Claims of media bias in how Presidents Trump and Biden are portrayed are fueling renewed scrutiny over the press’s role in shaping political narratives.
At a Glance
- Media scrutiny of Trump’s behavior contrasts sharply with coverage of Biden’s mental fitness
- Piers Morgan clashed with Chuck Todd over alleged false equivalency between Trump and Biden
- Journalists cite source access—not ideology—as the reason for inconsistent coverage
- Stories unfavorable to Biden often receive minimal or delayed attention
- Critics say media bias erodes public trust and democratic accountability
A Tale of Two Presidents
During a heated exchange on NBC, Piers Morgan rejected Chuck Todd’s suggestion that Donald Trump and Joe Biden show similar signs of cognitive decline. Morgan insisted that Trump’s mental acuity is unchanged from when he first met him 15 years ago, while Biden, he argued, has shown clear signs of deterioration since taking office. “[There’s] absolutely no difference in Donald Trump’s mental capacity,” Morgan said, dismissing attempts to equate the two presidents’ conditions.
This moment captured a broader frustration voiced by many conservatives and independents—that Biden’s stumbles and public gaffes are routinely dismissed by mainstream outlets while Trump’s every misstep is magnified. As reported in Townhall, the exchange underscored how media framing can tilt public perception of presidential fitness.
Watch a report: Piers Morgan Slams Media for Double Standard
The Fear Factor or Political Symmetry?
Some in the media argue the disparity isn’t about ideology. According to CNN anchor Jake Tapper and his co-author Alex Thompson, whose book Original Sin explores political journalism, the press treads lightly around Biden to avoid alienating sources. This claim—that journalists fear access loss more than favoring Democrats—is met with skepticism by critics who see consistent patterns of narrative suppression or distortion.
An example: the Boulder attack on pro-Israel demonstrators by a foreign national received little attention from mainstream outlets. Commentators contend that if the political alignments were reversed, the coverage would have been wall-to-wall. Similarly, the slow media acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop story—initially dismissed as “Russian disinformation”—is seen as emblematic of a double standard.
Framing, Frequency, and Fairness
Morgan pointed out that in 2023 and 2024, Biden’s sparse public schedule—often limited to brief appearances and few unscripted moments—should have prompted more media inquiry into his capabilities. Instead, the focus remained on Trump’s outbursts or Truth Social posts. The cumulative effect, critics argue, is that the media provides asymmetric context, leading viewers to draw skewed conclusions about who is mentally fit for office.
As polls consistently show declining trust in the press, this discrepancy may be more than a partisan gripe. A Gallup survey found that only 32% of Americans trust mass media “a great deal” or “a fair amount.” Observers warn that when news outlets become perceived as ideological actors rather than neutral arbiters, their power to inform—and their credibility—begins to collapse.
Media watchdogs now argue that the first step toward restoring public trust is consistency. That means applying the same standards of scrutiny and skepticism regardless of political affiliation—whether the subject is a Republican firebrand or a Democratic incumbent. Anything less, they contend, undermines journalism’s most basic purpose: to hold power accountable without fear or favor.
