The media’s double standards: failing democracy, Trump, and America

In recent years, a growing chorus of voices has argued mainstream media, once a trusted guardian of democracy, has veered off course.

At the heart of the contention lies the media's double standards in its coverage of former President Donald Trump and the Bidens and how media biases, when unchecked, undermine the pillars of democracy, and fail the public.

The media is lauded as the 'Fourth Estate'—a guardian of democracy that holds power to account. It's a role of immense responsibility.

By informing the public with unbiased, accurate information, the media is meant to ensure people can make informed choices. Yet, recent trends reveal a glaring departure from these ideals.

Since Donald Trump announced his presidential bid in 2015, he’s dominated media headlines, and while scrutiny is expected for any public figure, especially a President, the media's focus on Trump has often ventured into realms of deranged bias and hostility.

Trump derangement syndrome is now a legitimate condition, as bizarre as it sounds.

The ongoing indictments against Trump, particularly today’s, are symptomatic of the media’s bias. Instead of providing a balanced view of these legal processes, the media narratives skew towards outright vilification.

Conversely, concerns surrounding the Bidens' dealings with Ukraine and China, and the Hunter Biden’s laptop have failed to gain similar traction in mainstream outlets.

But Trump’s treatment has been different. Indicted for allegedly:

·      tampering with 2020 election results.

·      mishandling of classified documents.

·      falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments made to two women.

·      seeking to destroy security footage of rooms in which subpoenaed boxes of classified information were kept and induced others to do so.

·      storing hundreds of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate upon leaving the White House in 2021 and now Georgia Prosecutors have indicted him for being the head of a “criminal enterprise” to overturn the 2020 election.

He stands persecuted on charges designed by any means possible to prevent him from running and yet he remains defiant.

While independent journalists and certain Senate committees have highlighted conflicts of interest and improprieties, many mainstream platforms refuse to delve into the allegations with the same gusto reserved for Trump-related controversies.

This disparity is evidence of a two-tiered system where media narratives are moulded, not by objective truths, but by biases and affiliations.

A media landscape marred by bias doesn't merely fail individual political figures—it fails society.

When media outlets pick and choose the stories they prioritise based on biases or affiliations, the essence of democracy is compromised. If the media, consciously or unconsciously, protects certain figures while relentlessly pursuing others, it creates a skewed understanding of reality.

This differential treatment fosters an environment where public figures might escape genuine accountability.

Such practices, when left unchecked, can erode public trust not only in the media but also in democratic institutions at large.

Democracy thrives on accountability, and if influential figures are perceived as being above scrutiny, it casts a shadow on the entire system.

With polarised reporting, the public finds itself trapped in echo chambers, deprived of a holistic understanding of events.

This manufactured polarisation risks fracturing societal cohesion and undermining the foundations of democracy.

Pairing the media's alleged biases with the ongoing legal challenges against Trump, and the seeming lack of similar rigor against the Bidens, paints a disturbing picture.

Recent years have witnessed growing concerns over mainstream media's perceived biases, especially in its handling of political figures.

Central to these concerns is the differential treatment of the Bidens when compared to Trump.

The reasons behind the alleged differential treatment are manifold. Some argue it's a result of the media's political affiliations, while others see it as a symptom of today's polarised media landscape where each outlet caters to its own echo chamber.

Further complicating matters is the increasing commercialisation of news.

Competition for viewership and clicks sometimes means sensational stories take precedence over nuanced investigative journalism.

Many argue this represents the weaponisation of the legal system, where legal processes are influenced or driven by political agendas rather than objective truths.

Historically, 'banana republics' were characterized by political instabilities, elite-controlled narratives, and a compromised judiciary.

Drawing parallels with recent events, some contend the US, with its skewed media landscape and weaponised legal system, is showing signs reminiscent of historically unstable entities.

For democracy to function effectively, it's essential its pillars operate without fear or favour. This means holding all public figures, regardless of their stature or affiliations, to the same standard of scrutiny.