The Media: To Embrace or Reject Reform in the Wake of the 2024 Election

A crucial point for the media, as they decide how to rebuild themselves. But is it too little too late?

Today, Katharine Viner, Editor-in-Chief of the Guardian, had the gall to write an article soliciting donations from her readers for the express purpose of “hold[ing] the President-elect and those who surround him to account.”

Oh Katharine. Oh poor, naïve Katharine. Are you truly still missing the point this badly?

Parts of Viner’s article were also used in an ad (above) to solicit donations from readers

This election was a referendum on many things—corrupt ‘lawfare’ cases, Democrats’ disregard for the political process, identity politics, and D.E.I., among other things. But perhaps above all else, the 2024 Presidential election signified the public rejection of and dissatisfaction with the elites that for years now have attempted to dictate the values and beliefs of the common man. Of these manipulative elites, none are more culpable than the Mainstream Media.

And the rest of Ms. Viner’s article explains why.

“In 2016, we promised that our coverage of a Donald Trump administration would meet the moment – and I think it did. Throughout those tumultuous four years we never minimised or normalised the threat of Trump’s authoritarianism, and we treated his lies as a genuine danger to democracy, a threat that found its expression on 6 January 2021.”

In her bizarre plea, Viner on the one hand lambasts Trump for his “lies,” calling them a “genuine threat to democracy,” and, on the other hand, recites a laundry list of criticisms against Trump—all of which, ironically, have been proven to be factually false. Chief among these lies is an old favorite, rearing its head for perhaps the final time: “Project 2025 [is] the blueprint for a second Trump presidency.” [Insert Cringe]

But the odd thing is that the election had been over for 24 hours by the time this article went up: Trump won, and he’ll never be involved in another US Presidential election. So why keep up the charade? A few answers come to mind.

As always, one aim is to manipulate Democrats’ tribalistic mentality. Viner makes it clear to her leftist viewers that she is still on ‘the good side,’ presumably in hopes that—on a day when the emotionality of Trump-haters is elevated above even their usual, lofty levels—her lefty readers might empty their pockets into hers in a show of solidarity.

But perhaps the post is also an attempt to save face. After all, the Guardian has spent the last several months increasing the severity of their rhetoric about Trump—asserting that a Trump victory would put America at risk of “military takeovers and mass deportations,” and claiming earlier this month that Trump was already planning to “subvert the 2024 election.” And so, Viner pulled together this short, boring article—to reassure Guardian devotees that the news they’ve been fed for months is the truth, rather than manipulative, politically-motivated propaganda. In fact, polls from the election show that voters believed Kamala Harris was a greater threat to democracy than Donald Trump. Of course, the Guardian has not stopped to ask why that might be.

Viner signs off by adding a tasty bit of insight into the schism that we can already see forming among major Western media outlets in the wake of Trump’s comprehensive victory—and which side of that schism the Guardian is planning to fall on: “[Standing up to Trump] will take brave, well-funded independent journalism. It will take reporting that can’t be leaned upon by a billionaire owner terrified of retribution from a bully in the White House.”

Here, Viner is doing two things. Firstly, she is attempting to pre-emptively explain away the inevitable shift in policy that we’re about to see from her competitor news outlets. As surmised by our earlier article “Is the Kamala Campaign Reaching Critical Mass?”, the public mistrust of the legacy media has become so great that, to preserve their own existence, they will have to start enacting some level of even-handed reporting—something we haven’t seen since before the Bush era. Viner is trying to ‘get ahead of the story’, to explain why the Washington Post and other profit-seeking news outlets will soon be changing their mindless anti-Trump tunes, as some already are. Don’t you see? It’s not that they’ve lost the public trust after years of propagandizing and are now deciding to reverse course to save their own tails. They’re just terrified of that “bully in the White House.”

Secondly, she is attempting to set The Guardian apart from those media outlets who do decide to tone down their bias and soften their explicit anti-Trump agendas. And this is where the schism forms.

Unlike its peers, which are funded by those “Billionaire owners”, The Guardian is funded by a variety of sources, including donations from its readers. This structure means that, as long as there is a market for Trump-deranged reporting, The Guardian, among others, are able to fill that space. And so, while some profit-motivated media outlets will lessen their bias to try and re-endow themselves with the public trust, others like The Guardian will double-down on their derangement, to try and carve out a niche for themselves within their leftist base.

Essentially, the media schism is a result of two differing approaches to survival mode. But in both cases, it might be too late. If this week’s election proves anything, the American people—even some of the most devoutly liberal demographics—have already learned to stop listening to the legacy media. For years, these outlets have classified Trump, without any apparent justification, as “the first racist President.” This week, the Guardian itself foretold that a Trump Presidency would “upend the lives of African-Americans.” And yet? This week, more African Americans cast their vote for Donald Trump than any Republican presidential candidate in decades.¹ For years, the media have spread lies about the Republicans’ beliefs and platform, specifically to terrify and anger Hispanic voters. And yet? This week, 46% of Hispanic voters cast their votes for Donald Trump—more than any Republican Presidential candidate in history.

So, Katharine Viner, the American people did not reject Democracy. They rejected YOU.

1. Perhaps the most in history by sheer number of votes cast, due to increases in total African-American population size.