Failed Smears Against Trump’s Cabinet Picks Highlight Media Bias and Irrelevance

It can be said that a significant portion of our increasingly irrelevant media now believes its new objective is to undermine as many of Trump’s Cabinet selections as possible after failing to unseat him.

But is that strategy effective?

Consider the situation with Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence.

Gabbard is a former military veteran who served on the front lines in Iraq and has held multiple terms in Congress.

She ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, even garnering more delegates than Kamala Harris during the primary. However, after her party shifted focus towards endless wars and a woke agenda, Gabbard allied with Trump during his campaign.

Unsurprisingly, the criticisms began immediately once Trump announced her Cabinet appointment.

USA Today remarked: “Syria is now free from Assad. And this Trump nominee has some explaining to do.”

The Bulwark questioned: “The Curious Case of Tulsi Gabbard: Is She a Russian Asset or a Dupe?”

Washington Post declared: “Gabbard, Trump’s Intel pick who visited Assad, meets with senators after dictator’s fall.”

What’s the outcry? Gabbard met with a foreign leader over seven years ago as a U.S. congresswoman on the House Armed Services Committee?

You know who else met with Assad years ago? Nancy Pelosi. Is she also a Russian asset or simply a naïf?

And what about Trump’s choice for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth? The attack campaign against him kicked off as soon as his selection was revealed last November.

In one report, NBC News claimed that ten current and former Fox News employees alleged Hegseth arrived to co-host a weekend morning show while under the influence of alcohol.

However, the “sources” used were entirely anonymous—just like those in other disparaging accounts against Hegseth.

The only colleagues who have gone on record refuting these claims insist they are 100% false, including Will Cain and Rachel Campos-Duffy—his two most recent co-hosts—who noted that NBC never reached out to them for comment.

If you were a journalist verifying this story, wouldn’t those closest to Hegseth at the network be your first stop?

Next, consider Kash Patel, designated FBI Director. Many media outlets branded him a dangerous conspiracy theorist from the outset merely because Patel argued that agencies like the FBI had been politicized and weaponized—especially against one individual: Donald Trump.

Who did CNN enlist for analysis? Andrew McCabe, a former FBI official fired in the first Trump administration for leaking to the press and subsequently lying about it.

“It’s a terrible development for the men and women of the FBI and also for the nation that depends on a highly functioning professional independent Federal Bureau of Investigation,” McCabe asserted. “The fact that Kash Patel is profoundly unqualified for this job is not even a matter for debate.”

McCabe’s record was hardly “professional” or “independent.” Yet there he was, discussing ethics on national television.

If legacy media still had the power they once wielded, one might expect these nominees to have no chance of confirmation.

But here’s the reality: not a single Republican senator has publicly stated opposition to Gabbard, Hegseth, or Patel. Not one.

Let’s reflect on what just occurred in this presidential election. Despite Kamala Harris running a campaign that many considered the worst in recent history, she received overwhelming backing from the media.

Out of the initial 100 stories covering Harris’ campaign on ABC’s World News Tonight, a Media Research Center analysis revealed every single one was positive.

Overall, the MRC reported that Harris received 78% positive coverage across the three major networks, while Trump’s coverage languished at only 15% positive.

Yet Trump prevailed in the popular vote and every swing state despite these intense media headwinds.

Clearly, the legacy media’s influence is nearly nonexistent, as podcasts, streaming platforms, and free speech venues like Elon Musk’s X dominate the discourse today.

“The mainstream has become fringe and the fringe has become mainstream,” CNN’s Van Jones recently lamented. “There are platforms and personalities out there garnering 14 million streams while we’re on cable news struggling with one to two million.”

Actually, CNN is currently averaging about 530,000 viewers, but the point remains.

The legacy media attempted to thrust Kamala across the finish line. They fell significantly short.

Now, they aim to sabotage Trump’s Cabinet selections to ensure their rejection. If history is any indicator, they are likely to fail on this front as well.

Because after all the bias and misinformation, very few are still paying attention.

Joe Concha is the author of “Progressively Worse: Why Today’s Democrats Ain’t Your Daddy’s Donkeys.”