Anti-Trump Propaganda?

Recently I wrote a trio of articles on the ongoing cultishness of Trump supporters, their weird affinity for authoritarianism and how just plain stupid they are. A conversation I had recently with a Trump supporter inspired me to write about what they consider reliable and trustworthy sources of information. It's not new information that Trump has done his best to undermine any media that doesn't cheerlead for him, and that Trumpists derive their opinions from sources with a pro-Trump bias, but I was surprised at how, in some cases, major issues just don't hit their radar. 

The conversation in question involved Trump's authoritarian and dictatorial words and actions since he was re-elected. As an example, I referred to Trump's attempt to nullify part of the actual Constitution, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, by fiat, i.e. executive order. I have heard plenty of anti-immigrants rhetoric arguments against the concept of birthright citizenship; I have heard numerous barstool legal scholars maintaining that it only applied to freed slaves, but was shocked that this person had not so much as heard about this. To clarify, this person is not apolitical, he likes to think he stays up to date on current events, and often expresses opinions about world events, but he had no idea what I was talking about. 

As the conversation progressed (and I'm using the word "progressed" very loosely, only as it pertains to the passage of time and not to quality) he referred to the "anti-Trump propaganda in the legacy media" (legacy is used as a synonym for mainstream here). I'm very aware that Trumpists believe that most of what we view as the mainstream media has a liberal bias, and that they often repeat a "statistic" claiming the 92% of Trump coverage is negative. This statistic, in this case inflated to 98%, came up in our discussion. Let's divert from my friend's view of the media for a moment and look at where that "92%" figure comes from.

Media Research Center, the organization that came up with the 92% negative rating for media coverage of Trump. Its mission is, according to their website, to “prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media exists and undermines traditional American values…MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media.” Hardly unbiased. They have started with a conclusion have gone about seeking facts that back up their assertion. Their presumably biased "analysis" is the basis of virtually every mention that you will ever see about anti-Trump media bias. The bottom line is that any claim of a statistical basis for a claim of anti-Trump or pro-liberal media bias is itself biased. 

One mainstream news source that I regularly read is the New York Times, which is regularly excoriated by Trump and his minions as virulently anti-Trump and has been criticized even pre-Trump as having a liberal bias. However, a typical Times piece about Trump will simply report what he said or did. The article might also include analysis of the consequences or benefits of the policy as well as statements by his spokesperson or by the opposition. In other words, complete and detailed reporting. The same standards applied to previous presidents and presidential candidates. Of course I'm talking about news articles and not opinion or editorial pieces. I wrote an article that included the difference between news and opinion last year. Trump and the Trumpists believe that news coverage of him should include effusive praise for his "accomplishments" and serve as cheerleading for his policies. If it doesn't, they call it negative. 

As my conversation with my Trumpist friend continued, I asked him to show me a recent example of anti-Trump propaganda in the mainstream media, pretty confident that I could demonstrate that whatever he came up with was simply "reporting". This was his response:

"there's so much out there that the mere question is comical these days my friend. You have Russiagate, the Hunter Biden Laptop Russian Disinformation, The Steele Dossier, the Very Fine People On Both Sides, making fun of a disabled reporter, calling our Military suckers and losers, just to list a few right off the top of my head. These, and many more have been thoroughly exposed and debunked. A simple AI or grok questioning/research will provide all the information you're requesting."

No specific article was referenced, just a recycling of the pro-Trump position that what we heard with our own ears and saw with our own eyes wasn't what we really heard or saw. I'm surprised he didn't bring up "injecting bleach", which was supposedly debunked because he said "disinfectant" and not "bleach". I wrote an article about debunking last year, covering some of the things he brought up. I further responded that I knew how to Google, but was looking for specific evidence of the anti-Trump propaganda he believed existed, rather than vague assertions. What's ironic is that The New York Times, as well as other media with a supposedly liberal bias, is regularly criticized by "The Left" for including opinion pieces that support some Trump policies or even that report on Trump evenhandedly. 

All of this is in line with the cultishness of most of Trump's support. They have bought into his criticism of mainstream news sources as "fake news". They have "decided" that anything in the mainstream media is biased at the very least, and probably simply lies. As an alternative their go-to news sources are podcasts, blogs and Twitter. To be fair, you can find factual, unbiased, information anywhere, but most of these right wing, pro-Trump sites are merely opinions about actual news, and don't have the resources to do any investigative reporting, or access to the people who set policy in this country. 

Like any cult, they have limited their sources of information to those approved by the cult leader.