The Media Gets It Wrong About the Pro-Trump Media Alternatives

The alternatives are thriving because the mainstream press drips with contempt for half the nation.

UPDATE: Add the MS-13 stuff as another data point. The President referred to the gang members as "animals" and the media is expressly trying to claim he referred to all immigrants that way.

I've seen a number of reporters and people you and I would commonly agree are "journalists" lament this Axios report on the rise of a "pro-Trump media machine." Most thought Trump voters are just trying to find places that tell them all Trump's lies are true or something.

I have to tell you as someone who has been a Trump critic and, during the election, "Never Trump," I totally get the pro-Trump disdain for the modern American media.

Just let me give a quick focus on CNN, a network I hold in very high regard. CNN went full anti-second amendment in its coverage post-Parkland. It was very difficult throughout its day part to get objective news. Everything was geared toward gun activism.

The same thing happens in much of CNN's coverage of cultural issues, from how it covers Christian bakers forced to bake cakes and transgender issues. By and large, CNN offers good coverage and has some excellent anchors and newsmen. But then it also has objectively leftwing analysts like Jeff Toobin, who they give authoritative voice to while he pushes a decided leftwing world view. Or consider that CNN casts Chris Cuomo as an objective anchor and he gets a townhall with Nancy Pelosi, but Cuomo's questioning of Republicans and his social media feed reveals him to be a deeply partisan Democrat. Roger Ailes once told me Cuomo had pushed Ailes to let Cuomo replace Allen Colmes against Sean Hannity.

The same happens at major news outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post. The same happens at NPR. The same happens at ABC, CBS, and NBC.

If anything, I think CNN and the Washington Post do a better job than just about anybody trying to recognize their own biases and compensate for them. But they get a lot wrong too.

Getting it wrong has a lot to do with the presuppositions of reporters. Many of them, if not most of them, are coastal liberals who do not understand religion or religious people, do not share the values of people in fly over country, and often hold such values in contempt. That shapes their world view, the presuppositions around which they report, and how and when they pick sides.

The reporting about Israel and Hamas is another example of massive media bias. How the networks chose to cover the opening of the American embassy in Cuba as "historic" and the one in Jerusalem as "controversial" plays into this as well.

Liberal reporters seem more and more willing to belittle and talk down to Trump voters so those voters want to go somewhere that does not treat them with contempt. And then they, like so many of us, want a break from all the non-stop Trump news where every story must be about Trump.

There's more happening in the world than Trump.

As someone who has been pretty critical of the President, I spend my evening on radio reviewing the news of the day. While I am sure some Trump voters have permanently fled, I have mostly kept and grown my audience because they know I may not agree with them on the President, but I share their world view and can relate to them.

Too many reporters these days can not only not relate to their audience, but don't want to. And it shows in how they report the news.

No. 1-16

@JaneKMiller ...or you could actually read the transcript, use some common sense, and not be a total idiot. That seems to be impossible for you. I see you commenting on nearly every article on this website with the same liberal talking points you can get from any of the "main street media" talking heads. Why do you even bother, or are you just trolling. I suspect you're just trolling.


When fact is seasoned with the salt of opinion it becomes almost impossible to suppress bias. It is the mark of a good; perhaps great journalist, something extremely rare in our present world. The cause, in my opinion, is our very liberal, progressive ideology being taught in our universities and colleges.


I think news organizations should sort out relevance by the actual effect on people's daily lives.

CNN et. al. cover the current US president and politicians extensively.

Fox News covers the former US president and a former US presidential candidate extensively.



I get that. CNN's hard news has a very strong bias. Every issue is framed from a leftist point of view. Some things aren't covered, both sides are not presented and bias invades every aspect of it. The hard news may not be as blatant has the shows, but it is still there.

I find Fox to be less bias in the news, it also less serious. More Entertainment Tonight and less Evening news, even if the underlying bias is less.

That doesn't mean good, unbiased people don't work there. If half the apples are rotten, it quickly ruins the entire barrell. That is CNN. They don't have any counterweight.

We have very few journalist left. We have SJW warriors masquerading as journalists. The death of journalism is not a good thing, but we need to address the world as it is, not as we want it to be.


@etbass -- In the case of all of the news organizations--including Fox News--they have a news organization and they have "shows". When people talk about bias they usually mean the "shows" which is a panel of talking heads discussing the day's news.

Now, there is certainly some degree of bias in the news reporting itself, which is in the timing. Fox News finds it really important to spend a lot of time keeping everybody up to date on the exact movements and statements of Hillary Clinton. CNN will spend more time on what the sitting US president or what his cabinet members said today, or legal issues pertaining to same.

But both organizations generally report the basic news of the day.

Also, you can't take journalists for granted. Reporting on the news of the world is very labor intensive and costs a lot of money. It's no exaggeration that reporters risk their lives every day to bring us news from dangerous places, and many work really hard in any case to bring us more mundane but really important news (say like that e. coli lettuce problem).

I am nowhere near reporters in my life, but I can imagine somebody like Erick, being close to them, would have an appreciation for their work and for the individuals who do it.