The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and its reauthorization have been a significant topic of discussion, especially in the context of surveillance and privacy issues. It is critical to understand citizen perceptions about FISA and whether they believe it is being used as a political tool against opponents.
Political party affiliation has a significant influence on perceptions of FISA. Democrats generally have a more positive sentiment towards FISA, often viewing it as a necessary tool for national security. Republicans are more likely to question the act, particularly after the 2016 elections and allegations of its misuse against President Trump's campaign. They tend to view FISA with suspicion, believing it could potentially be used to target political opponents. Independents fall somewhere in the middle, with their views varying based on individual beliefs about privacy and national security.
When looking at other demographics, it becomes a bit more complex. Economic class, for example, may influence perceptions, with wealthier individuals tending to be more skeptical of government surveillance. Geographically, those living in urban areas, particularly on the coasts, tend to be more accepting of FISA, seeing it as a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism. In contrast, those in rural areas or the heartland are more likely to view it as a potential infringement on their rights.
It's crucial to note that these perceptions are not static but can shift based on current events, political climate, and individual experiences. For instance, perceived misuse or abuse of FISA could lead to more widespread skepticism, regardless of party affiliation or demographic group. Therefore, maintaining trust in FISA requires transparency, accountability, and ongoing dialogue to address concerns and misconceptions.
There is also a lot of distrust and skepticism expressed towards politicians and institutions, including the CIA and FBI. Many voters view these agencies as being part of the “Deep State.” Many people seem to believe there is widespread corruption and misuse of power at various levels of government. These individuals often use terms like “Uniparty” or “Deep State Cartel” to refer to what they view as a singular, corrupt entity controlling American politics.
Former President Trump recently announced his position on abortion, causing reactions from all sides. While there was speculation Trump might support a national 15-week abortion ban, in this video announcement, Trump said he plans to leave those decisions to the states. He said he’s proud to have overturned Roe v. Wade, but that, “It’s up to the states to do the right thing.”
While some conservatives and pro-life advocates are voicing unhappiness with Trump’s announcement, many pragmatic or moderate voters seem satisfied with his stance. Progressives and Democrats who tend to disagree with the overturning of Roe v. Wade seem unhappy across the board.
Online discussion of Trump and abortion spiked on the day of his announcement, reaching nearly 2,500.
Trump’s approval on abortion increased slightly nationally, moving from 45% before his announcement to 48% on the day and 52% the following day.
In swing states, Trump’s approval on abortion dropped from 49% to 45% with the announcement, recovering slightly the next day to 46%.
Overall, it seems Trump’s populist stance is relatively well-received among moderate voters, who he needs to win in the general election.
Backlash for Mike Pence Tweet
Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence also received negativity for an X post condemning what he called, “President Trump's retreat on the Right to Life.” He also called it a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020.
President Trump’s retreat on the Right to Life is a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him in 2016 and 2020. By nominating and standing by the confirmation of conservative justices, the Trump-Pence Administration helped send Roe v. Wade to the…
MIG Reports analysis of voter reactions to Pence’s attack on his former running mate reveals many view the statement as a slap in the face to the MAGA movement.
Many people are expressing negative sentiment towards Mike Pence, with frequent accusations of him being a "traitor" or "backstabber."
Numerous people are referring to Pence as a RINO, suggesting they believe he is not a true representative of conservative values or the Republican party.
Others decry Pence for lacking the political skill to win or for hypocrisy on other issues.
People are criticizing Pence for his pro-life stance, arguing that he cannot win elections if he continues to maintain this position. They argue most Americans are not pro-life, hence he cannot appeal to the majority with his current views.
Some accuse Pence of being a hypocrite for claiming to be pro-life while supporting endless war.
Following his tweet, Pence received an onslaught of negative backlash, seeing five times as many negative comments as positive comments. As a result, Pence’s approval among those discussing him online dropped from 47% to 41%.
Republicans’ View of Trump’s Abortion Stance
Republicans have mixed responses to Trump’s abortion announcement, depending on the intensity of their pro-life views. Many applaud Trump's willingness to leave the decision to individual states, viewing it as a constitutionally sound approach.
A majority of conservatives and Republicans believe Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional and support Trump's call for states to decide on abortion rights. However, there are also staunchly pro-life Republicans who disagree with Trump's stance as too weak, saying that they value the sanctity of life over political pragmatism.
There are a few Republicans who express doubt about Trump's sincerity, suspecting that he is not genuinely pro-life and is just using the issue for political gain. They worry his stance could alienate some GOP voters, potentially costing him crucial support in the upcoming elections.
Although most conservatives are personally pro-life, many also say they support Trump’s decision as a fulfillment of the pro-life movement's long-term goals. This group believes Trump's relatively moderate position is a necessary step for their cause. They suggest this move is strategic, aiming to win more moderates in the election and that it will bode well, as other recent events have.
Moderate and Independent Responses
Moderates have a range of views, with some supporting Trump's position and others opposing it. Those in favor appreciate his nuanced approach, allowing for exceptions and leaving the decision up to states. Those against criticize Trump for reversing his position and accuse him of lying to gain political advantage.
Many moderates seem to be skeptical about Trump's pro-life stance. They express concerns about his shifting political views and question his sincerity. Some imply he’s merely using the pro-life platform to win votes, rather than genuinely supporting the cause. They suggest that his stance on abortion might not garner him the broad support he might be expecting.
Others, however, approve of his endorsement of states' rights, viewing it as a balanced approach that allows for a diversity of views on abortion. While those who disapprove can be very vocal, Trump’s approval on abortion among moderates and in swing states is still relatively strong. This suggests many independents may be satisfied but less willing to express it publicly.
Democrat Ire Over Roe v. Wade
Unsurprisingly, Democrats appear to be firmly against Trump's stance, focusing on the belief that his administration aimed to control women's bodies and limit their choices. Liberals accuse Trump of lying about his intentions, with some asserting that he laid the groundwork for a national abortion ban. They emphasize their ongoing anger over repealing Roe v. Wade and express concern about the potential impact of overturning it.
Democrats seem to largely feel that Trump's pro-life stance is dishonest, suggesting he was historically pro-choice and only changed his stance for political gain. They point to his past statements and actions as evidence. Some go as far as accusing him of exploiting the pro-life movement for his own advantage.
MIG Reports analysis found the public reaction to the recent jobs report largely conveys skepticism and criticism, with some undertones of frustration and disappointment. This is a stark contrast from what Joe Biden has determined as, “A milestone in America’s comeback.”
The March jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics claimed 303,000 jobs added and a lower unemployment rate of 3.8%. Federal Reserve Employment Data, however, reveals that 100,000 of those jobs belong to foreign-born workers.
Many criticisms also point out that full-time employment is at its lowest since October of 2020, while part-time is the category that is increasing. This is less optimistic since many workers need full-time work to make ends meet. The report also doesn’t fully consider those not seeking employment.
Americans are questioning the reliability of positive job reports, expressing doubts about the reality of these statistics. They voice concerns that these positive reports do not accurately reflect the struggle of many individuals who are unable to secure jobs. There is also an implication of mistrust towards government and authorities, suggesting a perceived disconnect between them and the average American.
The two general themes that emerge from the discourse are:
Discrepancy between job reports and reality
Voters express skepticism about the accuracy of positive job reports, highlighting the struggle of many who are unable to secure jobs despite applying for hundreds. The sentiment suggests the positive statistics do not match the reality on the ground, painting a picture of an economy in distress, despite official reports.
Mistrust towards authorities
There is a recurring theme of mistrust towards government, the media, and financial authorities. American suggest the ruling class is out of touch with the reality most of the population faces daily. By blaming economic woes on the general public, these authorities are seen as failing to address the root causes of job scarcity and economic distress.
Among other demographics, there is a sentiment of dissatisfaction for those who belong to the lower economic classes. They feel ignored by the positive job reports and express their struggle with finding jobs. Their perception is that the distress they experience is not reflected in the data.
American voters remain unconvinced of the Biden administration’s jobs reports. Fueling this distrust are real-world factors such as increased competitiveness from migrants receiving federal employment benefits and other economic factors such as high inflation. With many previous jobs reports being ‘adjusted’ weeks after their respective initial release, it is possible the current report may have to be adjusted as well, giving further justification to the distrust from Americans.
Online discussion about No Labels and its decision not to run a candidate in the 2024 election has been largely overshadowed by conversations about the current administration and former President Trump. Most voters are talking about President Biden and his performance.
No Labels is hardly mentioned, suggesting its failure to run a candidate has no significant impact, or that the movement may not have a strong presence in the public consciousness. This could potentially indicate a lack of awareness or interest in third-party candidates. It could also reflect the current political climate, which appears to be heavily polarized between the Democrats and Republicans.
Although it’s not a large part of online discussion, some view the No Labels decision as a strategic move that could indirectly influence the election outcome. This, in turn, has sparked conversations about RFK Jr.’s potential to gain votes as a third-party candidate.
In the last 30 days, Trump has led the presidential race with average support around 47%.
Biden is slightly behind, averaging 44% support nationally, while RFK Jr. Is earning 9% in the last 30 days.
RFK Jr.
RFK Jr. is generating a mixed response from American voters. Some people seem to believe he could be a viable alternative to both the Democratic and Republican candidates. There is a perception that he could draw votes from both sides, particularly from those who are disillusioned with the current political climate.
There is some criticism of RFK Jr.'s candidacy, accusing him of spreading misinformation and being almost as volatile as Trump. Some also feel he made a poor VP selection and believe that is not strong enough to challenge the status quo.
Many voters are talking about RFK Jr.'s criticism of the Biden administration. This criticism, particularly his claim that Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump, is resonating with those critical of Biden's administration.
Some are suggesting RFK Jr. could potentially draw votes away from Biden, thus aiding a potential Trump candidacy. This argument is particularly prevalent among Democrats and Never-Trumpers who fear a repeat of the 2016 election when third-party candidates were perceived to have siphoned votes away from Hillary Clinton.
RFK Jr.’s approval is hovering around 50%, although discussion about his candidacy is quite low compared to Trump and Biden.
Trump
Trump's supporters continue to show unyielding support, frequently using terms like "MAGA" and "Save America." They often blame Democrats for America's current issues and view Trump as a solution. They often express skepticism about the integrity of the election process, reflecting residual concerns from the 2020 election.
Critics express deep concerns about Trump’s leadership style and policies. They often refer to him as a conman, criticize his Truth Social media platform, and express worries about the erosion of democratic values under his leadership. His recent financial losses have also been a subject of mockery among his critics.
Trump maintains a solid 50% approval percentage on the topic of his presidential candidacy.
Discussion around his campaign is significantly higher than RFK Jr., but not quite as high as Biden.
Biden
Biden's candidacy is constantly causing polarized discussion. Many Americans criticize Biden – especially on immigration and border control. They say his administration is responsible for the influx of criminals and illegal immigrants which are hurting the country.
His recent actions have also been extremely polarizing regarding transgender rights and abortion. Conservative and moderate voters view him as being against traditional values.
Many liberals and Democrats defend Biden, arguing he is doing his job diligently and without fuss, focusing on his roles and responsibilities rather than engaging in political dramas.
Voters across the country blame Biden for America's current problems, accusing him of being unqualified and destroying the country. These critics often call for his impeachment, though they seldom detail specific reasons for this.
With growing concerns about the economy and the border, Biden’s approval dipped to 43% during much of the last week.
Discussion volume regarding his candidacy is higher than both Trump and RFK Jr., reaching a high of nearly 11,000 on April 4.
General Reactions to the 2024 Presidential Race
Many voters express dissatisfaction with the current state of the country under the Biden administration. They’re particularly vocal on the issues of crime rates, economic struggle, the border, and perceived government dishonesty.
There is also a prevalent theme of skepticism towards the integrity of the 2020 election results. Some assert the election was stolen and express desire for change in the upcoming election. There is distrust among many voters whether the 2024 election outcome will be trustworthy.
In the last several days, there’s been a lot of talk about potential complications of Biden's candidacy in Ohio. Some are expressing varying degrees of concern, criticism, and disbelief.
Overall, voters seem worried about the future of America's political landscape. Some say the country is facing an existential threat from either the Democrats, who they perceive as communists, or from Trump and his supporters, who they perceive as a threat to democracy.
Interestingly, the discourse also illustrates a widespread mistrust in mainstream media, with both sides accusing media outlets of spreading false information regarding the election.
Oregon ended its three-year experiment with decriminalizing drugs, causing discussion over the fentanyl crisis. Reactions from voters on this decision show mixed sentiments, mirroring the divergent views on drug decriminalization in other states.
While some individuals and states hail this as a necessary step towards public safety and discouraging drug use, others see it as a regressive move that infringes on personal freedom and perpetuates the war on drugs.
Oregon decriminalized drug possession in 2020 with 58% approval from its voters.
Oregon’s drug overdose deaths have been fueled predominately by fentanyl.
Overdose deaths have increased from 280 in 2019 to 1,250 in 2023.
In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis has expressed strong opposition to legalizing recreational marijuana, suggesting it would decrease the quality of life in the state and lead to more marijuana smells. This view is not shared by all, with some calling him a "freedom-hating fraud" for his stance on the issue.
In contrast, states like Colorado and Massachusetts have pursued progressive drug reform policies, similar to the one Oregon attempted. In Colorado, the governor appeared at an equity workshop celebrating minority-owned cannabis businesses. In Massachusetts, Governor Maura Healey granted pardons to tens of thousands of residents with misdemeanor marijuana convictions. Some progressive voters believe in the potential for the cannabis industry to promote economic growth and social equity. They also view legalization as a commitment to addressing the historical injustices of drug criminalization.
In Virginia, however, Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a bill intended to establish a recreational cannabis market, indicating a more conservative stance on drug reform in line with DeSantis.
These varying responses reflect the ongoing debate over drug decriminalization in the United States. Different states are adopting policies based on a range of economic, social, and political factors. The recriminalization of drugs in Oregon may therefore be seen as part of this broader national conversation, with the state's decision likely to influence and be influenced by developments in other parts of the country.
American sentiment towards Ukraine appears to be generally positive among both Republicans and Democrats, based on MIG Reports data. Many individuals express a desire to provide Ukraine with aid and support, particularly in its conflict with Russia. Some see this as a matter of defending democracy and honoring those who served during the Cold War, while others view it as a strategic move to prevent further aggression from Russia.
However, there is a divergence in approval when it comes to funding Ukraine. Some argue against further financial support, citing reasons such as a belief that Ukraine cannot win the war against Russia, the need to prioritize domestic issues, and opposition to "forever wars."
Democratic Views
Democrat voters express a strong sentiment for supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Some emphasize Ukraine's role as a gateway to European countries and the need to support democracy. The mention of Cold War veterans also suggests a sentiment of historical responsibility. There's also a comparison to Israel, with some expressing that Ukraine needs aid more urgently. However, there are also concerns about the U.S. debt and the need to address domestic issues.
Republican Views
Among Republican voters, there are varying sentiments. Some highlight the need to stop funding wars and focus on domestic issues. There are concerns about the U.S. being involved in a proxy war with Russia. However, there's also acknowledgment of Ukraine's plight, with some urging for Congress to pass the aid bill. The connection with Israel also comes up, with some expressing that Israel should fight its own battles, implying that the same should apply to Ukraine.
Dynamic Response
Many people express increased support for Ukrainian funding when considering the potential consequences of inaction, such as the escalation of conflict and potential involvement of U.S. troops. This sentiment seems to be prevalent across both political parties, suggesting that the fear of a larger war outweighs party lines.
There's also a notable sentiment against funding Ukraine, with some arguing the U.S. should not involve itself in foreign conflicts, or that other issues, such as border security, should take precedence. These views appear to be more common among Republicans but are also present among Democrats.
In relation to the association of Ukrainian funding with a larger bill, such as border security, the analysis suggests that this could potentially decrease support among Democrats who may see it as a diversion of resources from a pressing international issue. Among Republicans, the sentiment is more mixed, with some favoring this approach as a pragmatic solution, and others viewing it as a dilution of national priorities.
The level of financial support, lack of oversight, and the type of aid (military vs. financial support for Ukrainian government) all appear to play a role in shaping sentiments towards funding Ukraine. Some express frustration over the amount of money given to Ukraine, suggesting that funds could be better utilized elsewhere. Others express concerns about a lack of oversight and accountability for how these funds are used.
There's also a divide over whether aid should be strictly military or if it should also support other aspects of the Ukrainian government. Some argue providing comprehensive support could help Ukraine more effectively resist Russian aggression, while others believe that aid should be limited to military support to avoid potential misuse of funds.
MIG Reports analysis indicates that inclusion of other issues that Americans care about, such as border security, does not potentially increase support for funding Ukraine.
The sentiment towards Ukraine is often compared with the sentiment towards Israel. Some individuals express frustration with the U.S.'s financial support for Israel, arguing that these funds would be better spent on aiding Ukraine. However, others argue that Israel has the right to defend itself, much like Ukraine.
While the sentiment towards Ukraine is generally positive, approval of funding is a more complex issue, influenced by a variety of factors including the amount of aid, its oversight, the type of aid, and the incorporation of other domestic issues. This may be indicative of general tacit support from Americans, who view Ukraine as an ally. However, without the desire to continue funding a cause which does not benefit the U.S. citizenry.
Recent Border Patrol encounters with Chinese nationals crossing the border illegally shows an alarming increase in the last two years. This news corresponds with American voters’ growing dissatisfaction with border security and threats posed by China. Opinions fall somewhat along party lines, but even Democrats are becoming more distressed about the Biden administration’s border policy.
MIG Reports analysis indicates border and U.S. security issues are a top priority for voters in 2024. These issues are especially critical in swing states where voter opinions promise to weigh heavily on presidential election results this fall.
Most voters currently blame President Biden for the disastrous border situation and rising threats of Chinese infiltration.
In swing states, Trump gains higher approval on both border security and China, averaging 47% to Biden’s 41% on the border and 46% to Biden’s 43% on China.
Nationally, Republican sentiment on the border is slightly lower than Democrat sentiment – and overall sentiment is lower still.
Sentiment on China nationally is tighter overall and among Democrats and Republicans. But Republicans have a lower average sentiment at 45%.
American Views on China
Republicans are more likely to voice concerns about China when it comes to illegal immigration. This group views China as a significant threat to national security – including the alarming number of Chinese nationals apprehended by Border Patrol.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, encounters with Chinese nationals illegally entering the country have jumped to a shocking 22,233 so far in 2024, up from 342 in 2021.
Conservative voters are also concerned about economic pressure from China, intellectual property theft, and the potential for cyber-attacks. Right leaning voters tend to be very worried about the possibility that China is intentionally infiltrating the U.S. border with military aged men. They view China as an antagonistic force that is both physically and digitally attempting to compromise U.S. security.
While many liberal voters also view China as a potential threat, they are more likely to emphasize diplomatic and economic measures to address the issue, rather than military action. They may also be more focused on human rights issues in China, and less concerned about border infiltration.
Another prominent viewpoint in the China discussion is the notion that if authoritarian regimes like Russia and China gain victories, it could strengthen other authoritarian states and promote their aggressive actions.
Political Blame Falls on President Biden
Many voters on both sides of the aisle explicitly link the issue of border control to the failings of the current administration. Most express disapproval for President Biden’s border policies and apparent disregard for an issue that concerns so many Americans. These criticisms also include frustration with the Democratic Party’s handling of the border issue, overall.
Recent AP polling revealed that 58% of Americans view border security as extremely or very important. This includes 46% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans.
The question of who should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. is also contentious topic. Some express a preference for immigrants who contribute to the economy, while others prefer to limit or halt immigration completely. Republicans are especially likely to voice objections to single, military aged men, from any country, being admitted to the U.S.
Overall, voters are strongly advocating for stricter enforcement of immigration laws. Some go so far as to call for mass deportation of illegal immigrants.
Resentment About the Border Wall
Although Donald Trump enjoys higher approval among voters regarding border security, there is some criticism for his failure to fully build the border wall during his term. Many Republicans and conservatives point to the border wall as a key campaign promise he did not fulfill.
This criticism is often mentioned with critiques of the Republican Party's handling of border control. Some suggest Trump and Republican failures show the inherent difficulties of securing the border.
At the same time, more liberal voters express skepticism about the feasibility of the border wall, questioning its cost and practicality. Some also propose a wall on the northern border, often in response to potential political changes in Canada.
After Easter weekend erupted into debates over President Biden's Transgender Visibility Day declaration, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers kept the coals hot by vetoing a bill which would bar transgender athletes from women's sports.
Lacking a veto-proof majority in Wisconsin’s legislature, Republicans could only watch as Evers, flanked by transgender advocates, signed the veto Monday afternoon. MIG Reports analysis of discussions surrounding the Wisconsin Governor’s veto found both swift and lasting backlash, with accusations Evers is “eradicating women’s sports.”
What They’re Saying
While Evers condemned the bill, saying it, “threatens the safety and dignity of LGBTQ Wisconsinites,” many online believe Evers’ veto represents a real danger.
Many mentioning Evers’ move against bill argue this is dangerous for biological women, since transgender women have physical advantages.
The discourse directed at Evers goes on to accuse Evers of “eradicating female sports” and “compromising the safety of women and girls.”
A common assertion in the discourse suggests the bill does not just disregard women’s safety, but that Democrats like Evers are betraying women entirely.
Those angered over the veto accuse Evers of not standing up for women's rights or call him a misogynist who ignores science.
Riley Gaines, the former NCAA swim star who has become a central advocate against transgenders in women’s athletics, channeled the frustration of many. She took to X (formerly Twitter) to blast the Wisconsin Governor:
Others focus on a larger flashpoint in American culture wars that have seeped into American schools — parents' rights. Many online question Evers’ beliefs and actions in relation to the rights of parents.
Evers sought to justify his veto on grounds of protecting mental health, writing, “This type of legislation, and the harmful rhetoric beget by pursuing it, harms LGBT Wisconsinites' and kids' mental health.”
But many believe Evers and trans advocates are fueling the mental health crisis plaguing American kids. They argue being transgender is a mental illness, a delusion, or an abuse of children.
Some argue that trans youth should be blocked from women’s sports altogether. A portion of voters suggest alternative solutions like creating separate competition brackets for transgender athletes.
By the Numbers
Since vetoing the legislature’s bill, Governor Evers’ online mentions skyrocketed while his approval nosedived. He quickly found himself facing a barrage of negative attacks with few positive reinforcements.
Typically, Evers’ averages just 88 mentions a day. That changed after Monday, jumping to 2,383 direct mentions online following the veto.
Relatively uncontroversial and gaining little attention online, Evers’ approval before the veto hovered at or near 48%. This quickly dropped to 44% the day of his veto, continuing to tumble to 39% on both Tuesday and Wednesday this week.
Evers found little help from those who support keeping transgenders in women’s sports. Negative comments towards Evers outweighed support by a ratio of 8 to 1.
Looking Ahead
As America hurdles towards another intense election in November, MIG Reports analysis of Trump versus Biden in Wisconsin shows a statistical tie, with an average of 45% support for both Trump and Biden in the last 30 days.
Issues like transgender rights continue to present a nearly impossible balancing act for Democrats in purple states, threatening to tip the scales in Trump’s favor. On one hand, Democrats like Biden and Evers must cater to younger Democrats who grow increasingly progressive on issues like trans rights. On the other hand, they must combat Republican efforts to paint Democrats as the party of Manhattan and not Milwaukee.
Still, Democrats cannot wriggle out of the double bind they find themselves. They are increasingly facing a potential collapse in progressive voter turnout. On Tuesday, more than 48,000 people traveled to the polls in Wisconsin’s Democratic Primary to select “Uninstructed.” This showing took 8% of the vote share, in protest against Biden’s Israel-Hamas war policies. Fearing more discontent among already depressed young progressives, Democrats are forced to hand Republicans another political lightning rod like transgender issues.
Former ESPN anchor Sage Steele recently alleged on Fox News that her 2021 interview with President Biden was completely scripted. Steele claims the interview questions were prepared in advance and required strict adherence by the president’s communications team. Her comments about the interview, which originally aired on ESPN, are generating controversy in the field of journalism, opening discussions about the authenticity of the interview and journalistic integrity.
It also fans the flames of concern many Americans have about Joe Biden’s mental fitness for office. Many voters believe Biden’s cognitive acuity is rapidly declining, necessitating tight control over what the President says and what questions press are allowed to ask him.
In traditional journalism, it is considered unethical to provide interviewees with scripted questions beforehand. This is because it allows guests to prepare answers, which can potentially manipulate the narrative and mislead the public. The objective of journalism is to uncover truth and hold those in power accountable, which may be compromised when interviewees are given prepared questions.
In the case of President Biden, it also highlights concerns over his ability to answer questions extemporaneously, without confusion or large lapses in memory. Instances of Biden seeming disoriented during public appearances are a growing concern for many voters on both sides of the aisle.
The situation with Sage Steele and Joe Biden represents a recurring issue for Biden as more accusations emerge of scripted interviews with the press. In this instance, people speculate whether ESPN, as a major news outlet, allowed its journalistic standards to be undermined for a high-profile political figure. This has potential implications for the credibility of ESPN and any journalist who allows prepared questions for the president.
The controversy also raises questions about the role of media in politics. Many people believe if media outlets are accepting scripted questions from the Biden administration, it will lead to unfair bias, favoring the White House agenda over journalistic inquiry. This can lead to a lack of trust in the media and further polarize political discourse.
MIG Reports analysis of the original interview identified:
The questions were tailored to convey specific messages.
Themes included COVID-19 vaccination, sports-politics intersection, and family anecdotes.
There was an emphasis on promoting vaccination and addressing election issues in Georgia.
Concerns were raised about potential propaganda or manipulation.
There were obvious elements of political messaging present in the interview.
The scripted nature of presidential interviews implies a corrupt relationship between politics and media in the modern era. While political leaders seek to control their messaging and shape public opinion, media organizations have a duty to prioritize journalistic integrity and independence.
This event highlights the importance of journalistic integrity and the potential implications of compromising unbiased reporting. It suggests a dereliction of duty by media outlets in holding the powerful accountable and providing the public with unbiased information.
.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)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
.png)
.png)