A new analysis by the Media Research Center found that the top five newspapers and magazines most promoted by Apple News and Google News have exclusively endorsed Democratic presidential candidates in every election since 1988, marking the latest evidence of the rampant bias plaguing these influential digital news gatekeepers. Microsoft’s MSN, another powerful news aggregator, has followed suit by promoting news outlets that have largely backed Democrats.
MRC Findings:
- The endorsing publications most promoted by Apple News and Google News have exclusively backed Democrats in every presidential election for the past 40 years, with all 31 endorsements going to Democrats and none to Republicans.
- The Apple News-promoted outlets have issued 28 endorsements for Democratic candidates and zero for Republicans. An additional outlet (USA Today) endorsed “against Trump” but stopped short of endorsing a Democrat.
- Meanwhile, the Google News-promoted outlets have issued 27 endorsements for Democratic candidates and zero for Republicans. An additional outlet (USA Today) endorsed “against Trump” but stopped short of endorsing a Democrat.
- Collectively, the elitist media outlets have repeatedly portrayed Republican candidates as failures, racists, bigots, misogynists or simply unfit for office, while lavishing Democrats with praise as empathetic, impressive, intelligent and exceptionally well-qualified to lead.
- Microsoft’s MSN likewise promotes outlets whose presidential endorsements overwhelmingly favored Democrats.
- MSN's top five endorsing outlets backed Democrats 25 times, compared with just two endorsements for a Republican, George H. W. Bush in 1988 and 1992.
Apple News and Google News’s Bias Extends from Their News Feeds to Political Endorsements
While Apple News and Google News may portray themselves as politically neutral, the outlets they prominently promote in their news feeds and the presidential candidates those outlets have endorsed tell a different story.
For generations, the elitist media outlets promoted by the tech titans have consistently thrown their weight behind one side of the political aisle, using their editorial pages to mobilize millions of readers accordingly.
MRC found that among the five most-promoted news sources on each news aggregator that issue presidential endorsements, not a single outlet has endorsed a Republican presidential candidate in any of the last 10 elections, from 1988 through 2024.
For Apple News, those outlets are The Washington Post, The New York Times (through The Athletic), The Guardian, USA Today and the Los Angeles Times. For Google News, they are The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, USA Today and The Atlantic.
Collectively, these outlets issued 31 presidential endorsements, all for Democrats, including Michael Dukakis in 1988; Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996; Al Gore in 2000; John Kerry in 2004; Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012; Hillary Clinton in 2016; Joe Biden in 2020; and Kamala Harris in 2024.
The record of bias emanating from the outlets promoted by Apple News and Google News becomes even more revealing when examining their most pointed endorsements.
For instance, USA Today, one of Apple News's and Google News’s favorite sites, broke with its decades-long tradition of not endorsing presidential candidates in 2016 by issuing an extraordinary rebuke of Trump.
The editorial board claimed Trump’s rise had prompted it to reconsider its no-endorsement policy, concluding that he lacked the “temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.”
The board accused Trump of betraying the “fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II” and described him as “erratic,” “ill-equipped to be commander-in-chief” and “serial liar.”
A 40-Year Record of Bias Among Outlets Promoted by Apple News and Google News
The pattern is reflected in the presidential endorsements of some of the publications most prominently featured by Apple News and Google News. For decades, these outlets have consistently backed Democratic candidates while reserving blistering rebukes for Republicans.
Most recently for the 2024 election cycle, The New York Times lavished Kamala Harris with a glowing endorsement that read like a character reference, describing her as a “dedicated public servant” with “care,” “competence” and an “unwavering commitment to the Constitution,” while declaring her the “only patriotic choice” for president. Trump, however, was “morally unfit” and “temperamentally unfit,” with The Times accusing him of “operational incompetence,” a “mercurial temperament” and “outright recklessness.”
In 2020, The Washington Post rebuked Trump as “the worst president of modern times,” but lauded Joe Biden as “exceptionally well-qualified,” “almost uniquely positioned” and “deeply empathetic.”
Four years earlier in 2016, The Post described Hillary Clinton as “well-qualified” and “well-prepared” with the “potential to be an excellent president.” Trump, by contrast, was “uniquely unqualified,” and in the words of The Post, “bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America’s enemies.”
Glowing remarks about Democrats also appeared in 2012, with The Post affirming that Obama was “better positioned to be that navigator than is his Republican challenger.”
Similarly, The Times claimed it was “enthusiastically” endorsing Obama, while positive adjectives to describe his policies, like “firm,” “sensible” and “impressive.” Mitt Romney, however, had a “guile” with ties to “ultraconservative forces.” His policies? “Reckless,” "discredited” and “regressive.”
In 2008, The Post said it backed Barack Obama “without ambivalence.” It said the endorsement was “easy” because of their “admiration” and “the impressive qualities” Obama showed in the race. Obama was “a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues,” it claimed. The McCain campaign, on the other hand, was “disappointing.”
The Times echoed The Post’s sentiments, declaring that Obama had shown “a cool head and sound judgment.” McCain, by contrast, had “retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics.”
In 2000, The Post hailed Gore as “surely among the best prepared and most intelligent nominees of recent years,” while accusing Bush of appealing to racism during the primary. Four years later, The Post slammed Bush again, saying he had “not earned a second term.”
In 1996, The Post backed Bill Clinton’s re-election, even after describing his administration as “disappointing,” “deficient” and “sometimes simply tawdry.” The newspaper said Clinton was a “changeable figure” who would be a better president than his opponent.
In 1992, The Post described Clinton as the “only candidate” able to reenergize the country and claimed that Bush had “squandered whatever claim he had to national leadership.” It added, “The presidency is in part a test, and Mr. Bush has failed.”
Similarly in 1992, The Times claimed Clinton “manifests qualities of leadership,” but described Bush as a “failure” who had “done little” to show empathy. In 1988, The Times praised Michael Dukakis as a “disciplined and serious man also of decent instincts.”
Taken together, the headlines of these Democratic endorsements expose the glaring bias of the very newspapers and news sources that Apple News and Google News routinely place in front of millions of users. Here are the headlines:
The Washington Post: “BILL CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT,” “CLINTON OVER DOLE,” “Al Gore for President,” “Kerry for President,” “Barack Obama for President,” “Washington Post endorsement: Four more years for President Obama,” “Hillary Clinton for president” and “Joe Biden for president.”
The New York Times:“Two Good Men,” “George Bush's Failure -- Bill Clinton's Promise,” “Bill Clinton for President,” “Al Gore for President,” “John Kerry for President,” “Barack Obama for President,” “Barack Obama for Re-election,” “Hillary Clinton for President,” “Elect Joe Biden, America” and “The Only Patriotic Choice for President.”
The Guardian: “Barack Obama is a President for modern times,” “US election: an Obama win is the best outcome for all,” “The Guardian view on Donald Trump: only one way to stop him now,” “The Guardian view on the 2020 US elections: It’s time to dump Trump. America’s only hope is Joe Biden” and “We’re backing Kamala Harris. She will unlock democracy’s potential, not give in to its flaws.”
USA Today: “Trump is 'unfit for the presidency’” and “Elect Joe Biden. Reject Donald Trump.”
Los Angeles Times: “Barack Obama for president,” “Obama for president,” “Hillary Clinton would make a sober, smart and pragmatic president. Donald Trump would be a catastrophe” and “Endorsement: Joe Biden isn’t just ‘anybody but Trump.’ He’s the right fit for our polarized time.”
The Atlantic: “Against Donald Trump,” “The Case Against Donald Trump” and “The Case for Kamala Harris.”
MSN’s Most-Promoted Endorsers Almost Always Back Democrats as Well
Like Apple News and Google News, Microsoft’s MSN heavily promotes outlets with a long history of endorsing Democratic presidential candidates.
Among the most-promoted MSN outlets that issued presidential endorsements are USA Today, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone and the San Francisco Chronicle.
Of the 27 presidential endorsements issued by the MSN-promoted outlets since 1988, just two have gone to Republican candidates, both from the San Francisco Chronicle for George H.W. Bush. The California newspaper endorsed Bush in 1988, and again in 1992. Since then, it has endorsed a Democrat in every presidential election.
Rolling Stone: “Barack Obama: A New Hope,” “Hillary Clinton for President,” “Joe Biden for President” and “Kamala Harris Is the Clear Choice for President.”
San Francisco Chronicle: “George Bush for President,” “George Bush For President,” “The Choice Is Plain — Clinton Over Dole,” “Al Gore for President,” “Why Kerry is the choice,” “Why Obama is the choice,” “Re-elect Obama,” “The Chronicle Recommends Hillary Clinton for president,” “Chronicle recommends: Joe Biden for president” and “Endorsement: Kamala Harris for president to put an end to Trump’s long con.”
(Endorsements of the other newspapers and magazines are listed earlier in this piece).
Methodology: Using MRC’s Digital News Tracker, MRC researchers examined the top 20 stories promoted by Google News and Microsoft’s MSN daily at approximately 10:00 a.m. from Nov. 1, 2025 through Jan. 12, 2026 and from Jan. 13, 2026 through July 31, 2026 at approximately 8:30 a.m. MRC examined the top 20 stories promoted by Apple News from Nov. 3, 2025 through July 31. MRC then identified which of those outlets had editorial boards that had endorsed presidential candidates in past elections. Media outlets that had not issued presidential endorsements were excluded until the five most-promoted outlets with endorsement histories were identified for each news aggregator. MRC then researched open-source databases, the Wayback Machine, Newspapers.com and other historical databases to identify the presidential endorsements issued by each of those news sources over the past 10 presidential elections: 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024.
