Media Lost Has Its Balance, and Our Trust

As a long-time media expert and author of multiple books on communication, I’m neither shocked nor particularly partisan when examining the troubling data from the Media Research Center (MRC). Instead, I present a reality as straightforward as it is unavoidable: America’s media landscape in 2024 is veering toward an unprecedented imbalance.

This election season, the coverage on ABC, CBS, and NBC of the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris has been described by MRC as the most "lopsided in history." However, this trend represents more than simple bias; it reveals a systemic erosion of trust that leaves Americans at odds with their primary sources of information.

According to the MRC study, Harris has received 78% positive coverage across these networks since July, while Trump’s coverage has been 85% negative. It’s a stark contrast that defies even the precedent of the contentious 2016 election when both Trump and Hillary Clinton received predominantly negative coverage.

Trump’s 2024 news coverage has remained consistently more harmful than any other major candidate in recent memory, even in comparison to Joe Biden, who, in 2020, received 66% positive coverage versus Trump’s 92% negative coverage. This imbalance in reporting is notable not only for its scope but for its apparent lack of acknowledgment in the media world, and the question we must ask is: what are the long-term consequences of this perceived lack of impartiality?

The consequences are already emerging. For the third year, more Americans say they have "no trust" in the media than those who say they do. We find ourselves in a precarious position when trust — the foundation upon which news organizations must build their relationship with the public — is crumbling beneath us.

The decline in trust correlates with the rise of "selective coverage," as illustrated in the MRC analysis, where networks amplify certain narratives and downplay others, depending on the political figure in question.

Harris’s controversies, such as plagiarism accusations and allegations involving her husband, Doug Emhoff, have reportedly received little to no air time. Instead, her coverage has been presented with what MRC calls "enthusiastic quotes from pro-Harris voters," cultivating a positive perception even as Trump faces persistent criticism from reporters.

These editorial choices matter because they send a clear signal to the public about who the media perceives as more deserving of favorable coverage. More concerningly, it reflects a judgment on what voters should think rather than allowing them to draw conclusions based on fair, fact-based reporting.

At the core of this issue is an uncomfortable truth: The average citizen senses when media outlets lose their objectivity, intentionally or inadvertently. When a story is presented with visible bias, audiences feel patronized rather than informed, and a growing majority of Americans recognize this discrepancy.

This "lopsidedness" is not simply an oversight; it is shaping public perception in powerful ways, creating a dangerous divide in how Americans relate to their media. When one candidate receives predominantly positive portrayals and the other consistently negative, it becomes easy to see how trust becomes a casualty.

In the 2024 race, this disparity seems more egregious than ever. News outlets have reportedly spent over 200 minutes of air time focused on Trump’s controversies, often glossing over Harris’s. To say this is selective storytelling would be an understatement; this approach not only alienates audiences but also undercuts the very principles of journalism—accuracy, fairness, and balance.

The stakes here extend far beyond any single election cycle. Suppose Americans can no longer trust mainstream media to present the news without an agenda. In that case, they will seek alternative sources, which may or may not adhere to rigorous journalistic standards.

These "alternative" sources are proliferating and appealing to viewers across the political spectrum. While healthy media diversity can strengthen democracy, the current imbalance risks creating a vacuum in which misinformation can flourish unchecked, appealing to those who feel alienated by traditional news.

The media’s role is not to decide the election for the American people but to inform them. Unfortunately, the lopsided reporting documented in the MRC study implies that the media is inching dangerously close to overstepping this boundary.

As Americans head to the polls, they deserve an opportunity to weigh the candidates fairly, without media narratives distorting their perceptions. For those who have been "married to reality" throughout our careers, it is time to ask whether the imbalance we’re witnessing pushes Americans away from trusted sources and how much more trust we’re willing to lose before corrective action is taken.

If there’s one lesson to heed from this year’s election coverage, it is this: trust, once lost, is hard to regain.