Tag: media

To Media, Gaza Ceasefire Holds Despite Repeated Israeli Strikes

On October 10, a ceasefire was declared in the Gaza Strip, where more than 67,000 Palestinians were officially killed in just over two years of Israel’s United States-backed genocide. With an estimated 10,000 bodies still buried under the all-consuming rubble, and indirect deaths unaccounted for, this number is almost certainly a drastic underestimate. Shortly after the ceasefire took effect, US President Donald Trump pronounced the war in Gaza “over,” proclaiming that “at long last we have peace in the Middle East.”

In the ten days following the implementation of the ostensible truce, the Israeli military reportedly killed at least 97 Palestinians in Gaza and wounded 230, violating the ceasefire agreement no fewer than 80 times. One might have expected, then, to see a headline or two along the lines of, I dunno, “Israel violates ceasefire”—or maybe “So much for ‘peace’ in Gaza.”

No such headlines turned up in the Western corporate media—not that there weren’t some pretty spectacular violations to choose from. On October 17, for example, eleven members of the Abu Shaaban family, including seven children and three women, were blasted to bits in Gaza City’s Zeitoun neighborhood while attempting to reach their home. According to the Israelis, the family’s vehicle had trespassed over the so-called “yellow line,” the invisible boundary arbitrarily demarcating the more than 50 percent of Gazan territory still occupied by the genocidal army. 

Then on October 19, Israel bombed the living daylights out of central and southern Gaza and killed dozens after alleging a ceasefire violation by Hamas—an allegation that not even Trump found convincing, but that enabled such impressively passive headlines as “Strikes Hit Gaza After Truce Violations Alleged” (Guardian, 10/19/25). Once the carnage was complete, the BBC (10/19/25) assured readers that “Israel Says It Will Return to Ceasefire After Gaza Strikes.” For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed the Knesset that the Israeli military had dropped 153 tons of bombs on Gaza during this particular, um, pause in the ceasefire.

Keep reading

COLBERT FACT-CHECKS KJP: Biden’s Former Spokesperson Gets Schooled on National TV After Calling His Ouster a ‘Betrayal’

It finally happened. Even Stephen Colbert, the late-night comedian who’s spent years carrying water for the Biden White House, has had enough.

During an awkward and brutally honest exchange, Colbert dunked on Biden’s press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre (KJP) after she tried to paint Joe Biden’s ouster as some grand “betrayal” by his own party.

But Colbert wasn’t buying it.

KJP immediately launched into her typical talking points about Biden being “engaging” and “putting the American people first,” but Colbert hit back with a dose of reality.

That’s when things went downhill for KJP fast. As she blamed critics for an “ugly assault” on Biden, Colbert cut her off.

Transcript via Vigilant Fox:

COLBERT: “I saw a guy who I had not seen backstage… It seemed like a dramatically different person. And at 81 years old, that’s not entirely unexpected. You can imagine why people got so worried.”

KJP: “No one is saying that he didn’t age. I’m talking about did he have… the mental acuity, was he able to govern? And the man that I saw nearly every day was someone who was engaging, understood policy, and was always putting the American people first.”

COLBERT: “I don’t think anybody questioned his heart or his policies. But it takes more than that to be the President of the United States. And in a moment of great pressure on stage, we saw someone shock us and worry us, and nothing could assuage that worry. So I don’t think it was necessarily a betrayal of Joe Biden as other people saying, ‘We don’t think we were shown the Joe Biden that you saw.’”

KJP: “I saw every day a really ugly assault on someone who had 50-plus years of experience and who, again, objectively had done a good job as President of the United States. And it was heartbreaking to see that type of behavior.”

COLBERT: “What happened was the debate performance. Everything is downstream of that.”

KJP: “And no one is saying that the debate performance wasn’t shocking, wasn’t a disappointment. No one is saying that.”

COLBERT: “Disappointment is such a light term.”

KJP: “I use your word.”

COLBERT (mocking): “It was harrowing. Look, listen, we’re never going to agree on this.”

KJP: “We’re not.”

COLBERT: “Other than the fact that I’m glad that you came here tonight and I’m telling you to wrap over there. Would you like to say one more thing before we go?”

Keep reading

CNN’s Tapper: Dems Created Expiration Date for Obamacare Subsidies, Not GOP

On Friday’s broadcast of CNN’s “The Lead,” host Jake Tapper pushed back on Rep. Jamie Raskin’s (D-MD) claim that the expiration of Affordable Care Act subsidies that are at issue in the government shutdown is a Republican policy by noting that the expiration date for the Obamacare subsidies is something Democrats put in place, not the Republicans.

While discussing the expiration of the Affordable Care Act subsidies and the politics of the issue, Raskin said, “I have not heard any Democrats, none have said to me, oh, let’s just allow this terrible Republican policy to go forward so we can beat them on it next year.”

Tapper then said, “Congressman, you called it a terrible Republican policy. Democrats are the ones that put in this end date into these COVID-era Obamacare premium extensions, not Republicans. But, be that as it may, do you have the votes? If Speaker Johnson (R-LA) were to say, okay, fine, we’re going to have a vote on this tomorrow, have you and your Democratic colleagues lobbied five to ten Republicans in the House to support you so that if this were to come up for a vote, it would pass?”

Keep reading

Watch Margaret Hoover’s Justice Kennedy Interview To See Why Trust In Media Is At Record Lows

If anyone is wondering why Americans’ trust in corporate media to report the news fairly and accurately is at the lowest level in recorded history, then watch PBS Firing Line host Margaret Hoover’s interview with retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Released last Friday, the roughly half-hour-long exchange was supposedly intended to focus on Kennedy’s recently released memoir about his life and time serving on the nation’s highest court. It’s very clear after watching the discussion, however, that Hoover had other plans in mind.

From beginning to end, it’s glaringly apparent that Hoover’s entire goal in speaking with Kennedy was to use the conversation as an opportunity to discredit the current Supreme Court and try and bait the retired justice into attacking Donald Trump, whose presidency she falsely portrayed as an authoritarian regime with no respect for the rule of law.

In her first query, Hoover asked Kennedy how he sees his “role” as a retired justice at a moment “when the rule of law is being tested and the courts are under attack.” The “question,” of course, isn’t really a question, but an accusation dressed up as a question.

Borrowing a trick used by fellow media hacks like CBS’s Norah O’Donnell, Hoover is dishonestly insinuating that it’s Trump who is “testing” the law like no president before him, and that his criticisms of lower courts for issuing overreaching edicts represent an unprecedented attack on the judiciary. It’s probably safe to assume that this insinuation doesn’t include Democrats like Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer actually threatening SCOTUS, left-wing anarchists picketing outside Republican-appointed justices’ homes, or a trans-identifying leftist attempting to assassinate Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

While this was only the first “question,” feigning ignorance about Democrats’ egregious conduct and actions would go on to become a prominent feature of Hoover’s style throughout the rest of the interview.

While quoting from Kennedy’s book about the need for all branches of government to exercise their powers in accordance with the Constitution, the CNN contributor said matter-of-factly to Kennedy, “In recent weeks, we have seen the Department of Justice indict two of the president’s political enemies after he publicly demanded it,” and “We’ve seen National Guard troops be sent to states over governors’ objections. The president has repeatedly pushed the limits of the law.”

“Is the executive branch exercising its powers to the extreme?” Hoover asked, while completely ignoring how Biden’s Justice Department attempted to imprison Trump before the 2024 election, sought (and acquired) jail time for former Trump officials, targeted and arrested Christians and pro-lifers, and much more.

The Firing Line host similarly lied by omission when she asked Kennedy about what would happen “if one of the branches — for example, the executive branch — doesn’t choose to follow the Supreme Court?”

“I don’t know that we’ve ever had this,” Hoover said, insinuating that Trump is going to “defy” SCOTUS if it rules on a case in a way he doesn’t like.

Well, as much as it would disappoint Margaret to learn, America actually has “had this” happen — under Biden. When the Supreme Court declared the Biden administration’s student loan bailout to be unconstitutional, the administration tried time and again to sidestep the ruling, disregarding the high court’s decision without a second thought.

Yet, for all her supposed newfound respect for the Supreme Court, Hoover tried her best to discredit it.

Keep reading

White House Slams TMZ Report Claiming Donald Trump Considering Commutation of Sean “Diddy” Combs — Calls It “Completely Fraudulent”

The White House struck back at a fake news report from TMZ alleging that President Donald Trump was “seriously considering” commuting the prison sentence of disgraced rap mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs.

According to TMZ’s October 20 exclusive, a “high-ranking White House official” claimed Trump was “vacillating” and could sign a commuting order for Combs’ 50-month sentence as early as this week.

But the White House rejected the claims outright.

The news outlet reported:

According to our source, the President is “vacillating” on a commutation. We’re told some of the W.H. staff are urging Trump not to commute the sentence. But, our source states the obvious — “Trump will do what he wants,” and we’re told Trump could set Diddy free as early as this week.

Diddy is serving a 50-month prison sentence for violating the Mann Act. He’s served 13 months, and with credit, he could get out in around 2 years — but none of that matters if Trump commutes his sentence.

[…]

We know almost immediately after Diddy was sentenced earlier this month, his legal team was in touch with a high-ranking White House official who has the ear of the President regarding a commutation or pardon. Just days later, Trump told the media he was aware of the ask.

A White House spokesperson described the TMZ story as “entirely false,” accusing the outlet of circumventing standard procedures, Daily Mail reported.

“There is zero truth to the TMZ report, which we would’ve gladly explained had they reached out before running their fake news,” the spokesperson told the Daily Mail. “The president, not anonymous sources, is the final decider on pardons and commutations.”

Keep reading

60 Minutes Takes Left-Wing Propaganda To A New Level With Discredited Ex-DOJ Lawyer Interview

For many years now, CBS News’ 60 Minutes has served as a clear-cut example of left-wing media propaganda. So, it wasn’t completely shocking when the program ran to a discredited ex-Justice Department official to trash the Trump administration amid its ongoing legal battles.

This past weekend’s episode included a sit-down interview with Erez Reuveni, who served as acting deputy director for the Office of Immigration Litigation until early April, when he was suspended and subsequently fired for failing to “zealously advocate on behalf of the United States” in court, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi. As The Federalist previously reported, his dismissal purportedly centered around his conduct in the DOJ’s efforts to deport Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a credibly accused wife-beater and MS-13 gang member.

Throughout the roughly 13-minute-long segment, CBS and 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley tried their very hardest to portray Reuveni as a courageous hero who was victimized by a corrupt, authoritarian administration that has no regard for the rule of law. And much to their satisfaction, Reuveni was more than willing to play the part.

“I think about why I went to the Department of Justice, to do justice. And I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution,” Reuveni said. “And my view of that oath is that I need to speak up and draw attention to what has happened to the department, what is happening to the rule of law. I would not be faithfully abiding by my oath if I stayed silent right now.”

Much of the segment focused on allegations Reuveni made earlier this year against the department and Emil Bove, a then-DOJ official who now serves as a judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. In his apparent effort to derail Bove’s nomination to the judgeship, Reuveni came forward with claims that Bove had instructed agency officials to defy potential court orders prohibiting the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members.

“Bove emphasized, those planes need to take off, no matter what. And then after a pause, he also told all in attendance, and if some court should issue an order preventing that, we may have to consider telling that court, ‘f-ck you,’” Reuveni said.

“And when you heard that, you thought what?” Pelley asked, to which Reuveni replied, “I felt like a bomb had gone off. Here is the number three official using expletives to tell career attorneys that we may just have to consider disregarding federal court orders.”

(Bove — who was confirmed by the Senate to the 3rd Circuit in July — has denied the allegations and told 60 Minutes, in part, “Mr. Reuveni’s claims are a mix of falsehoods and wild distortions of reality.”)

Naturally, there’s more to the story than what 60 Minutes is letting on. At no point in the segment did Pelley bother mentioning or asking Reuveni about an internal DOJ memo previously unearthed by The Federalist that contradicts Reuveni’s claims.

Issued months before Reuveni went public with his allegations, the April 8, 2025, letter by August Flentje (Reuveni’s former supervisor) discussed litigation involving the administration’s efforts to deport Garcia and the use of the AEA. Writing of AEA-related litigation, Flentje specifically noted that, under instruction from Bove, the DOJ was to “avoid” receiving a court order throughout such legal battles — not to “defy” or “ignore” court orders.

Keep reading

Florida Attorney Sues Roku Over Failure to Implement Age Verification, Privacy Concerns

Florida’s attorney general has filed a lawsuit against Roku, drawing attention to the growing privacy risks tied to smart devices that quietly track user behavior.

The case, brought by Attorney General James Uthmeier under the Florida Digital Bill of Rights, accuses the streaming company of collecting and selling the personal data of children without consent while refusing to take reasonable steps to determine which users are minors.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The lawsuit portrays Roku as a company that profits from extensive data collection inside homes, including data from children. According to the complaint, Roku “collected, sold and enabled reidentification of sensitive personal data, including viewing habits, voice recordings and other information from children, without authorization or meaningful notice to Florida families.”

It continues, “Roku knows that some of its users are children but has consciously decided not to implement industry-standard user profiles to identify which of its users are children.”

Another passage states, “Roku buries its head in the sand so that it can continue processing and selling children’s valuable personal and sensitive data.”

The growing push for digital ID–based age verification is being framed as a way to protect children online, but privacy advocates warn it would do the opposite.

Keep reading

Germany’s War on Satire: AfD MP Fined €11,250 for Meme While Leftist Magazine Is Celebrated After It Depicts Trump Giving Hitler Salute

Germany is no longer a democracy — it’s a warning. A German court has just fined AfD lawmaker Petr Bystron €11,250 for sharing a satirical meme online, while the country’s liberal establishment laughs as one of its biggest magazines once showed President Donald Trump giving the Hitler salute on its cover with the headline “Sein Kampf” (“His Struggle”).

That cover made international headlines in 2017. No prosecutor, no police, no criminal charge. It was called “art.”

But when Bystron — a conservative member of parliament — posted a meme mocking Ukraine’s former ambassador Andrij Melnyk, who had publicly defended a Nazi collaborator, the German justice system came crashing down on him.

Mock a Nazi Apologist? Get Convicted in Germany.

The meme, published in July 2022, showed German politicians “waving goodbye” to Melnyk after his recall from Berlin. Prosecutors said the waves looked like “Hitler salutes.” You can’t make this up.

Bystron’s real “crime”? Daring to expose hypocrisy in a system that protects globalists and punishes dissent.

Melnyk, the Ukrainian diplomat at the center of it all, had told a German interviewer that Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator responsible for mass killings of Jews and Poles, was “no mass murderer.” That statement caused outrage in Poland and Israel — but in Germany’s woke establishment? Nothing. Melnyk stayed a hero. He was later promoted by Volodymyr Zelensky to Deputy Foreign Minister.

Bystron mocked that insanity — and Germany called him the extremist.

Keep reading

Putin aide accuses WaPo of ‘truth distortion’

Russian presidential aide Kirill Dmitriev has accused the Washington Post of “truth distortion” over a quote wrongly attributed to him, and demanded the outlet apologize.

In an article on Saturday about Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s visit to the US, the outlet suggested that a recent phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, shifted Washington’s stance on the Ukraine conflict.

The Washington Post cited Dmitriev as saying: “Zelensky’s tour summed up in one sentence: Putin outmaneuvered everyone again.” It claimed that Dmitriev made the remark on Telegram.

In a post on X on Saturday, Dmitriev expressed outrage that the line – which he had reposted from another news channel – was attributed to him.

“Another eye-opening case of truth distortion from the fake @washingtonpost,” he wrote. “I reposted a post from a Telegram channel – yet your article attributed those quotes to me. That’s like blaming users for retweets.”

Dmitriev demanded that the outlet correct the attribution immediately, issue an apology, and launch an internal probe.

Later in the day, the outlet issued a correction, admitting that a previous version of its article had “incorrectly attributed” the quote to Dmitriev. The presidential aide thanked the WaPo on X for acknowledging the error, but asked the paper to issue a formal apology and publish both the apology and the correction “in the next print edition.”

Keep reading

Despite Headlines, There Is No Reduction in Voting Rights

Liberals and Democrats are claiming that the Supreme Court is poised to make a ruling that will restrict voting rights because race will no longer be considered in districting.

This is false.

Under the U.S. Constitution, all adults aged 18 and over have the right to vote, and they will continue to have that right. No ruling or policy under consideration eliminates or limits that constitutional guarantee.

What critics are truly upset about is that race will no longer be used to determine electoral districting. The Trump administration argued that race had been overemphasized in the process, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The move aims to ensure that district boundaries are drawn based on population and geography, not racial calculations.

This debate, and the exaggerated claims that someone is losing their rights, reveal a deeper divide between the two parties. Republicans argue that equality means the same rules for everyone, regardless of race. Democrats, on the other hand, insist that equality requires different rules for different groups based on race

The Supreme Court appeared inclined to further restrict the use of race in redistricting. During recent arguments, conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether race-based remedies should continue indefinitely, suggesting that the Court may soon impose new limits on when race can factor into drawing congressional maps.

The Court’s three liberal justices, however, warned that weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would effectively dismantle the law and reduce minority representation in Congress.

Democrats argue that Section 2 is essential for protecting minority voting rights and warn that a conservative victory in the current Louisiana case could trigger widespread redistricting. They claim this would reduce the number of minority-held seats, particularly across the South.

However, the United States does not have a quota system, and no congressional seats are specifically designated as “minority seats.” Fair, race-neutral voting would simply result in all seats being awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of race.

The Court’s decision, expected by mid-2026, could mark another major rollback of federal race-based policies, following the 2013 elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions.

Democrats claim that minority “voting power” or “electoral influence,” will be diluted. The Act prohibits voting practices that “deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race.” Over time, courts have interpreted “abridge” to include not only preventing people from voting but also drawing district lines that intentionally dilute minority voting strength. Democrats argue that the Act ensures the right for every vote to carry equal weight and influence.

Keep reading