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.

After a biological male was allowed to box a woman at the Olympics, many Americans are voicing strong objections and outrage. Female boxer Angela Carini withdrew from the match after only 46 seconds, saying it was the hardest she’d even been hit and that she could not breathe after a blow to her nose.

Imane Khelif's participation highlights concerns about unfair competition due to biological male advantages. People argue Khelif’s inclusion undermines the integrity of women’s sports, given the athlete's previous exclusion from the World Boxing Championship for failing a testosterone test and possessing XY chromosomes.

This sentiment encapsulates a broader frustration with the disproportionate influence of woke ideologies in sports and politics. Critics call for separate categories for transgender or intersex athletes or the establishment of a Trans Games akin to the Paralympics to preserve fairness in competitive sports.

After 46 seconds and a few hits to the face by a male, Carini forfeited the fight.

Call me crazy, but It's almost as if women don't want to be punched in the face by a male as the world watches and applauds.

This is glorified male violence against women.pic.twitter.com/RYU7aTbn0I

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) August 1, 2024

Many are also pointing out the International Boxing Association’s (IBA) statement on the matter, which urged people to question the Olympic committee on why this was allowed.

BREAKING. The International Boxing Association has released the following scathing statement regarding women’s boxing.

Thread. 1/ pic.twitter.com/JH88N4Ggp5

— Jennifer 🟥🔴🧙‍♀️🦉🐈‍⬛ 🦖 (@babybeginner) July 31, 2024

High profile figures like J.K. Rowling and Jake Paul have also spoken out on the issues, objecting to the event as a global outrage.

Could any picture sum up our new men’s rights movement better? The smirk of a male who’s knows he’s protected by a misogynist sporting establishment enjoying the distress of a woman he’s just punched in the head, and whose life’s ambition he’s just shattered. #Paris2024 pic.twitter.com/Q5SbKiksXQ

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) August 1, 2024

This is sickening. This is a travesty.

Doesn’t matter what you believe. This is wrong and dangerous. https://t.co/mddORfaK2D

— Jake Paul (@jakepaul) August 1, 2024

Positive Support is Scarce

Most reactions express anger, calling for fairness in women's sports. People often express concerns about fairness and safety, emphasizing that men are physically stronger than women—including intersex individuals with the physical advantages of biological men.

People vehemently argue that men do not belong in women's sports, criticizing the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and demanding action.

There are some supporters who call for "inclusivity," "progress," and "equity." They argue allowing men and women to compete in the same events is a step forward for gender equality in sports. This group seeks to challenge traditional gender norms and promote a more inclusive sporting environment.

Some supporters also allege that Khelif is not a transgender athlete but someone with DSD (differences of sexual development) or intersex. However, many in opposition argue this point is not relevant when intersex athletes with XY chromosomes still possess male physical advantages.

Overall, reactions are unified in their disapproval of Carini even being allowed in the ring with a male boxer.

Political Overlap

Reactions are not solely fixated on the match itself but connected with wider political battles. Discussions often include denunciations of liberal and socialist ideologies, highlight the progressive stance that transgender inclusion is the highest priority above female safety.

A male getting his feelings hurt matters more to @iocmedia & @TheDemocrats than a woman getting physically hurt

Read that again

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) August 1, 2024

Conservatives tend to argue progressives aim to dismantle traditional structures and norms. This outrage is often paired with criticisms of Democratic officials like Kamala Harris. People on the right and even some moderates point out that progressives like Kamala Harris promote “inclusion” and “equity” in sports, staying silent when women like Carini pay a physical price.

True or let her deny it https://t.co/z3OulP5eKJ

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 1, 2024

Another prevalent narrative is the perception of hypocrisy and political exploitation. Critics accuse progressives of promoting policies that allegedly harm women under the guise of inclusivity. Discussions often highlight claims of inconsistency, pointing out that gender identity and transgender issues conflict with feminist principles. People also accuse Democrats of hypocrisy for calling Republicans like J.D. Vance “weird,” while staying silent on female boxers being punched in the face by men.

Dudes are beating up girls in the Olympics but @JDVance is weird…

— Robert J. O'Neill (@mchooyah) August 1, 2024

A public and shocking mockery of the Last Supper during the opening ceremony of the Olympics sent social media into a frenzy over the weekend. Christians were particularly charged by this perceived disrespect and blasphemy against one of the prominent world religions.

The depiction, which many see as a blatant parody of a sacred Christian narrative, has provoked strong reactions across various online platforms. In a live action tableau, an obese woman dressed as the “Christ” figure sat at the center of the Last Supper table, surround by drag queens. The depiction was heightened by a man covered in blue paint and no clothes other than a vine being served on a silver platter.

This portrayal offended many Christians and non-Christians who called it a sacrilege. It has amplified existing cultural and religious fault lines, exacerbating tensions between conservative and liberal ideologies. The reactions highlight a significant aspect of the ongoing cultural war, manifesting an emotional battleground where art, faith, and politics intensely intersect.

VATICAN CITY—Pope Francis made a statement regarding the Olympics at today’s Sunday Angelus—on the “scandal” of war, not the scandal of blasphemy during the opening ceremonies.@HolySeePress Spokesman, Matteo Bruni, has failed to respond to inquiries, despite calls for the… pic.twitter.com/0pY8YSPXxI

— Bree A Dail (@breeadail) July 28, 2024

Hot Button Issue

Online discussions center around terms such as "mockery," "blasphemy," and "disrespect," frequently tied to expressions like "woke agenda," "Satanic," "LGBTQ," and "drag queens."

Americans show significant concern about the erosion of Christian values and traditions in the West, as evidenced by passionate calls for respect and the preservation of these beliefs.

Sentiment Trends

Most reaction are overwhelmingly negative among Christian viewers who perceive the ceremony as an affront to their faith. They express feelings of anger, offense, and sorrow. Specific criticisms point to the blending of religious symbols with what they consider "worldly and demonic ideologies."

Christians view the display as furthering progressive and woke agendas to undermine traditional Christian values. There is also a noticeable call to action within Christian communities, urging members to repent, believe, and stand firm in their faith. Many also committed to boycotting the Olympics.

Interestingly, this outrage is not confined to Christianity. Both Catholic and Protestant communities share in this collective indignation, along with many secular Americans and those who observe other religions.

There are notable criticisms from Catholics directed at Pope Francis for not condemning the act more aggressively. For a segment of the public, this inaction underscores a broader dissatisfaction with the perceived liberal shift in the church hierarchy.

The impact on Christian viewers is significant, leading many to call for boycotts, expressing a sense of alienation and increased vigilance against infringements on their religious values. Christian groups argue such representations indicate the erosion of religious reverence in public spaces, inciting calls for greater advocacy against similar future instances.

Orthodox hierarchs condemn blasphemous Olympics opening
Among the hierarchs who have condemned the blasphemy that was on display for the entire world to see, is Metropolitan Theologos of Serres of the Greek Orthodox Church. Preaching at the Holy Monastery of St. Paraskevi on… pic.twitter.com/aq03UWoNLL

— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) July 29, 2024

For non-Christian viewers, reactions appear more varied. Some share the sentiment that freedom of expression should be balanced against respect for religious beliefs. They align with the displeasure of Christian viewers, saying you don’t have to be a Christian to view it as inappropriate.

However, others staunchly defend the portrayal as a form of artistic expression. They emphasize the importance of freedom of speech, regardless of the discomfort it may cause. This group often associates critics of the ceremony with right-wing conservatism, highlighting broader cultural and political divides.

🇮🇷 🇫🇷 Iran says France should be ashamed of itself for its opening ceremony at the Olympics.

"The insulting representation of Jesus Christ in Paris yesterday was completely offensive and crossed all red lines.

France, a country with a major history of Christianity, must be… pic.twitter.com/qHW4FOnqW2

— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) July 28, 2024

The reactions have influenced calls for action from both sides. Christians discuss boycotting Olympics and withdrawing from any associated media outlets, like NBC. They call for prayers, repentance, and a reinvigoration of faith-based activism. In contrast, those defending the ceremony advocate for ongoing support of artistic freedom and cultural progression.

An apparent surge in support, positivity, and engagement for the Kamala Harris presidential campaign is confusing many Americans. Despite media claims that the highly relatable, meme-friendly, and accomplished Vice President is gaining historic levels of support, many voters remain skeptical.

In addition to feeling much of the hype seems insincere, Americans are talking about suspicious media and Democrat efforts to modify public understanding of Harris’s political track record. The discourse reveals a potent blend of ideology, identity politics, and performance in public office fueling public opinion.

Critics debate Kamala Harris’s qualifications and achievements, often within the context of identity politics, questioning whether her gender and race unjustly shield her from criticism or amplify her credentials. Many also skewer the mainstream media for its increasingly obvious hypocrisy in reporting the VP’s accomplishments and embarrassments.

Protective Cover from the Media

Many Americans view Harris's policies and political endeavors as extremely liberal. This perception would likely damage her chances given the majority of Americans do not align with the far, progressive left.

There's also a perception that media outlets are systematically erasing or altering aspects of her record to present a moderated version of her stances. Examples of this include:

• Her position as “Border Czar”
• Her complicity in covering up Biden’s health and reasons for withdrawing
• Her renown as the “most liberal” Senator
• Her support for the Minnesota Freedom Fund
• Whether she was chosen for her accomplishments rather than her identity

Border Czar

The accusations against media outlets began when headlines claimed Kamala Harris was never named “Border Czar” for the Biden administration. Many people pointed out that, until now, everyone agreed and accepted the colloquial title given to her as the administration’s person in charge of the border.

Americans and right leaning journalists criticized the media for walking this back and even retroactively changing pervious reporting. Axios received significant backlash for modifying one of its own articles from 2021, which mention Harris as Border Czar.

CALLED IT. These pathetic Democrat hacks are the most predictably dishonest people on earth. https://t.co/hzft99D9Zg pic.twitter.com/iox1dlRgGR

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 24, 2024

Some also criticized Wikipedia for apparently removing Kamala Harris from the list of historical Border Czars for the U.S.

Update: Wikipedia completely scrubbed Kamala from its executive branch czar page. The Axios article is no longer even listed in the citations. https://t.co/TBF6oHNrHx pic.twitter.com/oCn5Rp0I0h

— James Lynch (@jameslynch32) July 25, 2024

Criticism toward Democrats and the media grew overwhelming when a cue card was leaked which claimed to give the press talking point from the Harris campaign to deny and dismiss Border Czar claims.

Wow.

A Democrat lawmaker confirmed to FOX that Dems have received a piece of paper with talking points/lies about how to discuss Kamala Harris' role at the Southern border.

They are already using the exact lines.https://t.co/CITguKLWCD pic.twitter.com/Bo8pxla61M

— Bobby Burack (@burackbobby_) July 25, 2024

When asked about the cue card, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed to have no knowledge of it. This also generated criticism and backlash from voters who view the current administration as colluding with the media to promote Kamala Harris’s campaign.

JUST IN: Peter Doocy confronts KJP on the now-infamous "talking points" card that tells reporters to deny Kamala Harris was ever appointed "Border Czar."

Let the games begin. 🤣pic.twitter.com/QvfOWZy4a1

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) July 25, 2024

Most Liberal Senator

GovTrack's also received sharp backlash for deleting its 2019 rating of Harris as the "most liberal senator." This deletion is seen as an attempt by the media to cover up or obscure her true political leanings to make her more palatable to moderate voters.

BREAKING: GovTrack just DELETED their 2019 page that ranked Kamala Harris as THE MOST LIBERAL of all 100 Senators

It would be a shame if we made it viral: pic.twitter.com/Pi6KvngOTh

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 24, 2024

Harris critics often label her policies as “communist” and express concerns about her support for open borders, defunding the police, and providing benefits to illegal immigrants. This, people say, is the reason the establishment apparatus is being used to hide her legacy.

Commentary about Kamala’s support for programs such as the Green New Deal, socialized healthcare, and defunding law enforcement positions her even further left than other prominent Democrats, including Bernie Sanders. Most Americans think of these views as dangerously socialist or Marxist and in the minority.

BREAKING: Footage found of VP Kamala Harris supporting DEFUND THE POLICE:

"It's about upending the system"
"We need to look at police budgets"
"More safety with more cops is wrong" pic.twitter.com/0HxUQeov9x

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 26, 2024

Minnesota Freedom Fund

There is also controversy around claims asserting or denying Kamala Harris donated or promoted the Minnesota Freedom Fund—which helps bail out protesters. News outlets published headlines denying Harris donated to the fund, also implying she never supported it. This drew an avalanche videos, articles, and posts being shared to debunk the claim.

Reports from the same outlets and reporters in the past said, “Kamala Harris urged people to donate to the fund while it was bailing out protestors. Since then, it’s been posting bail for other offenders, including one who Republicans say committed a murder in downtown St. Paul.”

This might be the most blatant lie I’ve ever seen.

Esme, the author of this article, was literally at our press conference in 2022 on the light rail platform where a man was murdered by a criminal the Minnesota Freedom Fund had bailed out a short time before.

She then aired… https://t.co/hGinFk7DK0 pic.twitter.com/WSHurmPGBy

— Nick Majerus (@njmajerus) July 26, 2024

The reasons for significant negative sentiment toward Harris and the media appear to stem largely from a broader distrust in institutions. There is a growing perception that there are concerted efforts to hide truths about Kamala’s record to help the Democratic Party. This distrust is further exacerbated by a polarized political climate where ideological purity and alignment are heavily scrutinized and often radicalized.

MIG Reports data shows recent online conversations surrounding the assassination attempt on Donald Trump expose skepticism and doubt. This sentiment is largely driven by media reporting about the event, fostering a notable divide in public opinion. The overarching narrative reveals skepticism about the assassination attempt did not originate spontaneously but was significantly influenced by critical media coverage.

Top Topics

People are talking about revelations about the reluctance of the U.S. Secret Service to utilize drones for security. These allegations came to light through sources like Sen. Josh Hawley's whistleblower revelations. Discussions often center around why the Secret Service neglected to employ available drone technology, even after offers from local law enforcement.

People conclude this massive error allowed the assailant to fly his own drone over the venue, several hours prior to the rally. This aspect has given rise to various theories questioning the competence and motives of the Secret Service, leading to accusations of a deliberate stand-down.

Another prominent theme is the political alignment and social media activity of the would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks. Public discourse fixates on contrasting the portrayal of Crooks’s alleged pro-Biden stance with media suggestions that he may have been a Trump supporter—or at least a Republican. Many people say media bias is skewing coverage, highlighting or downplaying these affiliations based on the narrative they prefer.

Trending Sentiment

There are some who firmly believe in a deeply entrenched conspiracy. This is fueled by consistent Democrat and media skepticism and speculations that the event may have been an inside job or an act of negligence. Those who believe this express a sense of betrayal and frustration with government and media, often citing broader political conspiracies and failures of governmental institutions.

Other groups of voters express outright disbelief, deeming the assassination attempt as exaggerated or fabricated entirely. This skepticism is amplified by the FBI's statements questioning whether Trump was actually struck by a bullet or by shrapnel. These allegations further muddy the waters and feed theories of false flags or setups.

Many accuse the media of perpetuating theories that Trump was not hit by a bullet. This insistence on questioning something that many Americans saw with their own eyes further erodes trust, especially when people point out that Corey Comperatore lost his life.

Prominent keywords in these discussions include "drone technology," "whistleblower," "Secret Service," "leftist," "Biden support," and "media bias." The sustained mention of these terms indicates a profound preoccupation with the operational failures, perceived political motivations, and the credibility of media reporting.

Public sentiment is colored by distrust towards both the media and the government agencies involved. Many believe there's a concerted effort to obscure the truth, whether through deliberate action or systemic incompetence.

The skepticism surrounding the assassination attempt on Donald Trump owes much of its intensity to how media coverage has shaped the narrative. By framing the event with questioning tones and highlighting inconsistencies and failures in security measures, the media has inadvertently or otherwise, sown seeds of doubt and fostered a climate ripe for conspiracy theories.