Legacy media trust hits new low with Swalwell story latest example of protecting Dems

A defining story of the past decade or so has been the collapse of trust in the credibility of legacy media institutions.

The latest survey data from Gallup found that just 28 percent of Americans have a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in mass media to report accurate or complete information. That's the lowest number in the poll's history. Conversely, a whopping 70 percent of respondents have "not very much" confidence or "none at all" in those same institutions. In 1972, that was flipped, with nearly 70 percent of Americans saying they trusted media outlets.

Among Republicans, those numbers are far worse. Just 8 percent of those on the right trust the media to report information fairly. That figure represents a 62 percent decline on the right even from 2015.

And that decline is very well deserved. The latest example of an obvious partisan bias being the reporting around accusations levied at now-former California Congressman Eric Swalwell. Swalwell over the last five to seven years turned himself into one of the most prominent voices on the left. Always outraged, committed to whatever progressive talking points were at a given moment, always with an expression on his face that seemed to imply he couldn't believe he was getting away with gaslighting, lying, and extreme hypocrisy.

Well, that all came crashing down in less than a week. And in the process exposed not just the Democrat Party yet again, but its most willing and helpful partners: legacy media.

Before diving into Swalwell, it's important to back up. Starting around the time when Donald Trump was first elected in 2016, legacy media quite obviously made a collective decision about its news coverage and reporting. Instead of attempting to present stories or information and let readers or viewers interpret for themselves, it would put its thumb on the scale. Pew Research, for example, found in 2025 that 55 percent of journalists don't believe that both sides do not deserve equal coverage. In reality, that number is likely far higher.

Impartiality and fairness among ostensibly unbiased journalists has all but evaporated. This only got worse during the COVID-19 pandemic. While prior generations of journalists believed that their mandate was to hold powerful people accountable, COVID was the exact opposite. The powerful, people like Anthony Fauci, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, or local public health officials, were treated with awe, reverence, and deference. Instead of questioning their statements, decision-making, or mandates, virtually every legacy media outlet promoted them.

Holding the powerful to account turned into holding the public to account. It was your fault for not wearing enough masks, or not wearing the right kind of masks, or for wanting your kid to go to school and have class without wearing a mask. It was your fault for not getting COVID vaccines based on inaccurate promises of efficacy and the disinterest in side effects legacy media demonstrated.

Why did they handle the pandemic this way? Because they do not view journalism as their primary goal or outcome. They are ideologues first, reporters second. And what their ideology said and believed during the pandemic was that Fauci and "health experts" must not be questioned, no matter how absurd their views were, or how quickly they were disproven. Criticism of Fauci, or coverage of his failures would be a betrayal of their political party and the "In this house" messaging it depends on.

There are many more examples of legacy media "missing" stories that would hurt Democrats. The Hunter Biden laptop story undoubtedly impacted the 2020 election, as mass media downplayed, ignored, or in some cases, helped ensure that the story was censored from the internet lest it hurt Joe Biden's campaign. The lab leak explanation for the pandemic was labeled as a "racist conspiracy," before evidence became overwhelming that it was the most likely source of the coronavirus.

Joe Biden's cognitive and physical decline was dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy, with "cheap fakes" becoming one of CNN's most popular terms before his atrocious debate performance. Russiagate was another. And news this week on the first Trump impeachment has exposed yet another media failing.

Now we have Swalwell as yet another shining example.

After the allegations about years of improper behavior surfaced, several reporters took to social media to explain that they'd long heard rumors or reports of Swalwell's actions and simply…did nothing about them.

One Democrat strategist posted on X Thursday morning that "…A reporter with Politico was working on verifying the rumors on Swalwell when he was running for President." He continues, "Two days before he was scheduled to sit down with this reporter Swalwell dropped out of the race. The energy disappeared to potentially take him out, the victims if they were even willing to go on the record never did."

Another reporter, Bethany Allen, said she heard information on Swalwell's behavior in 2020 when at Axios, but because it wasn't her beat, simply passed it along and never reported it. A journalist based in California posted this, saying that "shortly after being elected to Congress in 2013, [Swalwell’s] behavior towards women was known by all levels of our local government and the Alameda County Democratic Party."

The executive editor of American Prospect, David Dayen, wrote "The truth, which will be available for all to see before long, is that Swalwell’s conduct with interns, young staff, and female fans was an open secret for a long time, and yet the party…had been supporting him and raising money for him."

There are many more examples of those on the left admitting that Swalwell's treatment of women was an open secret among Democrats, which would, of course, trickle down to their partners in mass media outlets. So why did it take until now for it to come out?

Well, the legacy media's primary objective is to help and protect its "side." Which is why a majority of these people openly admit in surveys that they don't feel the need to treat both sides equally. Reporting does require those who are making the allegations to come forward. But apparently some did, then interest in the story fizzled as Swalwell stopped running for president. But that's not an acceptable excuse.

Swalwell was a sitting congressman from the country's largest state. He started a campaign for governor, and in some polls, was the leading candidate. He was a relentless force against Trump and the right, with sneering, smirking social media videos, predictable #Believeallwomen hashtags, and was seen as one of the primary leaders of the "resistance" in appearances with good buddy Jimmy Kimmel.

He was prominent enough to deserve scrutiny, particularly in light of the "everyone always knew" messaging we now see. They knew, they just didn't care enough because Swalwell was on the left. And those on the left are never treated with the aggressive mentality journalists take when they can hurt a member of the opposition. Fauci is still viewed as a hero because they never cared enough to point out how many lies he told, or facts he got wrong. All the Democrat Party partners now talking about how it was so obvious Swalwell was engaging in inappropriate behavior were happy to support his candidacy. Until now.

Some look at ~20 percent trust ratings for mass media and wonder how we got here. The real question is why it isn't lower.