There have been persistent allegations about the reduced cognitive capabilities of President Joe Biden, which have largely been ignored by the American mainstream media. Opinions concerning Biden’s leadership capability have been stifled due to a clear favoritism exhibited by these legacy outlets towards the Democratic party. They easily fell for the accusations that Donald Trump, his predecessor, was an agent of Russia, toeing a line dictated by its leader, Vladimir Putin.
The media was actively involved in two impeachment proceedings, continuously airing partisan narratives. An ‘intelligence source’ needed only to allege some wrongdoings about Trump before these unverified claims were accepted as facts and circulated by prominent media houses. Fact-checking became a deficit as juicy stories took precedence over verified truths.
The mainstream media, predominantly operated by those loyal to the Democratic party, extended their influence to propagate false information from the now infamous 2016 Steele dossier. Hillary Clinton, who commissioned and paid for the dossier during her campaign trail against Trump, escaped the scrutinizing examination of the media. Perhaps, her stand against Trump was enough reason for the media to cast a blind eye.
The media enthusiastically endorsed the blacklisting of stories concerning a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president’s son. This can be interpreted as their attempt to uphold the administration’s command, which was to ensure the story did not reach the populace. They picked a side, simply because they conceived Trump as a danger to democracy and had to be resisted, disregarding their own objectivity in the process.
Yet, the more notable premise is that those same outlets are now expressing concerns about Trump’s control over the White House press pool. They allege that this has made way for unconventional media outlets to gain prominence, and predict that it will reduce the dissemination of information from the Oval Office, resulting in a lack of transparency.
Such a dramatic claim strikes one as ironic. Throughout his tenure, Trump catered more to the enquiries of the press than Biden managed to in his four-year term. He also surpassed the interaction level of Kamala Harris during her campaign, for the role of Vice President.
Trump answered pressing questions from the media in the White House itself. He wasn’t averse to interacting with the press aboard Air Force One, while on the way to Marine One helicopter, or during various functions across the country. Yet, he was accused of monopolizing unconventional media to ask him innately biased, favorable queries.
These accusations are laced with irony when one recalls Biden’s press conferences. Everyone was well aware that these questions were premeditated, and Biden was prepped with a list of specific reporters to interact with. There were instances where his own staff would hurry him away before he could potentially give an impromptu response to an unscripted question.
It is worth considering the media’s uncritical coverage of Kamala Harris during her campaign too. Her so-called ‘interviews’ with the press were, quite frankly, more akin to a friendly chat than a serious political discussion. Yet, not a peep of protest was heard from the mainstream news channels.
The mainstream media, once the unchallenged authority behind White House coverage, now must compete with new, emerging channels that they had previously deemed insignificant. This stirs sentiments of resentment and threatens their monopolistic advantages, a situation they evidently despise.
Their annoyance is symbolic of the continuing illusion held by mainstream news outlets: that they monopolize the interpretation of truth and facts. However, they have blindfolded themselves from the reality that audiences stopped heeding their narrative long ago, turning instead towards online news sources and podcasts.
Such a decline in their mandate and influence is a result of the mainstream media’s inability to provide unbiased coverage of Trump’s presidency. For the better part of a decade, their obvious bias and unfair reportage have impelled audiences to turn to alternate, more nuanced sources of news.
This consistent lack of impartiality is symptomatic of the mainstream media’s gradual yet steady fall from grace. For many years, they have manipulated their power and positioning to spread their narratives, with a clear bias for or against certain political figures.
However, this trend of unfair reporting and the gradual shift of audiences towards new platforms mark the beginning of the end. The audiences have started celebrating the fall of biased media houses, seeking their news, without any manipulation or personal bias, from alternative sources.
The decline of the mainstream media’s influence signals a significant transformation in how news is accessed and shared today. Ultimately, the evolving landscape of news reporting presents the opportunity for the rise of new journalism – one that is more attentive to the voice and needs of its audience, rather than serving the political agendas of a chosen few.