The mainstream media's approach to Donald Trump's political campaigns, particularly in 2016 and 2024, inadvertently amplified his reach and solidified his base, according to an analysis by Ken LaCourt. While the press often positioned itself as an opponent to Trump, its methods are argued to have created a "backfire effect" that propelled him to prominence. This analysis focuses on the legacy press, excluding outlets like Fox News and conservative media, and examines how their shift from political referees to active players in the game may have contributed to Trump's success.

Trump's Media Algorithm: Exploiting Outrage for Attention

In 2016, Donald Trump, leveraging his background in real estate and television, understood the power of publicity. His strategy involved intentionally violating political norms with provocative statements, ranging from boastful claims to unsubstantiated accusations. This approach was designed to generate intense media coverage, not to gain favor, but to be scrutinized and attacked. Crucially, these statements were calibrated to be outrageous enough to capture media attention while remaining palatable to his core supporters.

An early example of this strategy was Trump's announcement for president, where he spoke critically of undocumented immigrants. This rhetoric, which included claims of immigrants bringing "drugs," "crime," and being "rapists," generated more coverage for him than for all his primary opponents combined. The media's reaction, intended to derail his campaign, instead amplified his message and demonstrated his ability to command attention. Unlike other politicians who maintained a more serious demeanor, Trump's willingness to embrace the role of a "fool or a bully" proved irresistible to the press, initially as a novelty but later as a significant political force.

The Shift from Referee to Player: Eroding Credibility

As Trump's campaign progressed and he began winning primaries, the media's initial dismissal turned into sustained coverage. Over time, the press is argued to have abandoned its journalistic principles, transitioning into partisan actors. This shift was characterized by a constant stream of "hysteria," including allegations of Russian collusion and accusations of racism, which, when proven unfounded, damaged the media's credibility. The coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated this decline, as theories initially dismissed as disinformation were later validated.

The media's response to Trump's claims of "fake news" is seen as a misinterpretation of the public's declining trust. Instead of Trump causing this distrust, the argument is that the media's actions had already earned them that label. Following the 2020 election, the media's coverage of Joe Biden's presidency is described as a continuation of this partisan approach, with less emphasis on accountability and more on promoting Biden as their preferred candidate.

Creating an Alternate Reality: The Biden Administration and Media Bubbles

During the Biden administration, the mainstream media is accused of creating a "protective bubble" that shielded progressive politicians and activists from the realities faced by ordinary Americans. This bubble allegedly distorted perceptions on key issues:

• Inflation: Despite rising costs for groceries and gas, media outlets focused on "transitory price increases" or statistical arguments to portray a strong economy. The Inflation Reduction Act was praised, while voters' concerns about inflation were dismissed as misinformed.
• Illegal Immigration: Following the dismantling of Trump-era border policies, a significant surge in migration occurred, with estimates suggesting over 10 million individuals entered the U.S. The media's response was largely characterized by "near total silence," with the story only gaining traction when Republican governors began transporting migrants to sanctuary cities. Attempts to blame Trump for opposing a border bill that was deemed ineffective did not resonate widely.
• Crime and Homelessness: Major news outlets reportedly insisted that crime rates were falling, even as cities experienced visible increases in crime and homelessness. Claims of crime being at a "50-year low" were presented, despite data suggesting significant increases in violent crime.
• Social Issues: The media's coverage of issues like race, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and transgender rights is described as going "far beyond America." While polls indicated public support for basic transgender rights, certain "extremes" were not widely embraced. The media reportedly did not cover Kamala Harris's statement about implementing taxpayer-funded gender surgeries for prisoners, a topic that later became an effective campaign advertisement for Trump.

This media-generated "alternative universe" allegedly prevented Democrats from addressing voters' genuine concerns and discouraged course correction by reframing missteps as successes, leading to a party disconnected from reality.

The Biden Cognitive State and the 2024 Campaign

The media's coverage of Joe Biden's cognitive state is highlighted as a significant failure. The analysis claims that in a scenario with genuine journalism, Biden's "declining cognitive state" would have been a prominent news story, citing his verbal stumbles and instances of staff escorting him away from reporters. Instead, the press is accused of an "elaborate cover-up campaign" to protect Biden, portraying him as intellectually sharp. This narrative, described as "fraud on the American public," imploded during a debate performance, leading to a sudden shift in media sentiment urging Biden to step aside.

The consequence of this delayed honesty, according to the analysis, was that Democrats lost the opportunity for an "orderly transition" and a robust primary process. The selection of Kamala Harris as Biden's successor is presented as a behind-the-scenes decision, despite her previous presidential campaign's failure and a reported 37% approval rating. The media's immediate portrayal of Harris as a savior, relying on abortion rights and suburban women's outrage, is seen as an insufficient strategy.

As the 2024 campaign progressed, the media allegedly reverted to its playbook of portraying Trump as an "existential threat to democracy," using "endless fascist warnings." This approach, while resonating with liberals, is claimed to have failed to persuade "persuadable voters."

Specific instances cited include:

• Aurora, Colorado Incident: A prominent ABC journalist is criticized for downplaying reports of Venezuelan gangs taking over apartment complexes, focusing instead on Trump's statements and questioning Senator Vance's concerns.
• Madison Square Garden Rally: The media's focus on the historical use of the venue by Nazis in 1939, while ignoring its use by national Democrats, including Bill Clinton, and the presence of Jewish attendees and speakers, is presented as a biased "gotcha" tactic.
• Insult Comedian's Joke: A joke about Puerto Rico being a "floating island of garbage" was presented as a campaign-ending gaffe. However, the analysis suggests Puerto Ricans understood it as a joke, and Trump reportedly increased his vote share among this demographic.
• Liz Cheney Comments: Trump's remarks comparing elites who support wars to those who might feel differently if they had to fight them were interpreted as a call for her death, a claim the analysis disputes, citing Bill Maher's acknowledgment that Trump did not call for a "firing squad."

These examples are presented as evidence of the press acting as an extension of the Harris campaign, producing "resistance fan fiction" rather than journalism. The media's belief in Harris's victory, fueled by expectations of high turnout from women and underestimation of Trump's support among Black men and Hispanics, contributed to a "credibility gap" by election day.

The Erosion of Trust and the Rise of New Media

The analysis concludes that the media's repeated "crying wolf" regarding Trump's perceived threats diminished its ability to influence voters outside its established bubble. A network executive is quoted stating that if half the country believes Trump is qualified, they are not consuming media, indicating a complete loss of audience.

The financial model of media profits is also examined, with the observation that while Trump initially boosted ratings and revenue for outlets like CBS, as noted by Les Moonves, this short-term gain can lead to long-term losses by eroding trust and credibility. American trust in the media is reported to be at an all-time low. The decline of traditional networks is contrasted with the growth of new media platforms like podcasts and Substack, where journalism is increasingly found. The Joe Rogan interview with Trump, which reportedly garnered over 100 million views, is cited as an example of this shift.

The article concludes by referencing a previous analysis on the media's coverage of Marcellus Williams, suggesting a pattern of biased reporting that prioritizes a specific narrative over factual investigation.