In partnership with

Financial reporting doesn't need your opinion or your bias

In an era where trust in media is already fragile, the politicization of financial reporting has emerged as a troubling trend, particularly in how economic outcomes are framed under different administrations.

Outlets like CNBC and Yahoo Finance, often seen as authoritative voices in economic journalism, have increasingly adopted loaded language and selective framing to cast a negative light on economic developments during Donald Trump’s presidency while offering a more forgiving lens to Joe Biden’s tenure.

A New Way to Invest is Delivering Big Results

VCs back startups for outsized returns. Everyday investors wait. But rule changes fixed that. Take Revolut. In 2016, 433 people averaged a $2,370 stake. Today? Its valuation is up 89,900%. No wonder 10K+ people and the investors behind Uber and Venmo are taking the chance on Pacaso. Founded by a former Zillow exec, they’ve made $110M+ in gross profit to date.

Invest Before September 18

_{Paid advertisement for Pacaso’s Regulation A offering. Read the offering circular at invest.pacaso.com. Reserving a ticker symbol is not a guarantee that the company will go public. Listing on the NASDAQ is subject to approvals.}

This bias not only undermines the credibility of financial reporting but also distorts public perception of the economy at a time when clarity is paramount. The U.S. economy has seen significant strides in 2025, particularly in areas like regulation, investment in American industry, and innovative tax policies.

Deregulatory efforts have streamlined bureaucratic hurdles, fostering a business-friendly environment that has spurred investment in domestic manufacturing and energy sectors. The “no tax on tips” policy, for instance, has provided tangible relief to service workers, boosting disposable income for millions.

These achievements reflect a deliberate shift toward prioritizing American workers and industries. Yet, the towering beacons of financial news—CNBC and Yahoo Finance—consistently frame these developments in ways that downplay progress or attribute it to external factors when Trump is in power, while rushing to defend or contextualize setbacks under Biden.

Consider two recent headlines that encapsulate this disparity. CNBC reported, “Consumer prices rise 2.7% annually in July, less than expected amid tariff worries”. Yahoo Finance echoed a similar sentiment: “Core inflation rises by most in six months, stoking tariff-driven price concerns”. Both headlines, covering the same July 2025 inflation data, emphasize “tariff worries” and “tariff-driven price concerns” as the dominant narrative, subtly pinning inflationary pressures on Trump’s trade policies.

The language is not neutral; it’s loaded, designed to evoke concern about Trump’s economic strategy. The fact that inflation was lower than expected—a positive signal—is buried or framed as a fleeting anomaly. CNBC in their own article reports that:

Considering this, it seems a weak case to pin the rise of Core CPI inflation touted in the headline on “tariff worries.”

Compare this to coverage during Biden’s administration, where rising inflation (9% in June of 2022 and 6.6% in Sept of 2022) was often cushioned with qualifiers like “transitory” or attributed to global supply chain issues beyond the White House’s control. With such articles as “Only some of today’s inflation is expected to stick around. Here are 5 key categories where prices are likely to stay higher for longer“ being published on July 16th 2022.

As this graph shows, that was a pipe dream. Inflation would in fact remain and did not drop below 5% until April of 2023.

One would be forgiven for suspecting that such a positive spin on the situation would not have been applied if there was 9% inflation under President Trump.

For example, when inflation surged to 3.1% in June 2023 under Biden, outlets like CNBC framed it as a “temporary uptick” driven by “external shocks,” rarely pointing fingers at policy decisions.

This double standard in phrasing is stark. Under Trump, a robust 3% GDP growth in Q2 2025 was described by CNBC as occurring “even as Trump’s tariffs hit”, implying that growth happened despite his policies rather than because of them.

Contrast this with Biden-era reporting, where economic growth was often credited to administration initiatives, even when data suggested mixed outcomes. When weaker-than-expected jobs figures emerged in August 2025, CNBC highlighted Trump’s decision to fire the labor statistics chief, framing it as a desperate move to deflect blame. Yet, under Biden, similar labor market struggles were contextualized as “complex” or “cyclical,” with less emphasis on personal accountability.

This selective framing isn’t new in non-economic news. Outlets like CNN have long been criticized for their overt bias against Trump, where a positive headline about his administration would be so anomalous it might itself make news. But financial reporting was once seen as a bastion of objectivity, where numbers and data spoke louder than ideology. That era appears to be fading.

The left-leaning bias in outlets like CNBC and Yahoo Finance manifests not just in what they report but how they report it—through word choice, emphasis, and omission. For instance, the “no tax on tips” policy, a boon for low- and middle-income workers, has been largely ignored or mentioned only in passing, overshadowed by narratives about tariff-related price pressures.

Meanwhile, Biden’s student loan forgiveness efforts, which disproportionately benefited higher earners, were often celebrated as bold economic relief measures, despite their inflationary risks.

The consequences of this bias are profound. Financial markets thrive on trust and clarity. When major outlets prioritize narrative over fact, they risk sowing confusion among investors and consumers. The 2.7% inflation rate in July 2025, lower than the forecasted 2.8%, should have been a clear win for economic stability. Instead, the focus on “tariff worries” shifts attention from the data to a speculative critique of Trump’s trade policies. This isn’t just bias—it’s a deliberate choice to shape public perception in a way that aligns with a particular political worldview.

Moreover, the obsession with tariffs as a scapegoat ignores their role in incentivizing domestic production and protecting American industries. While tariffs can raise costs in the short term (as Jerome Powell assures us multiple times per month “Tariff based inflation” is coming.) they’ve also driven investment in U.S. manufacturing, creating jobs and reducing reliance on foreign supply chains.

Yet, this long-term benefit is rarely acknowledged. During Biden’s tenure, supply chain disruptions were framed as unavoidable global challenges, not policy failures. The contrast couldn’t be clearer: Trump’s policies are scrutinized for their immediate downsides, while Biden’s were often excused for their long-term negative effects.

The politicization of financial reporting undermines the public’s ability to make informed decisions. When outlets like CNBC and Yahoo Finance use their platforms to amplify one narrative over another, they erode the trust that underpins economic discourse. If the economy is to be a shared project, its story must be told with fidelity to the data, not allegiance to a political tribe.

The improvements in regulation, investment, and tax policy under Trump deserve fair scrutiny—praise where warranted, criticism where due. But the current state of financial journalism too often sacrifices objectivity for ideology, leaving readers to navigate a fog of bias rather than the clarity of truth.