Why do media outlets like Axios normalize Trump?
The overriding "bias" of the media isn't about red vs. blue. It's about green.
BlueSky has been abuzz with anger toward Axios, the quirky news-ish site that posted the following:
Warning: Swallow your coffee or water or anything you’re drinking before you read this to avoid a strong spray of spit-out liquid hitting your screen …
I did warn you, right?
OK, let’s do the quick refutation:
Tax cuts: It’s not easy to find neutral evaluations of tax policy. One result that came up on a Google search is from the “Tax Foundation,” which boldly claims: “As a nonpartisan, educational organization, the Tax Foundation has earned a reputation for independence and credibility.” But their “experts” have dubious resumes and a lot of ties to the right wing, though George Mason’s Koch-funded economics department is more libertarian than MAGA. One person notes that he was a legislative director to a member of the Senate of Virginia and a political director for a statewide campaign, but he cheekily doesn’t say which senator and which candidate employed him. Kind of a tell, isn’t it? As is their evaluation of the Big Beautiful Bill, which is mostly rejoicing that credits for electric vehicles are gone while griping about the exemptions for overtime pay and tips. My guess is that these aren’t people who had to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. (Neither did I, though I did relish my overtime pay when I was making $10/hour in 1991.)
OK, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. What do you say?
(Hope you don’t mind me using that graphic. Here’s a link to the full analysis.)
And who’s this group?
We are a nonpartisan research and policy institute that advances federal and state policies to help build a nation where everyone — regardless of income, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, ZIP code, immigration status, or disability status — has the resources they need to thrive and share in the nation’s prosperity.
Seems reasonable but is probably dismissed as communist libtard scum by today’s GOP.
But the graphic is still showing tax cuts for everyone, right?
These imbalances are even greater when taking into account the massive proposed cuts to crucial health care and food assistance through Medicaid and SNAP, and the fact that provisions benefiting the wealthiest are permanent while families with the lowest incomes would see an eventual tax increase.
Oh, that. Right. But this organization might be too far out on what passes for the left wing in the United States, so let’s see what The Economist, a publication devoted to freedom and capitalism, has to say …
Several forecasts predict that the combination of unfunded tax cuts and spending measures will widen America’s budget deficit, sap long-term growth and harm the poorest citizens. The charts below show by how much.
Oh, dear.
Estimates from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a think-tank, suggest the bill will add $4.1trn to the public debt over the next decade if the temporary provisions actually turn out to be temporary. If all its provisions become permanent, the cost rises to $5.5trn.
Oh, my.
Analysis by scholars at the University of Pennsylvania suggests that Americans earning under $18,000 would lose $165 in 2027, or 1.1% of their income. By 2033 their annual losses would rise to $1,300 on average—about 7.4% for the group.
Surely they wouldn’t alienate their own base by costing them so much in benefits, would they?
(Republicans have delayed the new work rules until after next year’s midterm elections.)
Ah. Clever.
If anyone from Axios is reading this and needs a gift subscription to The Economist, please let me know. But you can probably see already why there’s not much enthusiasm about these so-called “tax cuts,” which will be eaten away for many of us by the losses of benefits, loss of health care, and something else you mentioned …
Surging tariff revenue: Which is paid by whom, exactly? By foreign governments? Nope. By companies that eat the increased costs rather than passing it on to consumers? They may try in the short term, but in the long term, they need to make a profit somehow.
So those tariffs are paid by … all of us. People who buy things we need, like crops we can’t easily grow in the United States (coffee, bananas, tropical fruit, various beans, etc.) or other consumer goods that can’t be manufactured here without costing a ton of money. For explanations on that, read Forbes, Molson Hart, NPR, Harvard Business Review, Barron’s (I guess — I don’t have access to that).
Did you happen to notice that the stock market crashed when a whole lot of tariffs were announced, and then it recovered when they were walked back? Yeah. And a lot of people who need to withdraw money from the market at particular times (retirees, people paying for college with 529 plans, etc.) lost a shit-ton of money on that period of waffling alone, while Republicans hit it big with what was essentially insider trading.
Safe to say people aren’t regarding this as a “win.”
Record-low border crossings: It’s an odd stat in the first place, isn’t it? If someone sneaks into the country, then how are they counted?
In any case — most non-racist Americans don’t think this is a good thing. Read what actual libertarians at the Cato Institute say:
Most Americans are immigrants or descended from immigrants who sought opportunity and freedom on our shores. They and their children worked hard, assimilated, and added to our nation’s prosperity. Immigrants today continue to become Americans and, in the process, make the United States a wealthier, freer, and safer country. However, our current immigration system excludes most peaceful and healthy immigrants. Congress should look to America’s past for inspiration to expand and deregulate legal immigration.
They back it up with study after study, especially studies refuting any link between immigration and crime — a scare tactic used by today’s administration to push its agenda.
Meanwhile, the actual headlines about immigration center on ICE raids in which law-abiding people who have done everything they’re supposed to do since arriving are yanked away from their families and thrown into prison in El Salvador without due process and, in some cases, no contact with the outside world at all.
You folks really thought people would be enthusiastic about this? The racists are, sure, as are the misinformed. But the rest of us?
Stunning air strikes in Iran: First, that went against everything Trump campaigned on. No more foreign wars, remember? Not only has he failed to bring peace to Ukraine or Gaza (any peace that happens there will be in spite of him, not because of him), but he has merrily bombed other countries while his inner circle chats about it on a not-quite-closed Signal chat.
And not even Trump’s new besties at CBS believe the air strikes accomplished a whole lot:
Besides, didn’t Tulsi Gabbard tell Congress in March, based on the still-functioning (we presume) US intelligence community’s work, that Iran wasn’t actually working on a bomb? Check out what Trump said about that.
Modest inflation: Actually, inflation is slightly higher now than it was near the end of Biden’s term. And we haven’t yet had the full impact of tariffs because they’ve been delayed and because US retailers are stocking up before they hit. Once that inventory runs out, bam!
So, yes, what Axios said here is demonstrably absurd. Why would they say it?
Actual media bias #1: Clickbait
If you were to click on the actual story linked from the Axios teaser above, you’d find a slightly more sensible take on the state of the Trump presidency. Slightly. Where I’d write something like, “people don’t like seeing second-generation Iranian grandmas yanked out of their backyards,” they write, “some people seem to think Trump’s immigration policy goes too far.” Neatly sanitized, isn’t it?
I hesitated to go to the story because I didn’t want to reward them for the clickbait, but in the name of research, I felt compelled to see what it actually said.
In fairness, though, a media organization that doesn’t engage in clickbait better have a solid audience already, or it’s not going to stand out at all. It’s the same reason YouTubers like Rick Beato have thumbnails and titles like “THE TOP 10 SONGS JUST KEEP GETTING WORSE” on videos that turn out to be reasonable first reactions to hearing new music. I’m terrible at clickbait, which is why no one is reading this.
Having been in online journalism since 1995-ish, I know what a struggle it is. Expectations for online advertising have always been unfair — advertisers who spend thousands of dollars for space on the left rib cage of a NASCAR driver’s uniform then expect “click-throughs” on the giant ad that blocks us from seeing the content on a news site. We’ve never gotten advertising right, and we’ve never found the sweet spot between “giving everything away for free” and “please subscribe to the Metro Area You’ll Never Visit Times for $10/month to read this story.”
And conflict sells. How many more people tuned into figure skating when Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan were competing? How desperately are people trying to frame a Caitlin Clark vs. the world (or at least Angel Reese) narrative?
So I get the temptation. Still, this is pretty bad.
Actual media bias #2: Simplistic framing
Many years ago, at some sort of social event at the National Press Club or somewhere similar that I have rarely attended in my life, I wound up chatting with a political journalist who was probably 10-20 years older than I am. I floated the idea that the current dissatisfaction with both major parties could lead to the formation of a viable third party, especially if we get rid of the system in which candidates can win with less than a majority — go to a runoff or use ranked-choice voting instead.
He was indignant.
“No! American politics is a giant pendulum that swings back and forth, and that’s the way it is!” he said as he went back to the cheese tray or the bathroom or the wine bar or wherever young whippersnappers with their new ideas were not.
Political journalists think in those terms because it’s easier. They can be “objective” by getting “both sides” without ever stopping to realize that neither of those “sides” represent vast segments of the US population. Gen Z is much more open to post-capitalist socialism than prior generations, even if we take the “people get more conservative as they age” axiom into account, and they’re represented by Bernie Sanders, AOC and that’s about it. A lot of people are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but the Libertarian Party has never harnessed those beliefs into a substantial movement. And somewhere out there are all the intellectual Republicans of the pre-MAGA era, all of whom apparently write for The Bulwark or The Contrarian and are doing their best to figure out why they weren’t able to persuade their fellow conservatives to vote for Nikki Haley or Mike Pence or another grownup instead of the ranting MAGA crowd.
Also, as a sports journalist, I’ve long felt political journalists envied us. Candidates are in a horse race, with the ever-present ticking of opinion polls. They’re landing jabs in a debate but not a knockout punch, yet perhaps their upcoming rally will be a home run. I’ve often wondered if Indian political journalists say a candidate was caught leg-before-wicket or hit one out for six.
Bias #1 + Bias #2 = Normalized Trump
In the Axios view of the world, Trump is not a race-baiting felon who has been found liable for sexual assault and multiple frauds while illegally smashing the checks and balances our Founding Fathers carefully built for the sake of his own vanity. He’s just another president, enacting policies that may or may not be popular enough to help his party maintain its grip in the next midterms.
But Trump has, ironically, probably extended the lifespan of several news organizations. He sells. People devote far more time than is healthy to catching up on the latest horrific thing that’s happening, and that creates just enough web traffic or TV ratings to make people afraid to look away.
So if you want to support good journalism, here are few ways to do it:
Subscribe to The Wall Street Journal.
Subscribe to The Economist.
Subscribe to your local paper or news blog if you have one. Your local government can get away with murder if no one’s paying attention.
(Self-interest alert) Subscribe to The Guardian.
Demand better from your political journalists than the giant pendulum, which is swinging and slowly descending as in that Edgar Allan Poe story that scared us all to death in high school English classes.
Demand better from your political parties. Ask them to come up with innovative reform ideas that reset the narrative.
Demand better from your election overseers. Tell them we want open primaries and ranked-choice voting.
Don’t fall for clickbait.
Mostly Modern Media will very rarely deal with politics. You have hundreds of other Substacks to follow for that. Stay tuned for more bright and happy takes on music and TV.