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

Beware the moral panic over AI data centers

A person holds signs during a nationwide protest against AI data center expansion outside Peace Hall in New Port Richey, Florida on July 18, 2026.

(Thomas Simonetti/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)

Beware the moral panic over AI data centers

Don’t look now, but we seem to have a moral panic on our hands.

The term moral panic, at least as a social science concept, is relatively modern. It was coined by Stanley Cohen in the 1972 book “Folk Devils and Moral Panics.” Moral panics emerge when large numbers of people start to freak out about something that doesn’t warrant the freak out.

Keep ReadingShow less
Business owner hanging an open sign at a cafe

Black wealth is rising but the racial wealth gap is widening. From Douglass to Mays to today, the freedom struggle's unfinished business is ownership.

Luis Alvarez/Getty Images

Salute A True America 250: Black History Lessons on Power Everyone Needs Today

From Emmaus, Pennsylvania and Staten Island to Veterans of Foreign Wars posts in Kansas, Tennessee, N. Carolina and more, as well as the Ohio State Fair's butter cow theme (and deviled egg recipes), the celebration of America 250 continues throughout the rest of the sesquicentennial year.

Added to the recent Sail250 tall ship event culminating in Boston’s harbor attended by millions was part of the country’s s 1776 official birthdate of independence, but the persistent calls for Black freedom of the last two centuries are still ignored.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ross Perot

American businessman and politician Ross Perot, Annapolis, Maryland, 1992.

(Photo by Arnold Sachs/Consolidated News Pictures/Getty Images)

Perot 2.0

On February 20, 1992, Texas businessman Ross Perot appeared on Larry King Live and set in motion a significant challenge to the two-party status quo. I’m not asking to be drafted. But if the people want to register me in all 50 states, I’ll promise you this: between now and the conventions we’ll get both parties’ heads straight.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans responded. Volunteers put him on the ballot. By June he was leading in the polls. Even after dropping out of the race for a month (someone should write a book about why he did that), he received 20,000,000 votes.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States' Constitution and Declaration of Independence on a flag background

The Constitution didn't create American prosperity — geography, immigration, and historical luck did. Here's why that matters for reform debates.

miflippo/Getty Images

The Constitution Did Not Make America Rich

Americans are taught a reassuring story about their country’s success. The United States became prosperous, powerful, and free because the framers wrote an exceptional Constitution. The miracle of Philadelphia produced the miracle of America.

The story appears in classrooms, campaign speeches, judicial opinions, and serious scholarly works. Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson have argued that institutions securing property and constraining expropriation help separate rich nations from poor ones. But the popular American version takes that insight and turns it into something much stronger – and misguided: that our prosperity flowed from our particular constitutional design, and that altering it would put the wealth at risk.

Keep ReadingShow less