Gallup: Almost Three-Fourths Of Americans View Media As Too Biased

Yellow journalismFor years, we have been discussing the rapid loss of objectivity and neutrality in the media where most viewers no longer trust what they read or hear.  Various cable networks and newspapers have openly embraced the echo-journalist model, including the shocking actions of the New York Times recently to apologize for publishing a dissenting view of the protests by the U.S. Senator.  Figures like CNN’s Jeff Zucker have openly abandoned any semblance of objectivity to seek ratings from viewers who only want to see and hear news that confirms their political preferences. This week, a leading producer at MSNBC became the latest journalist to quit due to the pressure to shape coverage to such bias. I testified in the Senate yesterday of this trend as part of the erosion of free speech in the United States. Now a Gallup poll has confirmed what these owners and editors have done to journalism in the United States. Almost half of those polled said that they viewed media as “very biased.”

The poll by Knight Foundation and Gallup seems to shock many in the media but I do not know why.  Many in the media has spent years in openly shaping the news to resist Donald Trump — just as some in the conservative media have done so in his defense. The difference is that the media is overwhelmingly and unrelentingly anti-Trump.  President Donald Trump has said many things worthy of criticism, but many news outlets seem to be actively working for the election of Joe Biden. This includes softball interviews that are so fawning and feeble that they are cringeworthy. 

What is most interesting is that most Democrats are happy with the bias.  The study found that 71% of Republicans have a “very” or “somewhat” unfavorable opinion of the news media while 54% of Democrats have a very favorable view of the media.  Only 22% of Democrats view the media in a very or somewhat unfavorable light.  Just 13% of Republicans hold favorable views of the media.  That is a sizable percentage of the population but they have been effectively written off by newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times.

The study notably found that 73% of feel that there is too much bias in the news — an increase from  65% two years ago.  This includes 54% of Americans who believe that reporters now regularly misrepresent facts and 28% who said reporters were making things up in their entirety.

They are correct. We have written how newspapers like the Washington Post have written demonstrably false accounts of even court rulings as well as facially unsound legal theories. Most of the complaints however are the simple refusal to publish stories that contradict a uniform narrative or orthodox view in the media.

The resignation of MSNBC producer Ariana Pekary raises the same objections of other journalists who have been forced out media outlets. The producer for MSNBC’s second-most-watched program, “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” wrote “I don’t know what I’m going to do next exactly but I simply couldn’t stay there anymore.”  She stated:

The longer I was at MSNBC, the more I saw such choices — it’s practically baked into the editorial process — and those decisions affect news content every day. Likewise, it’s taboo to discuss how the ratings scheme distorts content, or it’s simply taken for granted, because everyone in the commercial broadcast news industry is doing the exact same thing…But behind closed doors, industry leaders will admit the damage that’s being done.” 

The damage is evident in this and other polls.  Media executives and many reporters are grabbing guaranteed ratings from echo-journalism while destroying their profession.  Most Americans are not the core cable viewers who want to only hear news that confirm their bias. I come from a very liberal and Democratic Chicago family but many of my family complaint that they cannot find reliable news.  These short-term strategies of figures like Zucker are killing the profession with a return to yellow journalism.  News is becoming a form of entertainment masquerading as journalism.  

The problem is that fewer and fewer Americans seem to be buying it.

197 thoughts on “Gallup: Almost Three-Fourths Of Americans View Media As Too Biased”

  1. “73% of feel that there is too much bias in the news”

    Which makes you wonder about the mental capacity of the other 27% who have failed to notice.

    The MSM news networks are no longer news networks. They are propaganda outlets designed to maintain the us versus them Dialectic, aka The Hegelian Dialectic.

    The Hegelian Dialectic

    Friedrich Hegel gets the credit in modern times. But it actually goes back to ancient Greece.

    In ancient Rome the Dialectic was employed through the Roman Senate.

    A perfect example was the, “You’re either with us, or against us.”, statement by Bush II after 911.

    And 911 was a perfect example of a manufactured crisis that allowed the public to accept all kinds of infringements on civil liberties that it normally would have rejected.

    Now they are using the Corona canard to do the same thing. The fear of death, whether from a cold virus made out to sound like the Black Plague, or the 911 attack, which focused on all Muslims, while ignoring Israel’s complicity, is the greatest motivator of all.

    Anyone who solely depends on getting news from MSM outlets is a fool.

    1. Not as big a fool as those who look to Foxnews. Then there are those, like Trump, who read the National Enquirer. The fact of the matter is that for ever, the media, in all countries, has been and continues to be biased. Each political party has a newspaper or network that leans that way. The only way to come close to understanding what’s going on is to read a selection of all and filter out the Tuckers etc. Then cross reference the notable events. Or, look for those that agree with you.

      1. The only way to come close to understanding what’s going on is to read a selection of all and filter out the Tuckers etc. Then cross reference the notable events. Or, look for those that agree with you.

        Well, at least you admit your bias and seek outlets that confirm it.


      It appears that Rhodes is a 911 ‘Truther’. Though he won’t say here if 911 was a Bush-Cheney conspiracy.

      1. Seems all you ever do is launch ad hominem attacks, sign of a typical intellectual bully. Get a life.

    3. Rhodes,
      “73% of feel that there is too much bias in the news”

      Which makes you wonder about the mental capacity of the other 27% who have failed to notice.””

      Scary thought: Maybe they thought there isn’t enough.

  2. The research shows that the public knows the bias is there, and, for the most part, disapprove. But there’s no mechanism to fight it, and so they just sit and stew. Instead, let’s call out one of the worst tools of bias: anonymous sources. If the public had a real mechanism of pushback, the practice could stop. One way could be the public’s online speculation about who the sources are. It would be an actively promoted “hotline” where possible culprits are identified, and confronted about it. Journalists and editors would see that the public is sick of it, and all the tired and phony “Watergate”. And advertisers would see that too.

    1. “there’s no mechanism to fight it”

      Sure there is. Bias exists on a range, from less biased to more biased. Every person can choose to read/listen to media on the less biased end of the scale.

      1. “Bias exists on a range, from less biased to more biased.”

        Has it occurred to you that your own personal biases have a direct impact on what you perceive to be more or less biased? (Especially since you’re a late stage severe TDS sufferer).

        But you’re not a journalist. A true journalist is supposed to manage his or her own biases, and above all else utilize verification from multiple sources in order to ensure the accuracy of their reporting.

        As JT just pointed out, that is now completely lacking in MSM news organizations.

        WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin being a classic example.

        1. Jennifer Rubin is an opinion columnist. You’re making the same mistake Turley does in conflating opinion pieces and news articles.

          Yes, of course I’m aware that my “own personal biases have a direct impact on what [I] perceive to be more or less biased,” just like I’m aware that your “own personal biases have a direct impact on what you perceive to be more or less biased,” and the same for everyone else. I’m also aware that unless you believe all media to be equally biased, then the logical conclusion is that some are more biased than others. And I’m aware of measures of media bias, so I don’t have to rely solely on my personal assessment.

          “you’re not a journalist.”


          Neither are you.

          1. Commit: Rhodes is the ‘official’ Conservative troll of this blog. And though his arguments are weak, he is ever-present in his efforts to buttress Trump-friendly talking points.

            1. Seems all you ever do is launch ad hominem attacks, sign of a typical intellectual bully. Get a life.

            2. Seth, compared to you and the other delusional partisan Democrat TDS sufferers here, Jack Kennedy looks like a conservative.

              Once again, I am a small l libertarian, and a lifelong independent, who has voted for Democrats and Republicans in the past.

              You on the other hand, are a kid who constantly cuts and pastes Democrat talking points here, because you haven’t had an original thought in your short life.

          2. “Jennifer Rubin is an opinion columnist.”

            That is irrelevant, and she considers herself a journalist.

            Whether you are writing editorials, or are acting as a reporter, it is your responsibility to accurately report the facts, not willfully misrepresent the facts as being the exact opposite of reality.

            That’s neither opinion, or editorializing, that is flat out lying. Which is what propagandist do, not what journalists do.

            So once again, you’re wrong, and seemingly incapable of having an “Honest Discussion” about anything.

            Hell, I wouldn’t trust you to give me accurate directions to a grocery store.

          3. Jennifer Rubin is an opinion columnist.

            More saliently, a shill in the strict sense of the term.

  3. I’m a recovering news junkie

    Watched them all, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, BBC, Al Jazeera & CNN

    During the Iraq Gulf War, one reporter who got the most attention was CNN’s Peter Arnett. Pete was crawling around through Baghdad sewage pipes in order to get face-to-face interviews.

  4. All of the “WHUT ABOUT FOX?!?!?”– ers are exactly the people who need to be pandered to in their news. Complain, complain, but this is your fault!

  5. It’s obvious that some readers are unhappy that Fox News is still around. They would rather have us all be subjected to only Democrap news sources.

    1. DV, they are simply pointing out that if Turley is going to critique media for lack of objectivity and bias. He needs to include every source. Not just skip over conservative media which is just as guilty as liberal media of what he complains about. Trump always complains about being fair. To give equal scrutiny of Fox News which is a major conservative leaning News organization would give Turley a more credible reason to his complaints.

      1. The point is not “see, the other side is bad, too, so shut up about my side.” The point is, “both sides arre bad, so it would be foolish to blindly trust any of these so-called news organizations.”

  6. To me, bias in the media is only a danger to the extent that people don’t realize a bias exists. A lot of people still think CNN and the networks are more or less neutral, so that’s a big problem currently.

    But those mediums are rapidly dying and more people are getting their news elsewhere. Those other locations tend to have known biases.

    The much bigger problem, IMO, is how technology is shaping which news and information is made available to the public, and how it is filtered and/or suppressed.

  7. “Figures like CNN’s Jeff Zucker have openly abandoned any semblance of objectivity to seek ratings from viewers who only want to see and hear news that confirms their political preferences.”

    Here’s a question…if the media succeeds in helping get ol’ demented Joe Biden elected in November, then what happens? Who’s gonna give them ratings? Bashing Joe Biden like they have bashed Trump for the past four years? Nope. Their ratings will tank if Trump is gone. The media won’t attack Biden and his administration full of Obama retreads. Half of the paid media talking heads and analysts are from the Obama administration! The media was on hiatus and asleep for the duration of the ‘enchanting’ Obama presidency and nearly all the cable channels were going under with the exception of Fox News. Then came Trump and ratings soared across the board. If Biden makes it into office, then what?

    Will profit motive ‘trump’ the media’s built-in political ideological bias in order to save themselves? Will Zucker’s CNN and other media throw Biden overboard and toss a lifeline to Trump in order to save their own sinking ship? hmmmmm what will the biased media do…..???

    1. “Their ratings will tank if Trump is gone.”

      Anyone who thinks that Trump is the only interesting or newsworthy person in the world has TDS.
      And hopefully, Trump will be prosecuted for some of his crimes once he’s out of office, which would keep him in the news to some extent.

      1. Yes, so much is more ‘newsworthy’ than Trump. Remember ISIS? (Or ISIL as only Obama and his administration called it). Trump took care of ISIS. Notice how fast all that “news” disappeared? We saw the rise of ISIS during Obama’s term and it was in the news daily. Also, Trump is bringing troops home. During Obama we had Libya, Syria, etc. But with Biden in office? Will ISIS make a resurgence? Or they’ll start another war, perhaps? That’d be newsworthy and profitable for the military industrial complex. Joe Biden voted for the war in Iraq after all. With Obama retreads back in office, what happens to Israel, the country that Obama so despises? Too bad we don’t have Hillary Clinton and her private server monetizing her Secy of State position to keep filling the ‘family charity’ coffers, eh? How about Obama’s IRS going after conservatives? How about Eric ‘wing man’ Holder running guns to Mexico that killed a US border agent? Or how about ‘Pallets of cash’ flown in the dark of night on unmarked planes into Iran, unbeknownst to Congress? How about race riots in the streets stoked by Obama and Holder? Don’t we all miss the scandal-free Obama years? Wouldn’t we all like to start more wars and start paying Joe Biden’s promised higher taxes that will go towards even more wasted government spending?

        “And hopefully Trump will be prosecuted for some of his crimes”… them. What “crimes”?

        Here’s a question: When will the Obama administration be prosecuted for some of its scandalous crimes? You know, the ones the media refuses to even cover or mention or investigate or ask a single question about. Those crimes? Or will Obama get to continue hiding behind his racial suit of armor? Let’s guess, shall we?

        1. “Trump took care of ISIS”

          Are you high on something? ISIS carried out an attack in Afghanistan a couple of days ago:

          “name them. What “crimes”?”

          Here’s a sampling:
          * obstruction of justice, outlined in the Mueller Report
          * campaign finance law violations (the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and the NE deal with Karen McDougal) and knowingly making false statements on his financial disclosure forms while in office, when he chose not to include his debt to Michael Cohen and then certified the form as complete and correct
          * tax fraud in NY

          And of course, he’s also facing a bunch of newsworthy civil suits, like the defamation suits by Summer Zervos and E. Jean Carroll.

          1. “A bunch of newsworthy civil suits.” Exactly. “newsworthy” fodder. Blah blah blah. Name some real crimes. “Obstruction of justice, as outlined in Mueller report” is not one of them, btw.

            And yes, Trump took care of ISIS. Do you recall the *daily* nonstop news reports on ISIL during Obama years? That stopped under Trump. Do you think a resurgence of ISIS attacks now has something to do with Trump’s plan to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan?

            1. When they prosecute Obama’s campaign finance violations and Ilhan Omar’s campaign finance violations, for example, and “false statements” made by Obama officials, then get back to us about Trump.

              1. I’m not “complaining about newsworthy fodder,” I’m defining it as such.

                Yes, obstruction of justice is a real crime. If only the Mueller report was based on investigating “real evidence” of a “real crime,” that is to say the very serious crimes committed by the very corrupt Obama administration that made the whole thing up in order to take Trump down.

                1. There was ““real evidence” of a “real crime”” (more than one person has been convicted), collecting additional evidence was impeded by the obstruction of justice (otherwise more people might have been tried and/or charged with additional crimes).

                  If the DOJ has evidence of someone in the Obama Admin. having committed a crime, they should indict the person and bring him/her to trial.

                  For the record, one can commit obstruction even if one isn’t guilty of the crime being investigated, as occurred with Martha Stewart.

                  1. “(more than one person has been convicted)”

                    of what? Russia Russia Russia-related crimes? or….???

                    “If the DOJ has evidence of someone in the Obama Admin. having committed a crime, they should indict the person and bring him/her to trial.”

                    They do and they should.

                    1. SMH that you cut off the phrase immediately preceding what you quoted and then ask about what was specified in the part you cut off.

                      Do you have reading comprehension problems?

                      “There was ‘“real evidence” of a “real crime”’ (more than one person has been convicted)” indicates that more than one person was convicted of real crimes.

                  2. If the DOJ has evidence of someone in the Obama Admin. having committed a crime, they should indict the person and bring him/her to trial.

                    Do you require an indictment before you’ll admit a crime occurred? Let’s test your ability to be honest given the evidence available. Do you believe anyone in the Obama administration committed crimes that they should be indicted for? This is not a trick question.

                  3. “If the DOJ has evidence of someone in the Obama Admin. having committed a crime, they should indict the person and bring him/her to trial.”

                    What do you think John Durham has been doing?

                    Be careful what you wish for.

                    BTW, how is that case against the 13 Russians that was brought by Mueller’s prosecutors coming along?

                    I’m sure that you have no idea.

                    1. She is honestly a partisan hack that cannot bring herself to answer the question: Do you believe anyone in the Obama administration committed crimes that they should be indicted for?

                      At this point I have confidence that Durham will have all the evidence he needs to to bring indictments for the crimes that were obviously committed. I am however less confident Durham and/or Barr to be successful in prosecuting them.

                    2. Unless Durham has a sealed indictment, so far he hasn’t indicted anyone as part of his investigation, much less brought the case to trial. But I won’t be surprised if Kevin Clinesmith is indicted.

                      And what you’re mistakenly “sure” of would likely fill volumes.

                    3. Unless Durham has a sealed indictment, so far he hasn’t indicted anyone as part of his investigation, much less brought the case to trial.

                      How committed to honesty are you? Do you believe anyone in the Obama administration committed crimes that they should be indicted for? If yes, who?

          2. “Tax fraud in NY.” When a prosecutor leaks the “news” story that he is relying on other “news reports,” and not actual evidence, to seek tax returns in order to find evidence to prosecute a political foe, then I don’t know what’s wrong with that, do you?

              1. SCOTUS ruled Trump can be criminally investigated while in office. The issue I’m referring to is when a NY prosecutor relies on “a slew of public reports” and “newspaper articles” with “allegations” made over decades, and then uses these “reports” as justification for his demanding Trump’s tax returns, so they can proceed with trying to find actual “evidence” of wrong doing. That’s a problem.

                1. Re: the phrases you just put in quotation marks, who are you quoting? (You weren’t quoting me, and you don’t identify the source. Are you making up quotes just for effect?)

                  It’s also striking that you ignore evidence like Cohen’s testimony under oath, and Trump’s presidential financial disclosure forms, which are public. He lied on that form in 2017 and then tried to excuse it in a footnote on his 2018 form.

                  Vance has requested grand jury material. It’s up to the court, not you, to determine whether it’s a legitimate request.

                  1. “It’s up to the court, not you, to determine whether it’s a legitimate request.”

                    It is? I didn’t realize that. Thanks for setting me straight on the actual power of my opinions.

                    PS I believe “slew” was the word you used. 😉

                    1. Learn how to use quotation marks accurately. That I used the word “slew” — in the phrase “a slew of non-leaked evidence” — does not mean that I said the phrase you put in quotes, “a slew of public reports.”

      2. I read someplace something like, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”…or was that the plank in my eye acting up again?

    2. It likely won’t matter much what Biden does, because given his declining mental condition, his VP pick will likely be running the show. Pay attention to his VP selection and vote based on that!. Looking over historical precedent, it seems both parties are prone to decide the worthiness of a candidate based on malleability rather than backbone.

  8. “Television was supposed to be a national park. (Instead) it has become a money machine… It’s a commodity now, just like pork bellies. ”
    F. Friendly

  9. What a surprise, Turley mentions bias at CNN and MSNBC, but is silent about Fox and other media on the right. /s

    He also misrepresents the NYT by (a) falsely claiming that they ” apologize[d],” when they did not, and (b) focusing on an op-ed column. In fact, several of the columns Turley links to are about opinion writers rather than about news articles.

    I consider some news sources to be biased and others generally unbiased. I think it’s foolish to talk about media bias as if the media are some homogeneous entity.

    Turley’s complaint about the Post having “written demonstrably false accounts” is ironic, as Turley has himself “written demonstrably false accounts” and generally makes no effort to correct anything other that typos (i.e., doesn’t correct factual errors or errors of reasoning) and doesn’t even correct all of those.

    Since Turley draws attention to his column about the NYT and Cotton’s op-ed, I’ll repost a comment I made in response:

    Again, this is what the Times said about the publication of Cotton’s op-ed:
    “We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication. This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reduction the number of op-eds we publish.”

    Turley infers from that all sorts of things from this statement that the Times didn’t say and didn’t imply.

    If he’d paid attention to all of the relevant facts — if he’d read the Times own reporting about this — he’d know that “Near the end of the day, James Bennet, the editor in charge of the opinion section, said in a meeting with staff members that he had not read the essay before it was published.” This is shameful on Bennet’s part, but at least he is admitting it. The NYT didn’t say or imply that they wouldn’t have published Mr. Cotton’s op-ed after having it go through a normal editorial process to correct some of its weaknesses. For example, presumably they would have asked Cotton to abandon his claim that “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes,” given that “The FBI has found no evidence that the American militant anti-fascist movement Antifa was involved in violence that erupted during national protests over the death of George Floyd” ( ).

    I bet that Mr. Turley often doesn’t read relevant text before writing his columns. For example, in his column on Samantha Power’s testimony, the column suggests that he never actually read her testimony. He doesn’t seem to have read all of the relevant text in discussing the NYT’s choice here. Maybe he has something to learn from Mr. Bennet’s admission.

  10. Note, they’ve now occupied the space that used to be occupied by Daily Kos and other components of what we called ‘the nutroots’ 15 years ago. They figure people want emotional validation, not information. Actually, it’s probably what their employees want too. Producer and consumer are gross in this transaction.

    1. Actually it would be emotional validation *with* their information, putting the progressive sources well above Fox and the like which just produce emotional validation.

  11. Turley seems so focused on MSNBC and other liberal media, but gives conservative media such as Fox News, Breitbart, etc. a whisper of criticism. No mention of Fox News high number of retractions and admissions of doctored images in its reporting. If Turley wants objectivity to be a meaningful part of media again he should start by giving equal scrutiny and criticism of right wing media as well. The scant mentions and “criticism” leveled at Fox News and other similar organizations such as Breitbart makes Turley a hypocrite. He should mention the same failures right leaning media have committed, but it is clear he is biased himself against making equally harsh criticism.

      1. For a “Democrat” JT sure spends a lot of time defending Republicans while criticizing Democrats. And for a “Democrat” the Republicans call him to testify quite a bit.

      2. Macroman, he’s complaining about lack objectivity and biases. Media isn’t relegated to liberal sources. Conservative media has just as much influence and it too is guilty of the problems Turley points out. Sometimes they are worse. Retractions and doctoring images are far more common with Fox News. Turley is being hypocritical by treating right wing media with kid gloves.

    1. he should start by giving equal scrutiny and criticism of right wing media as well.

      There isn’t any other than Breitbart, OANN, and (on alternate Tuesdays) Fox. Why should he give ‘equal scrutiny’ to a modest segment of the market. (And, no, I don’t think a validly constructive content analysis is going to go well for the MSM).

      1. Absurd, the size of the segment is irrelevant. Media is media and Turley is chastising media for losing its objectivity and lack of neutrality. He focused on liberal media and largely ignored Fox News which is also a major news organization that often claims to be, “the most watched, most trusted news source”, “fair and balanced”, and has the most viewership.

        Based on his objections he should be scrutinizing Fox News as much as he is scrutinizing mostly liberal media.

        Fox News peddles it’s punditry as news most of the time and it doesn’t make any effort to distinguish to its viewers that important difference because it too is biased heavily towards the right.

    2. You might want to stop and think about the news that Turley is responding to. The news is that more people now believe the media is biased. Since FOX has long been understood by most to be biased, this isn’t part of the news.

    3. “No mention of Fox News high number of retractions and admissions of doctored images in its reporting.”

      Examples, please.

  12. Looking for completely objective media is like showing up to a football game in a baseball uniform. Tabloid journalism has gotten a stronger foothold as the business has further and further centralized. This is not only true in the news business, it’s true in music and publishing and movies and television.

    Trump got all kinds of free media exposure that no candidate has ever gotten in 2016 because morning news shows, on every network, were scared to turn down the possible ratings bump that went along with kowtowing to Trump bumb rushing them with his ‘spontaneous’ calls.

    The daily news cycle has shaped how every story is covered. On every network. Period. No ratings, no show. Hell, I’m going to guess NBC had an internal mandate to put Trump on at every opportunity because the Apprentice was still on the air in ’16 and they thought, no way he’ll win but at least we can bump ratings for the show he’s under contract for. And Trump was no doubt thinking the same thing.

    Totally giggling here seeing JT go off on CNN and MSNBC while completely omitting Fox.

  13. We need a fair and balanced tv news network.
    Some billionaire could set one up in a New York minute. A Midwest City would be a good home base and not the East or West coast.

  14. News reporting on national events is better than ever, probably about the same on international news, though through the internet we all have more resources available all the time, like the BBC, the Economist, and Al Jazeerah, and local and state news much worse with the decline in local newspapers.

    It is in the interests of demagogues like Trump and his stooges like JT to sow hostility toward the press, Only fools buy it.

    1. Do you have consistent examples of Fox being biased? Remember that the daily evening shows are not news programs.
      Are you aware of the phony news by CNN and MSNBC regarding the non-existent Russian-Trump collusion story?
      This narrative was pushed for years.

      1. MSNBC is all commentary and the CNN evening programming are, yet JT regularly criticizes them without mentioning Fox . Fox’s news coverage is selective and targeted for conservative advantage.

        Forget the 24/7 cable news networks for “news”. It’s opinion. For news read the NYTs and WSJ – not the opinion pages of either. WaPo for DC News, the AP and Reuters, BBC, etc.

        1. Newsflash! The NYT is astoundingly biased in what is covers and how it covers it from how it words headlines and on down the line. WaPo is owned by Amazon Jeff Bezos and it is demonstrably biased. The AP is biased. (I know I’ve worked for them). Reuters is probably one of the best out there. BBC is notoriously biased. So is NPR, and PBS and all the rest.

  15. Turley: “The problem is that fewer and fewer Americans seem to be buying it.”


    Not sure that is a problem.

    1. I agree Young. Imagine the horror in those outlets that set a course thinking they were influencing a majority of Americans. When 73% of Americans aren’t buying what you’re selling, then that’s a 73% worth understanding.

  16. To put it in perspective, I am not a Trump supporter, and I know he lies everyday. Beirut explosion happens. All media says accident. Trump says attack. I instantly believe it was an attack to my own surprise.

    1. Trump lies everyday? I think you have him confused with CNN. Even if it were true, though, someone needs to step in and inform you that believe it or not: you are in control of your own brain. Not Trump, not the media. No one can ‘make’ you believe anything.

      1. Yes, he does. Any time a crowd size comes up, he lies.

        Why is “make” in quotes when I said nothing of the sort?

        I know I am in control of my own brain. Are you in control of yours? Doesn’t seem like it when you respond with partisan non sequiters!

    1. Anyone still supporting Trump is evidence of a national failing of some sort or all – moral, informational, common sense.

      1. What is failing in the country? Besides the schools and the teachers unions? Of which Trump supports school choice, btw. But because of Democrats and Teachers Unions there is a waiting list of over a million students wanting to get into Charter schools. But it is being blocked by the corrupt teachers unions and Democrat politicians. All those parents who want to get their kids into a good charter school had better vote for Trump and vote OUT the corrupt local leaders preventing you and your children getting a better education. Trump supports school choice. What is immoral is what the Democrats are doing to our schools.

  17. This has been evident the 60’s. Why it has taken this long for the left to admit it is evidence of their benefit from such propaganda these many years.

Leave a Reply