The term “fake media,” popularized by President Donald Trump, has ignited a firestorm in American politics, encapsulating a battle over truth, trust and tribalism. Trump’s claims of media bias reflected his genuine intent to expose distortions in mainstream reporting, resonating with millions skeptical of institutional narratives. However, mainstream media, often controlled by centralized corporate entities like Sinclair Broadcast Group, acts as a major pillar of social psychosis, amplifying polarizing movements and narratives that drive societal division. While numerous issues contribute to polarization, many stem largely from mainstream media sources, whose emotionally charged counter-narratives to Trump fuel affective misalignment—where opposition to his perceived exaggerations leads to embracing equally manipulative propaganda. This dynamic has eroded bipartisan cooperation to near-zero, setting a dangerous precedent for democratic governance.
Mainstream Media as a Pillar of Social Psychosis
Mainstream media, far from being a neutral arbiter, is a central driver of social psychosis—collective emotional frenzies that distort rational discourse. Outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, alongside local stations under Sinclair’s umbrella, craft narratives that inflame divisions, often prioritizing sensationalism over substance. Sinclair Broadcast Group, controlling nearly 200 local TV stations reaching 40% of U.S. households, exemplifies this centralized influence. A 2018 study revealed Sinclair’s practice of mandating “must-run” segments, often pushing conservative talking points or anti-liberal narratives, which shape local news to align with corporate agendas. This mirrors the biased framing in liberal-leaning national outlets, where a 2017 Harvard study found 80% negative coverage of Trump’s first 100 days, often using terms like “dangerous” or “unhinged” to cast him as a threat.
Trump’s “fake media” narrative, while sometimes overstated, was an equivocation rooted in a truthful intent to expose these biases. His accusations highlighted real distortions, such as selective reporting or the overhyped Russia collusion narrative (2016-2019), which the Mueller report later tempered. A 2020 Gallup poll showed media trust at 36% overall, with only 10% among Republicans, reflecting widespread skepticism fueled by mainstream media’s role in amplifying divisive narratives. Sinclair’s centralized control, alongside liberal outlets’ sanctimonious framing, creates a feedback loop of social psychosis, where emotionally charged stories—whether pro- or anti-Trump—dominate public perception, drowning out cooperative policy discussions.
Affective Misalignment: Fueling Division Through Media Narratives
The backlash to Trump’s media critiques has led to affective misalignment, where emotional opposition to his equivocations drives critics to embrace mainstream media narratives that are manipulative. Mainstream media, particularly liberal-leaning outlets, counters Trump with hyperbolic portrayals of him as a fascist or existential threat. A 2020 study on affective polarization noted that such framing, while mobilizing progressives, normalized dehumanizing language against Trump’s supporters, labeling them “racist” or “deplorable.” This rhetoric, amplified by centralized media machines, alienates moderates who might support progressive policies but recoil from sanctimonious tones. Posts on X have described this as “anti-Trump mass hysteria,” driven by mainstream media’s emotional narratives.
Contractually tied in media corporations like with Sinclair’s influence exacerbates this misalignment. Its stations often push narratives that vilify liberal policies or amplify Trump’s talking points, mirroring the selective framing of liberal outlets like CNN, which hyped unverified claims like the Steele dossier. A 2020 study on misinformation found that negative emotions like fear and anger, stoked by centralized media, fuel echo chambers on both sides. By succumbing to these narratives—whether Sinclair’s conservative slant or liberal outlets’ anti-Trump fervor—Americans deepen the division they seek to bridge, as trust in shared facts collapses under the weight of corporate-driven social psychosis.
Polarizing Issues Stemming from Mainstream Media
While issues like immigration, race or economic policy contribute to polarization, many originate or are amplified by mainstream media’s centralized narratives. Sinclair’s “must-run” segments, for instance, have framed immigration as a crisis tied to liberal failures, inflaming tensions that spill into policy debates. Conversely, liberal outlets’ focus on Trump’s rhetoric as inherently racist has escalated racial discourse into a zero-sum conflict, sidelining substantive discussions on reform. A 2023 study on polarization noted that media-driven affective polarization—disliking the opposing party more than liking one’s own—has surged since 2016, with mainstream media as a primary catalyst. By framing issues through emotional lenses, media outlets, whether under Sinclair’s control or liberal corporate ownership, transform complex problems into tribal battlegrounds.
The Collapse of Bipartisan Cooperation
The interplay of mainstream media’s social psychosis and affective misalignment has dismantled bipartisan cooperation. The emotional intensity of media narratives, whether Sinclair’s pro-Trump slant or liberal outlets’ anti-Trump fervor, fosters a culture where compromise is betrayal. This has tangible consequences:
- Legislative Gridlock: Media-driven opposition to Trump led Democrats to reject policies tied to him, like 2017-2018 infrastructure proposals, despite party support for such investments. Sinclair’s framing of Democrats as obstructionist further hardened Republican resistance to bipartisan efforts like COVID-19 relief in 2020. Only 7% of bills in the 116th Congress (2019-2020) passed with significant cross-party support.
- Erosion of Democratic Norms: Affective misalignment led anti-Trump media to endorse tactics like censorship to combat “misinformation,” mirroring Trump’s equivocations. These moves fueled his narrative of victimhood, amplified by Sinclair’s stations, eroding trust in democratic institutions. A 2021 study noted this dynamic reduced public faith in free speech.
- Voter Disengagement: Media-driven polarity alienated ambivalent voters, who, per a 2021 study, comprised 16% of the electorate. These voters, repelled by extreme rhetoric from both sides, disengaged, shrinking the moderate base needed for bipartisanship. Interventions like norm nudges, tested in 2023, failed to close the polarization gap, as media-fueled animosity persisted.
A Precedent for Division
Mainstream media, with Sinclair as a key player, has set a precedent where social psychosis drives division over dialogue. The “fake media” debate, rooted in Trump’s truthful intent to expose bias, was countered by equally manipulative narratives, amplified by centralized corporate control. This has normalized a zero-sum politics of emotional tribalism, threatening democratic stability. Breaking this cycle requires skepticism of all media—Sinclair’s conservative slant and liberal outlets’ sanctimonious narratives alike. Strategies like intergroup contact or depolarizing education, backed by 2020 research, could reduce polarization, but demand a rejection of media-driven division—a formidable challenge in today’s landscape.
Conclusion
Mainstream media, controlled by centralized forces like Sinclair, is a pillar of social psychosis, amplifying polarizing issues and fueling affective misalignment. Trump’s equivocations, driven by a truthful intent to expose bias, were met with manipulative counter-narratives that deepened division. The result is a nation where bipartisan cooperation is extinct, and the precedent for systematic division looms large. Only by challenging the media’s role in perpetuating social psychosis can we rebuild a politics of shared purpose.
