Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Partisan bias divides news consumption for Americans

news media
Techa Tungateja/EyeEm/Getty Images

The partisan divide over media consumption habits means Americans are getting vastly different messages about what’s important, according to new polling.

Morning Consult and Politico asked Americans how much they have seen, read or heard about a number of issues that have been in the news in recent weeks, and the results clearly show partisan biases.


For example, pollsters asked people about Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, texting Donad Trump’s chief of staff regarding efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Thirty-six percent of Democrats said they had heard a lot about the story, compared to just 12 percent of Republicans. More than a one-third of Republicans said they had seen “nothing at all” about it.

Justice Thomas, a conservative, was the only member of the Supreme Court to disagree with a decision denying Trump’s effort to block an investigative committee from receiving materials related to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. Some people on the left have called for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from relevant cases.

According to Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog, Fox News gave minimal coverage during the early days of the story.

On the other hand, 62 percent of Republicans said they had heard “a lot” or “some” about federal investigators stepping up their probe into President Biden’s son, Hunter. Only 45 percent of Democrats said the same.

Hunter Biden is being investigated for money laundering and tax violations connected to his foreign business involvement beginning when his father was vice president.

“We heard a lot about collusion during the Trump era, but the real collusion happened between broadcast, print and social media all working together to either squash or dismiss the Hunter Biden laptop story,” Fox News commentator Joe Concha wrote in The Hill.

But a Hunter Biden story went the opposite way as well. At the end of March, Trump called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to release any information he has on the Biden family, even while Putin is waging an unprovoked war on Ukraine, where he has been accused of war crimes.

Twenty-six percent of Democrats, and 15 percent of Republicans, said they had heard “a lot” about the story. A little more than one-third of each party said they had seen “some” news about it.

There was a far bigger divide on a different story involving Trump. In late March, a judge said it is “more likely than not” that Trump committed federal crimes in an effort to obstruct the transfer of power following his loss in 2020.

Two-thirds of Democrats had heard about this story, including 29 percent who said “a lot.” On the other hand, only 8 percent of Republicans had heard “a lot” and 32 percent had seen or heard “some.” Another third of Democrats said they hadn’t heard anything about the story.

The survey was conducted April 1-4 of 2,003 registered voters, with a margin of error of 2 percent. Politico made both topline results and the cross-tabulations available.

A recent study by political scientists at the University of California, Berkley and Yale University found that people who watch CNN and Fox News are exposed to different stories – and that switching networks may change one’s mind about a topic.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less