the motives behind claims and expressing doubts about the evidence.

Donald Trump canceled a campaign rally in Wisconsin due to Secret Service concerns about insufficient security resources. The Secret Service’s inability to secure the event fuels American anxieties and anger about fairness and competence in the agency. Across political lines, voters interpret the cancellation through a partisan lens. 

CBS News - Former President Trump's campaign scrapped plans for an upcoming outdoor rally in Wisconsin after the Secret Service said it did not have the personnel needed to secure the site.
https://t.co/CzvvtYIr79

— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) September 26, 2024

Times Are Tense 

Republicans are outraged, feeling targeted by injustice and bias. For many Trump supporters, the cancellation serves as further proof that the establishment is working against him.  

This sentiment drives fierce blame toward government institutions, including the Secret Service, for failing to protect a major presidential candidate. Independents express similar distrust, echoing concerns over the government's role in handling security threats. However, this group is more divided, with some viewing the rally's cancellation as a legitimate response to ongoing threats against Trump. 

Democrats largely channel their frustrations towards Trump himself, criticizing his handling of security concerns and placing blame on his campaign. Yet, even within this group, there is an undercurrent of anxiety about the larger implications of political violence and leadership safety. 

Political Realities 

This event highlights the dramatic fracture between partisan groups in America. The rally’s cancellation is not merely a logistical decision—it reflects increasing divisions about authority, safety, and justice. This incident underscores pervasive distrust shaping voter behavior, with each side retreating into narratives of blame, fear, and defiance against perceived establishment forces.  

Unlike many disheartening political events, this particular event is likely to increase voter turnout among anti-establishment voters rather than disenfranchise them. Voters feel increasingly motivated to defend their positions and respond to perceived injustices or threats. 

For Trump supporters, the sense of bias and distrust in government energizes them to rally behind him—this sentiment is also growing with Independents. Democrats may feel motivated by their frustration with Trump's actions and handling of the situation—however, they have nothing to point to as a mirrored injustice toward Democratic candidates. 

The Department of Justice releasing a ransom note written by Ryan Routh, the would-be Trump assassin, is generating shock. In the letter, Routh offers $150,000 to anyone who succeeds in taking the former president’s life.

Americans express many emotions across political lines, but Republicans and Independents are most vehement in their skepticism, outrage, and disillusionment. Many also accuse the DoJ of corrupt or reckless intentions by releasing the note.

Ryan Routh failed to assassinate President Donald Trump.

Routh is now offering a $150,000 bounty for whomever kills President Trump.

The DOJ released the letter.

Why would the DOJ publicly release this letter?

I have an idea--they're all in on it.

They all want him dead.… pic.twitter.com/UCmI9PuZMJ

— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) September 23, 2024

Republican Reactions

For Republicans, the assassination along with allegations of multiple ongoing threats known to federal agencies, is powerful indictment of governmental failure. The conversation among Republican voters is largely framed by deep suspicion and distrust toward the government’s ability to maintain national security.

The perceived inaction of certain agencies like the FBI and Secret Servicemed, along with unsatisfying investigations, anger Americans. Voters react angrily to reports that U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the FBI received warnings about Routh prior to his assassination attempt.

More than 60% of the conversation among Republicans expresses a belief that the government has failed to prioritize the safety of citizens and now Donald Trump. There is a strong undercurrent of criticism toward the Biden administration’s policies and actions. Phrases like "soft on crime" and "weak on national security" dominate the rhetoric, with calls for greater accountability surfacing frequently.

“Ryan Routh is a ticking time bomb,” she recalled telling U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials in an hourlong interview upon returning to the United States at Dulles International Airport near Washington in June 2022. https://t.co/vYDucdjCbY

— TribLIVE.com (@TribLIVE) September 22, 2024

Around 62% of Republicans demand accountability, viewing the situation as part of a larger narrative of government incompetence or indifference to serious threats. Many are skeptical about the true motives behind federal institutions, suggesting security lapses indicate deep state incompetence or corruption. This distrust further solidifies partisan divides, reinforcing a narrative of political opposition victimizing and targeting Trump.

Independents Upset, but Fatigued

Independent voters approach the issue from a different angle. Their reaction, while similarly critical, is more nuanced. They focus on the assassination attempt being politicized. This group views the government's handling of the situation as a symptom of broader partisanship.

Around 45% of Independent voters call for “less politics and more action.” They hope for a bipartisan solution to the systemic issues these events have exposed. However, there is a noticeable split among Independents. Some remain engaged and see ongoing security threats against Trump as an opportunity for change. However, many are growing disengaged from the political process altogether.

Up to 55% of Independents show signs of possible voter disengagement in November. This is driven by a sense of fatigue and distrust toward federal and political institutions. Others express intentions to become more politically active, galvanized by the need for reform and accountability.

This divide reflects a broader frustration among Independents who feel caught between two polarized political parties. However, both groups tend to perceive the politicized rhetoric from partisans and the media as a tool for their own gain rather than focusing on solutions.

MIG Reports analysis reveals several topics about which some on the right are asking, "why is nobody talking about this?" There is a sense of urgency in these conversations, indicating feelings of disillusionment among voters with accusations of media dismissal.

Topics vary by volume, discussion intensity, and the demographic focus of those expressing concern. The largest discussions are around border security, the economy, national security, media bias, and the most recent assassination attempt.

Summary of Findings

• 40% of conversation is focused on border security and its impact on communities.
• 30% of discussions are focused on the economy, with widespread frustration over inflation, taxation, and government spending.
• 15% of discussions are on Ukraine and Russia, reflecting fears about national security and foreign policy.
• 10% focuses on media bias, driven by frustrations over censorship and selective reporting.
• 5% of the conversation is on the assassination attempt, highlighting concerns about political violence and media silence.

Border Security

Border security is the highest volume discussion, capturing 40% of conversations. Americans are frustrated about the lack of government action and media scrutiny on the border. These critiques often accompany talk of the consequences of illegal immigration on citizen communities. The debate intensifies around specific cases, like the situation in Springfield, Ohio, where an influx of 20,000 Haitian migrants significantly increases the town's population.

Voters are concerned about the strain on local resources, with 63% of likely voters blaming Kamala Harris for the surge in illegal immigration. This sentiment spreads broadly among conservative and Republican-leaning voters who view the government's response as inadequate.

Discourse frequently highlights the economic burden of illegal immigration and the increased threats to national security. The prominence of this topic reflects its great importance to voters in 2024.

The Economy

The second most prominent topic, composing 30% in the conversation, is the economy. Voters are frustrated over rising inflation, taxation, and government spending. They often compare current economic policies to those under the Trump administration.

In one data set, 75% of conversations mention economic topics, while 60% specifically address inflation. The rising cost of living—like a 40% increase in food prices—amplifies concerns among middle-class individuals.

Discussions also extend to taxes, with debates over how government spending and national debt impact future generations. This focus on economic issues shows American anxiety about financial stability and a belief that Kamala Harris is not addressing these matters effectively.

Ukraine-Russia Conflict

Global security concerns, particularly related to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, account for 15% of discussions. There is great alarm over the potential for escalating tensions and the risk of a wider conflict. Around 75% of voters voicing concerns are conservatives who criticize the Biden-Harris administration's foreign policy. They fear Democratic policies increase the risk of global conflict and nuclear war.

There is a growing sense of urgency that the dangers of war are not adequately addressed in political discourse or media coverage. Fears of global conflict and anxiety about national security cause many to point out a lack of media attention to Biden-Harris policies.

Media Bias

Around 10% of the conversation is focused on media bias. Discussions reveal frustrations with perceived media censorship, selective reporting, and the marginalization of conservative voices. For instance, one data set indicates 71% of voters are upset by mainstream media bias. They often specifically mention bias against Donald Trump and other conservative figures.

Discussions frequently touch on concerns about the media shaping public opinion and suppressing critical viewpoints. Many feel this bias leads to the lack of discourse on key issues like border security and the economy. The relatively lower weight of this topic compared to others suggests that while media bias is a significant concern, it often acts as a framing device for broader discussions rather than being the central focus itself.

Assassination Attempts on Trump

Already a smaller discussion topic compared to other issues, the assassination attempts on Trump carry significant emotional weight among conservative and Republican voters. Around 65% of conservatives are expressing grace concern about these attempts, highlighting the double standard in media coverage. They often compare lack of media coverage for the assassination attempts to similar events involving Democratic politicians.

Voters express anxiety over political violence and a belief that the issue is being downplayed or ignored, contributing to a broader narrative of media bias. While it garners focused attention, the narrower scope of this topic limits its overall prominence in the discourse.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

The assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump have sparked a firestorm of online discourse. Recently, a U.S. Secret Service representative, while speaking at a press event, delivered a remark that continued the unsettling mood:

“There could be another geopolitical event that could put the United States into a kinetic conflict or some other—uh—some other issue, that may result in additional responsibilities and protectees of the Secret Service.”

NEW - Acting U.S. Secret Service Director: "There could be another geopolitical event that could put the United States into a kinetic conflict or some other- uh- some other issue, that may result in additional responsibilities and protectees of the Secret Service." pic.twitter.com/2KT4VJEqHP

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) September 16, 2024

MIG Reports analysis shows reactions are intense and divided with widespread skepticism towards agencies like the Secret Service and growing fears of violent conflict. This analysis dissects key themes and sentiments driving voter conversations, highlighting how Americans view the federal government’s relationship with Americans.

Top Discussion Topics

• Polarization and Division (30%): The most dominant theme, reflecting deep political divides and hostility between opposing groups.
• Distrust of Institutions (25%): Many Americans don’t trust the federal government, the Secret Service, or the media, speculating about perceived deceptive narratives.
• Fear of War (20%): There is significant concern about potential violence or civil war, adding to the national anxiety.
• Assassination Attempts and Accountability (15%): Discussions focus on blame and responsibility for Trump’s attempted assassination.
• Media Bias (10%): Voters also discuss media manipulation and bias, contributing to the broader sense of corrupted institutions.

These themes collectively illustrate a nation gripped by uncertainty, fear, and blame. Most voters discussing the Secret Service and the recent Trump assassination attempt blame Democrats and the media.

• 62% blame Democrats and the media
• 21% blame Trump’s rhetoric

Polarization and Division

Routh’s assassination attempt intensifies already stark divisions between political parties. Both sides of the political aisle are quick to assign blame, with many on the right accusing Democrats of fostering an environment that encourages violence.

Left-leaning groups argue Trump's own divisive rhetoric is responsible for inflaming tensions. The conversation is steeped in animosity, as voters lash out against opposing ideologies. This polarization underscores how deeply fractured the nation is, with little room for compromise or shared understanding.

Distrust of Institutions

A majority of Americans express distrust toward institutions and agencies like the Secret Service and the FBI, claiming the media helps them present deceptive narratives. Many question the competence of the Secret Service in protecting Trump, with some even suggesting a mole or intentional negligence.

Skepticism extends to the media, where accusations of bias and propaganda are rampant. This pervasive feeling of animosity feeds into speculations about corrupt establishment motivations as voters question if they're being lied to. The lack of faith in these legacy institutions only deepens divisions between Americans.

Fear of Civil Unrest and Kinetic Conflict

Amid the blame and distrust, the potential for civil unrest or even civil war looms. Many conversations express anxiety over the country teetering on the edge of violent conflict. These fears are inflamed by comments like that of acting Secret Service director Ronald Rowe.

Terms like "kinetic conflict" appear frequently, suggesting a fear that corrupt government officials are willing to allow continued safety breaches to further their political ends. This theme reflects a growing unease about the future of the nation, where political violence could become the norm rather than the exception.

Assassination Attempts and Accountability

While assassination attempt is driving conversation, it is often paired with debate over who should be held accountable. Some call for greater security measures, citing the two recent and egregious attempts on Trump as evidence of institutional negligence.

Others argue that, whether from Trump or Democratic leaders, plays a significant role in fostering the climate of violence. This group calls for accountability, but there is disagreement about where the blame truly lies. This lack of clarity contributes to a broader sense of frustration and fear.

Media Bias

The media’s influence in shaping public perception is another recurring theme. Many on the right accuse mainstream media outlets of downplaying the seriousness of the assassination attempts. Those on the left decry media for not holding Trump and his supporters accountable for inciting violence.

Many express a belief that legacy media is complicit in spreading false narratives and stoking division. These criticisms reinforce distrust in institutions as people increasingly view media outlets as aligned with Democratic political agendas. The result is American voters seeking alternative news sources which often confirm their biases.

Potential Outcomes

A possible conclusion for recurring discussion themes of distrust is that Americans may be growing increasingly reactionary. Strong suspicions against institutions like the federal government and media, coupled with a desire to reverse perceived societal decline, points to more than just frustration.

Discussion often includes conspiratorial speculations and fears of civil war, which are common markers of reactionary movements. These conversations indicate longing for a return to a more "stable" past, rejection of progressive changes, and an inclination to view modern institutions as illegitimate or corrupt.

Together, these elements suggest the nation is increasingly embracing reactionary thinking, where the goal is not merely reform but a reversal of recent political and social developments. If this sentiment grows, it could lead to a movement that seeks to dismantle much of the progress made in recent decades.