The Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s declassification of 2016 Russian interference intelligence has sparked a sharp divide in how media outlets frame the story — or whether they cover it at all. After Gabbard released Obama-era intelligence reports, right-leaning networks labeled the move a “bombshell” while left-leaning networks largely dismissed the story’s significance.
Focus of story varied
Right-leaning news coverage largely focused on former President Barack Obama’s order of a new intelligence assessment despite earlier findings from his director of national intelligence, James Clapper, that found no collusion. Obama’s request was a new discovery in the communications Gabbard released.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
On the other hand, left-leaning outlets focused their coverage on bipartisan reports, including a 2018 Senate Intelligence finding that confirmed Russian interference, defending the Obama administration’s decision to seek further analysis.
Bias by story omission
On Wednesday, Gabbard held a press briefing at the White House, unveiling newly declassified documents and previously redacted communications tied to what the government knew about Russian election interference in 2016.
Despite national interest in the revelations, several major networks gave the event little to no airtime in their evening newscasts. This is an example of bias by omission — when news outlets exclude a story, often leading audiences to believe the issue isn’t important or newsworthy.
ABC’s “World News Tonight” and NBC’s “Nightly News” made no mention of Gabbard’s press conference in their primetime coverage, instead leading with developments in the Jeffrey Epstein files.
“CBS Evening News” included a brief 30-second mention of Gabbard’s appearance — but only at the end of its Epstein segment, a tactic known as “bias by placement.”
Conservative outlets were quick to accuse mainstream media of deliberately burying or ignoring the story for political reasons. But as Bias Breakdown previously reported, right-leaning networks like Fox News have also faced scrutiny — including from Newsmax — for downplaying or omitting certain stories, like the Epstein files, depending on the political fallout.
Control of the news cycle
This episode underscores a growing trend in modern media — bias by story and viewpoint omission — where outlets intentionally leave out stories or voices that don’t align with their political bias. Instead of delivering a broad range of facts, networks tend to amplify only those perspectives that validate their audiences — leaving viewers misled, divided and frustrated.
Granted, newsrooms have been shrinking for decades. Editors are tasked with choosing the most important stories for their audience with the staff that they have, which inevitably leads to some stories being passed over when there aren’t enough journalists to cover them. The bias topic of today’s episode lies in how those decisions play out in newsrooms across the country.
This story isn’t merely about left and right media attempting to control the narrative of one story — it reflects a broader struggle over control of the news cycle as partisan outlets determine for themselves which stories are relevant, rather than allowing the American public to decide for themselves.
