US Political Spectrum Sees Rise in Ideological Messaging on Both Sides

In a significant shift that’s capturing attention across the media landscape, CBS News appears to be undergoing a substantial transformation in its editorial direction. Industry observers note the network is moving away from what some characterize as a liberal-leaning perspective toward a more centrist or center-right position.

At the center of this transition stands Bari Weiss, the former New York Times opinion writer who departed the newspaper citing concerns over what she described as intellectual conformity. Weiss’s role in reshaping CBS News’s approach highlights broader tensions within American media organizations as they navigate polarized political environments.

These organizational struggles mirror a personal experience I had with the New York Times in 2016. During Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign, I submitted a letter addressing his criticisms of the press. Rather than defending media outlets unconditionally, I pointed out that previous presidents had taken more severe actions against press freedom—a perspective that apparently caused significant consternation within the Times’s editorial department.

What particularly troubled the fact-checkers was my assertion about Abraham Lincoln, whom I stated had intercepted mail from Northern editors during the Civil War and imprisoned those whose correspondence he deemed problematic. After providing substantiating documentation from reputable historical sources, an editor reluctantly acknowledged, “The things you learn about your favorite president,” and proceeded to publish the letter.

The incident revealed how established media institutions sometimes struggle when confronted with historical facts that contradict preferred narratives. What I didn’t include in my original letter were additional historically documented but uncomfortable truths: Lincoln’s emancipation of enslaved people was partly motivated by military necessity—to bolster depleted Union forces—and was initially coupled with plans for deportation, an aspect of Lincoln’s thinking rarely discussed in mainstream historical presentations.

This selective engagement with historical reality isn’t limited to liberal-leaning outlets. Conservative media demonstrates similar tendencies, embracing narratives that often contradict constitutional principles and historical precedent. Today’s MAGA conservatives frequently advocate for presidential powers that would subordinate congressional authority, despite the Constitution’s clear separation of powers.

Similarly, many evangelical conservatives promote a vision where religious doctrine should supersede secular governance, a position at odds with America’s constitutional framework. This viewpoint often includes expectations about personal behavior, religious observance, and social policies that align with particular religious interpretations while nominally endorsing religious freedom.

The contemporary conservative movement also champions minimal corporate regulation and regressive taxation structures—positions that represent significant departures from various periods in American history when different approaches prevailed. Many conservatives seem certain that progressive policies inevitably lead to socialism, despite historical evidence of public initiatives coexisting with free enterprise, such as the establishment of public education systems following the American Revolution.

These ideological blind spots across the political spectrum highlight a broader problem in American discourse. Media organizations and political movements often construct narratives that selectively incorporate historical facts while discarding inconvenient truths that complicate preferred worldviews.

My experience with the Times proved illuminating. After publishing my letter challenging their perspective on presidential history, they never published another submission from me—suggesting an institutional reluctance to engage with viewpoints that disrupt established narratives.

As CBS News undergoes its reported transformation, the question remains whether any major media organization can transcend these tendencies and provide coverage that embraces historical complexity rather than partisan convenience.