This piece examines how mainstream broadcast outlets tilt coverage to favor one party by what they leave out, not just what they say, and it shows four concrete examples where major stories about threats, a shutdown plea, a House oversight report, and subpoena practices received scant attention compared with the networks’ usual focus.
There are two basic flavors of media bias at play: bias by commission and bias by omission. Bias by commission is when reporters pile on accusations and paint opponents as corrupt or callous, but bias by omission quietly erases inconvenient facts from the public record. “The largest opinion is what we leave out. I mean, it sounds simplistic, but I always say worry about what you’re not seeing. What you are seeing you can really criticize, because you’re smart and you have opinions. But if we don’t tell you anything, and we leave whole areas uncovered, that’s the danger.”
Start with a case that should have gotten national attention: the FBI says 29-year-old Minnesota man Tyler Maxon Avalos faces a federal charge for transmitting a TikTok post that read, in part: “Wanted. Pam Bondi, preferably dead,” and promised a reward. That specific threat against a former state attorney general and federal figure landed in one network segment yet vanished from the nightly coverage of several others. Viewers learned about this on a limited basis, but most broadcast slots simply moved on.
NPR and some cable outlets devoted more airtime to warnings about far-left groups and the policy debates around labeling than to the chilling nature of that threat. Reporters who embraced Justice Department sources to rail against certain conservative policy moves went mute when a clear and violent threat surfaced. The imbalance is obvious: outrage gets amplified when it suits a narrative and muffled when it does not.
Another example was the labor statement about the shutdown. Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, told NBC News, “It’s time to pass a clean continuing resolution and end the shutdown today, no half-measures and no gamesmanship.” That plea is squarely aimed at urging Democrats to stop playing political games, and yet the networks undercovered it during their prime evening blocks. Online mentions and brief reads were common, but few viewers saw it in the most-watched broadcasts.
Then there was the Republican-led House Oversight Committee’s report on what it calls the Biden White House’s efforts to conceal the president’s cognitive decline. Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., summarized: “The Biden Autopen Presidency will go down as one of the biggest political scandals in U.S. history. As Americans saw President Biden’s decline with their own eyes, Biden’s inner circle sought to deceive the public, cover-up his decline, and took unauthorized executive actions with the autopen that are now invalid.” That material included detailed findings, timestamps, and key witness statements, yet most evening shows offered little to no explanation.
Where the networks did touch this at all, they narrowed the frame to legal technicalities—could autopen pardons be reversed—rather than the committee’s core charges. PBS and a few public radio segments mentioned the report in passing, but the three big broadcast evening programs treated it like a minor footnote. That selective attention shapes what millions believe matters.
A fourth case shows how the same reporters who chronicled one side’s legal drama can look the other way when power shifts. Senator Chuck Grassley released documents labeled “Arctic Frost” alleging that special counsel Jack Smith issued sweeping subpoenas under the guise of a January 6 probe, firing off nearly 200 subpoenas against 430 Republican figures and groups. Those numbers are striking, and the paperwork suggests a wide net aimed at political opponents, yet the nightly shows that had once followed every twist gave this minimal play.
Contrast that with wall-to-wall coverage the networks gave to Democratic-led investigations or to prosecutions in which the subjects fit the favored narrative. When a Democrat-run committee held televised hearings, the networks acted like every second was breaking news. Decades ago Ken Starr was cast as a villain for probing a Democratic president, while today Jack Smith is often framed as a restrained public servant, complete with features that humanize him and gloss over aggressive tactics.
All of this feeds a simple conclusion: what passes for balance on TV is often a matter of omission. The networks pick and choose which scandals are worth chronicling, and the result is a public conversation tilted away from evidence that undermines certain leaders. The silliest lie circulating in politics today is that President Donald Trump has weaponized the Department of Justice in an unprecedented way to go after his political opponents. Every educated American who repeats this is a liar.
