Rob Finnerty used his Finnerty program to call out what every thinking American already knows: the corporate press applies two standards when it comes to Donald Trump. On-air he hammered the point that reporting is often selective, with headlines and editing that amplify some stories and bury others — a pattern conservatives have complained about for years.
This isn’t just Fox talking. Independent analyses have repeatedly shown that coverage of President Trump was far more negative than coverage of recent Democratic presidents in comparable periods, and critics on both sides have pointed to a persistent slant in tone and framing. The data from Pew and the Shorenstein Center make clear that the media’s choices about what to emphasize and how to label it matter — and those choices have not been neutral.
Look at one glaring example: the Hunter Biden laptop saga and the way establishment outlets and platforms reacted in 2020. Initial mainstream dismissals — and platform suppression by Big Tech — were later followed by reporting that acknowledged important aspects of the story, leaving a lot of legitimate questions about why conservative reporting was marginalized in the heat of a presidential campaign. That sequence did real damage to public trust.
The result is a media ecosystem that rewards certain narratives and punishes others, with selective fact-checking and unequal airtime reinforcing a comfortable consensus in elite newsrooms. Studies show that where people get their news heavily influences whether they view coverage as fair or hostile, and that partisan audiences see the press through radically different lenses. The consequence is predictable: polarization, skepticism, and a press that too often acts like a political player instead of a neutral watchdog.
Conservatives have been accused of inventing “media bias” as an excuse, but the empirical record tells another story: major outlets routinely choose which controversies to explode and which to ignore, shaping the political market in ways that favor one party over another. That selective attention isn’t benign — it costs politicians, policies, and the public fair assessment. Americans deserve journalism that investigates every side with equal ferocity, not a press corps that presumes guilt or innocence based on its preferred playbook.
It’s no surprise that voices like Finnerty are livid; demanding accountability from the fourth estate is not extremism, it’s patriotism. Viewers watched outlets suppress or spin stories in ways that changed the conversation, and watchdogs and commentators on the right are rightly pressing for corrections, transparency, and an end to the cozy relationships between journalists and their favored politicians. The remedy starts with coverage that reports the whole story rather than the one that fits a preexisting narrative.
Rob Finnerty’s rebuke is a reminder that the fight for a fair press is still an urgent one — the country cannot heal if citizens don’t trust the sources that frame our politics. Conservatives aren’t asking for softness toward their leaders; they’re demanding the basic fairness Americans expect from institutions that claim to serve democracy. If the media wants its credibility back, it should start by reporting honestly, airing inconvenient facts, and letting viewers decide — not shaping the verdict from the anchor desk.
