By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Thiessen and his co-author advocate for a Biden pardon of Trump, arguing that it’s necessary for national unity despite the numerous charges against him. This call, however, is viewed as a strategic move to further entangle Biden in Trump’s actions rather than a genuine effort at reconciliation. The authors’ prioritization of unity is expected to disappear once Trump regains power, mirroring past instances where similar calls for bipartisan cooperation were selectively applied to Democrats. This pattern suggests a cynical manipulation of the concept of national unity for political gain.
Read the original article here
The media’s tendency to apply different standards to politicians based on their party affiliation is a deeply concerning trend. When Democrats are in power, the media relentlessly pushes for unity and bipartisanship, their voices echoing with demands for compromise and collaboration. This seemingly unwavering pressure for consensus, however, conveniently disappears when a Republican, particularly someone like Donald Trump, ascends to power.
This shift in the media’s approach suggests a willingness to lower the bar for Republicans, accepting behaviors and statements that would be instantly condemned if uttered by a Democrat. The deafening admonitions for unity and civility that characterize coverage of Democratic administrations become strikingly absent when a Republican takes office, creating a double standard that undermines journalistic integrity and erodes public trust.
The underlying reason for this double standard seems rooted in the complex interplay between corporate interests and political power. Many major news outlets are owned by corporations with significant financial stakes in maintaining a certain political status quo. This creates a built-in bias that favors those in power, regardless of party, but particularly so when the interests of the corporations and the ruling party align.
This isn’t a recent phenomenon; it’s a pattern observed for years, suggesting that any sudden change in media approach isn’t likely. The media’s behavior reflects a long-standing practice of applying a more lenient standard to those who hold power, while simultaneously demanding higher levels of accountability from the opposing party. This creates a situation where the media itself acts as a partisan player rather than an objective observer.
The assertion that the media is “inherently right-wing” due to corporate sponsorship is a valid concern. The profit motive inherent in media ownership can influence coverage, favoring narratives that appease advertisers and maintain a comfortable level of public acceptance. This bias can result in the downplaying of negative aspects of right-wing administrations while simultaneously amplifying perceived shortcomings of left-leaning ones.
The argument that the media thrives on anger and conflict is also noteworthy. By fostering division and outrage, media outlets can increase viewership and advertising revenue. This model inadvertently reinforces existing political divisions and discourages constructive dialogue. It creates a feedback loop where the media fuels outrage to boost its own profits, regardless of the potential negative societal consequences.
The idea that holding individuals to account requires a baseline of self-imposed standards is crucial. Donald Trump’s lack of consistent standards, along with the Republican party’s apparent embrace of lower standards in general, allows the media to operate within a framework where minimal accountability is expected. If a politician sets no personal standards, the media’s expectations can easily be lowered to match, which creates a concerning lack of scrutiny.
The media’s complicity in this selective application of standards highlights the importance of diverse and independent news sources. The reliance on a handful of corporate-owned media outlets creates a vulnerability to biased reporting and a lack of diverse perspectives. Independent media, podcasts, and other alternative sources of information become critical tools for navigating the complexities of political discourse in this environment.
Ultimately, the question of whether the media will hold Trump to a lower standard isn’t hypothetical. It’s a pattern already established and observable over the past decade. The media’s shift in its approach depending on who is in power is deeply troubling and underscores the urgent need for a more critical and independent media landscape. The ongoing pursuit of profit over journalistic integrity is a threat to informed citizenry and democratic processes. The media’s role is not simply to report the news, but to hold power accountable; when they fail to do so consistently, the entire system is compromised.