Broadcast Networks Promote Anti-Trump Bias, Erode Trust

The broadcast networks have become a spectacle of emotional excess and one-sided storytelling, so this piece calls out the most glaring examples from the year: partisan panels, soft interviews with the powerful, celebrity hagiography, and a culture that applauds performative outrage while dismissing conservative voices. Below I run through ten standout moments that show why many Americans no longer trust network news as fair or balanced. Read these scenes and decide whether this is journalism or advocacy masquerading as news.

For years the networks have behaved less like impartial reporters and more like partisan amplifiers, and 2025 only widened that gap. Their coverage often reads like a daily ad for one viewpoint, driven by emotion, not evidence. That bias shows up across morning shows, prime-time interviews, investigative pieces, and late-night comedy.

On ABC’s The View a rare pushback by Alyssa Farah Griffin quickly got shut down in a way that revealed a lot about tone and priorities. Griffin said, “I think it’s very different to live in the United States in 2025 than it is in Iran.” Whoopi Goldberg replied: “Not if you’re Black!” The exchange left viewers wondering how serious discussion turned into an immediate identity escalation.

Sixty Minutes produced a jaw-dropping moment when a former Israeli hostage described abuse and the interviewer seemed to split hairs about responsibility. Keith Siegel said his Palestinian captors “were beating me and starving me.” Lesley Stahl asked, “Do you think they starved you or they just didn’t have food?” Siegel shot back “they would often eat in front of me and not offer me food.” That line of questioning felt like an attempt to dilute the reality of a brutal experience.

Even celebrity interviews have become sermons in praise of media self-regard, with George Clooney presented as a heroic truth-teller. Clooney said, “Journalism and telling truth to power has to be waged like war is waged. It doesn’t just happen accidentally. You know, it takes people saying, ‘We’re going to do these stories and you’re going to have to come after us and that’s the way it is.” The profile treated the actor’s manifesto like a noble creed while offering no pushback on who decides which stories count as righteous combat.

PBS staged a nearly fawning conversation with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in front of a cheering San Francisco crowd that felt more like a tribute than journalism. The host asked, “How do you think about generational change?” and “What was the hardest vote to whip, to push through. What vote are you proudest of?” Pelosi singled out Obamacare and dismissed opposing Republican efforts as “doggy doo, and they tried to sell it as chocolate ice cream.” The audience applauded loudly, and Bennett said, “You might not be able to hear it, but there’s a lot of applause in the room here for you!” Pelosi oozed, “Thank you, PBS!” The tone was unmistakable.

National Public Radio’s CEO took the witness stand and made a line that sounded like wishful thinking on neutrality. Katherine Maher claimed, “I welcome the opportunity to discuss the essential role of public media in delivering unbiased, nonpartisan, fact-based reporting to Americans.” When Rep. Jim Jordan pressed her, she responded, “I have never seen any instances of political bias determining editorial decisions.” Many listeners heard denial where evidence suggests otherwise.

Networks lavished attention on “No Kings” protests with lengthy, sympathetic segments while offering barely any airtime to competing demonstrations. One Saturday action on October 18 ran for nearly 18 minutes across ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS, a level of focus not matched for the pro-life March for Life, which received roughly 50 seconds. That disparity feeds the sense that editorial choices are political choices.

Late-night hosts didn’t just mock the right, they celebrated progressive victories with gleeful mockery of opponents, showing cultural echo chambers at work. Stephen Colbert quipped, “I’m being told just now that they’ve already changed the poem on the Statue of Liberty: ‘I’m not crying, you’re crying.’” And Jimmy Kimmel suggested this election result “means your racist aunt and uncle have a new name to mispronounce this Thanksgiving.” The comedy came with a clearly partisan cheer.

Comedians sometimes forget basic decency in the rush to score shock value points, turning real tragedies into punchlines. Taylor Tomlinson produced a tasteless series of jokes about an alleged murderer and a deceased CEO that crossed a line for many viewers. “It’s been a pretty bad week for the world, so I have a gift for you. My friends, there’s a Luigi sex tape. That’s right. Luigi Mangione is the accused murderer of a healthcare CEO, whose name was — he’s not hot, so I don’t remember.” That bit landed as cruel rather than clever.

Coverage of violent crime has also been colored by emotional framing that confuses sympathy with excuse, as when ABC’s Matt Gutman dwelled on the killer’s tender texts. Gutman called the messages “very intimate,” and “very touching,” noting the suspect referred to his partner as “my love” and wrote, “I want to protect you, my love.” The focus on the assassin’s feelings overshadowed the horror of the act and raised questions about whose humanity the media prioritize.

The networks’ reaction to the killing of an activist crystallized everything critics complain about: hasty assumptions, partisan labeling and sanctimonious defenses of speech for favored voices. Jimmy Kimmel claimed the alleged murderer was a Trump supporter, a claim that sparked suspensions and fury. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos mourned the assault on “independent media,” while Kimmel’s monologue was praised as “emotional,” “heartfelt” and “passionate” and labeled a “searing defense of free speech.” The double standard on who gets the benefit of the doubt is impossible to miss.

The larger pattern is clear: conservative perspectives are often dismissed as dangerous misinformation while liberal outlets are granted virtue by default and described as independent journalism or moral truth. Networks cannot keep pretending that a steady diet of editorializing and selective outrage passes for nonpartisan reporting, and the more they double down, the more viewers tune out.