Left-leaning Americans are angrily canceling their “Washington Post” subscriptions to the tune of 250,000—though apparently not their Amazon Prime accounts. Following a controversy in which WaPo and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos barred the newspaper from making a presidential endorsement.

UPDATE: The number of cancellations since Friday’s revelation now exceeds 250,000, NPR can report.

That represents approximately 10 percent of all paid circulation. https://t.co/XrDDWR3Vt5

— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) October 29, 2024

The contradiction in liberal outcry against Bezos reveals the tension between stated ideals and real-life consumer choices. Americans are disillusioned with mainstream media and left leaning voters are showing their dissatisfaction by unsubscribing.

However, many on the right are pointing out various coping mechanisms and the selective outrage they see among liberals. They point out members of the media like Jennifer Rubin who criticized LA Times reporters who did not resign after the paper also made no endorsement. Rubin, who works for WaPo, has yet to resign.

Jennifer Rubin @JRubinBlogger cheered a reporter who quit in response to the LA times not endorsing either presidential canidate. She works for the Washington post which is also not endorsing this election let's reminder her that she is a hypocrite unless she resigns immediately pic.twitter.com/2mvpNBzS6N

— Steve (@Steve113875651) October 25, 2024

Unsub from WaPo

Liberals often frame their decision to cancel their “Washington Post” as personal empowerment and ethical consumerism. They invoke, “taking a stand,” “voting with my wallet,” and “demanding truth.” Many are disillusioned with WaPo, using terms like “biased reporting” and “supporting ethical journalism” to validate their choice to unsubscribe.

Won’t Cancel Prime

However, there is deafening silence on the same activists canceling their Amazon Prime memberships. They justify this with practical language emphasizing convenience and necessity, such as “just too good to give up” and “I can’t live without my Prime.” This rationalization for keeping services that contradict their activism suggests a kind of opportunistic hypocrisy.

Language Analysis

Coping Mechanisms

Among those outraged about Jeff Bezos’s decision regarding WaPo endorsements, there is tendency toward self-justification. They use rationalizing phrases like “we deserve better,” portraying canceling subscriptions as a principled choice. This hints at cognitive dissonance, where values are flexible depending on convenience.

Hypocrisy Indicators

There’s a noticeable double standard where users critique WaPo for perceived corporate media bias yet justify Amazon Prime as essential, despite Amazon’s controversial practices.

Phrases like “corporate monsters are everywhere” reflect a resignation to the omnipresence of corporate influence, exposing a discrepancy between ideological intentions and consumer behavior. This focus suggests an emotional, issue-based hierarchy in which certain values can be sidelined based on the perceived relevance of the company involved.

An Amazon warehouse worker's 'thank you' bag for working Prime Big Deal Days earlier this month pic.twitter.com/PAEADIQvSs

— Michael Sainato (@msainat1) October 29, 2024

Owning the Narrative

Many express a need for narratives that align with their personal values, reflecting a belief that media consumption should ideologically agree with readers. This causes a pattern of binary thinking where WaPo is labeled as becoming antagonistic to liberal values, while Amazon is a practical tool divorced from these political concerns.

Cognitive dissonance is a recurring theme as liberals openly struggle to reconcile their ideals with convenience. The discussions highlight how modern consumer habits complicate the pursuit of ideological purity, as practicality frequently overrides principles.

Performative Activism

Some describe their WaPo cancellation as part of “cancel culture” or an act of visibility rather than a purely ethical stance. This suggests it’s either performative or rhetorical. For some, canceling WaPo is less about values and more about participating in visible, symbolic acts.

In voter discussions around 75% of comments are negative toward WaPo, while Amazon Prime discussion is mostly neutral or slightly positive. This difference underscores a greater discontent with media credibility than corporate ethics, suggesting a prioritization of ideological alignment over ethical consistency.

Kamala Harris, once heralded by many as progressive and resilient, is now facing intense scrutiny from supporters and external political figures. Allegations of plagiarism, compounded by her tenuous hold on certain voter demographics, stir skepticism even among Democrats.

MIG Reports analysis of social media discussions shows a fracture among her supporters, oscillating between ardent loyalty and disillusionment. Her alignment—or lack thereof—with other Democratic leaders also continues to raise questions.

EXCLUSIVE: In 2007, Kamala Harris plagiarized pages of Congressional testimony from a Republican colleague.

And in 2012, she plagiarized a fictionalized story about sex trafficking—but presented it as a real case.

It's not just one book; it's a career-long pattern.🧵 pic.twitter.com/ZiHkzxTg4r

— Aaron Sibarium (@aaronsibarium) October 22, 2024

I'm usually pretty skeptical about plagiarism claims, but the case made here about Kamala's 2009 book on criminal justice is very strong. Major sections just copied wholesale with no attribution: https://t.co/kNFx8LoTkF

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 14, 2024

Testing Democratic Loyalty

Harris supporters have mixed emotions in response to the plagiarism allegations. Some simply dismiss them, while others express serious doubt.

• 35-48% remain supportive, brushing off the accusations as politically charged attacks meant to damage her influence and reputation.
• 25-34 are disappointed, struggling to reconcile the allegations with their previously held perceptions of Harris’s integrity.
• Critical voices hint at an underlying fragility in her base, where loyalty wavers under the weight of unrelenting controversies.
• 14-20% are indifferent and, while supporters, they see the allegations as part of the “usual” political spectacle.
• Indifference may also suggest a pragmatic acceptance of flaws in a similar way to Trump supporters remaining unmoved by recent allegations.

Major publications like the L.A. Times and Washington Post have also broken tradition by withholding endorsement. This hints at a growing establishment belief that Harris cannot win. Her exclusion from high-profile endorsements and the swing-state campaign discourse heightens this sense of resignation.

NEWS: The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement in this year's presidential race, the editor of the editorial pages has told colleagues at a tense meeting this morning

THREAD AND LINK: https://t.co/papQiStKDC

— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) October 25, 2024

Scoop: The LA Times will not endorse a candidate for president this year, a decision that was made by the paper's owner Patrick Soon-Shiong. The LA Times has endorsed Democratic presidential candidates each cycle since 2008 https://t.co/uS3hETkLQV

— Max Tani (@maxwelltani) October 22, 2024

Coping and Reframing

Some Democrats frame the plagiarism accusations as a manufactured controversy orchestrated by partisan actors. The persistent refrain of “political hit job” or “treacherous media” underscores a belief that Harris is being unjustly targeted.

The narrative that suggests media and rivals are weaponizing these allegations against Harris is often a coping mechanism, fostering a sense of solidarity against perceived injustice.

As sentiment toward Harris plummets, down-ballot Democratic candidates in swing states are beginning to promote their alignment with certain Trump-like positions. Harris’s presence is conspicuously absent from their campaigns, corroborating fracture withing the party. A defensive framing of Harris’s campaign suggests recognition that her influence within the party is waning.

Every Dem Senator featuring Trump in their ads should be asked if they agree with this. https://t.co/iNRxDtvyI9

— Peter Towey (@petermtowey) October 24, 2024

Around 30% of the discussion attempts to redirect the conversation toward her middle-class advocacy and other progressive achievements. By emphasizing her policy work over the plagiarism allegations, supporters attempt to gloss over the controversy. The media is also noticeably absent in discussions and reporting on plagiarism allegations.

Resilience or Denial?

Harris defenders use language of defiance and resilience, with terms like “manipulative narrative” and “smear tactics” in her defense.

They focus on her advocacy as a “fight for justice” and use inclusive language like “together we can” to create a collective identity. This rhetoric reveals reluctance to confront the implications of the plagiarism allegations head-on.

People use emotionally charged language—often bitter and at times hostile—suggesting frustration about Harris’s electability and leadership. Expressions of indignation, combined with sentiments of abandonment reveal the sense of doom many Harris supporters seem to be adopting.

A CNN town hall with Kamala Harris, hosted by Anderson Cooper, foments skepticism and disillusionment toward her candidacy. Across the board, responses indicate her performance failed to sway voters who are already critical of her. Many vocally express their preferences for Trump or suggest they will abstain from voting.

😂 David Axelrod on Kamala's Town Hall: "When she doesn’t want to answer, she goes to 'WORD SALAD CITY.'"

Anderson asked about Israel—“Would she be stronger than Trump?” After seven minutes, we were still lost in the salad and never got to the dressing! #CNNTownHall pic.twitter.com/vyDl3C5y6r

— Beats in Brief (@beatsinbrief) October 24, 2024

Propensity to Vote

MIG Reports data shows a strong inclination away from support for Kamala Harris. Only about 20% of online discussions express any intent to vote for her. Even these comments often mixed support with a sense of reluctance or criticism.

Between 50-69% voice a preference other than Harris—mainly Trump. About 25% say they are completely indifferent to voting at all, citing feelings of disillusionment with the entire political landscape. These individuals are frustrated with both major parties and feeling alienated by the current state of U.S. politics.

Kamala Harris: "I may not have the answer as soon as you ask it about a specific policy sometimes because I'm gonna want to research it...I'm kind of a nerd sometimes ha ha ha ha ha! I confess!" pic.twitter.com/Rsa7zRQJvn

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 24, 2024

Calcified Perspectives

Most voters responding to Harris’s town halls have already formed strong opinions. They say her performance only solidifies these existing views. Her answers during the broadcast entrench long-held frustrations, particularly around her credibility and leadership.

Many also say her media appearances only confirm their intention to vote for Trump or another candidate. Issues like immigration, economic management, and her consistent evasiveness during when questioned only further cement negative views.

Those who have changed their minds say their perspectives have shifted from neutrality or mild curiosity to one of firm opposition. For these voters, Harris’s responses—particularly on issues like the border and economic policies—lack depth and authenticity, leading them to reject her candidacy altogether.

First-Person vs. Third-Person

An analysis of first-person versus third-person language usage sheds light on the emotional investment and detachment voters feel toward Harris.

First-person comments are highly personal, voicing frustration or disillusionment with things like, “I will vote for Trump,” “I vehemently disagree with Harris.” These comments frame reactions within the voter’s own experiences and personal stakes. This suggests people view the election as having direct consequences for their lives.

Most of the discussion is presented using third-person language, using a more detached and analytical tone. Voters critique Harris’s candidacy from a distance, frequently referring to her in broad terms like, “Harris is incompetent,” “Her campaign is a disaster.” This shift puts distance between their personal experience and Harris as a symbol of the political establishment.

Kamala’s town hall was so bad even CNN is calling her out? pic.twitter.com/h2NPy0iSUk

— JOSH DUNLAP (@JDunlap1974) October 24, 2024

How Voter Talk About Harris

Voters use words like “liar,” “fraud,” and “disaster” to describe Harris, painting her as an ineffective politician and failed leader. They say they feel betrayal and that Harris and the Democratic Party are out of touch or elitist.

Comments focusing on specific policy critiques—such as Harris’s stance on border security—often contain fear-based rhetoric, invoking terms like “drug cartels” and “terrorists” to amplify a sense of urgency and failure. Meanwhile, more reflective comments question Harris’s integrity and authenticity, with some calling for greater accountability and transparency from political leaders in general.

jesus -- Dana Bash says she's hearing from people that Harris failed "to close the deal." These folks are gonna bothsides us straight into fascism. pic.twitter.com/XwGpxWKj8q

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 24, 2024

Yesterday, the Telegraph published a story alleging former model Stacey Williams was introduced to Donald Trump through Jeffery Epstein in 1993. She claims she was groped by Trump and the timing of her allegations have nothing to do with the impending election.

The latest Trump accuser Stacey Williams says she "can't control" that this is coming out 2 weeks before the election, and that it's all "coincidental."

CNN then says she made her support for Kamala "very clear" in their interview.

It's all a farce. pic.twitter.com/x1SKRIGrOE

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) October 24, 2024

Within hours, many dismissed the story, attributing it to a politically motivated smear campaign by the mainstream media. Many pointed out that Jeffery Epstein didn’t live in the Upper East Side of New York until 1996.

The liar in this story claims that she went on a walk with Epstein in 1993 by his Upper East Side home when he took her to see Trump.

There’s only one problem which is that Epstein didn’t move there until 1996. https://t.co/UmT6NtfGrK pic.twitter.com/tjkFGBGsiS

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 24, 2024

Who’s Buying It?

The believability of this story is predictably divided, revealing strong partisan and demographic patterns in public sentiment.

• 40% of comments say they believe the story.
• Among these, many frame it within broader concerns about misogyny, women’s rights, and accountability.
• The believe narratives about Trump's alleged poor treatment of women in the past.
• This group is mostly younger audiences, women, and left leaning Democrats.

Skepticism and dismissal dominate the rest of the discourse, particularly among Trump supporters and older demographics.

• Around 45-50% of view the story as a politically motivated attack, dismissing it as predictable in the relentless media-driven smears against Trump.
• This group says the allegation is part and parcel of ongoing efforts to undermine Trump's political career with false accusations.
• They use terms like "witch hunt" and "fake news" to express their skepticism—especially among male commenters.

There is clear cynicism about the impact of such stories in an already polarized political environment. Many also believe bombshells like this are “baked into the cake” in the sense that most voters are used to similar allegations against Trump.

• 15% of comments are ambivalent or neutral, suggesting the allegations are commonplace in politics and don't sway their opinions.
• This group, often politically disillusioned or disengaged, emphasizes the need for substantiation before making judgments.
• There is also less fervor and emotion in their responses, unlike the supporters and critics.

MIG Reports data shows, following the revelation, Trump increased in overall sentiment. At the same time, sentiment toward Harris marginally dropped. This suggests, with high confidence, that voters are not significantly swayed by the story, and Trump voter will likely maintain support, even if they’re not vocal about it.

Overall, belief in the story aligns with societal divisions, where pre-existing political views and social dynamics shape the narrative. While those aligned against Trump are more likely to believe and express outrage, supporters overwhelmingly view the allegation as another unfounded political attack, reinforcing existing polarization.

Recent assertions by “The Atlantic” claim Donald Trump expressed admiration for Hitler’s generals, igniting a firestorm discussion. Reactions span from outright condemning Trump to fierce defense.

The article also starts by recalling the murder of a U.S. soldier, Vanessa Guillén, whose funeral Trump allegedly promised to pay for, only to renege when he discovered it cost $60,000. Guillén’s surviving sister spoke out against “The Atlantic’s” characterization of how Trump treated her family, also adding that she voted for him.

Wow.
I don’t appreciate how you are exploiting my sister’s death for politics- hurtful & disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members. President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family & Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today. https://t.co/o8cDrKOKBV

— Mayra Guillen (@mguilen_) October 22, 2024

Further expanding on this story, Kamala Harris made public statements condemning Trump for his alleged affinity for Hitler. Her entire remarks focusing on portraying Trumps as a threat to the country stirred more controversy online.

Vice President Harris: "It is deeply troubling and incredibly dangerous that Donald Trump would invoke Adolf Hitler...this is a window into who Donald Trump really is from the people who know him best." pic.twitter.com/WKu4xFXRl8

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 23, 2024

These incidents also come just days after former President Barack Obama said, "I don't understand how we got so toxic and just so divided and so bitter." Many view Obama’s confusion as disingenuous since he has been known as a divisive figure himself.

Barack Obama: "I don't understand how we got so toxic and just so divided and so bitter." pic.twitter.com/OWj3uicQ1o

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 22, 2024

Belief in Sensational Claims

In voter discussions, those who believe Trump made the alleged comments is between 30-40%. Supporters largely reject the claim, viewing it as fabricated or exaggerated by the media to tarnish Trump’s image. Skepticism toward mainstream media is a recurring theme, with phrases like “fake news” often used to describe coverage of the story.

Critics find the claim believable, aligning it with their pre-existing perceptions of Trump’s leadership style. This group say the report fits a pattern they observe in his past rhetoric, making the story plausible in their eyes.

Predictable Patterns

Young voters under 35 are more likely to express outrage and concern. They frame Trump’s comments as demonstrating the danger of populism. This demographic often seeks historical parallels, like Hitler, to make their points about Trump.

Older voters over 50 tend to defend Trump or dismiss the claim as media exaggeration. They view Trump’s comments through the lens of traditional conservative values and are generally less concerned with historical comparisons to authoritarian regimes.

Urban voters voice alarm at Trump’s alleged comments, often citing exposure to diverse viewpoints as potentially dangerous and worrying about rising authoritarianism.

Rural voters are more likely to see the claims as part of a liberal agenda to discredit Trump, reinforcing their support for him as a counterbalance to perceived urban elitism.

Linguistic Analysis

Trump supporters use phrases like, “GOD BLESS AMERICA,” “fake news,” and “deep state.” They have a sense of nationalistic pride and a belief that Trump shares the values they hold dear. Many often outright dismiss accusations of authoritarianism or references to Hitler from the left and the media, citing them as tired and overused.

Critics use language of moral and ethical concern, casting doubt on Trump’s character. Words like “fascist,” “tyranny,” and “authoritarianism” frequently appear in their comments. They believe Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous and symptomatic to his authoritarian leanings. Critical language seeks to link Trump’s behavior to past instances of dictatorship, like Hitler.

Both sides use religious overtones in their discourse. Words like “evil” and “moral decay” suggest the political divide is framed not just in terms of governance but as part of a larger moral struggle. This adds emotional weight to the conversation and further entrenches the tribalism seen in political dialogue.

Donald Trump’s recent stop at a McDonald’s is hotly discussed online and in the media. Those on the left view it as a trivial campaign stunt, but for many voters, it’s a gesture of good-humored solidarity with working Americans.

pic.twitter.com/YkLtEaC3OI

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 21, 2024

Voter discussions about this event are split along partisan lines. Democrats and liberals are mostly critical, calling the campaign stop “staged,” “pretend,” and “disrespectful.” Trump supporters, meanwhile, reacted positively, embracing Trump’s tongue-in-cheek but authentic retail politics as indicative of his relatable love for America and Americans.

Reactions to the McDonald’s visit serve as a microcosm of Trump’s broader campaign strategy, underscoring his unique ability to tap into working-class nostalgia, populism, and defiance against elitism.

Why McDonald’s Matters

From a simple fast-food stop, a narrative emerges that reflects the broader divide in the American electorate. MIG Reports data shows:

Support from Trump’s Base

• 60% of Trump supporters express strong positive sentiments toward the McDonald’s visit.
• Many view it as a testament to Trump’s connection with everyday Americans, a leader who eschews elitism and embraces the working class.
• Comments from this group suggest Trump’s authenticity continues to bolster his populist appeal.
• This gesture reinforces beliefs that Trump is “one of us,” a sentiment key to his ongoing political success.

Humor Among Supporters

• 30% of supporters admit it's performative, but say a lighthearted moment being twisted by the media is as unserious as Trump working at McDonald’s.
• While they still support the visit, they focus on countering liberal narratives with things like, "It's just fries and a burger."
• They emphasize the hypocrisy of incredulous media reactions over any meaningful political impact the event may have.

Breathless Indignation from the Left

Despite widespread jocularity among Republicans, the media and Democrats flail against the campaign stunt.

Walz on The View: Trump going to work at a McDonald's was disrespectful to McDonald's workers. pic.twitter.com/2ZMB9MrNNI

— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) October 21, 2024

Out-of-Touch Criticism

• 70% of liberal reactions to the McDonald’s visit were negative, often mocking it as a low point in presidential decorum.
• Many on the left seize upon the chance to frame Trump as out of touch with the responsibilities of leadership, saying he made a mockery of the working class.
• Liberals also say Trump’s McDonald’s appearance clearly shows his unhinged or declining mental state.

Moderates and Traditional Republicans

• 20% of liberals react with deep seriousness, framing the visit as indicative of a troubling populist trend within the Republican Party.
• They call it a facile attempt to curry favor with everyday Americans while he fails to adequately address more substantive issues.
• Some say theatrics detract from pressing social and economic issues, insisting Trump is engaging in frivolous behavior.

Meme Culture and the Power of Symbolism

One of the most fascinating aspects of Trump’s McDonald’s visit is how powerfully it is amplified through memes and social media. Supporters and critics alike have used images and symbols to create narratives that align with their perspectives.

Supportive Memes

• Trump voters quickly turned the McDonald’s stop into a meme, celebrating his authenticity.
• Homage memes frame Trump as relatable, using his friendly and personable image to contrast him with political and cultural elites who they see as hostile and disingenuous.
• Many memes mock the over-serious reactions from Democrats and the media which claim the stunt is deceptive and staged.

Critical Memes

• Critics of the McDonald’s visit attempt to portray Trump as unserious or unfit for leadership, making light of his penchant for fast food and claiming he is “not well.”
• Many in the media feign confusion, calling the event “bizarre” or “not logical,” generating more memes among those who disbelieve the media’s sincerity.

Trump at McDonald’s being shown how French fries are made pic.twitter.com/neD4qa74MB

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 20, 2024

The Iconography of Trump’s Campaign

Trump’s ability to harness powerful images to reinforce his message isn’t limited to McDonald’s. His campaign phot ops have been unparalleled in this election, with many pointing to iconic images filled with emotion, patriotism, and memetic power.

The most iconic campaign of all time pic.twitter.com/Tw2TLFg0eu

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 20, 2024

Voters compare memorable imagery from Trump’s campaign, including:

• Trump’s mugshot in 2023, which became a symbol of his "politics of defiance." Supporters view this image as representing the fight against a corrupt system.
• Likely the most powerful image from the campaign, many people mention Trump’s defiant pose after the failed assassination attempt.
• Many also point to images of Trump and RFK Jr., representing the unifying and cross-party enthusiasm for the populist MAGA platform.
• Some also point to images of Trump sipping cola at the Al Smith dinner as a sign of his collectedness in a hostile environment.

Momentum Building for the Trump Camp

The McDonald’s stop may seem trivial at first glance, but voter discussions around the event reveal much about the race and American feelings around average citizens versus elites and power brokers.

• Populism Over Performance: Trump supporters view him as relatable and capable of connecting with American working-class values. They voice their admiration for a leader who "gets them."
• Liberal Elitism: The left’s continued attacks elicit accusations of establishment figures demeaning and alienating voters. Their unwillingness to see the power in Trump’s endearing gestures is glaring weakness in their own political strategy.
• A Visual Campaign: From mugshots to fast-food stops, Trump’s campaign thrives on powerful, patriotic imagery. These symbols of defiance and authenticity resonate deeply with voters who feel overlooked by the political establishment.

he recent controversy over CBS suspiciously editing Kamala Harris’s “60 Minutes” interview has escalated. This incident has grown larger than one interview or one candidate—it brings into question the role mainstream media in politics.

CBS released a statement framing the incident as Trump making accusations of “deceitful editing.” It went on to admit edits were made, but ultimately placed blame at Trump’s feet, saying, “Remember, Mr. Trump pulled out of his interview with 60 Minutes and the vice president participated.”

The statement drew heavy criticism from many people on social media, including lawyers, journalists, former CBS employees like Cathrine Herridge, and Trump himself.

🚨BREAKING: Trump announces he will likely sue CBS/60 Minutes for the editing of Kamala’s answer!

“It’s the worst scandal… I think I’m going to sue.”

They should lose their license for LYING to the American people! pic.twitter.com/9aVw67NHSz

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) October 18, 2024

The outcries accuse CBS of:

• Breaking journalistic integrity by refusing to release the full transcript.
• Lying about the extent of their deceptive edits.
• Revealing political partisanship by attacking Trump.

Exposing Media Bias

The edited interview omitted certain remarks and altered the context of Harris’s responses. When X users pointed out the discrepancies in various cuts of the question, many raised serious questions about transparency.

Harris’s critics say CBS is actively protecting her from scrutiny, particularly around sensitive topics like immigration and foreign policy. This is not an isolated incident, and many say it’s part of a larger pattern of editorial choices designed to shape public perceptions of Democratic candidates.

Key Examples of Bias

• Selective Editing: CBS edited portions of Harris’s “60 Minutes” interview, raising concerns about presenting an incomplete narrative.
• Lack of Transparency: CBS’s refusal to release the full transcript further fuels distrust, denying the public from judging based on the unedited content.
• Historical Context: This is not the first time CBS or other major networks have been accused of bias. Similar patterns emerged in coverage during the 2016 and 2020 elections, with a notable tilt by legacy outlets toward Democratic candidates.

Consequences for Public Trust

Public trust in the media has been declining for years, and incidents like this only exacerbate the problem. According to MIG Reports data, 60% of overall reactions express skepticism about CBS’s motives. Most Americans suggest the network’s editorial decisions reveal bias against Trump. This growing distrust is not limited to conservative voters—moderates and some Independents often question mainstream media bias.

Voter Group Reactions

• Conservatives: 75% distrust CBS, viewing it as part of a broader media agenda to protect Democrats and harm Trump.
• Moderates: 55% express skepticism but recognize the challenges of modern political journalism.
• Independents: 60% of Independents are ambivalent. They believe the media is biased but they are more concerned about Harris’s policy positions.
• Liberals: 65% of liberal voters defended CBS, saying there is heightened scrutiny on media outlets in a hyper-partisan election.

Impact on the 2024 Election

The implications of media manipulation are increasingly apparent with the rise of alternate platforms like X, where mainstream narratives are regularly challenged. Voters say when networks like CBS push partisan narratives, they influence the election in ways Democrats and media are fond of accusing conservatives of doing.

For the dwindling number of voters who rely on these outlets, distorted stories and depictions of political figures dangerously alter the public’s ability to make informed judgements. This is particularly serious when outlets fail to offer transparency when they are called out.

Voters believe Kamala Harris interviews should have been a straightforward opportunity for voters to understand her positions. Instead, they say CBS’s editing framed her responses in a way that sanitizes controversy, making it harder for voters to assess her leadership capabilities.

Projected Election Impact

• Perception Shaping: Selective editing reshapes public perceptions among undecided voters who may not view unbiased or counter-narrative content.
• Voter Disillusionment: The more voters sense media manipulation, the more disengaged they become, leading to potential lower voter turnout.
• Independent Voters: Important voter groups are becoming disengaged and critical of mainstream media, making gaining their votes more difficult.

Media Credibility Crisis and Trump Hate

CBS’s refusal to provide transparency reflects a broader crisis of credibility in the media. Americans increasingly distrust legacy outlets for news reports and analysis. This crisis exacerbates beliefs that the media is no longer reporting news, but actively trying to shape it.

The problem extends beyond CBS. The selective editing of political figures is part of a larger pattern where media outlets prioritize creating narratives over offering balanced, transparent reporting.

Many voters believe CBS and other outlets harbor a systemic bias against conservatives, but especially Donald Trump. They say partisan bias among executives and journalists pushes the network to present Trump unfavorably at any cost. Many voters feel trapped in a media landscape that cynically frames and twists information while smearing all dissenters as the ones pedaling “misinformation.”

A Nail in CBS’s Coffin

Distrust in the media has been growing for many years. However, this election cycle is further entrenching American views of media bias and free information.

Overall, sentiments indicate voters are angry and concerned that CBS is violating ethical norms. They say manipulating content and failing to provide transparency could be a death blow to the network.

Viewers question both the integrity of individual media outlets and the larger implications of their editorial practices. More Americans are saying legacy media is crumbling and may be obsolete sometime soon.

Both average Americans and celebrities are discussing this, demonstrated by a viral clip of Hollywood actor Zachary Levi calling out the ladies of “The View” for political bias in showbusiness. His assertions that Hollywood is a dying industry gained supportive reactions—especially from users on alternative platforms like X.

Zachary Levi went live on IG to talk about his support for Donald Trump- and towards the end, he sent a message to the women on The View- saying there is very much an imbalance in Hollywood in regards to Conservative and Liberal actors. He also sent a message to his fellow… pic.twitter.com/THXn6DjCJJ

— Steph Anie (@mynerdyhome) October 21, 2024

The FBI quietly revised its crime statistics, revealing a 4.5% increase in violent crime under the Biden administration. This directly contradicts a widely reported 2.1% decrease touted by the media and Democrats for weeks.

There it is: FBI "revised" violent crime data, now reporting that instead of a 2.1% drop in violent crime in 2022, it was actually a 4.5% increase. https://t.co/Bvbg0wKy1A pic.twitter.com/h6nfjRRlUb

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 16, 2024

Americans are outraged, confirming their beliefs that crime is on the rise, supported by their own observations in the face of media narratives. Analysis identifies why Americans perceive the FBI's revision as politically motivated and their anxieties about governance and law enforcement in the United States.

What Americans are Saying

Voters are extremely frustrated an angry with the Biden-Harris administration, particularly directing their ire at VP Harris. Dissatisfaction stems from perceptions that the government is failing to manage crime, immigration, and economic issues.

Many express a sense of betrayal, arguing promises made by the administration have not been fulfilled. There are also many critiques of the government's approach to public safety and economic recovery, with some tying rising crime rates to policy failures.

Anger about crime statistics dovetails with growing distrust in institutions. Skepticism toward the FBI, mainstream media, and other government entities is rampant. Voters are doubtful about the integrity of official statistics and narratives.

People believe traditional sources of authority are no longer reliable, especially when it comes to reporting on politically charged issues like crime. Discussions also show stark partisan division, with Trump supporters contrasting his presidency with Biden’s, emphasizing the perception of greater safety and stability under Trump's leadership.

Perceptions of the FBI Revision

Voters believe the FBI's revision of crime statistics serves a political purpose. Many speculate the incorrect initial numbers were not mistaken, but politically calculated to protect the Biden administration from scrutiny.

Many view disparate reports not as honest corrections but attempts to manipulate public perception. They say reports attempt to paint a more favorable image of crime under Biden's leadership.

The notion that the FBI is involved in political maneuvering connects with wider themes of distrust in government institutions. Increasingly, voters view various federal agencies as operating in service of political elites rather than in the public interest.

People use terms like "gaslighting," saying they feel the government is trying to deceive them about the reality of rising crime. Those on the right also point out media bias—particularly David Muir fact checking Trump during the presidential debate, saying the FBI reports show crime is down.

Reasons Americans Think Crime is Up

Many voters say government policy—specifically immigration—contributes to increased violent crime. They say lenient immigration policies allow criminals into the United States, increasing violent crime. This belief reflects broader concerns about border security and the failure of the Biden administration to maintain law and order.

People also mention economic instability, saying inflation, unemployment, and stagnating wages lead to desperation and more criminal behavior. There is a sense that economic hardship under Biden’s administration has created conditions conducive to crime, further exacerbating public safety concerns.

Voters are also disillusioned with law enforcement. Some argue Democrats demoralize police forces, weakening their ability to effectively prevent and respond to crime. People say law enforcement has been neutered under Democrat rule allowing criminals to proceed without fear of serious consequences.

Deeper Underlying Sentiments

Voters voice specific grievances about crime and policy as well as more thematic anxieties about the state of the country. People fear rising crime is a symptom of more serious societal decline.

Americans are concerned about the future, suggesting the country is headed toward chaos and instability. These fears are often linked to nostalgia for stronger leadership, particularly under Donald Trump. Many view his presidency as a period of greater safety and prosperity.

In general, there is little middle ground in these discussions. Voters typically fervently support Trump or Democrats—though a sense of doom if the opposition gains political power crosses into both camps. The stark divide reflects partisan tension in American society, where crime and public safety have become deeply politicized issues.

An inaudible clip of Joe Biden and Barack Obama at a recent funeral went viral with Americans speculating about what they said. Soon, reports from the New York Post claimed professional lip readers were able to decipher the words. Biden reportedly said, “She’s not as strong as me,” and Obama responded, “I know… that’s true.” This alleged exchange generated widespread discussion across social media. Though short, it taps into several key narratives, amplifying public discourse about leadership, the Democratic ticket, and political allegiances.

NEW - Biden told Obama "she's not as strong as me" and ex-president agrees "that's true," a lip reader hired by the NY Post says.pic.twitter.com/YnPlNJ04p9

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) October 17, 2024

Leadership Strength and Competence

A theme in conversations about the clip is voters expressing their perceptions of leadership strength. Many view Biden’s alleged comment, widely interpreted as referring to Kamala Harris, as an assertion that his campaign would have been stronger than hers. This perception looks to be confirmed by public critiques of Kamala Harris, who is often described as less competent and effective.

Conservatives latch onto Biden’s remark as a reflection of Harris’s perceived weaknesses, feeding into questions about her capability as a leader. Many also point out how precarious her campaign momentum looks at the moment after multiple poor media performances. This dynamic between Biden’s perceived strength and Harris’s weak image also brings out conversations about gendered expectations in politics.

Public Discontent and Political Polarization

Beyond leadership dynamics, the exchange exacerbates polarization between partisan sides. Conservatives are frustrated with Harris and Democratic leadership. They describe her as a “puppet,” criticizing her inability to engage effectively in interviews. These critiques echo broader discontent with all establishment Democrats.

Liberals and progressives defend both Biden and Harris, framing the lip-read exchange as exaggerated or taken out of context. This exemplifies political polarization, where events and public figures are scrutinized through a lens of partisan loyalty. Some view Biden’s confidence as a sign of strong leadership, but others say it's dismissive or arrogant.

Impact of Media and Amplification

The lip reading incident sparked an avalanche of arm-chair investigators dissecting the brief exchange. It also generated conversation beyond the specific words spoken, touching on themes of political tension in the Democratic Party and American society. Each political side interprets the exchange as aligning with their existing views.

The dialogue between Biden and Obama also raises questions about the media’s role in shaping political narratives. By focusing on this moment, the media contributes to the ongoing narrative of strength versus empathy in leadership. This incident has become a microcosm of American struggles over leadership and power in politics.