BROADCAST BIAS: Media celebrate America turning 250, but bash US the rest of the time
BROADCAST BIAS: Media celebrate America turning 250, but bash US the rest of the time
BROADCAST BIAS - As the nation marks its 250th anniversary this weekend, television networks are preparing patriotic celebrations, showcasing elaborate fireworks displays and musical performances to appeal to the mainstream American audience. Yet, this festive recognition is juxtaposed with a consistent pattern of criticism directed at the United States, particularly from progressive media outlets. The contrast highlights a perceived double standard, where national pride is celebrated selectively, often during milestones, but scrutinized relentlessly in everyday discourse.
A Symbol Divided
The American flag, a unifying emblem, has become a battleground for ideological interpretation. While media outlets like NBC frame it as "Old Glory" during the 250th anniversary, they simultaneously cast it as a symbol of right-wing extremism. A recent headline from NBCNews.com exemplifies this duality, stating: "As the nation turns 250, many Americans say the Stars and Stripes is now a red flag: The American flag: To some, it’s Old Glory. To others, it’s a MAGA hat on a stick." This split perception underscores how the media leverages patriotism as both a celebration and a critique.
Democratic support for national pride appears to be waning, according to recent polls. This decline is often weaponized by progressive commentators, who frame patriotism as a delusion rooted in White supremacy. President Donald Trump’s campaign to "make America great again" is cited as a prime example of this mindset. Critics argue that Trump’s rhetoric embodies a love for the nation, yet his policies are dismissed as evidence of a flawed system. This contradiction reduces patriotism to a political tool, used to discredit opposing viewpoints rather than celebrate shared values.
The Obama Judge and the Ominous Flag
Media bias is further illustrated by the treatment of symbols associated with national identity. A notable case involves the Obama judge, who cleared a left-wing group to display an ominous flag on Trump’s home turf. The flag, described as a "MAGA hat on a stick," became a focal point of controversy. One individual in Massachusetts, interviewed by reporter Corky Siemaszko, expressed concern: "If we do fly the flag, we will also put out signs to make it clear that we are not MAGA." This statement reflects the media’s effort to associate patriotism with specific political movements, casting doubt on its authenticity.
According to the reporter, the leftist media equates dissent with national loyalty, portraying protests against Trump as the most American of acts. This sentiment is reinforced by a poll showing that some viewers choose to fly the flag upside down to signal the country’s distress, framing their actions as both patriotic and critical. The irony is palpable: while the media promotes this gesture as a form of resistance, it simultaneously dismisses it as a symbol of discontent.
The View: A Platform for Criticism
On "The View," the debate over national identity has become a recurring theme. In 2017, a segment on the show featured Detroit Free Press writer Stephen Henderson, who claimed that the National Anthem contains "White supremacist" language. He argued that America’s history is inherently racist and steeped in White supremacy, with the anthem serving as a reflection of this legacy. Such claims, though controversial, are presented as mainstream commentary, reinforcing the idea that critical perspectives on national symbols are valid.
"Some of the words of the National Anthem are White supremacist. ... I think this is a country whose history is racist, whose history is steeped in White supremacy, and the anthem reflects that in its very words."
Later that year, co-host Sunny Hostin amplified this critique, asserting that the United States is "a racist country" and "a sick country" based on its founding. Her comments, delivered with a tone of indignation, positioned the nation’s past as a source of shame rather than pride. Hostin’s declaration, "It’s a sick country. It’s a racist country," encapsulates the media’s tendency to reduce patriotism to a political battleground, where national symbols are dissected for ideological implications.
Another instance of this bias occurred in 2025, when pseudo-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin highlighted Iran’s treatment of homosexuals. She noted that Iran executes individuals by throwing them off buildings, contrasting this with the United States’ more lenient approach. However, Host Whoopi Goldberg swiftly responded, arguing that equating Iran’s practices with American ones was misguided. "Let’s not do that because if we start with that, we’ve been known in this country to tie gay folks to the car!" she interjected, suggesting the media’s portrayal of the U.S. is skewed by selective comparisons.
"In the year 2025 in the United States, is nothing like if I step foot wearing this outfit into Iran right now!"
Griffin defended her point, but Goldberg’s retort, "Listen, I’m sorry, they used to just keep hanging Black people!" underscored the media’s habit of applying historical injustices to contemporary issues. This exchange highlights how the same symbol—national pride—can be interpreted through different lenses, depending on the political context.
Consistency Across Eras
This pattern of criticism is not new. In 2007, under George W. Bush, the show saw similar debates. Co-host Rosie O’Donnell criticized the U.S. military intervention in Iraq, stating: "655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists? ... If you were in Iraq and another country, the United States, the richest in the world, you would understand the weight of that loss." Her remarks framed the U.S. as a aggressor, even as it celebrated its global influence.
The media’s critique extends beyond national symbols to the very fabric of American society. By consistently associating patriotism with right-wing movements and emphasizing the country’s flaws, they reinforce a narrative of "resilient discontent." This approach not only shapes public perception but also fuels a cultural divide, where national pride is seen as a contentious issue rather than a unifying force.
A Beacon of Hope or a Tool of Division?
Despite this skepticism, the media often lauds former President Barack Obama as a paragon of American ideals. His presidential center in Chicago is described as a "beacon of hope," a testament to the nation’s capacity for progress. Yet, this reverence contrasts with the frequent criticism of his policies, such as his pledge to "fundamentally transform" America. Obama’s mockery of "American exceptionalism" further cements his role as a symbol of a more inclusive, modern America.
Ultimately, the media’s stance suggests that patriotism is not a fixed concept but one that shifts with political agendas. While they celebrate the nation’s milestones, they also serve as its harshest critics, using selective narratives to challenge its values. This dynamic raises questions about the role of media in shaping national identity and whether their criticism is rooted in genuine concern or ideological bias.
As the 250th anniversary fades into memory, the media’s selective focus on patriotism will likely continue. By highlighting moments of unity and critiquing the country’s flaws, they maintain a narrative that keeps the U.S. in perpetual debate. This duality ensures that patriotism remains both a celebration and a point of contention, reflecting the complex relationship between media and national identity.