Note on tone and sources
This document is written as a centrist view, mixing personal opinion, public examples, and criticism that has already been widely published. Where names are mentioned, it is to describe the perception of coverage and public debate, not to accuse anyone of unlawful acts. If a factual error is found, I welcome corrections and will update this text.
Introduction and hello to the world:
I try to stand in the center. I am willing to listen to parties and leaders from both sides. But I cannot ignore what I see in Europe. Many observers believe journalism here has become strongly negative toward conservatives and toward Trump. This has created division instead of balance.
Conservatives are often framed as extreme right. Nationalism is often described as dangerous. For many citizens, nationalism simply means pride in their country. Critics argue that Europe sometimes treats this pride as a threat, because the long-term goal of European integration is to make national identity weaker and Union identity stronger.
And when we look closer, we see a pattern.
The Long Pattern of Change
Step 1: Borders removed
The Schengen Agreement in 1985 began the process. Internal borders across Europe became weaker.
Step 2: Mass immigration
With open borders, immigration increased. Supporters called it progress, while critics said it changed the character of towns and nations.
Step 3: National flags pushed aside
European Union symbols began to take priority at official events. In some places the EU flag is shown more often than national flags.
Step 4: Money changed to the euro
In 1999 many nations replaced their currencies with the euro. Supporters called it convenience. Critics said it weakened national identity.
Step 5: Media framing of national voices
Debates on immigration, borders, or national pride are often framed in European media as extreme. This makes one side of the argument look dangerous instead of legitimate.
The Role of Media for example in the Netherlands:
- Michiel Vos, connected to the Pelosi family, is often described by critics as presenting U.S. politics mainly from a Democrat perspective.
- Erik Mouthaan of RTL has faced criticism from viewers who believe his coverage often reflects Democrat narratives.
- RTL4, NOS, Volkskrant, AD, and DPG Media dominate Dutch media. Critics argue these outlets, some supported by public funding or subsidies, often lean in the same direction.
What surprises many observers is how easily U.S. stories move into European media. It often feels almost symbiotic. A line that appears in U.S. networks is repeated quickly in Europe, sometimes the same day. Critics say this becomes sharper near U.S. elections, with stories that seem especially damaging to Republicans.
Coverage is often posted late at night when few editors are available. Negative stories about conservatives may use unflattering pictures and harsher words. Positive stories about Democrats may use warm photos and emotional descriptions.
Examples of Controversial Coverage
- Hunter Biden laptop was widely reported as Russian disinformation. Later reports confirmed its authenticity. Corrections came late and were less visible.
- Charlottesville speech was shortened in coverage, which left out Trump’s condemnation of extremists.
- Russia collusion was reported as fact for years. The Mueller report later found no evidence of collusion.
- Hydroxychloroquine was reported as Trump suggesting people drink poison. His comments referred to possible medical research.
- Impeachment was sometimes explained in European coverage as if it proved guilt, while in law impeachment is only a charge.
- Jimmy Kimmel lost nearly half his viewers in recent years. Media critics pointed to his highly political, left-leaning style as a reason for audience decline. His departure from late night TV was reported as linked to those falling ratings.
These examples show a pattern many people notice: Republicans framed negatively, Democrats framed more positively.
Why this matters for Americans abroad
More than 4.4 million Americans live in Europe. Many rely on European outlets for news about the U.S. If the coverage they see is only one-sided, it can influence their political views and even their votes.
This is not only a European problem. It also affects American democracy.
Policy Steps
- Transparency
European media outlets should clearly state ownership, funding, and subsidies in every publication. This can be encouraged through the European Media Freedom Act, which already aims for more openness. Readers deserve to know who pays for the news they consume. - Balance Rule
Outlets should commit to voluntary editorial standards that ensure balance. If a negative story on Republicans runs, the Republican response should appear within seven days. If Democrats receive positive coverage, critical views should also be published. This does not restrict free speech but promotes fairer debate. - Fast Corrections
Corrections should be issued within 72 hours, and with equal visibility to the original story. This could be overseen by independent media councils or ombudsmen, similar to existing European press complaint systems. - Independent Review
Citizen panels that include conservative, liberal, and centrist voices could publish monthly scorecards on balance and fairness. These panels would not censor but measure giving the public a clear view of how balanced outlets really are. - Advertising Sanctions
If European outlets consistently refuse balance, American companies should consider withholding advertising from those platforms. This is not a government ban but a matter of corporate responsibility. U.S. companies should not fund media that their own citizens abroad see as propaganda.
A Warning and a Question
Step by step, Europe has moved from borders removed, to open immigration, to national flags replaced, to the euro, and now to media that frames one side of politics as dangerous.
Critics believe this is not an accident. It is part of a long play to build European unity and weaken national pride. The media often supports this vision by treating conservatism as extreme and nationalism as harmful.
But what is truly harmful? A free press that no longer gives space for balance. A system that shapes how millions think without showing them both sides.
This document is not meant to dictate an answer. It is meant as a warning.
Now the question is yours: Do you see a problem? Do you think this is shaping votes and minds? If so, what is the right solution?
Freedom only survives if people decide to protect it.
If you believe a factual error appears in this text, please provide sources and I will correct it promptly. My goal is fairness and honest debate.