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

Donald Trump, US President

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks briefly to the press as he arrives during the 81st United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, on Sept. 22, 2026.

(Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)

Trump will lose his war against the press

“To offend a strong man, tell him a lie. To offend a weak man, tell him the truth.”

That quote, often attributed to Marcus Aurelius, one of the great Stoics, perfectly encapsulates the very troubling and sad moment we’re in, and the very troubling and sad president we’re dealing with.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

When Immigrants’ Rights Are Threatened, Democracy Is Too

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists.

We asked Abbey Osborn, a Fall Fulcrum Fellow, to share what democracy means to her and her view of its current health.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hasan Piker

Influencer and left-wing political commentator Hasan Piker is introduced during a campaign rally for Wisconsin Gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong on Aug. 2, 2026, in Milwaukee.

(Joshua Lott/Getty Images/TNS)

While the world is on fire, the media are still obsessed with Israel

No one likes to think they’re being hysterical. And nothing makes hysterical people angrier than being described as such. So, let me offer my apologies in advance for what follows.

Jeremy Musighi, an independent researcher, recently released a study analyzing 14.7 million news articles published across 65 languages over the last decade. He found that, in 2024, news outlets published “more than twice as many stories about Israel as about all 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Person using mobile smartphone chatting with AI chatbot, conversation assistant, customer support

New research shows AI beats elite debaters in persuasion — not through better arguments, but by out-pacing human reading and reply speed.

MUNTHITA LAMLUE/Getty Images

Political Chatbots Should Not Be Allowed To Set the Pace

A political chatbot can answer before a citizen has finished reading its previous message. It can add statistics, historical examples, causal claims and links at a rate no human campaign volunteer could match. That does not necessarily make its case wiser. It changes the contest by allowing one speaker to control the tempo.

A June 2026 preprint offers unusually direct evidence of this problem. Across four preregistered experiments involving 18,978 conversations from 6,923 people, frontier AI systems were more persuasive than laypeople, tournament winners, professional canvassers and elite competitive debaters. The human experts were not casual opponents: the study included world and continental champions, paid preparation, live practice and substantial performance incentives.

Keep ReadingShow less