Why the Media Ignores Key Trump Administration Actions
In today’s fast-paced news cycle, some of the most important actions taken by President Donald Trump often go unnoticed or are buried beneath an avalanche of controversy and scandal-driven coverage. While his administration has taken significant steps on immigration enforcement, federal workforce restructuring, trade policy adjustments, and government efficiency, these efforts receive little media attention. Instead, the headlines are dominated by legal battles, sensationalized statements, or issues that fit a particular narrative. In my view, this is not accidental—it is a deliberate choice by much of the media to shape public perception rather than simply report the facts.
One of the main reasons for this, in my opinion, is media bias. Studies have shown that mainstream outlets tend to cover Trump far more negatively than other presidents. A Harvard University study from the Shorenstein Center found that in his first 100 days in office, Trump received 80% negative coverage across major news networks. Similarly, the Media Research Center has repeatedly documented how Trump’s policy moves are either ignored or framed in the most negative light possible. If these outlets were to highlight policy successes that align with his campaign promises, it could lend legitimacy to his presidency, which they appear reluctant to do.
Let me point out that another factor is selective framing. Even when Trump’s actions are reported, they are often spun to emphasize controversy over substance. For example, his crackdown on illegal immigration is rarely presented as enforcing existing laws. Instead, outlets frequently use terms like “mass deportations” or “draconian policies” (as seen in reporting from The New York Times and CNN). Likewise, efforts to reform federal employment to improve efficiency are framed as “politicizing the civil service.” I believe this approach is designed to stir opposition rather than inform the public.
Public distraction is another powerful tool the media uses. Sensational legal battles, social controversies, and culture war issues generate far more clicks and engagement than policy discussions. For instance, while Trump’s administration has moved to revoke parole status for over 500,000 migrants, this major immigration policy shift has received little coverage compared to stories about courtroom proceedings. According to a Pew Research Center study, the media overwhelmingly prioritizes scandal over policy, a trend that has only intensified in recent years. This suggests that even when critical policy shifts occur, they are overshadowed by emotionally charged stories.
Corporate and establishment interests also play a role in shaping what is covered and what is ignored. Large corporations, federal agencies, and political elites all benefit from maintaining the status quo. When Trump implements policies that disrupt these interests—whether by cutting regulations, imposing tariffs, or reforming bureaucratic structures—there seems to be little incentive for major media outlets, many of which have corporate sponsors, to highlight these changes. This was evident when Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) early in his presidency, an action that fulfilled a major campaign promise but received minimal positive coverage despite its significance.
I believe the media fears legitimizing Trump. If they acknowledge that his administration is delivering on promises—whether on border security, economic policies, or government efficiency—it could challenge their long-standing portrayal of him as reckless or incompetent. As a result, even when Trump’s policies align with the desires of many Americans, the reporting often downplays their importance or emphasizes opposition instead.
Social media and algorithmic suppression further contribute to the lack of fair coverage. The Twitter Files, released by journalists such as Matt Taibbi, exposed how tech companies worked to limit the reach of conservative voices and stories that did not align with mainstream narratives. Google has also been accused of suppressing certain search results related to Trump’s policies, as revealed in leaked internal documents. Even when independent news outlets report on these issues, their reach is often restricted through shadow-banning or algorithmic manipulation, making it harder for the average person to see balanced coverage.
Perhaps most troubling is the way the media, at times, steers away from facts and instead reports what best suits its narrative. There have been multiple high-profile examples of this, from the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story (which was initially dismissed as "Russian disinformation" before being verified) to the false claims about Trump colluding with Russia, which were later debunked by the Mueller Report. These examples, in my view, highlight how some outlets prioritize political goals over factual reporting, shaping public perception rather than allowing people to form their own conclusions based on unbiased information.
In the end, the lack of reporting on Trump’s policy actions is not an accident—it reflects a calculated effort by the media and political establishment to control what the public focuses on. While news organizations have the right to choose what they cover, their responsibility should be to present the facts rather than selectively filter reality to fit a partisan agenda. If the public is to make informed decisions, they deserve more than a media that curates the truth to serve its own interests.The OP is an interesting perspective. As an opinion I imagine many today understand business is business and the media is business. So, that said the goal of a media source is revenue, which arrives through readership in a free and open market place thanks to the first amendment.
I would suspect how news is reported is represented by the biases of the reporting media source along with their ethics and integrity. I have found, though there is bias, the facts pretty much remain the same while I caution in this ‘New World Order’ the facts are often negotiated.
Anyway, for myself, I use Ground News and AllSides for goto’s to see recommendations for left – center – right media recommendations on a topic/issue. Unfortunately, many recommendations you have to be a subscriber to read the recommended article. That in and of itself is censorship in the abstract sense as I see it.
Ground News
https://ground.news/
AllSides
https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
I have subscribed to a few Substack blogs of astute political writers. I read what some may consider off the wall sources, though are just not mainstream like the Free Press, Tangle, Reason, and Roll Call. I have signed up for newsletters for websites themselves for organizations. Along with that is at Facebook I have joined different groups tailored to my taste/interest such as The Whitehouse, which posts official announcements all day long.
What follows next is a list of Right biased media sources. I have signed up for their newsletter(s) and read recommended articles from Fox News, the Daily Wire, the Daily Caller, The Daily Signal, and the National Review. The National Review article announcements popup on my Firefox browser when articles become available. I get that service for Yahoo and Fox Channel 5 for local news.
They are listed in readership (Revenue) popularity.
Fox News
Washington Examiner
Epoch Times
Newsmax
TheBlaze
Daily Wire
Daily Caller
Western Journal
National Review
Washington Times
Townhall
Hannity.com
Infowars
The Federalist
Daily Signal
PJ Media
TwitchyI appreciate your opinion and the thought you’ve put into diversifying your news sources. I agree that media outlets are businesses first and foremost, driven by revenue and readership. That naturally means they cater to specific audiences, which influences how they report the news. Bias is inevitable to some degree, and while the core facts of a story may remain the same, the way they’re framed can significantly shape public perception.
I also agree that in today’s environment, facts are sometimes "negotiated," as you put it. We’ve seen instances where key information is withheld, downplayed, or misrepresented—whether for political reasons, corporate interests, or simply to drive engagement. That’s part of why I think media bias isn’t just a byproduct of market forces but, at times, a deliberate effort to steer narratives in a certain direction.
That said, I recognize that people who seek out a variety of sources, as you do, have a better chance of cutting through that noise. Platforms like Ground News and AllSides provide a useful way to compare perspectives, even if access to some content is paywalled. I wouldn’t necessarily call that censorship, but it does create barriers to information that could limit how widely alternative viewpoints are considered.
At the end of the day, I think we both see the importance of going beyond mainstream narratives to get a fuller picture. My concern remains that the dominant media, which has the greatest influence, often pushes stories in a way that serves specific interests rather than presenting a fair assessment. But I appreciate the discussion and your approach to navigating today’s media landscape.Sharlee. Trump is doing things nationally and internationally that has not even been contemplated before and how can you not think that more than the normal amount of concern and attention would not be directed toward Trump and his administration, reflecting that. So, his controversial policies are going to attract the press like flies.
I certainly won’t argue that Trump is taking on challenges in ways we haven’t seen before. But if we step back and look at the bigger picture, many of the things he’s pushing for are the very things Americans have been demanding for decades—government reform, stronger immigration laws, an overhaul of education, and a more America-first approach to international affairs.
The fact that, even after four years out of office, so many are willing to give him another shot—and with an even more aggressive agenda—should make people pause and consider why that is. Clearly, a significant portion of the country believes now is the time for real, transformative change.
I’m ready for that change. I understand there will be ups and downs, but I believe we’re at a point where bold action is necessary. Trump has four years to deliver on his vision, and I, for one, am willing to see where that takes us.
I agree that the press would be attracted to him and his policies.
I also depend on Ground News for balanced reporting. Then I go to traditionally revered by the industry sources: Brookings, ProPublica, Wall Street Journal (conservative) and New York Times (liberal).
I don't read any sources that have been sued for millions for fraud and lost. Once you've lost your credibility - it is gone.Do you hold that standard to CNN, CBS, MSNBC as well... or is the loss of credibility based on your own biases?
As I always suggest to folks... try to get away from ALL American media mainstream news sources because as TSMOG noted they all have biases, they all need to make revenue which in turn means who-ever holds the purse strings can control what they report... including outright lies and fabrications.
By finding outlets of information that are not beholden to an owner, like the NY Times is, like the Washington Post is, owned by billionaires with their own biases they want pushed... and understanding that today's 'news' is no longer fair or impartial, nor are they required by law to tell the truth... in fact the only way to hold them to some semblance of truth is to sue them or defund them for pushing harmful, biased, ideological falsehoods... which almost all American 'news' sources are... harmful, biased, etc." is the loss of credibility based on your own biases?"
Yes. I am biased against proven liars.
Otherwise your question falls into the "When did you stop beating your wife" category - which was obviously your intention.
The real bias in media is in what they choose to cover and what play they give it (headline above the fold, lede story in a TV news broadcast, etc.)
When the president of the United States is breaking or obliterating norms - that's news - not bias."The real bias in media is in what they choose to cover and what play they give it (headline above the fold, lede story in a TV news broadcast, etc.)
When the president of the United States is breaking or obliterating norms - that's news - not bias." Kathleen
I see your point. When it comes to political issues, the media should cover all sides fairly. My question is whether their opinions are really necessary—and whether language that demeans political figures is professional or appropriate. I preferred the time when news outlets reported the facts without inserting personal bias. Of course, everything a president does should be reported, especially when it challenges established norms. But I would also remind people that our nation became what it is today by breaking norms."see your point. When it comes to political issues, the media should cover all sides fairly. My question is whether their opinions are really necessary"
We have a variety of programming in america. At least that hasn't been taken away from us at this point. We have programming that is purely news then we have others that are opinion / entertainment oriented.... Some of America has difficulty discerning the difference between the two.Yes, they do. I have a close friend who teaches History at the college level. In her first class every semester she does a lecture on the difference between news broadcasting and commentary. I think all college professors should do the same.
"Yes, there is a real difference between straight news broadcasting and commentary, and it’s important that people understand it. But in today’s society, that line has become so blurred that many viewers can’t tell the difference anymore. News anchors slip opinion into reporting, and commentators often present their views with the same authority as fact. On top of that, headlines are crafted for clicks and emotion, not clarity, which muddies the waters even further. So while a professor teaching that distinction is valuable, the bigger issue is that modern media often works against that lesson by blending news and opinion in ways that confuse the public." Kathleen
My view, Yes, there is a real difference between straight news broadcasting and commentary, and it’s important that people understand it. But in today’s society, that line has become so blurred that many viewers can’t tell the difference anymore. News anchors slip opinion into reporting, and commentators often present their views with the same authority as fact. On top of that, headlines are crafted for clicks and emotion, not clarity, which muddies the waters even further.
We’re also clearly dealing with a society that grabs a line or two and runs with it. Consider how many times fact-checkers have had to point out misleading or biased media statements. A good example of this kind of dishonesty can be seen in interviews like the one Vice President Harris gave to a major network, where selective editing and framing left viewers with a very different impression than the full context would have provided.
"Yes. I am biased against proven liars." Kathleen
I understand where you’re coming from. I try to judge politicians by their overall actions and patterns. With Trump, I see some of his statements as hyperbolic or occasionally not fully fact-checked, but I haven’t personally seen him intentionally lie. I think that’s something many politicians do, exaggerate or spin things, so it’s a tricky line to draw.
"When the president of the United States is breaking or obliterating norms - that's news - not bias." Kathleen
When critics say that President Trump was “breaking” or “obliterating” norms, I believe that is more projection than truth. Let’s look at the facts.
Under President Trump, America saw low unemployment, rising wages, and a strong stock market that fueled a blue-collar boom. He stood with law enforcement and fought to restore law and order in our communities. On the world stage, Trump pursued peace through strength. He didn’t drag us into new wars; he did the opposite. He negotiated peace or normalization agreements in six nations, including the historic Abraham Accords. He also brought home American hostages from around the world who had been forgotten by past administrations, showing that no American would be left behind. And when it came to leadership, Trump held seven roundtable cabinet meetings, televised for all to see, giving the American people a transparent look at how their government operated.
Under Trump, despite his unconventional style, many of his policies worked within the framework of existing institutions, whether it was strengthening the border, negotiating international deals, or pushing for deregulation. Not to mention, he brought trillions of dollars in investments into our country to revitalize our nation, creating new job opportunities for American workers. I can’t imagine an agenda that promotes American values more strongly. His entire agenda rests on essential norms, the belief in merit, hard work, national pride, and peace through strength. That is real leadership. And through it all, Trump reminded us to celebrate American traditions, culture, and achievements. He gave people pride in their country again.
Now let’s look at President Biden. Instead of building on prosperity, Biden crashed a thriving economy. He drove inflation to some of the highest levels in modern history, making everyday life more expensive for every American family. His heavy-handed regulations have stifled industries, discouraged growth, and pushed jobs away. Biden has done little to promote peace abroad and has instead aligned himself with far-left ideologies. His administration has promoted a version of DEI where merit no longer matters. He has backed radical social agendas—gender reassignment for minors, biological males in women’s sports, and even policies reshaping bathrooms across the nation. And while Trump opened his cabinet meetings to the public, Biden has held only one in his term—and it was behind closed doors, away from accountability. Add to this his open-border policies, reckless government spending, and climate mandates that weigh down working Americans, and the result is clear: Biden has worked to fundamentally change this country by institutionalizing progressive ideology. It is clear He failed--- hence Trump sent back to the White House.
The contrast could not be sharper. Trump operated within the system to strengthen it, leaving behind prosperity, peace, transparency, and pride. Biden, on the other hand, has weakened the economy, undermined merit, hidden his leadership, and pushed an ideology that divides our nation.
That’s the truth about norms. Trump honored America’s core values. Biden is rewriting them. What is odd, some did not recognize all the accomplishments I mentioned. They noted a word or two that rubbed them the wrong way. These words were fed via the media, while the media omitted his deeds. Odd how some in our society were drawn to this form of reporting, while others navigated away from it.
When 80% of what you do ends up in a court case, reporting that fact is not negative coverage.
When your job is to report a lying public official, reporting their lies is not negative coverage.
When established norms are trampled and you report it, that is not negative coverage.
It's the news.Key trump administration actions.... What is going on with the CDC??
Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that RFK Jr would turn US health policy into a clown show of quackery and pseudoscience?
RFK Jr. is a sickly old man who doesn't belong in public life.
CDC director Susan Monarez fired by Trump administration after refusing to resign, citing 'reckless directives'
Her crime?? she “refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives”.
One of the other many resignation letters...
"Dear Dr. Houry,
I am writing to formally resign from my position as Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)...
I am unable to serve in an environment that treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health....
The intentional eroding of trust in low-risk vaccines favoring natural infection and unproven remedies will bring us to a pre-vaccine era where only the strong will survive and many if not all will suffer."""immigration enforcement, federal workforce restructuring, trade policy adjustments, and government efficiency, these efforts receive little media attention."
These issues are in the headlines and evening news every day. They just don't reflect favorably on Trump. Bias would be contorting the facts to make his decisions look good for the country - not to mention respecting the Constitution.
EX: A man sets a house on fire so you complain that the news reports that the house is on fire."immigration enforcement, federal workforce restructuring, trade policy adjustments, and government efficiency, these efforts receive little media attention."
These issues are in the headlines and evening news every day. They just don't reflect favorably on Trump. " Kathleen
It’s true that immigration enforcement, federal workforce restructuring, trade policy adjustments, and government efficiency do appear in the news—but the coverage is consistently skewed. Left-leaning media tend to highlight only the controversial aspects, frame policy decisions as harmful or chaotic, or focus on protests and criticism rather than results.
EX: A man sets a house on fire, so you complain that the news reports that the house is on fire." Kathleen
So was the house on fire, or did someone just put a match to start the house burning?
If one take the time to do even a bit of research on a given issue, one can quickly see the other side of the coin, so to speak. Considering multiple perspectives, in my view, helps provide a clearer and more balanced understanding of any issue.
"Yes, there is a real difference between straight news broadcasting and commentary, and it’s important that people understand it. But in today’s society, that line has become so blurred that many viewers can’t tell the difference anymore. News anchors slip opinion into reporting, and commentators often present their views with the same authority as fact. On top of that, headlines are crafted for clicks and emotion, not clarity, which muddies the waters even further. So while a professor teaching that distinction is valuable, the bigger issue is that modern media often works against that lesson by blending news and opinion in ways that confuse the public." Kathleen
This is not my quote.
"The bigger issue is that modern media often works against that lesson by blending news and opinion in ways that confuse the public." If my friend taught that quote she would be teaching her opinion not a principle her students need to learn.
Related Discussions
- 883
Elon Musk
by Willowarbor 2 weeks ago
Musk needs his own thread... OPINION We have an unelected billionaire running the country through a shadow government without formal checks. Musk is not a cabinet member and has not been subjected to a Senate confirmation process. But he now has an office in the West Wing, along with one in...
- 209
DOGE vs Deep State - Trump’s Efficiency Crusade Left’s Hypocrisy
by Sharlee 5 months ago
My View, and added sources on statsAs I reflect on the current political climate, it's evident that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by President Trump and Elon Musk, has become a focal point of contention. The left's vehement opposition to DOGE's initiatives reveals a...
- 34
No longer a mystery! Elon Musk, Ramaswamy are on the Team!
by tsmog 10 months ago
Elon Musk, Ramaswamy land Trump admin roles by The Hill (Nov 12, 2024 7:57 pm ET)https://thehill.com/policy/4987402-trum … -spending/"President-elect Trump has tapped tech entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead an advisory group focused on cutting federal spending and...
- 56
Let this statement sink in for a moment:
by Kathleen Cochran 3 weeks ago
"President Trump threatened major broadcast networks in a string of social media posts late Sunday, suggesting they be fined or taken off the air over polling and coverage of his administration."Think this through."President Trump threatened major broadcast networks in a string of...
- 16
Biden's Foreign Policies Talk Loud Insult Whoever...
by Sharlee 4 years ago
It is early to determine how Joe's foreign policies will work out for America. However, he appears to be starting off with an ideology that he will speak loud and strong, and carry a big-ol' foam rubber stick. In comparison to our previous president that stated on several occasions "keep...
- 29
"Enemy of the people" in light of recent events
by PrettyPanther 6 years ago
David Lapan@DaveLapanDC"Over 30+ years as a U.S. Marine, I defended our country against its true enemies. In 20+ years as a USMC, Pentagon and DHS spokesman, I dealt w/ the news media nearly every day. I know quite a bit about the press and know this -- they are NOT the enemy of the American...