Overview:
This opinion piece explores a striking difference in how Presidents Biden and Trump communicate with the American public. While Biden relies on carefully drafted written statements and coordinated media releases, Trump prefers a more spontaneous, unscripted approach through live press conferences. The result is two very different relationships with the press—and two very different levels of public interpretation and media responsibility. This article breaks down what this shift means, how the media handles it, and why it matters.
Opinion by Presence News
In politics, the message is everything—but the way that message is delivered might matter even more.
As someone who’s closely watched U.S. politics over the last several years, I’ve noticed a major shift in how presidential communication is conducted—and more importantly, how it’s consumed by the public. The Biden administration and the Trump administration each took drastically different approaches to messaging. But what fascinates me isn’t just the content of what was said—it’s how it was said, and how the press was asked to carry that message forward.
Let me break it down: Biden is a writer. Trump is a speaker.
That single sentence might summarize one of the most important and overlooked dynamics in modern media coverage.
The Biden Style: Centralized, Written, and Deliberate
Under President Joe Biden, official communication often came in the form of well-polished statements, wire releases, or prepared remarks. These weren’t always splashy or dramatic, but they were consistent and intentional. The White House would frequently send wire-style press releases to media outlets—creating a shared starting point for journalists, newsrooms, and even opinion columnists.
Think of it like this: Biden’s message came in a sealed envelope, and every journalist received the same one.
This approach allowed the administration to control not just the message, but the tone, the timing, and the terminology. If a news outlet deviated, that was on them—but the original message was already out there in black and white, ready to be quoted or reprinted.
There’s a comfort to this kind of communication. It creates structure. It gives the public a sense that someone is steering the ship with careful intention.
But there’s a downside: it can also feel scripted, filtered, or disconnected from real-time conversation.
The Trump Style: Verbal, Repetitive, and Open to Interpretation
Now compare that to Donald Trump, who preferred to speak out loud—often, and at length. Press briefings under Trump were less about delivering a prepared message and more about creating a media spectacle. He would take to the podium, often for 30 minutes to two hours at a time, speaking freely on a wide range of topics.
This wasn’t polished communication. It was stream-of-consciousness, it was reactive, and sometimes it was unpredictable.
But here’s what made it powerful: it put the burden of translation on the press. Reporters were forced to decide what the “key takeaway” was, what mattered and what didn’t, and which parts to elevate or ignore. The public wasn’t handed a neat and tidy statement—they were given a whirlwind of commentary and left to piece together the puzzle.
In a way, it was raw. Some might even say it was more authentic. Whether you liked him or not, you could see and hear Trump in real time.
The media, however, had a much harder job: parsing, interpreting, summarizing. And not everyone summarized it the same way.
Same Message, Different Mediums
Imagine trying to explain the difference like this:
- Biden’s presidency wrote essays.
- Trump’s presidency gave speeches.
Each comes with a different set of strengths and weaknesses. Written communication is inherently more measured—but it can be boring, sterile, or over-edited. Spoken communication is lively, dynamic—but can also be chaotic, misinterpreted, or flat-out wrong.
This isn’t a critique of personality. It’s about communication types. And those types deeply influence how the media works, and how citizens interpret what’s going on.
The Media’s Dilemma
In Biden’s case, the press was often in the role of distributor—taking official lines and deciding how much coverage they deserved. There wasn’t much guesswork involved. If the administration wanted to clarify or backtrack, a new statement could be issued with one click.
With Trump, the press was put in the role of interpreter. That’s a much riskier job. One headline could shape public opinion on an entire 90-minute press conference. Quotes could be cherry-picked, context lost, or phrasing twisted. And when he said something outrageous—or something ambiguous—it wasn’t always clear whether he meant it or not.
This dynamic created tension between Trump and the press, and not just because of ideology. Trump forced the media to act as middlemen, and that’s where much of the controversy brewed.
Why This Matters Going Forward
We’re heading into another presidential election cycle, and voters will once again be bombarded with news, soundbites, and press releases. But few will stop to ask: how is this message being delivered? Who is crafting it? And how is the media choosing to interpret it?
Understanding the communication style of each administration helps us make sense of what we’re seeing and hearing.
Do you want a president who speaks to you directly, even if it’s messy? Or do you want a president who speaks through formal channels, even if it feels distant?
There’s no right answer. But the distinction is important.
Because no matter who wins the next election, we’re not just electing a leader—we’re electing a communicator-in-chief. And the way they talk to us will shape how we understand everything that follows.
Conclusion
So when people ask, “What’s the difference between Biden and Trump?” they might list policies, ideologies, or personality traits.
But maybe one of the biggest differences—the one the media doesn’t talk about enough—is how they talk.
And how the rest of us are left to listen.
More on Presence:
