Tag: mainstream media

Obama Judge Blocks Trump’s Executive Order Aimed at Ending Federal Funding For NPR, PBS

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s executive order aimed at ending federal funding for NPR and PBS.

US District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee lashed out at President Trump and said he targeted PBS and NPR for their viewpoints.

Last year, President Trump ended taxpayer subsidization of ‘biased media.

“National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) receive taxpayer funds through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence,” the Trump White House previously announced.

“At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage. No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize,” the White House said.

“The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens,” the White House said.

“I therefore instruct the CPB Board of Directors (CPB Board) and all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS,” Trump said.

On Tuesday, Judge Randolph Moss blocked President Trump’s executive order ending taxpayer subsidization to PBS and NPR.

“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” Judge Moss wrote.

Keep reading

Liberals Won’t Confront Fraud Because They Still Believe Government Is The Solution

At least the bombs are real.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has pulled out the hoariest of boomer liberal tropes, asking what the money spent on war could buy if redirected to welfare programs. Examples include “For less than three weeks of war, or $35 billion, we could run a nationwide pre-K program for 3- and 4-year-olds,” and “For $75 million, about an hour’s worth of war, we could provide three books free to every child in America who is living under the poverty line.” Ah yes, we could fund so many Minneapolis daycares and “Quality Learing” centers.

I don’t know how our campaign against the mullahs will turn out, but it has real bombs being dropped on real targets with people really dying. In contrast, the sorts of programs Kristof promotes as better recipients of taxpayer money tend to be more ephemeral in their results — and that’s assuming that the recipients even exist. To cite a few examples that even a New York Times columnist ought to have heard of, there is the Somali daycare piracy, the California wildlife bridge to nowhere, the California high-speed rail debacle, and the embarrassing spectacle of cities spending endlessly to end homelessness while not even reducing it.

Kristof and his ilk never seem outraged at these wasted and stolen billions. They might mildly tsk-tsk, but there is no visceral rage toward those who plunder billions that were supposedly for helping children. Yet if lefties really believe that government programs are the key to a wonderfully better society and world, shouldn’t they be furious at those running them into the ground or robbing them?

Keep reading

CNN Alum Drops Blunt Warning on Harris 2028 Run: ‘Very Bad’ News for Democrats

CNN alumnus Chris Cillizza said former Vice President Kamala Harris is likely mounting another White House run, and he explained how that would be ‘very bad’ news for Democrats.

Late last week on his podcast, “So What,” Cillizza warned about the potential damage Harris could do to the Democratic Party if she runs for president again.

“I think this is a bad thing for the Democratic Party that she appears to be moving closer to running,” he proclaimed. “I think that she, based on the polling, would start the race as the front-runner.”

He added, “Notice I focused on ‘start the race as the front-runner.’”

“But I think that the Harris people, or Harris herself, will learn the wrong lesson from that — or has already learned the wrong lesson from that,” Cillizza continued. “And by that I mean this: She will look at that and say, ‘I’m in first place. Why wouldn’t I run? It’s my nomination to lose.’”

His comments came after CNN reported that Harris is scheduled to appear at Democratic events in four southern states next month.

The former vice president’s publicity tour for her book “107 Days” received negative press after it was discovered that she was using California Highway Patrol officers to serve as her personal security.

California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a Republican, said if elected, he would rescind the protection, which he called a “corrupt freebie.”

About one week later, Harris announced she was cancelling several stops on the tour, according to KCRA-TV.

“In the one general election she ran on the national level, she lost to Donald Trump, a deeply flawed candidate,” Cillizza explained. “So number one, I just don’t think, in … candidate skills, when it comes to being able to reach across the aisle and get voters who are not already hard-core Democrats, I don’t think she has a great record of doing that.”

Cillizza also concluded that Harris would steal attention from other potential Democratic nominees if she ran again, and that she would make former President Joe Biden’s mental and physical decline a main talking point of the election.

Keep reading

BROADCAST BIAS: Networks downplay illegal immigrant crime, even when women are murdered

On Thursday, March 19, an 18-year-old college student at Loyola University in Chicago named Sheridan Gorman was allegedly shot dead by an illegal alien from Venezuela, Jose Medina. The networks could barely touch the story, or talk about the immigration status of the alleged shooter. CBS only spent two minutes, followed by ABC at 79 seconds and NBC at 23 seconds. Searching for it on PBS or NPR found nothing.

PBS stations did waste 90 minutes on a documentary titled, “White With Fear,” about how Republicans use overtly racist tactics to win elections, and one of those, they claimed, was highlighting violent crimes by illegal immigrants. Their primary example was conservatives reporting on the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco.

The networks hate reporting on crime committed by illegal immigrants. They would insist it’s atypical. They love to proclaim that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans – if you’re willing to dismiss the crime of entering the country illegally or overstaying a visa. But this ignores the obvious logic for grieving families like Gorman’s – if the alleged illegal alien killer hadn’t been allowed into the country, their loved one would still be alive.

Gorman’s family put out a statement about their loss and the politics of it: “Sheridan’s death cannot be reduced to a general ‘tragedy,’ nor can it be explained away by broad references to failures somewhere else,” the family said. “We are not interested in political arguments or in watching responsibility shift from one place to another. If there were failures—as the Governor [J.B. Pritzker] himself has acknowledged—then every one of them must be identified, examined, and addressed directly.”

Keep reading

The New York Times Runs Sob Story About a WI Dairy Farmer Who Might Lose His ‘Undocumented’ Laborers

Democrats have made it very clear that one of the reasons they support unfettered illegal immigration is that they want to import a slave-labor class that they can pay cheaply and keep in deplorable working conditions. They prove this every time they argue that, sans illegals, we wouldn’t have anyone to clean our toilets or cut our grass and the price of our produce would go up because farmers would have to pay people a living wage to harvest crops (a lot of which is automated these days, anyway).

Now the New York Times is playing that card again, this time with Wisconsin, where a farm that made the choice to hire “undocumented workers” is worried deportations will hurt their business.

Here’s more:

That worker, who came from Mexico as a teenager, knew that a calf that was sick in the morning could be dead by evening. He knew this because he has worked in the dairy industry in Wisconsin for his entire adult life, and on this family farm for about 20 years. Now in his 40s, he has mastered the intricacies of milking, birthing and inseminating, and logging it all onto a computer. This February morning, he was passing down his knowledge to the 19-year-old grandson of the family who employs him.

“We’re a little bit behind today, so you can hear everybody’s kind of angry at us,” said Sullivan O’Harrow, the grandson, who motioned toward the bellowing calves as he walked beside the worker training him.

Immigrant workers are the lifeblood of the O’Harrow farm, a four-generation family enterprise with 1,600 cows in northeastern Wisconsin. But many of them will not travel to Mexico to see dying parents, or drive to nearby towns to visit siblings, or let journalists use their names in newspapers, because they are afraid of being swept up in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

That they need to hide strikes the O’Harrow family as morally wrong, but also as potentially bad for the country: These workers oversee America’s milk. By one estimate, dairies that employ immigrant workers produce 79 percent of the nation’s milk supply and the price of milk would double without them.

Keep reading

NYT Covers Iran War With No Reporters in Iran

Since the US and Israel first attacked Iran in late February, it has been easy to spot the stark difference between the New York Times’ distant coverage of Iran and its up-close and personal coverage of Israel.

Multiple Times employees are reporting from and currently living in Israel. These include reporters Isabel Kershner, Aaron Boxerman, Gabby Sobelman, Natan Odenheimer, Ronen Bergman, Adam Rasgon, Johnatan Reiss and Raja Abdulrahim, as well as Jerusalem bureau chief David M. Halbfinger.

They routinely report stories that center Israeli citizens, as in “How Israelis Feel About Another Potential War With Iran” (2/26/26). First-hand Times reports have Israelis taking “Shelter as Sirens Warn of Incoming Missiles” (2/28/26), feeling “Tense But Relieved That Iran’s Supreme Leader Is Dead” (3/1/26) and celebrating “Purim Amid Iranian Missile Attacks” (3/4/26). They also have penned stories on Iranian missile strikes in Israel mere hours after they took place (3/1/26, 3/18/26).

Many articles have been based primarily on statements from Israeli officials (3/1/26, 3/3/26, 3/11/26, 3/19/26) and US officials (3/2/26, 3/7/26). Other articles have centered on the perspective of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and what would benefit him (2/28/26, 3/14/26, 3/18/26).

Meanwhile, the Times has no reporters based in Iran, as its editors admitted in two Q&A-style articles (3/9/26, 3/16/26). Instead, the paper has largely relied on its Visual Investigations team (3/12/26) and reporters based elsewhere to cover Iran, including correspondents in Israel, the US, Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, India, Sri Lanka, South Korea, England, France and Germany. The Times reporters who most often quote Iranian voices—like Farnaz Fassihi, Parin Behrooz (both based in the US) and Yeganeh Torbati (reporting from Turkey)—largely rely on telephone interviews (3/2/26, 3/27/26), along with “text messages and social media posts” (3/18/26).

This lack of on-the-ground coverage in Iran has directly resulted in slower coverage and confirmation of US/Israel culpability for deadly strikes. For example, it took five days for the Times (3/5/26) to report that the US was “most likely to have carried out the strike” on the school in Minab that killed at least 175 Iranian civilians, mostly schoolchildren.

Keep reading

IDF suspends entire reserve battalion after CNN crew attack, in unprecedented disciplinary move

An unprecedented decision by the Israel Defense Forces has seen an entire reserve battalion suspended from activity following an incident in which a CNN crew was attacked, sparking international outrage.

The IDF suspended all soldiers from Reserve 941st Battalion, known as “Netzah Yisrael,” whose members are graduates of the Netzah Yehuda framework.

The incident occurred while a CNN team was covering what was described as an illegal settler takeover of nearby land. According to reports, the journalists were confronted by IDF troops who attempted to halt their work, aimed weapons at them, and in one case placed a cameraman in a chokehold, damaging his equipment.

During the confrontation, soldiers reportedly told the journalists that all of the West Bank belongs to Jews and said they were seeking revenge for the killing of Yehuda Sherman, who police said was murdered in a ramming attack last Saturday.

Keep reading

Media Melts Down After Entertainer Nick Cannon (Correctly) Calls Democrats the Party of the KKK

Nick Cannon is known for being a rapper, a comedian and television personality. In other words, an entertainer.

There is a clip of him making the rounds in social media that’s getting a lot of attention because in the video he correctly points out that the Democrats are the party of the KKK.

He is right. They are.

But the media is reacting as if he said something shocking or untrue.

This is from Variety:

Nick Cannon Calls the Democratic Party the ‘Party of the KKK’ and Says ‘I F— With Trump’

Nick Cannon let his politics be known on a recent episode of his web talk show “Big Drive” (via TMZ), during which he called the Democratic Party “the party of the KKK.”

After his guest, model Amber Rose, said that Democrats “don’t care about people of color and the Republicans do,” Cannon replied, “I agree with you 100%. People don’t know that the Democrats are the party of the KKK. People don’t know that the Republicans are the party that freed the slaves. I mean, both of you and I have some conservative views. You’re just a little bit more outspoken than I am. And honestly, I don’t subscribe to either party. I rock with W. E. B. Du Bois, when he said there’s no such thing as two parties. It’s just one evil party with two different names.”

When discussing Donald Trump’s second term, Cannon enthusiastically said “motherfucker’s cleaning house” and is “doing what he said he was gonna do.”

“We got the Gulf of America now,” Cannon added. “He’s like the club. He’s charging a $5 million bottle service fee to get into the country.”

While factions of the Democratic Party were responsible for the rise of the KKK right after the Civil War, it’s not widely believed that the entirety of the party endorsed the formation of the white supremacist group.

Keep reading

CNN Crew Apprehended by IDF in the West Bank – Says They Were Assaulted and Equipment was Damaged – IDF Releases Statement

A CNN crew reporting on Israeli settlements in the West Bank in Palestine was detained by IDF soldiers on Friday. 

The reporters say they were put in a chokehold after they and several Palestinian residents were approached by armed troops.

According to the Jerusalem Post,

The CNN team was interviewing Palestinian residents of the West Bank town of Tayasir after settlers established an outpost in the town and violently attacked residents.

While conducting interviews on camera, IDF soldiers ordered the team and the Palestinians to stop speaking and aimed their weapons at the group, according to the CNN reporters present.

Video from the incident shows the reporters being approached and detained.

Keep reading

‘Contradictory’ Public Opinions on Iran Are Baked Into CBS’s Polling

A recent CBS News poll (3/17–20/26) declared that a majority of Americans (53%) say it would be “unacceptable” if the United States were to end the conflict with Iran with that country’s current leadership still in power.

Moreover, the poll also found that large majorities of Americans say it is “important” to “make sure Iran’s people are safe and free,” to “permanently stop Iran’s nuclear programs,” and to “stop Iran from threatening other countries.”

These results seem to suggest that most Americans want the war to continue until those goals, including regime change in Iran, are actually achieved.

Much of the rest of the poll, however, suggests the public does not support the war with Iran, even when “conflict” instead of the touchy word “war” is used to describe what’s happening. According to the poll:

  • 60% disapprove of the US taking military action against Iran.
  • 62% disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling the situation in Iran.
  • 57% believe the “conflict in Iran” is going “very/somewhat badly.”
  • 51% do not believe it is important to change Iran’s leaders to ones that are pro-US.
  • 92% believe it is important to “end the conflict as quickly as possible.”

The report notes: “If those desires between goals and a fast end seem contradictory, it connects to the continued call for more explanation from the administration.”

The poll did ask if the Trump administration had clearly explained its goals, and only 32% said it had; 68% said no.

But that is not evidence of the public’s “continued call for more explanation.” There is nothing in the poll that suggests the public is demanding more information, and in the absence thereof, the public exhibits contradictions between its preferred goals and a quick end to the war. The explanation is a non sequitur.

One reason for the contradictions is that the poll asks each question as though it were free from any context. Respondents are not asked to evaluate each goal in light of possible cost. If, for example, regime change is a goal of the war, how long should the US continue to press for that change, given the likely cost in money and lives?

The poll lists several goals, and each one might seem pretty appealing—assuming it could be reached. Respondents hear a goal and say, sure, it’s important, without having to confront the inevitable trade-offs. Reporting such responses as though the public is actually demanding the US pay the costs to achieve regime change, or to make the Iranian people free and safe, is a wild distortion of what the poll has actually measured.

Keep reading