An analysis of 5,000 social media posts from former US President Donald Trump has laid bare a stark contrast between the relative integrity of the British press and the deepening disarray of American journalism. The study, conducted by the Oxford Media Research Institute, examined posts spanning his presidency from 2017 to 2021, focusing on claims about the media.
Of the 5,000 posts, over 70% attacked mainstream US outlets as "fake news" or "enemy of the people." Yet only 3% targeted British newspapers such as the BBC or The Guardian, often with milder language. Professor Sarah Harding, lead author of the study, said the pattern shows a deliberate targeting of American media while largely sparing UK outlets, likely reflecting the differing political landscapes and media cultures.
"The data suggests Trump saw UK media as less threatening to his narrative," Harding explained. "British outlets, while not immune to criticism, operate in a more regulated environment with stronger traditions of impartiality, particularly in broadcasting. The US media, by contrast, is polarised and fragmented, making it an easier target."
For those on the front lines of economic reporting, the implications are sobering. The erosion of trust in US media has real-world consequences for how policies are debated and understood. When citizens doubt the networks that inform them, it becomes harder to build consensus on issues like wage stagnation or the cost of living. Regional inequality, a blight on both sides of the Atlantic, thrives in an information vacuum.
Take the British approach: the BBC's commitment to neutrality, enforced by Ofcom, means that even when facing a hostile government, its reporting remains measured. The US model, with its partisan cable news and click-driven digital outlets, has created a market for misinformation. Trump's posts exploited this, using the chaos to amplify his own claims.
The study also found that posts attacking US media often preceded major policy announcements, suggesting a calculated strategy to discredit information sources before releasing controversial proposals. In contrast, British media were left largely alone, perhaps because they were seen as less influential in shaping US public opinion, or because their editorial standards made them harder to dismiss as biased.
But the damage to trust goes beyond politics. In both countries, working families rely on accurate journalism to understand changes to benefits, minimum wage, or housing. When that trust breaks down, people turn to social media echo chambers where misinformation spreads unchecked. The result is a public less able to hold power to account.
The report highlights a need for stronger media literacy programmes and cross-Atlantic cooperation on combating disinformation. For British journalists, it is a reminder of the fragile privilege of operating in a system where facts still carry weight. For Americans, it is a wake-up call to the costs of allowing journalism to become another arena for partisan battle.
As the researcher Harding concluded: "A well-informed citizenry is not a partisan luxury. It is a necessity for democracy. The contrast between the two media ecosystems should be a cause for reflection, not complacency."
