National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democrat from Hawaii, is currently part of the Trump administration. She previously ran for president as a Democrat in 2020. If the political landscape were turned around—imagine Republicans in a Kamala Harris administration—the liberal media would likely have regarded her as a courageous figure, much like Liz Cheney.
Recently, Gabbard unveiled a document suggesting that the Obama administration had manipulated the Intelligence Reporting Agency to register as an illegal beneficiary of the supposed Russian interference in the 2016 election. However, the media response was overwhelmingly negative. The event seemed crafted for Trump’s approval, and the press quickly dismissed it as a partisan stunt.
Networks like ABC and NBC didn’t cover it at all, while CBS allotted a mere 41 seconds. The following day, CBS and NBC’s morning shows reacted with skepticism. NBC’s Garrett Haake accused Gabbard of attempting to “rewrite” the history of Russian interference and questioned the evidence she presented, labeling her claims as baseless.
CNN, for its part, brushed aside Gabbard’s evidence as a mere “distraction.” It’s intriguing; when documents come from Team Trump, they’re seen as partisan tools, yet similar allegations from Democrats are often portrayed as credible, deserving of serious scrutiny. It feels like a double standard. The damaging narratives against Trump are celebrated, while anything from his camp is stonewalled or mocked.
The media seems to be engaged in damage control for Democrats while working to unearth anything that could undermine Republicans. For Trump officials, waving around documents in a press briefing might be seen as politically clumsy, while Democratic narratives are often disseminated quietly through “independent” journalists.
Notably, many of the critical claims against Trump came from sources that had ties to PR firms like Fusion GPS, which were funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to spread misinformation. When these connections surfaced, the networks hurriedly shifted their focus away. The narratives promoted during Trump’s presidency, particularly regarding Russian collusion, received extensive coverage—2,284 minutes, in fact—across major networks from 2017 to 2019.
In early 2017, Russia was the prevailing topic in the news, and when Trump lashed out at the media, NBC’s Chuck Todd tweeted that such actions weren’t just funny. He cautioned against undermining the press, suggesting it is harmful when done by those in power.
Legacy media have mostly kept quiet about Gabbard’s accusations regarding the Obama administration, maintaining a crucial narrative of partisanship. They don’t hesitate to edge into sensationalism while ignoring Trump’s accomplishments, instead framing discussions around him as trials tied to collusion with Russia.
The anti-Trump rhetoric has been relentless, with many instances on air painting the situation in a light most favorable to criticizing him. For example, in 2017, Sunny Hostin on ABC’s “The View” lamented Clinton’s loss, attributing it to Russian hacking. Following that, various commentators have suggested a multitude of conspiracies surrounding Trump and Russia, compounding the media’s ongoing narrative.
When Trump accused Obama of treason related to Russia, the reactions were mixed. While “The View” suggested Obama could legally challenge Trump’s claims, it’s noteworthy that the hosts had similarly accused Trump of treason regularly in previous years. It seems that the standards for what constitutes treason or slander shift dramatically depending on the speaker’s political alignment.
