Skip to main content

Media Bias Detector

Media Coverage (or lack thereof) of Trump’s First Week in Office Part 1: Trump’s Inauguration

By David M. Rothschild

On Friday, January 17—just days before Donald Trump’s inauguration—two events occurred that could have influenced the public’s perception of him, the core narratives that drive their understanding of the next four years. However, the corporate media chose not to emphasize these two events or to build narratives around them.

The first event involved Trump’s decision to move his swearing-in ceremony indoors due to the "very cold weather" forecast for Washington, D.C. While the expected high temperature on January 20 was 26°F (it actually reached 28°F), which is not uncommon for past inaugurations (Obama was sworn in outside in 28°F in 2009), Trump cited a precedent from Ronald Reagan’s 1985 inauguration, where the temperature was far colder (7°F).

According to the Media Bias Detector, which monitors the top 20 articles from 10 major news sites, the story of Trump’s move was the third most-covered topic that day, following the TikTok ban and the Gaza ceasefire. Almost all of our major publications covered it, except for The Wall Street Journal and HuffPost. However, what stands out is the lack of critical coverage—most outlets simply echoed Trump’s explanation without question.

Indoor Inauguration Image 1

This lack of scrutiny stood out for two reasons: age and crowd-size. First, Trump would be the oldest president ever before the end of this term, so it would have been reasonable to question his vigor and fitness for office (as they did for Biden who holds the current record as oldest president ever) in moving the inauguration indoors. Second, there was minimal media discussion about the potential political optics at play, such as avoiding the embarrassment of a low crowd turnout, which had marred Trump’s 2017 inauguration. In this case, the media’s coverage largely accepted Trump’s rationale without considering these two narratives, which would have put Trump on the defensive.

The second event, which barely garnered attention (showed up in the Media Bias Detector on 1/20/25 but only in four article clusters), was Trump’s launch of a meme coin that, by January 19, was valued at around $10 billion (with a corresponding Melania coin at about $3 billion). This coin was part of a broader set of ventures, including a public company worth an estimated $10 billion, which is tied to Truth Social—a platform with limited reach and profitability. Questions surrounding the source of these funds—whether from foreign governments, lobbyists, or other entities—were not explored in-depth by the media.

Between the meme coins, Truth Social holding company, his hotels, and various other business ventures, the possibility of influence peddling, blackmail, or other forms of corruption should be a serious topic for investigation. The involvement of oligarchs like Elon Musk, who spent $100’s of millions supporting Trump and have been rewarded with top government posts, further complicates the story. Yet, this narrative is generally absent from corporate media coverage.

Ultimately, these editorial choices demonstrate how corporate media can control which narratives become dominant, influencing the public’s understanding of figures like Trump. The decision to either highlight or obscure certain stories reflects a broader pattern of selective coverage that shapes perceptions, even if the events themselves might warrant more in-depth analysis.