By Tracy Turner

The news media, which at times describes itself as the bastion of truth and the watchdog of democracy, are often riddled with glaring inconsistencies regarding political figures. This selective scrutiny leads to a world where every single action of Donald Trump is picked apart, whereas Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu receive rather lenient treatment despite their passage of policies with far-reaching consequences. The question is, what motivates this discrepancy within mainstream media coverage?

The Trump Phenomenon: Disproportionate Media Scrutiny

Love him or hate him, no one can deny that Donald Trump knows how to whip up a media frenzy. All the same, the blanket coverage of his actions often crosses the line from due diligence in journalism into sensationalism manufactured to sustain perpetual outrage.

Consider Trump's business dealings. Every hotel, every golf course, every licensing agreement has been subject to deep scrutiny—and the dominant frame is that he is using his public position to enrich himself. Conflict-of-interest reporting is fair game, but the double standard is revealed when put side-by-side with Biden's role in financing Israel's military strikes in Gaza, which have killed whole families. The moral seriousness of such an act has been met with relative silence.

Similarly, when Trump faced indictment over hush money payments, the media response was relentless and dominated headlines for weeks. But when Joe Biden was credibly accused of mishandling classified documents—an issue Democrats had previously condemned in Trump's case—the media's reaction was markedly more subdued. What accounts for this stark discrepancy?

The Gaza Silence: A Study in Media Complicity

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is one good example of media inconsistency. The civilian population is crammed in this highly congested area, with very limited avenues for escape, having been subjected to relentless bombardment. Military strikes in 2023 under the leadership of Biden and Netanyahu killed tens of thousands of civilians, including women and children.

Despite the scale of this crisis, media reporting was full of euphemisms: "clashes intensify," "tensions increase," and "a complicated situation." Many of the same publications that cover every one of Trump's foibles with moral absolutism scrambled to adopt neutral language. One need only consider the media's response to Trump's 2017 travel ban, widely branded a "Muslim ban" and framed as a moral abomination. But when Biden's policies result in significant civilian casualties, the dominant frame becomes "concerns about security."

Broader Patterns of Media Bias

It's not unique to Trump, Biden, or Netanyahu—the tendency of the media to apply scrutiny in highly selective ways happens often in coverage of major global issues.

• Iraq War vs. Ukraine War: When George W. Bush launched the Iraq War in 2003, the media eventually came to describe it as a "war of choice" based on lies. By contrast, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has been framed in stark binary terms of good versus evil. Media narratives have mostly ignored NATO's role and the nuances of Biden's significant military aid to Ukraine.

• Climate Change Protests: Greta Thunberg is considered an activist who stood against the fossil fuel industries. On the other hand, Canadian truckers' protests and the Dutch farmers who fought back against policies affecting their livelihoods are regarded as "right-wing extremism." The ideological incoherence within these representations reveals media selectivity.

• Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal: The story involving Hunter Biden's laptop, reported by the New York Post in 2020, was widely rejected by major outlets as "Russian disinformation." It eventually proved valid, but most of the media entities that participated in its suppression have never faced accountability for misleading the public.

• COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory: Early suggestions that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory were categorically denied as conspiracy theories. However, as the political context changed, major media began admitting the theory as one of the plausible explanations. This sudden shift in tone highlights how narratives are often framed based on political expediency rather than objective reporting.

Netanyahu's Relative Immunity from Media Scrutiny

Just like Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu often gets a free pass in media scrutiny, unlike the treatment of Trump. His policies have faced international condemnation, especially regarding the treatment of Palestinian territories. American media, however, does little to confront him as they would with the leaders of adversarial nations.

A relevant example is the killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, an Al Jazeera reporter shot by Israeli forces. Despite video evidence and independent investigations verifying Israel's culpability, the media response was muted. In contrast, the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi operatives elicited widespread media condemnation. This inconsistency raises significant questions about the ideological biases shaping media coverage.

The Consequences of Media Bias

The core function of journalism is to hold the powerful to account, regardless of political party or ideological persuasion. When media institutions practice selective scrutiny, they are not only harming their own credibility but also losing public trust.

Coverage discrepancies among Trump, Biden, and Netanyahu are not just an issue of bias but an erosion of journalistic integrity. The audience will perceive such inconsistency, the contrived outrage aimed at some, while others enjoy tacit immunity. As a result, public skepticism toward the media continues to grow.

It just so happens that every time another scandal occupies center stage, someone is always protected from scrutiny. If mainstream journalism fails to hold leaders accountable—whether political, social, or religious—alternative platforms and independent voices will fill the vacuum.

###

© 2025 www.olivebiodiesel.com