MIG Reports data shows voter sentiment shifts following the first debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Views of bias from the debate moderators and broader political divides reveal anti-establishment sentiments.

The debate on ABC, moderated by David Muir and Linsey Davis, sparks a discussion about media bias, political alliances, and the establishment's role in shaping the election narrative. Voters are having contentious discussions centering on the notion that Trump is running against Harris as well as the broader political and media establishment. As these reactions unfold, they provide insight into the electorate's evolving perspective on Trump's anti-establishment image in the 2024 race.

Former Democrats backing Trump reveals the same point as Dick Cheney backing Kamala Harris. It’s not really about Republicans vs Democrats. It’s about the managerial class vs the citizen. pic.twitter.com/shjcQTar9x

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) September 11, 2024

Voters Sense Media Bias

Analysis of reactions from both sides reveals more than half of voters perceive the debate moderators and the media as biased against Trump. MIG Reports data shows 59.5% expressing dissatisfaction with the debate moderators, accusing them of favoring Harris.

Perceptions of bias feed into the broader narrative that Trump is the target of an organized hinderance effort by establishment figures. Additionally, 51.5% of voters believe Trump is actively facing opposition from establishment forces in the media and political elites in both parties. These findings illustrate the growing belief among Trump supporters that his campaign represents a challenge to entrenched powers. Voters view the election as representing more than just policy—they believe it’s a battle against a rigged system.

Trump Versus the Machine

Media Machine

Voter reactions Muir and Davis underscore perceptions of the establishment media seeking to crush Trump. This bolsters ideas that the media, a key pillar of the establishment, is unfairly targeting him.

Many believe Trump faced disproportionate scrutiny, with fact-checking and interruptions exclusively targeting him. They also assert that Kamala Harris was allowed to speak freely. Trump supporters interpret this as a clear attempt by ABC to undermine his candidacy.

• 65% criticize them for displaying bias against Trump and helping Harris.
• 72% feel the debate moderators intentionally aimed to damage Trump’s credibility.

Dissatisfaction directly fuels beliefs that the debate was not just a clash between candidates but a three-against-one demonstration of how the establishment manipulates the narrative against Trump.

Political Machine

The political establishment’s opposition to Trump also surfaces in voter conversations. More than half of discussions acknowledge that Trump's campaign faces formidable resistance from a coalition of establishment figures.

• 50% recognize establishment GOP figures like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, appear to align with Democrats.
• 47% say the debate itself reflected political bias, with moderators pushing Democratic viewpoints to delegitimize Trump.

Voters express beliefs that Trump’s candidacy is a continuation of his fight against the "swamp," a term they use to describe career politicians and media figures who they believe undermine the interests of the American people.

Unwavering Loyalty

Views that Trump is running against the establishment further solidify supporter among anti-establishment voters. The debate reinforced their conviction that Trump stands as an outsider who challenges both parties and the media’s control. For them, the debate moderators, the format, and the overall media portrayal of Trump indicate his opposition is more than just political—it's systemic.

Despite this unfair targeting, Trump’s base remains resilient, with 60% of his supporters declaring him the winner of the debate. This emphasizes his capacity to confront establishment forces head-on.

MIG Reports analysis of reactions to Kamala Harris's first media interview shows skepticism, criticism, and some support. There is division among voters between those with concerns about Harris's statements and policy shifts and her supporters. Many also note the conspicuous perception of CNN and Dana Bash preparing the interview to protect Harris from scrutiny.

People criticize the fact that the pre-taped interview was composed of soft-ball questions and was truncated to less than 20 minutes. They also question whether Harris could have fielded interview questions without her running mate, Tim Walz.

Trump’s last four interviews:

-57 minutes (Dr. Phil)
-57 minutes (Theo Von)
-2 hours and 3 minutes (Elon Musk)
-1 hour and 11 minutes (Shawn Ryan)

Kamala’s first interview in 40 days as the Democrat nominee:

18 minutes, edited, no transcript, and with a chaperone.

— Bad Hombre (@joma_gc) August 29, 2024

MIG Reports data shows:

• 65% of those discussing the interview express doubts about Harris’s reliability and consistency on policy.
• 58% voice frustration about her economic policies and lack of support for military families.
• 27% convey cautious optimism about her vision for the middle class.
• 70% call for accountability and transparency regarding her positions on key issues.

Flip-Flopper in Chief

Many Americans complain about Harris’s inconsistency or noncommittal posture on critical policy positions. This is a particular frustration regarding border security and immigration.

Voters express disbelief over her recent flip-flop on a border wall, calling it hypocritical given her historical stance. Americans feel betrayed, suggesting Harris's frequent shifts reveal her political opportunism, where her policies follow public sentiment rather than stand on principle.

Some also criticize her as a “copycat” saying she is adopting Trump’s populist policies like “no tax on tips” and a border wall because her own views are unpopular. People use words like "flip-flopper," "untrustworthy," and "gaslighting" to describe Harris. And 65% express doubts about her reliability on policy.

It’s the Border and Immigration, Stupid

MIG Reports analysis of election and swing state discussions confirm immigration and border issues are a strong source of public dissatisfaction toward Harris.

• In swing states, 75% of discussions on border security and 70% on immigration is negative as people voice frustration with Harris’s role as "Border Czar."
• In election discussions, 60% criticize her border security stance, and 82% disapprove of her immigration policies, focusing on leadership and ideological concerns.
• Overall, negative sentiment averages between 71-73%, highlighting significant challenges for Harris on these issues.

Other Issues

Military

Voters also disapprove of Harris's response to economic issues and the military. They criticize her, mentioning military support amidst economic hardship. Americans feel she neglects U.S. troops while simultaneously advocating for financial support for overseas actions.

There is frustration over promises of economic assistance. People say Harris’s platitudes come off as inadequate or superficial. Sentiments trend negative, with 58% expressing anger and disappointment towards Harris on economic matters and support for military families.

Middle Class

There is some cautious optimism regarding Harris’s vision for the middle class and supporting American aspirations. Some express appreciation for her hopeful messages in response to questions about her first actions as president.

This is a smaller group, however, with only 27% mentioning the interview positively. Supporters resonate with themes of hope and a desire for a new direction, even amid concerns regarding her current track record and decision-making

Accountability

An overall theme of skepticism about accountability and transparency overshadows much of the discussion. Voters raise pointed questions about her policy decisions and the implications of her previous statements.

Many view her as inauthentic and disengaged from real Americans. This consistent call for transparency highlights an overarching mistrust, as 70% demand clearer communication regarding her positions on critical issues.

A viral post from venture capitalist David Sacks on X cited a 2020 Gallup poll about American trust in mainstream media. This ignited discussion about the stark divide in how Americans view news and media and whether trust is correlated with political affiliation. MIG Reports analysis of this conversation, alongside Gallup polling and X’s own Grok analysis reveals American sentiments across party affiliation. In this way, public sentiment extends Gallup’s sample size, confirming the strong correlation.

Party affiliation is now entirely correlated with trust in MSM. Republicans realize it’s propaganda. Independents are on the path. Democrats are the people still plugged into the Matrix. pic.twitter.com/1KSPt8wkX4

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) August 25, 2024

According to Gallup data in 2020:

• 73% of Democrats trusted media
• 36% of Independents trusted media
• 10% of Republicans trusted media

These numbers illustrate Sacks’s suggestion that political affiliations are now less about policy agreement and more about whether a person trusts narratives from the media and politicians.

Growing polarization in the country seems exacerbated by this fraught relationship between voters, the media, and political parties. While the viral poll is from 2020, more recent Gallup data from 2022 and 2023 show similar trends.

In addition, last year’s polling shows Democratic trust in media was on a downward trajectory similar to Republican trust until 2016. A period of high confidence in the media followed through Trump’s administration and has since dropped down to 58% at the tail end of Biden’s term. This trend corresponds with Republican beliefs that media outlets push Democratic and anti-Trump or anti-Republican narratives. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to buy into media narratives particularly about the danger of Donald Trump as a Republican figurehead.

A comparison of these findings with an independent MIG Reports analysis, based on real-time voter conversations and AI-driven data analysis, explores whether Americans believe trust in media truly correlates with political affiliation in 2024.

Distrust in Mainstream Media

MIG Reports data shows:

• 64.8% of all voters in the discussion indicate a strong distrust in mainstream media.
• This sentiment is predominantly expressed by Republicans, suggesting their isolated percentage is likely higher, aligning with Gallup’s findings.

Most conversations about distrust cite the perception of bias and dishonesty from mainstream media outlets. Republican-leaning voters often express a belief that media outlets are skewed to favor liberal viewpoints. This causes skepticism about the accuracy and fairness of reporting.

Voters use phrases like "fake news" and "liberal bias," signaling frustration over their belief in a deliberate distortion of facts to support Democratic narratives. This sentiment is particularly strong when media coverage is perceived to misrepresent or unfairly criticize conservative figures and policies.

This group feels their viewpoints and values are systematically overlooked, criticized, distorted, or misrepresented by mainstream media.

Trust in Mainstream Media

MIG Reports data shows:

• 24.9% of all voters express trust in mainstream media—mostly coming from Democrats.
• This is lower than Gallup’s 2023 finding that 32% of Americans trust the media “a great deal” or “a fair amount.”

Those who express trust in mainstream media often emphasize the importance of “credible journalism” and its role in political accountability in a democracy. Comments from Democratic-leaning individuals highlight their belief that media outlets serve as essential checks on political power and provide necessary transparency.

This group uses words like, "responsible reporting" and "factual news." They say the media plays a crucial role in informing the public and holding leaders accountable. Democratic trust is often linked to the perception that media organizations are committed to objective reporting and that there is no widespread institutional corruption.

For these Democrats, media coverage that aligns with their values or supports their political perspectives is positive and trustworthy.

Correlation of Trust with Democratic Support

MIG Reports data shows:

• 14.6% of discussions about trust in media directly mention a correlation with support for the Democratic Party.
• This percentage indicates conversations about a potential correlation—it does not directly project the correlation itself.
• However, it does support a conclusion that Democrats largely comprise the dwindling segment of voters giving credence to mainstream media reporting.

The analysis suggests a correlation between political affiliation and perceptions of media trustworthiness. Republicans predominantly express distrust towards mainstream media, citing bias and misrepresentation. This distrust is frequently linked to coverage that is seen as hostile and antagonistic toward conservative viewpoints.

Democrats are more likely to view mainstream media positively, aligning their trust with media coverage that supports their political beliefs and values. This divide suggests trust in media is not only influenced by the content and quality of reporting but is also deeply intertwined with one's political identity and alignment.

If there is a correlation between trust in the media and Democratic affiliation, the analysis does not clearly suggest why that might be. Two possibilities may be that Democrats trust media sources which confirm their biases, or that those adopting a skeptical attitude toward media are also likely to lose allegiance to the Democratic Party.

X’s Grok Analysis Confirms Findings

Analysis using a similar methodology to MIG Reports reveals the X (formerly Twitter) AI platform Grok reaches similar findings. In parallel Grok analysis:

• 60-70% of Americans distrust media versus MIG Reports showing 64.8% distrust.
• 30-40% of Americans trust media compared to MIG Reports showing 24.9% trust.
• 70-80% of Democrats agree with or do not distrust media narratives, versus only 10-20% of Republicans.

Quantifying the Correlation

With an estimated correlation coefficient (r) based on these sentiments:

• Democrats show a positive trust correlation coefficient around r = 0.6 to 0.8.
• Republicans have inverse relationship where trust is a negative correlation coefficient around r = -0.6 to -0.8.
• Independents show a weaker but still negative trust correlation around r = -0.2 to -0.4.

This quantification suggests political affiliation, particularly towards the Democratic Party, is a strong predictor of media trust. Democrats are more likely to trust media sources which might be seen as aligning with or at least not actively opposing their political views.

However, broader distrust across the population, including Independents, highlights a general skepticism towards media, but this sentiment is notably amplified among Republicans.

This Grok analysis suggests the link between political affiliation and media perception may be more pronounced than MIG Reports data currently demonstrates. While this difference in analysis is worth noting, the overall narrative remains consistent—political affiliation plays a significant role in shaping how Americans perceive the media.

Corrupt Media Fosters Anti-Establishment Views

With so few Americans trusting the media, many voters express a sentiment of crisis threatening the American political and social landscape. When journalism is perceived as politicized, it loses credibility and fails to serve its essential role as the "fourth estate"—a watchdog that holds power to account.

The growing distrust in media, politicians, and institutions raises concerns about the public's ability to find truth and make informed decisions. This is a deep concern for many voters leading up to the 2024 election. Many view this presidential election as extremely high-stakes and a pivotal moment for the trajectory of America.

As the media is seen as biased or untrustworthy, voters increasingly turn to alternative sources of information, further fragmenting public discourse. This fragmentation could lead to an electorate that is even more polarized, making it harder for candidates to reach across the aisle or build consensus on critical issues. The erosion of trust in journalism could also lead to increased skepticism toward election results, particularly if the media plays a central role in reporting on election outcomes. This suspicion of election integrity is also corroborated by MIG Reports data showing sentiment on the topic dropping down to 35% in the last week.

MIG Reports analysis confirms Americans continue to be deeply skepticism about the integrity and reliability of mainstream media sources. People often use terms like propaganda, lies, and gaslighting in reference to news reports from legacy outlets.

Public frustration centers around the perceived inability, and perhaps unwillingness, of media outlets to impartially report on issues such as immigration, government accountability, and political leadership. Many Americans often perceive modern journalism as essentially the communications arm of the government.

The Media Carries Water for Politicians

Central to this conversation is the idea of truth,” which appears frequently as individuals scrutinize the motivations behind political and news cycle narratives. Americans express dissatisfaction with how government officials communicate about contentious topics like immigration and the economy.

For instance, phrases like "fighting to fix our broken immigration system" are met with skepticism, as the public questions genuine intentions versus politically expedient placating. Voters feel the media plays a large role in obscuring the truth, especially when it comes to reporting on government actions.

Many feel the truth about and implications of government policies on citizens' daily lives is obfuscated by news reports following the Biden administration’s talking points. This sentiment is recurring in previous analyses in which Americans feel starved for transparency and substance in political dialogue.

Questions of media bias and accountability also emerge, with many Americans advocating for greater scrutiny on political narratives. People believe media outlets are complicit in propagating political agendas rather than holding politicians accountable. They say journalism often prioritizes sensationalism over factual reporting. Calls for a return to media ethics and transparency in political dealings abound.

Voters Want Transparency and Accountability

There’s a sense of urgency for accountability and honesty within media and government discourse. Many on the right also lament apparent censorship of opposing viewpoints by mainstream media and big tech.

Many fear the consequences of poor policy decisions, especially on immigration and economic hardships. They believe that, because the media refuses to report honestly, Americans struggle to find accurate information, remaining ill-informed. The level of public trust in legacy media is dismally low.

Public sentiment is negative toward government, with the Biden-Harris administration as focal points for criticism. Voters highlight specific policies, such as the open border and the Inflation Reduction Act as examples of Democratic failures to prioritize the welfare of American citizens. For many, there is a disconnect between governmental promises and actual outcomes.

Reactions to Donald Trump’s X space with Elon Musk sparked conversations about free expression, censorship, and manipulation. Supporters celebrate Trump's unfiltered communication style, contrasting him with politically charged media narratives that selectively report on his statements. Meanwhile, many in the media are concerned X—formerly Twitter—is exacerbating divisive rhetoric.

Mark Cuban went on John Stewart to complain about Elon Musk and 𝕏 but ended up being an advertisement for why people should be on 𝕏pic.twitter.com/T3RkisMz0q

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) August 14, 2024

America Likes Raw, Unfiltered Politics

Social media conversations referencing Trump and Musk show broad appreciation for unfiltered, straightforward political conversation. Voter enthusiasm for an open dialogue and off-script discussions contrasts sharply with criticisms from mainstream media. Americans voice their desire for candid discussions by public figures, celebrating authenticity from Trump in the face of Kamala Harris’s carefully crafted image.

People recount personal stories about their paths to political engagement. There are many mentions of firsthand experiences of communism or observers beholding the unfiltered truth of Trump’s policies for the first time. These stories often involve feelings of revelation at the lies of Democrats and the media on ideological and political fronts. These accounts personalize ideological conflicts and mobilize public sentiment around shared values and experiences.

Young voter sentiment appears polarized. Some express disillusionment with traditional politics but still resonate with Trump's directness and his portrayal as an outsider. Others voice a profound fatigue towards what they perceive as Trump's divisive communication style. Detractors cite extremely polarizing moments during his presidency, specifically on issues of race and gender. TikTok analytics show Trump commanding a wide audience despite pervasive negativity about him. This suggests strong curiosity among younger audiences.

• On the day of the X space, Trump received a 2% approval boost nationally and mentions of his presidential campaign jumped to 23,543 from 16,269 the day before.

Legacy Media Hates Being Upstaged

Media outlets respond to Trump's reappearance on X as distressing and undermining. Many lament the wide reach of more than one billion listeners, expressing regret at the audience being composed largely of young voters.

🚨JUST IN: 77% OF THE 27 MILLION PEOPLE THAT TUNED IN TO TRUMP'S SPACE WITH ELON MUSK WERE YOUNGER THAN 34!

This is why the mainstream media is in MELTDOWN MODE!

Trump has the GEN-Z VOTE!

We know the FAKE NEWS won't report this.

Share to make this go viral! pic.twitter.com/M6Y8hBzwHo

— Bo Loudon (@BoLoudon) August 13, 2024

CNN on President Trump’s interview with Elon Musk:

“These are people who aren't going to tune into traditional news — who aren't going to follow politics in a traditional sense — but they are going to tune into Elon Musk doing an X space with Trump. This is a group of people who… pic.twitter.com/2PFmuUwFt1

— Proud Elephant 🇺🇸🦅 (@ProudElephantUS) August 12, 2024

Legacy media commentary often focuses on the apparent DDoS attack that delayed the start of the X space. Reporters highlight the attack as a “glitch” or technological failure, calling it a chaotic resonance of Trump's relationship with digital media. Some portray the delay as a setback for Trump, while others frame it as an irrelevant detail against the backdrop of more serious problems posed by the Trump campaign.

NEW: CNN fumes after the Trump / Musk X Space last night, slams Trump for his comments about their candidate Kamala Harris.

Mission successful.

“It began with 40 minutes of silence and then an apocalypse of politics.”

“No matter how you frame it or what caused the glitch, what… pic.twitter.com/QoabK3aast

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 13, 2024

Demographic and Group Responses

MAGA voters are unanimous in their excitement about the X space and Trump being back on the platform. They align themselves with his narrative about American patriotism in contrast to Democratic disdain for American values. They express urgency about the upcoming election, viewing it as a battle for the very essence of American values against leftist and communist ideologies.

Younger progressive voters are concerned over Trump's policies, particularly women’s rights and LGBTQ issues. Their sentiment often poses Trump as threatening a resurgence of authoritarianism.

Working-class voters appear highly sympathetic towards Trump's economic messaging. Many reflect on his promises of job growth and economic revitalization, arguing his policies offer a chance to restore dignity to working-class Americans. Affluent voters are more likely to voice unease about Trump’s alignment with populist rhetoric, often dismissing him as dangerous or irresponsible.

Conversations about the X space often include words like "communism," "freedom," "socialism," and "values." This highlights the ideological struggle that characterizes the 2024 election. Trump is viewed as a symbol of resistance against the left, while Kamala Harris symbolizes strong pushes for progressive change.

X is Preserving Free Speech

Americans are concerned about increasing attacks on free speech. They view the assault as part of a larger strategy by the left to suppress dissenting voices. Many express their support for Musk and Trump as hinging on their advocacy for the First Amendment. This group often suggests the DDoS attack was an attempt to banish freedom of expression, despite Elon Musk providing an open forum. This collective sentiment positions Trump supporters as guardians of liberty against rapidly receding constitutional rights.

There is a growing public anxiety about the future of American democracy on both sides of the aisle. Democrats and progressives present Donald Trump as a threat to democracy while Republicans and conservatives point to the Democratic establishment as already trampling norms and constitutional freedoms.

Comment threads on X and other platforms often contain a sense of urgency. Many view the current political climate as one of their remaining chances to make a stand for their beliefs. Phrases like “the last real worldview difference election” and calls for unity among conservatives underscore a rallying cry against socialist encroachment.

Trump on the Issues

Many voters who listened to Trump’s X space are taking the opportunity to contrast his policy proposals with Kamala Harris’s. People note that Trump touched on various important voter issues, while Harris has yet to release any meaningful policy platform.

• Since her announcement as the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris has gradually lost support.
• She received an approval bump with announcing Tim Walz as her running mate, but the downward trend continues, showing 49% on July 20 compared to 44% today.
• Donald Trump also received an approval bump following his X space, jumping from 44% to 46% on the day of the stream before settling back at 44%.
• Discussion volume around Trump’s campaign also spiked following the X space, jumping to 23,543 from 16,269 the day before.

Fake Kamala

Conversations online contain a constant stream of condemnation directed at Kamala Harris. Voters call her a "flip-flopper," "radical," and "fake," criticizing her actions and positions. Sentiments largely reflect a perception that Harris is an untrustworthy politician who lacks genuine convictions.

Trump critics highlight the discrepancy between his rhetoric and actions, particularly on immigration and the economy. They claim he adversely affected large segments of the population, championing Harris as an antidote.

• After Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race, Kamala Harris received a significant support boost.
• However, that support has steadily eroded over the last month, dropping to 39% compared to Trump’s 58% today.

Border Security

One of the most frequently discussed topics following Trump’s X space is border security. People want stronger borders to stop illegal immigration. There is admiration for Trump's policies and stringent border controls, linking them to national safety and economic stability. Conversations portray Trump as a champion for strong borders, with discussions citing illegal crossings during his administration compared to today.

Critics accuse Trump and Republicans of politicizing border security for political gain. However, these arguments are often made ideologically rather than with references to specific policy disagreements.

Taxes

Trump’s proposal to eliminate taxes on tips is also popular. People discuss Kamala Harris’s attempt to piggyback on this policy, highlighting Trump’s comments about her being a copy-cat. Supporters say Trump advocates for the working class with tax relief measures. There is both support for Trump's fiscal policies and skepticism towards Harris’s lackluster economic platform.

Many of these conversations suggest Trump’s proposals resonate more authentically with the public.

Election integrity

Election integrity remains a salient topic in voter conversations, particularly related to Trump’s chances at the ballot box. People discuss Democratic Party tactics, mentioning "Joe Biden," and "Coup 2.0"as heightening their suspicions. Sentiments generally portray Trump as a victim of a political system designed to undermine him.

This fosters a feeling of agitation among his supporters who are concerned about secure voting procedures in November. Discourse around potential election fraud continues to be a rallying theme for Trump voters, blending feelings of indignation and loyalty toward him.

Social media reactions to Joe Biden's statement to the press, "My policies are working. Start writing that way, OK?" are overwhelmingly critical. Americans express significant frustration and cynicism about Biden’s meaning. Many perceive this remark as an attempt to dictate media narratives rather than addressing substantive issues affecting the economy—especially inflation on Biden’s watch.

Reporter asks about inflation.

President Biden: "I told you you're going to have a soft landing...my policies are working. Start writing that way, okay?" pic.twitter.com/sHebANBv06

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 14, 2024

More Than a Feeling

Critics accuse Biden of trying to direct the mainstream media to spin the narrative in his administration’s favor. Phrases like propaganda, media manipulation, and censorship frequently appear in conversations. People express outrage at what they see as a blatant attempt to control the media's reporting on Biden's policies.

American feel that, rather than focusing on fixing the economy, Biden is more concerned with how he is perceived. This appears disingenuous to voters, revealing how far out of touch Biden is with the struggles of ordinary Americans.

The Emperor's New Clothes Narrative

A dominant theme in the criticism is America’s consistently escalating inflation issues. Voters highlight the disconnect between Biden's claim that his policies are working and the economic realities they face. Many point to rising prices and stagnant wages as evidence his policies are not working at all.

Terms like inflation crisis, out of touch, and government failure encapsulate the prevailing negative sentiment. Reactions suggest widespread frustration with the administration's lack of effort to fix the economy, particularly the perception that Biden is attempting to shift blame rather than take responsibility.

Voters feel betrayed by Biden's focus on media narratives, while ignoring the real economic pain people feel in day-to-day life. There is anger that, instead of addressing these concerns head-on, the president is trying to influence how his policies are reported. Criticism is harsh as people call Biden tone-deaf and say he's only interested in appearances and maintaining popularity.

The Myth of an Independent Media

Americans also harbor deep suspicions toward the media. They engage vigorously in conversations about the growing subservience of the media to partisan narratives. Many believe the media has lost any appearance of an independent stance. This is demonstrated in Stephen Colbert’s studio audience laughing when he sincerely said CNN is “objective” and “reports the news as it is.”

Stephen Colbert trying to say CNN is objective only to have his own crowd laugh at him is objectively funny. pic.twitter.com/kQ8yCPdg16

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) August 13, 2024

Online conversations often mention certain keywords together like:

• Media
• Government
• Obedience
• Bias
• Corruption

People express sentiments of distrust towards the media, suggesting it aligns too closely with Democratic talking points. Many view the media as liberal, biased, and consistently lying to them. They vocalize a belief that media entities are complicit in supporting Biden’s agenda rather than providing objective reporting.

Public sentiment is heavily skeptical regarding the media’s integrity and independence from Democratic influence.

Axios recently reported the Kamala Harris campaign was using Google ads to appear as credible news stories. This paid advertising tactic is frowned upon in politics because it suggests allegedly objective news outlets support one candidate over another.

Harris’s ads framed her as the superior candidate while attacking her opponent, Donald Trump. MIG Reports analysis of conversations about this story shows voters treat this generally as unethical and shady.

The Kamala Harris campaign has been running google ads that link to mainstream media articles, but with headlines rewritten by her campaign to appear more supportive

This makes it look to people using Google that the news outlets are saying what her campaign wrote, even though… pic.twitter.com/x4chVdPS7T

— Whole Mars Catalog (@WholeMarsBlog) August 14, 2024

Sausage-Making on Full Display

The theme of authenticity and integrity permeates discussions, with frequent use of terms like fraud, lie, trust, and fake. Conversations questioning Harris's authenticity often accuse her of adopting policies for political gain rather than genuine conviction—her recent proposal for “no taxes on tips” is a recent example.

Voter skepticism extends to Harris’s communication style, with criticism that she avoids unscripted interactions and press questions. The sentiment here is distrustful, portraying Harris as a political figure lacking in genuine leadership qualities and transparent communication.

Many voters are disillusioned with political tactics and thus unsurprised by the Harris campaign’s advertising tactics. Still, with reporting on the abnormality of the ads, people voice their displeasure at mixing political campaigning with purportedly objective news publications.

Negativity also increased when the Axios reporter who wrote the story posted on X walking back criticisms of the campaign's tactics. This exacerbated distaste among voters who already view mainstream media as biased in favor of Democrats. Some also consider it an ironic implication that Democratic narratives are pushed by media outlets without ad dollars.

Harris camp doing nothing wrong and Google, which is pretty strict about banning spammy ads, doesn’t see it as a consumer harm. News outlets just collateral damage in this weird ads tactic https://t.co/xEAiW3JWNC

— Sara Fischer (@sarafischer) August 13, 2024

Show Me Your Friends, I’ll Show You Your Future

Discussions around Harris's policies often intersect with evaluations of her running mate, Tim Walz. Walz has remained in the news cycle for reported “stolen valor” through lies about his military service, combat action, and his rank. Many view this as consistent behavior among politicians.

They conclude questionable Harris campaign tactics foreshadow the deceptive strategies of a potential Harris presidency. This intersection indicates that public perception of Harris is partly influenced by her associations, leading to compounding negative sentiment from shared controversies.

• Discussions of Kamala Harris’s ideologies represent 10.5% of overall conversations about her and show lower approval.

Democrats Don’t Care

Conversations also reflect partisan sentiments, with distinct divides between Harris’s support and opposition. For instance, the hashtags and statements from Democratic voters mostly criticize the Republican Party, emphasizing a clash of ideologies. Harris supporters prioritize voting down Republican candidates, framing her as pivotal in defending rights and democracy.

This position is further demonstrated by Harris’s voter base showing no interest in policy, as the campaign continues to operate without a platform and no challenges from traditional, establishment media. Despite this, positive sentiment from Harris’s advocates is outnumbered by the more frequent and vociferous criticisms from her detractors, highlighting a polarized perception.

Recently, the online and print publication The Economist, went viral for its controversial coverage of protests in the U.K. A controversial article titled, "How to respond to the riots in Britain," called to “punish the thugs” and “stand up for immigration.”

This, to many in America and the U.K., is emblematic of typical mainstream media responses to national protests against unchecked immigration. Recent U.K. protests over the murder of three English girls roiled citizens about immigration in the U.K., eliciting these headlines from The Economist.

Along with placing blame on U.K. nationals, there are rumors of The Economist allegedly removing the Palestinian flag from a photo in one of their stories to downplay pro-Palestine involvement in riots. This fuels discourse criticizing the media, especially drawing backlash from Americans. People express mounting concerns over fake news, media bias, and free speech issues.

The Economist seems to have a problem with the Palestinian flag being displayed on its cover. pic.twitter.com/GWi0O0i955

— Khurram Husain (@KhurramHusain) August 9, 2024

Online conversations show public discontent and extreme distrust of media outlets. Americans, who are sensitive about free speech, accuse the U.K. government of silencing and punishing its citizens for speaking up about immigration. They view leaders as protecting antagonistic immigrants over native citizens. Incidents like this amplify existing anxieties about the integrity and objectivity of press coverage.

In the Total State the native population is criminal, the immigrant is sacred, and the narrative of the managerial elite is truth https://t.co/mC186MiScO

— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) August 8, 2024

Key discussion topics and keywords online include:

• Media manipulation: "photoshopping," "Palestinian flag"
• Censorship: "deleted," "cover up"
• Distrust in media: "fake news," "biased reporting"
• Media accountability: "apologize," "retraction," "credibility"
• Potential editorial bias: "anti-Palestinian," "pro-government"

Americans Sympathize with the English

Online sentiment toward The Economist and the media is predominantly negative. People voice frustration and skepticism at media outlets they view as actively obscuring the truth or manipulating public perception.

This distrust is not confined to any single demographic but spans various groups. Moderates and undecided voters in America, who consume various media sources, are particularly affected. They express discomfort over the evident lack of transparency and the potential influence of media bias on public opinion and policy.

Skepticism toward the media connects with broader themes of political disenfranchisement and systemic corruption. People draw parallels between what they view as The Economist's disingenuous immigration coverage and wider distrust of government and institutional transparency.

There is heightened sensitivity toward perceived double standards and selective news coverage. Americans view both the U.S. government and the U.K. government as "two-tiered justice systems," aided by the mainstream media in playing political favoritism.

Anti-establishment feelings are widespread, fostering a climate of resistance to media narratives and opinions forced on the public by institutions. The skepticism extends to broader concerns, such as electoral integrity and the credibility of news about prominent political figures, further polarizing public opinion.

Trending discussions about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, recently chosen as Kamala Harris's vice-presidential running mate, question his trustworthiness and integrity. Renewed allegations of “stolen valor” against Walz by dishonestly embellishing his military service are flooding social media and news outlets.

Critics expose Walz lied about his military record, reporting he retired from the National Guard just before his unit's deployment to Iraq in 2005. This raises questions about his commitment and honor. These accusations are particularly resonant among veterans and military families, who view such actions as deeply dishonorable.

🚨 Congressman Tim Walz literally voted TO PASS the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, which he is in DIRECT violation of.

Can’t make this stuff up.

He knew exactly what he’s doing, but thought he was immune.

Penalties include PRISON TIME. Maybe it’s time to lock Walz up. pic.twitter.com/wNrE9KBXMu

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) August 8, 2024

Adding to his lies, Walz claimed he was a retired Command Sergeant Major, misrepresenting his rank.

WOW.

Here is yet another video of Tim Walz lying about his rank as a retired Command Sergeant Major.

This one dating back to 2009. pic.twitter.com/PbVMSdd9U4

— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) August 8, 2024

Walz also liked when advocating to restrict certain firearms, perhaps to ally himself with the Ban Assault Weapons vote. Walz strongly implied he carried “weapons of war” despite never being deployed to a combat zone.

It’s time. pic.twitter.com/1ka7V2V77a

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 7, 2024

Tim Walz falsely claimed he carried weapons ‘in war’ in resurfaced clip: ‘Absolutely false’

Walz also used this nonexistent war experience to say it qualifies him to ban civilian weapons he classifies as weapons of war. https://t.co/ULLphFktt8

— John R Lott Jr. (@JohnRLottJr) August 8, 2024

• These stolen valor allegations have had significant impact on support for Walz, driving down voter sentiment.

Tarnishing His Character

The narrative around Walz also includes concerns about his character and personal responsibility. Reports are also surfacing of an alleged DUI incident in 1995 where he was reportedly driving at excessive speeds. This incident further fuels perceptions of Walz as someone who lacks the integrity and judgment expected of a national leader.

Court documents state that Walz, who was 28 years old and working as a high school teacher and football coach at the time, was caught speeding over 80 mph. He failed a breath test, registering a blood-alcohol level of .128. At that time, the legal limit in many parts of the country, including Nebraska, was .1, though it has since been lowered to .08.

Discussions consistently highlight a lack of respect for Walz and questions about his honesty. Voters call him "deceptive," and "untrustworthy" frequently underscoring their doubts about his character. This distrust seems to undermine his appeal to voters, with some suggesting he withdraw from the VP candidacy.

Media Deflection Aggravates Voter Disillusionment

While much of the voter discussion online is negative, media outlets seem to be attempting to defend Walz. On Aug. 9, Google results for “stolen valor” prominently highlighted J.D. Vance news, with most headlines framing the allegations as an attack against Walz by Vance.

This exacerbates voter ire which already exists against the media and Big Tech companies. Americans accuse the media of carrying water for Democrats, memory-holing Kamala Harris’s poor track record and now running cover for Walz.

Especially on the right, voters find the media reaction particularly egregious with emerging video of Walz’s staffers being confronted by combat veterans in 2009 over stolen valor claims. The fact that stolen valor is also a crime punishable with prison time also angers voters who view Walz as getting a pass from Democrats and the media.

Holy cow, there’s video.

Tim Walz being confronted in 2009 for stealing valor by a combat veteran. pic.twitter.com/HItcGJqlkk

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) August 8, 2024

Americans Do Not Respect Frauds

Sentiment in discussions about Walz lean heavily negative, especially among conservatives and veterans who feel betrayed. Moderates and undecided voters also scrutinize Walz, voicing similarly skeptical and critical sentiments. This group is also influenced by fears of Walz’s economic mismanagement, lenience on crime, and extreme social policies. Many voters worry his policies are too far left, resonating negatively with his past statements.