Recent news that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could ban artificial food dyes sparks reactions from Americans. People worry about public health, political dynamics, and corporate and individual freedom.

Americans have diverse expectations and anxieties around food safety and the government’s regulatory role. Figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are increasing awareness and shaping the debate.

• 65% support the ban as a necessary step toward ensuring public health.
• 15% oppose, advocating for consumer choice and economic considerations.
• 20% are neutral, seeking clearer scientific evidence before forming an opinion.

Public Health Concerns

The most dominant theme in conversations reacting to a potential food dye ban is the role of public health. Most Americans emphasize the risks associated with artificial dyes, particularly their potential impact on children. They cite connections between artificial colors and health issues like hyperactivity and allergies. This advocacy aligns with broader consumer demand for transparency in food production, where the public expects more rigorous oversight from the FDA.

RFK Jr. Disrupts Public Health Debates

Many credit RFK Jr.’s presidential run and subsequent involvement in Trump’s incoming administration with bringing national attention to health issues. His vocal support for the ban resonates with those skeptical of corrupt and profit-seeing corporations.

RFK Jr. Acts as a bold advocate for consumer rights and an antidote to perceived corporate and governmental overreach. However, critics see his arguments as emblematic of conspiracy-laden rhetoric, warning against his influence on policy discussions.

• 50% view RFK Jr. positively, appreciating his advocacy for food safety.
• 30% approach his claims with skepticism, associating them with fringe narratives.
• 20% like his strategic ability to shape public opinion, even amid controversy.

RFK Jr.’s presence creates tension between institutional reform and distrust in governance. It also serves as a reminder of the fracturing partisan paradigm where disillusioned Democrats are joining MAGA and RINOs are partnering with Biden-Harris.

Balancing Regulation and Autonomy

Many Americans want balance between consumer autonomy and regulatory intervention. Those who support the ban see it as a moral imperative for safeguarding public health, but detractors say stringent regulatory measures infringe upon personal freedoms and market dynamics.

There are calls for compromise, with many advocating for educational initiatives over outright bans. They would prefer Americans make informed decision, forcing corporations to change their practices vie free market pressures rather than government mandates.

• 40% support regulation to uphold collective health.
• 35% advocate for corporate accountability without direct government action.
• 25% favor public education to empower consumers with informed choices.

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.

Air travel serves as a microcosm of societal interaction, revealing friction in human interactions, especially in high-stress environments. Viral videos, stories, and personal experiences of air travelers create a mood of dissatisfaction, empathy, and collaboration this holiday season.

Intense scene on the jet bridge for a #DeltaAirlines flight ... a passenger waiting for a wheelchair got into a vulgar verbal spat with an airport employee ... and it's all on video. ✈️ #Exclusive story in bio! pic.twitter.com/HEq7uZ2yRG

— TMZ (@TMZ) December 4, 2024

https://x.com/shannonsharpeee/status/1800536877889679845

Frustration with Fellow Passengers

• 65% of people discussing air travel describe tension and discord with other passengers, highlighting rudeness, impatience, and even violence.
• Incidents such as cutting in line, insensitive remarks, and disregard for personal space amplify stress and anxiety.
• These behaviors contribute to a hostile environment that overshadows the shared goal of reaching a destination.

Strained Interactions with Airline Personnel

• 58% of travelers recount negative experiences with airline staff, including unhelpful ticket agents and indifferent flight attendants.
• People are unhappy with the gap between customer service expectations and the reality of handling disruptions like delays or cancellations.
• Passengers often perceive a lack of empathy from airline employees, compounding their frustration.

The Desire for Empathy

• 52% say they want greater empathy from other passengers and airline personnel.
• Positive anecdotes—kind staff or passengers assisting each other—serve as poignant contrasts to more frequent negative encounters.
• These moments of connection salve travel-related stress, despite being infrequent.

TMZ dropped the surveillance footage of sexyy red getting into a fight at the airport pic.twitter.com/ClmthtQTYc

— Shannonnn sharpes Burner (PARODY Account) (@shannonsharpeee) June 11, 2024

Collaborative Problem-Solving Amid Chaos

• 45% give instances of collaboration, where passengers come together to navigate challenges.
• Shared experiences during delays or technical issues foster temporary camaraderie.
• When travelers assist one another with tasks like handling luggage or offering moral support, hope in public decorum is restored.

Tensions Over Social Class and Privilege

• 38% express frustration with perceived class disparities, such as preferential treatment for first-class passengers.
• These experiences deepen feelings of inequality and fuel resentment, reflecting broader societal tensions about privilege and access.
• This theme emphasizes the polarizing effect of perceived unfairness in shared public spaces like airports.

Fight breaks out on a flight out of DFW today pic.twitter.com/qHHZw3mx81

— Dallas Texas TV (@DallasTexasTV) November 4, 2024

Interpretive Analysis

Frustration and Disconnect

• Travelers frequently process their experiences through a lens of conflict, stemming from environmental pressures like time constraints and crowded spaces.
• The absence of positive interpersonal interactions exacerbates these tensions, leaving many with a negative perception of air travel.

Empathy as a Remedy

• Despite widespread dissatisfaction, the theme of empathy emerges as a critical counterbalance.
• Acts of kindness—no matter how small—stand out, illustrating their potential to transform an otherwise stressful journey.

Class Dynamics

• Discussions of privilege and inequity reveal underlying societal tensions.
• The perception of unequal treatment reflects broader frustrations with systemic disparities, which are magnified in the microcosm of air travel.

Recent reports suggest Comcast is preparing to sell MSNBC after increasingly dramatic ratings casualties post-election. Elon Musk, who has become infamous for purchasing Twitter in 2022, is making hay of the situation by joking about buying MSNBC.

People point out legacy media’s waning influence in America and the ratings bloodbath that has seen CNN and MSNBC viewership drop below that of the Hallmark channel, and reports of Rachel Maddow suffering a $5 million pay cut.

EMBARRASSING!😂@patrickbetdavid roasts CNN and MSNBC after report comes out that Hallmark beat them in viewership

"Imagine you wake up one day, and your producer comes to you, says guys Hallmark just beat us." pic.twitter.com/G3krDxjdBS

— PBD Podcast (@PBDsPodcast) November 23, 2024

Some are also suggesting that, should Musk buy MSNBC, he could give Alex Jones a show after being forced to sell InfoWars to The Onion. As the media landscape shifts, Americans are grappling the implications for social and political commentary.

I have a Christmas wish

This would be the ultimate slap in the face comeback 🔥 pic.twitter.com/Bn7xRx1ZVy

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) November 24, 2024

The Crumbling Foundations of Trust

As MIG Reports has extensively covered, trust in legacy media is at all-time lows. Americans frequently describe outlets like MSNBC as biased and politicized purveyors of misinformation. They say elitists in the media are disconnected from the values and concerns of ordinary Americans.

This sentiment of distrust is compounded by fears of partisan agendas and corporate manipulation. People view legacy media institutions as gatekeepers of selective truths. Disillusioned with establishment narratives, Americans are increasingly flocking to places like X for more balanced coverage of current events.

The Search for New Icons

There is significant ideological disagreement in America around free speech, propaganda, and figures like Elon Musk. For some, Musk embodies the entrepreneurial spirit and resistance to censorship, while others view him as a dangerous consolidator of influence.

Similarly, people like Alex Jones serve as flashpoints for debates about freedom of speech and "misinformation,” revealing sharp ideological rifts. Thes popularity of these figures, while contentious, indicates a public desire for authenticity and accountability in an era of institutional fatigue.

Joy Rogan https://t.co/iJ3PSNWLf6 pic.twitter.com/UUHO7qqmW0

— The Right To Bear Memes (@grandoldmemes) November 22, 2024

The Rise of Speculative Thought

Amid these conversations, speculative thinking looms large. From theories of government corruption to economic collapse, Americans feel anxious about the future. Terms like “money laundering schemes” and “elite collusion” speak to skepticism toward the understandings and predictions provided by legacy media about current events.

Voters are tired of being forced to accept the viewpoints and constructs ordained by media institutions. They increasingly prefer to build their own interpretations of past events and speculations for the future without being force-fed a certain perspective.

Emotion as a Driving Force

The emotional landscape of these discussions is striking. Anger dominates, particularly in critiques of political and media establishments perceived as prioritizing elite interests over public welfare.

Yet, frustration coexists with flickers of hope, as some commenters express optimism for reform through disruptive figures like Musk and grassroots movements like the rise of citizen journalism. Meanwhile, an undercurrent of fear among elites and the media causes many to speculate their influence in coming to an end.

Shaping Public Narratives

The U.S. is experiencing a period of cultural and political upheaval, fracturing traditional narratives and power centers. This gives rise to a more fragmented but exciting era of populist realignment. Many feel this moment will be viewed in retrospect as a turning point in American culture and politics.

Many view media and governance as either oppressive forces to be dismantled or institutions to reform. The interplay of despair at the current situation and hope for dramatic changes creates a complex tapestry of thought.

Online, there is significant discourse about the impact Elon Musk has had on free speech in America. There is a segment of the population that attributes changing cultural tides to Musk’s and Trump’s polarizing but undeniable influence and impact.

The U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing an antitrust case against Google over its monopolistic presence in online search and advertising. This question of regulating major corporations generates heated public debate, with Americans expressing varied opinions on corporate power, government regulation, and market fairness.

Many view Google as a symbol of unchecked monopolistic power, accusing the tech giant of suppressing competition and consumer choice. This distrust stems from views of large corporations as exploitative, consolidating wealth and influence. For critics, the DOJ’s intervention is a necessary step toward accountability and leveling the playing field.

If you want to see the worst people in the world, read the comments on this article about Google shredding documents when under antitrust investigation.

"As someone who worked both at Google and on Wall Street, I find this article rather misleading." https://t.co/Nd8KGN6Wln pic.twitter.com/DTBZFDbFoX

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) November 20, 2024

Successfully Failed?

Skepticism about the government's ability to challenge Google effectively tempers public optimism. Many question whether the DOJ's efforts are genuine or politically motivated, voicing distrust of government intentions.

Some conservatives frame the case as overreach, claiming regulatory efforts might harm innovation and consumer benefits. Progressives are more likely to approve of the case as a critical stand against corporate greed. This ideological divide is not universal, however, as some conservatives concede the government has a role in preventing anticompetitive corporate behavior.

Lost in the Sauce

Most conversations question the nuances and complexities around antitrust regulation in the tech industry. Many Americans express confusion about what constitutes a monopoly in the modern digital landscape, acknowledging the challenge of balancing regulation with free market innovation.

Speculative discussions bring up potential unintended consequences, such as stifled technological advancement or restricted consumer choice. For some, the fear is not just about Google's dominance but about the potential for overly aggressive regulation to halt innovation.

Public sentiment includes hope, frustration, and skepticism. While many applaud the DOJ’s actions as long-overdue, others remain unconvinced. They are wary of Google’s influence and the government’s own corrupt practices which prevent meaningful change.

Jaguar unveiled its astonishing rebranding campaign, attempting to align with progressive ideology to sell cars. However, the flop of a bizarre DEI ad, paired with an underwhelming revised logo backfired spectacularly. Within a day, the once-iconic luxury car brand became a case study in the post-election rejection of "woke."

Consumer reactions turn sharply away from DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) messaging, criticizing what has now become “tone deaf” and “cringe.” Overwhelmingly negative reactions demonstrate fatigue with corporate virtue signaling, as Jaguar’s roll-out post was decisively ratioed.

Copy nothing. #Jaguar pic.twitter.com/BfVhc3l09B

— Jaguar (@Jaguar) November 19, 2024

The Fall of Corporate DEI

From Aspirational to Alienating

• DEI initiatives initially gained traction with grievance politics, claiming to address concerns about representation and equity for “marginalized communities.”
• The corporate embrace of DEI post-2016 accelerated during cultural upheaval and resistance to Trump’s influence.
• However, in the last several years, Americans have become increasingly disillusioned with aggressive DEI initiatives which demonize traditional views.
• With Trump’s reelection in 2024, many view the decisive victory as a full repudiation of woke ideology which they say has gone too far.

The Tipping Point

• The slogan “woke is dead,” widely circulated in conservative discourse, reflects an ideological pushback against "woke scolds” and elitist cultural coercion.
• Public sentiment shows waning patience for corporate interventions in social issues from as tangential to their product or mission.

Voter Reactions to Jaguar

Backlash

• 67% of conservatives express disdain for Jaguar’s campaign, branding it “woke nonsense.”
• Common critiques include the perception of virtue signaling, tarnishing of brand identity, and a lack of focus on product quality.
• Commentary is riddled with criticisms and words like “pandering,” “inauthenticity,” “cringey,” and “dated.”
• The brand campaign also generates significant mockery as people online make fun of the misguided and dramatically miscalculated rebrand.

The team behind this ‘rebrand’ https://t.co/jHR6nndUW9 pic.twitter.com/w3tP3XxB6n

— Spencer Morgan (@spencermorgan93) November 20, 2024

“Sell Jaguar stock.” https://t.co/wc6cLG77FW pic.twitter.com/lOenEXJWef

— Prison Mitch (@MidnightMitch) November 19, 2024

10,000% tariff on Jaguars because of this ad https://t.co/jQoNcCDPTJ pic.twitter.com/P2y8CmpQRY

— Beachboy007 (@ChrisWinig) November 20, 2024

Brand reveal day!

Excited to announce that I have joined Jaguar as their new Chief Design Officer.

Our team has invested over 10,000 hours and $25M into our new logo, and I'm so excited to share it with the world:

Old, boring logo: New, fun logo: pic.twitter.com/GvPBsBoPQm

— Chris Bakke (@ChrisJBakke) November 19, 2024

Many people are discussing the shellacking Jaguar is taking on X, highlighting comments roasting the failed attempt to garner woke brownie points. People also point out Jaguar’s history of luxurious and aspirational marketing, lamenting this disastrous divergence.

Some are referencing a speech from earlier this year by Jaguar’s Head of Brand Strategy, Santino Pietrosanti, touting the car company’s DEI initiatives. They say the horrendous ad campaign is a guaranteed result of hiring activists like Pietrosanti. Many also speculate that Tata Motors, Jaguar’s parent company, will lose significant stock value as a result.

This is so unhinged I searched their new head of branding, Santino Pietrosanti & came across this video of him warning us about exactly what he was going to do. Five minutes of the most unbearable woke nonsense you've ever heard, well worth a listen. pic.twitter.com/0Ey0KSI7rM https://t.co/1F0bYJu5c8

— Fox (@foxblade98) November 19, 2024

Disillusionment

• Moderates are divided, with 45% empathizing with progressive branding efforts but 30% sharing anti-woke concerns about alienation and misalignment.
• The sentiment that Jaguar has “lost its core identity” resonates strongly.

Progressive Support

• 62% of progressives applaud Jaguar’s inclusivity message, viewing it as a necessary reflection of evolving social values.
• However, even some progressive voices criticize the execution, labeling it as “inauthentic” or “poorly planned.”

American Culture Re-Centering

• Americans increasingly view DEI and woke ideology as undermining meritocracy and traditional values.
• People say they have been pushed over the edge by trans ideology, racial politics, and hypocrisy by progressives.
• Many are also just exhausted with polarized cultural fights, hoping to avoid extreme messaging that diverges from American norms.
• Economic instability also increases demands for practicality over ideology in corporate behavior, with criticism toward companies that lean on cultural shaming when many cannot afford to pay their bills.

Spirit Airlines announced it is filing for bankruptcy (Chapter 11), sending shockwaves through the travel industry and beyond. Once a key figure in the ultra-low-cost carrier market, Spirit’s financial struggles have sparked a wave of public discourse and concerns about the economy, corporate practices, and government oversight.

Spirit airlines just filed bankruptcy! I can’t imagine why!
pic.twitter.com/X9sbrO70mv

— Badass (@Keepfighting250) November 18, 2024

Economic Fears Take Flight

A dominant theme across public reactions is economic anxiety, with many expressing concerns about the stability of the airline industry and its impact on workers. Comments frequently cite fears of job losses and rising travel costs, with some speculating Spirit’s bankruptcy could lead to a ripple effect throughout the travel sector.

People use phrases like “more layoffs are coming” and “this will hurt the economy,” tying Spirit’s struggles to the broader economy. Many also cite recent struggles for Boeing as foreboding of the airline industry declining.

Frustration with Corporate Practices

Public anger toward corporate mismanagement is another key theme. Many blame Spirit’s financial woes on poor decision-making, pointing to greed and executive bonuses as evidence of systemic failure.

Critics decry executive gain amid frustration with a lack of accountability and poor corporate management. These sentiments are further fueled by memories of government bailouts to airlines during COVID, which, for some, indicate corporations prioritize their interests over public welfare or customer service.

This morning Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy.

Eight months ago, the Biden DOJ bragged about "protecting consumers" by nuking Spirit's merger with JetBlue.

Everything government touches dies. pic.twitter.com/eVkUZPpB2y

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) November 18, 2024

Mixed Sentiments on Spirit’s Future

Consumer reactions to Spirit’s bankruptcy are divided. While some remain hopeful the airline’s affordability will keep customers loyal, others express doubts about its reliability, if some version of it survives.

Speculative comments like “they might still attract passengers” are countered by fears that bankruptcy will erode trust and lead to fewer bookings. These mixed reactions underscore the precarious nature of Spirit’s brand reputation and its ability to recover amid heightened public scrutiny.

Several leftist figures from news media like Don Lemon, Joy Reid, and The Guardian have announced their plans to leave X (formerly Twitter). This dramatic exodus is occurring against a backdrop of significant upheaval in traditional media.

Online discussions often view rumors of CNN facing layoffs, Comcast potentially selling MSNBC, major ratings declines, and Chris Wallace jumping ship from CNN as dying last gasps of legacy media. Elon Musk’s comment that “You are the media now!” captures a growing sentiment that corporate media is no longer the power center of information.

This platform is at all-time highs.

You are the media now. https://t.co/8Zy049xGAh

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 13, 2024

Making a Dramatic Exit from X

Reactions to prominent left-leaning figures leaving X are varied, but mostly unified against those leaving. This is demonstrated in a resounding ratio on Don Lemon’s announcement video and claims that Lemon didn’t actually leave.

Here's why I'm leaving Twitter... pic.twitter.com/VIope68L2k

— Don Lemon (@donlemon) November 13, 2024

Much of the commentary is negative, criticizing Lemon and others for abandoning X in a useless protest of the inevitable evolution of news. The lesser number of positive comments still criticize the Guardian, Reid, and Lemon, saying the chaff is separating itself.

Joy Reid just deleted her X account 🤣 pic.twitter.com/sqwZyJkBYA

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 14, 2024

63% Negative Sentiment

• Many view these exits from X as symptomatic of a biased new media who are incapable of withstanding opposing viewpoints.
• Negative comments accuse those leaving of running from the new reality of media, thus personifying legacy media’s failure to adapt and include all voices.
• People point out the shrinking pool of critical voices in media who are willing to hold politicians and institutions accountable. They say the leftist media would prefer to censor platforms like X, rather than integrate into the new media paradigm.

29% Positive or Neutral Sentiment

• About a third of responses voice approval over the X departures. They say it allows for new voices to emerge in an environment less dominated by leftist corporate media figures.
• This group says things like, “Good riddance to biased reporting” and “We need more diverse voices not tied to the mainstream.” They hope X will foster independent journalism not influenced by corporate or partisan forces.
• People view X under Elon Musk as a victory for free speech, seeing it as fertile ground for alternative perspectives and causing a tantrum among corporate media elites who are losing their grip on power.

8% Concerned Sentiment

• A smaller fraction of comments is ambivalent but acknowledges both the potential positives and negatives of these high-profile departures.
• There's a sense of uncertainty, as people grapple with the long-term impact on media quality and public discourse online.
• Many in this camp worry the total collapse of legacy media might contribute to ideological echo chambers and the proliferation of “misinformation.”

Declining Trust in Legacy Media

Reactions to these dramatic exits are compounded by an ongoing bloodbath in legacy media credibility.

• CNN Layoffs: Rumored CNN layoffs are seen as the continuation of a downward trend for legacy news, which struggles to maintain relevance post-election.
• Comcast Selling MSNBC: Reports that Comcast is looking to sell MSNBC reinforces beliefs that news outlets have lost their once-powerful influence.
• Ratings Declines: Major networks are reporting significant rating drops over the past year, further decimating the sentiment of distrust among viewers.
• Reshaping News: A major news figure like Chris Wallace leaving CNN and saying podcasts are the future also indicates growing realizations within media ranks of the shifting reality.

More Americans say legacy media is out of touch with and fixated on advancing specific agendas rather than delivering reliable news. Increasingly, people are opting for independent and grassroots media sources, which they find on platforms like X and view as more genuine and less beholden to corporate interests.

Independent and Decentralized Media

Americans, particularly those on the right, place more trust in independent and decentralized media channels that bypass legacy gatekeepers. They want platforms where their perspectives can be freely shared without censorship or derision.

• Direct Channels: Figures like Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson have built large followings by leveraging podcasts and social media as direct channels for unfiltered commentary. People see these figures as better alternatives to biased traditional media.
• Free Speech: Many Americans see decentralized platforms like X as essential to free speech. By allowing diverse voices without institutional curation, platforms like X provide what voters feel is a more balanced discourse.
• User Engagement Data: Social media engagement metrics show a steady increase in user participation on independent platforms, with conservative audiences comprising a significant portion of these active users.

The embrace of alternative media reflects a rejection of legacy media’s perceived elitism and disconnect from mainstream America. Online discourse confirms the sentiment as people move away from television news to online platforms.

Media Viewership vs. 𝕏

Trends indicate that people are moving away from the legacy media. pic.twitter.com/rhTnUdNdCH

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) November 8, 2024

Participatory Media

Musk’s “You are the media now” sentiment embodies the shift toward participatory media, which empowers individual users over institutional authorities. As a result, more Americans feel they have a direct role in shaping political discourse, further diminishing legacy media’s influence.

• Public Response: Many conservative voters view Musk’s statement as a call to action, empowering them to contribute directly to the public discourse.
• Participation: By eliminating traditional gatekeepers, participatory media encourages a free flow of ideas, allowing the people to interact directly with rich and powerful influencers like Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.
• Future Outlook: Many say legacy media will continue to lose relevance as younger generations abandon traditional institutions. They say the 2024 election sealed the fate of legacy institutions which were already crumbling.

7-Eleven announced it is closing hundreds of stores in Chicago and around the country, sparking debate about the reasons why. The convenience chain cites “lower store traffic, lower cigarette sales, and a shift in what consumers are looking for” as the reasons for closing.

7-11 stores are closing all over the Chicago area, this one on State & Grand , EMPTY CHICAGO STOREFRONT PROJECT: Im posting daily empty storefronts as businesses leave at a high rate. I blame massive property taxes, 10.25% sales tax, high state income tax, poor schools, high… pic.twitter.com/z01Z06lKkE

— Mark Weyermuller (@publicpolicyman) October 14, 2024

Voters online view these closures as a signal of various dysfunctions in cities like Chicago and growing problems for residents. There are concerns over rising crime rates, economic instability, and political mismanagement. Americans discuss fear, frustration, and political polarization, all of which impact the sentiment of Illinois voters prior to the election.

The Symbolism of 7-Eleven Closures

For many Illinoisans, 7-Eleven shuttering stores is more than a corporate business decision. They view it as emblematic of a community under siege, where public safety has deteriorated to the point that businesses no longer feel secure operating and employing workers in these areas.

Rampant business closures, often in urban centers already grappling with crime, generate widespread public outrage and impassioned online discussions. Residents see the closures as a direct result of failing leadership, inadequate law enforcement, and misguided policies that allow crime to spiral out of control.

Americans fear businesses are fleeing areas with unchecked violence, creating a cascading economic effect. Losing businesses exacerbates feelings of insecurity among residents who rely on these local stores for convenience and community engagement.

Crime and Public Sentiment

Crime has become a politically charged topic in Chicago. The dominant narrative blames Democratic leadership, particularly figures like Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden.

Angry residents say Democrats, foster an environment allowing crime to thrive. Many voters attribute rising crime with leniency on immigration and law enforcement policies. Voters often say violent incidents increase with open-border policies and leadership’s failure to protect local citizens.

Voters want action when they hear stories of increasing business closures. Conservatives dominate the conversation, urging voters to back candidates who promise tougher stances on crime and stricter immigration controls.

The urgency in voter discussions is high, framing the upcoming election as critical to the survival of various struggling communities. Stories of economic and rule-of-law erosion become a rallying point for galvanizing support for candidates who promise to be tough on crime.

Impact on Voter Behavior

The 7-Eleven closings are not a localized issue, as more retailers and businesses are closing locations around the country for revenue and safety reasons. Residents feel disconnected from political elites, whom they perceive as out of touch with crime and economic hardship on the ground.

Voters express a desire for leaders who will address public safety as a primary issue, rather than focusing on national or international policies that feel distant from the day-to-day struggles of average Americans.

Voters express fear and betrayal, framing their political choices as an opportunity to protect their families’ futures. This fear-driven narrative suggests that crime will be a central issue driving voters to the polls. Recent FBI revisions showing rising national violent crime rates solidify perceptions that leadership is failing to maintain public safety.

Demographic Patterns

Younger voters are more critical of established leadership, questioning the competence of older political figures and expressing concern over public safety. These younger voices show a degree of skepticism toward both major political parties but seem more inclined to demand structural changes to address rising crime and economic insecurity.