“Mainstream Media Sleeps as trump’s Wild Conspiracies Become the New Normal”
media bias analysis, Trump conspiracy theories impact, political coverage discrepancies
—————–

In a recent tweet, political commentator Aaron Rupar remarked on the stark difference in media treatment between former President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden. Rupar’s commentary highlights a growing concern about the normalization of extreme rhetoric and conspiracy theories in political discourse, particularly focusing on how media outlets respond to such statements. This article will delve into these themes, exploring the implications of media bias, the evolution of political communication, and the role of social media in shaping public perception.

### Media Treatment of Political Figures

Rupar’s tweet brings to light a critical observation: the media’s response to political figures can greatly influence public perception. He suggests that if Joe Biden were to make statements akin to those made by Trump, it would prompt significant media coverage and analysis, possibly even special segments dedicated to dissecting his words. In contrast, he argues that when Trump disseminates conspiracy theories, the mainstream press tends to overlook or downplay the significance of his statements. This discrepancy raises questions about fairness in media coverage and the standards applied to different political leaders.

### The Normalization of Extreme Rhetoric

One of the central concerns highlighted by Rupar is the normalization of what he refers to as “apeshit conspiracy theories” within political discussions, particularly those propagated by Trump. This normalization can lead to desensitization among the public, where extreme statements are no longer met with the outrage they might have once provoked. The implications of this trend are profound, as it can erode trust in traditional media and institutions, allowing misinformation to flourish.

### The Role of Social Media

Social media platforms like Twitter have transformed the landscape of political communication. Politicians can now directly engage with the public, bypassing traditional media filters. This direct line of communication can be a double-edged sword; while it allows for greater transparency and immediacy, it also opens the door for the rapid spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Trump’s prolific use of Twitter during his presidency exemplified this trend, as he often shared unverified claims and controversial opinions that garnered significant attention.

### Implications for Public Discourse

The disparity in media coverage and the normalization of extreme rhetoric have significant implications for public discourse. When certain statements are met with indifference while others spark intense scrutiny, it can create a skewed understanding of political realities among the electorate. This can lead to a polarized environment where individuals align with their preferred narratives, often disregarding facts that contradict their beliefs.

### The Need for Accountability

Rupar’s tweet underscores the need for accountability in political communication. Media outlets play a crucial role in shaping public understanding of political issues, and their responses to various statements can either reinforce or challenge prevailing narratives. It is essential for journalists and news organizations to maintain rigorous standards of fact-checking and to provide context for statements made by public figures, regardless of their political affiliation. This accountability can help combat misinformation and foster a more informed electorate.

### Conclusion

Aaron Rupar’s observation about the differing media responses to Trump and Biden highlights a troubling trend in political communication and media coverage. The normalization of extreme rhetoric, particularly conspiracy theories, poses challenges for public discourse and trust in institutions. As social media continues to play an increasingly central role in shaping political narratives, it is crucial for both politicians and media outlets to prioritize transparency, accuracy, and accountability. The health of democracy relies on an informed public, and it is the responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure that the discourse remains grounded in fact and reason.

In summary, the dynamics of political communication are evolving, and the implications of these changes are far-reaching. By acknowledging the discrepancies in media treatment and the normalization of extreme rhetoric, we can begin to address the challenges facing contemporary political discourse. As we move forward, fostering an environment of accountability and critical engagement will be essential in navigating the complexities of modern politics.

If Joe Biden posted something like this Hannity would be roused from his sleep to anchor special coverage. But Trump posts apeshit conspiracy theories and the mainstream press yawns. His craziness has been completely normalized. https://t.co/YOnZ1w7e5J

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 1, 2025

If Joe Biden posted something like this Hannity would be roused from his sleep to anchor special coverage.

Let’s kick things off with a thought-provoking statement that really highlights the current state of media coverage in America. It’s interesting to consider how different political figures are treated by the mainstream press. When Joe Biden shares something that might raise eyebrows, it seems like the media goes into overdrive. Someone like Sean Hannity would likely jump out of bed to cover it live, dissecting every word and implication. But when former President Trump posts wild conspiracy theories, the media response often feels more like a collective shrug.

This disparity begs the question: why is there such a stark contrast in how these two leaders are covered? Is it just a matter of political bias, or is there something deeper at play in our media landscape?

But Trump posts apeshit conspiracy theories and the mainstream press yawns.

When we talk about “apeshit conspiracy theories,” it’s essential to recognize that this isn’t just a casual phrase. It speaks volumes about the nature of discourse in today’s political climate. Trump’s tendency to share outrageous claims—often without any basis in reality—has become a hallmark of his communication style. It’s entertaining, it’s outrageous, and for some, it’s a rallying cry.

Yet, as Aaron Rupar pointed out in his tweet, the mainstream press’s reaction—or lack thereof—seems to normalize this behavior. Why isn’t there a more vigorous pushback? Why aren’t we seeing the same level of scrutiny that Biden faces? This raises questions about journalistic integrity and accountability in the face of blatant falsehoods.

It’s important to remember that when the media fails to call out misinformation, it risks letting those narratives fester and grow in the public consciousness. It’s not just about reporting on the news; it’s about shaping the narrative that influences public opinion and behavior.

His craziness has been completely normalized.

Normalization is a powerful concept in psychology and sociology. It describes how behaviors that might once have been viewed as extreme or unacceptable become commonplace over time. In the context of Trump’s presidency and post-presidency, we’ve seen a significant shift in what is considered acceptable discourse.

When outlandish statements and conspiracy theories become the norm, it can lead to a desensitization among the public and the press. People begin to tune out the noise, thinking, “Oh, it’s just Trump being Trump.” This can pose a serious threat to democracy and informed citizenship. If we stop questioning what we hear and accept everything at face value, we lose the very essence of critical thinking that is vital in a democratic society.

The media plays a crucial role here. When coverage leans more towards entertainment than information, it can create an environment where misinformation thrives. The casual dismissal of sensational claims as “just Trump being Trump” can inadvertently legitimize them, making it harder for the public to discern fact from fiction.

Understanding Media Bias

To fully grasp why Biden and Trump receive such different treatment in the media, we must examine media bias. It’s no secret that news outlets often have political leanings, whether they lean left, right, or somewhere in between. This bias can shape not only how stories are reported but also which stories are deemed newsworthy.

For instance, a liberal-leaning outlet may cover a Biden gaffe in great detail, while downplaying a similarly outrageous statement from Trump. Conversely, conservative outlets might amplify Trump’s statements while being critical of Biden’s missteps. This selective reporting can contribute to a fragmented media landscape, where people are only exposed to viewpoints that reinforce their existing beliefs.

The Role of Social Media

Social media has fundamentally changed how we consume news. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook have become essential for political discourse. They allow for rapid dissemination of information, but they also enable the spread of misinformation. When Trump tweets something controversial, it often goes viral before traditional media outlets can react.

This phenomenon can create a feedback loop where sensational claims gain traction and momentum, leading to more significant coverage and discussion. It’s a double-edged sword; while social media empowers individuals to share their thoughts, it also allows for the rapid spread of falsehoods.

As consumers of news, we have to be more discerning about where we get our information. Relying on a single source can lead to a skewed perception of reality. Diversifying our news intake and seeking multiple perspectives can help us navigate this complex media landscape.

The Impact on Public Perception

The normalization of Trump’s conspiracy theories and the lack of robust media scrutiny can significantly impact public perception. When outrageous claims go unchecked, they can influence how people view reality.

For example, the idea that the election was stolen continues to resonate with a substantial portion of the population. This belief isn’t just a passing sentiment—it has real-world consequences, affecting trust in democratic institutions and processes.

Public perception shapes policy and governance. If a significant number of people believe in unverified claims, it may lead to calls for legislative changes or even violence, as seen in the January 6 Capitol riots. The ripple effects of misinformation can be catastrophic, leading to a breakdown of trust in institutions that are foundational to democracy.

What Can Be Done?

So, what can we do about this situation? First and foremost, media literacy is crucial. Educating ourselves and others on how to critically evaluate news sources and claims can help combat misinformation. This means checking sources, understanding the context behind stories, and being aware of potential biases.

Additionally, we should advocate for responsible journalism. Media outlets must prioritize accuracy over sensationalism. Journalists have a responsibility to hold those in power accountable, regardless of their political affiliation. This means fact-checking claims and providing context to ensure that the public receives a comprehensive view of the situation.

Finally, as voters and citizens, we must engage with the political process. This involves not only voting but also participating in discussions, attending town halls, and holding our representatives accountable. The more involved we are, the more we can shape the discourse and demand better from our media and political leaders.

In summary, the landscape of political discourse is changing rapidly, and it’s essential to stay informed and engaged. Whether it’s through understanding media biases, diving into social media dynamics, or advocating for responsible journalism, we all have a role to play in ensuring that our democracy remains robust and healthy.