The scrutiny directed at President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet appointees has reached new heights, with flagship evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC described as "almost uniformly negative" during the coverage period from December 1 to December 14, as revealed by a recent study from the Media Research Center (MRC).
The MRC's examination covered not just the overall sentiment, but also highlighted the disproportionate amount of airtime dedicated to various nominees during these broadcasts, particularly focusing on Trump’s Defense Secretary pick, Pete Hegseth, FBI Director selection, Kash Patel, and Director of National Intelligence nominee, Tulsi Gabbard.
According to the report, Trump’s nominees found themselves receiving only 60 minutes and 47 seconds of coverage within this two-week window, with 96% of it being negative. This substantial negativity raised eyebrows as it encompassed the majority of commentary provided on these key appointments.
Bill D’Agostino, MRC's senior research analyst, pointedly noted, "Across all three networks, the coverage of Gabbard, Patel, and the handful of other nominees mentioned was entirely negative." The report indicated especially troubling trends for Hegseth, who, though receiving the majority of coverage, garnered only four positive comments—each coming from his mother, who described him as "redeemed" and "a changed man." D’Agostino remarked, "To reiterate: the only positive commentary any Trump nominee received on the broadcast networks was from his own mother."
Meanwhile, the analysis revealed the individual network treatment of the Trump nominees. CBS led the charge with close to 25 minutes of coverage, where Hegseth alone accounted for over 14 minutes. Even there, CBS’s reporting was marked by 96.7% negativity, though it treated Hegseth slightly more favorably at 88% negative coverage compared to its peers.
Next was NBC, which allocated over 21 minutes to coverage—all characterized with high negativity, tallying at 94.7%. Most alarming was the finding of the MRC indicating NBC’s high-profile treatment of Hegseth, who earned negative coverage amounting to 100% from this network.
ABC News also engaged significantly, providing 19 minutes and 25 seconds of coverage on Trump’s nominees with 90% deemed negative. Of this, 13 minutes and 33 seconds were directed solely at Hegseth. Reports during this time focused predominantly on scandals and allegations surrounding him, only to see the coverage diminish precipitously once his confirmation appeared likely.
Regarding Kash Patel, it was noted he had dominated the evening newscasts initially but was relegated to the background when key Senate Republican supporters declared their backing. D’Agostino remarked how reporting on Patel became sparse, particularly after he had received initial interest pertaining to negative connotations tied to his name.
Senator Joni Ernst, representing Iowa and viewed as pivotal to Hegseth's confirmation, exhibited skepticism prior to the coverage wave but displayed willingness to reconsider when the tides shifted toward more favorable views. "Incidentally, Hegseth received 37 of his total 39 minutes of coverage from the three broadcast networks on or before December 10," D’Agostino explained. This pattern illustrated media focus concentrated around affirmations and contentions directed toward the nominees dependent on their perceived chances of confirmation.
Brent Bozell, founder and president of MRC, slammed the media's behavior as "appalling" and reached past the content of the reports to lash out at their motives. He stated, "This is as predictable as it is appalling. It is simply indefensible. But America is seeing through this agenda. And then the media wonder why their numbers are tanking."
Bozell's outrage extended to framing the media's efforts as politically charged, asserting, "These radicals' agenda to undermine and damage - no, destroy - a president-elect, verges on the anti-American." He noted the parallels to 2016, emphasizing the apparent trend of partisan media behaving similarly amid contentious political climates.
The converging narrative raises questions not only about the trustworthiness of certain media outlets, but also about the wider effects on the Trump administration and its policies. With such overwhelming negativity surrounding key appointments, analysts wonder how this could influence public perception and confidence moving forward.
While the need for accountability and skepticism of political figures is indisputable, the pressure on Trump’s nominees can act as both a source of scrutiny and potential setbacks, diverging attention from pressing national issues toward media sensationalism.
This scrutiny sheds light on the underlying tensions between media representation and the political framework of the incoming Trump administration, as it continues to carve its path through the complex terrain of public approval and legislative validation.
