Tag: media

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

Los Angeles Times Columnist Says if a Republican Wins the Race for Governor of California, ‘A Recall Would Begin Immediately’

In 2017, on the same day that Donald Trump was first sworn in as president, the Washington Post ran a story with the headline “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump has begun.”

That’s right, the people on the left who have been telling all of us for years that Trump doesn’t respect our democracy or accept election results are dealing purely in projection. That headline, coupled with their behavior ever since proves it.

Now, they might prove it to us all over again in California.

A columnist for the Los Angeles Times named Steve Lopez is promising that if a Republican wins the race for governor in California (GASP), that an effort to recall that person will begin immediately.

These people are not even waiting to lose elections anymore. They’re just telling us that they will never, ever accept Republican leaders, even if the voters choose them.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Yes, a Republican could be California’s next governor. And a recall would begin immediately

Once upon a time in California, I went to the Orange County fairgrounds to watch Arnold Schwarzenegger give the signal for a wrecking ball to drop onto a vehicle.

The audience went wild, and Schwarzenegger went on to become governor and deliver on his promise to roll back a car tax increase, thereby blowing a $4-billion hole in the state budget.

I think it’s fair to say that in the current gubernatorial campaign season, the excitement level is several decibels below what we experienced in 2003. But once again, it’s fair to say we’ve not seen anything quite like this year’s derby…

To break that down, eight Democrats and two Republicans are running in the primary, and here’s the craziest thing about that:

The two Republicans could be the top two vote-getters because the Democrats have arranged themselves into a circular firing squad. While the Dems scramble for votes in the June 2 primary, the two Republicans lead in the polls because they’re splitting the GOP vote, and under the rules of the top-two primary, they could face off in the November election.

Lopez fantasizes about how the recall effort would take shape, should a Republican win:

A wealthy Democratic donor could bankroll the recall campaign, Stutzman said. Or public employee unions might put up the money, given that a Republican winner is likely to create a state version of Elon Musk’s ham-handed attempt to fire nearly everyone on the federal payroll.

“The pitch,” Stutzman said of the recall strategy in an email, would be that “Trump still looms and CA must resist, and a GOP gov is a fluke of weird election law. Difficult to imagine it wouldn’t succeed.”

The most amazing thing about this column is that it barely even touches on why a Republican could win the election. California is losing population for the first time in history. The state has the highest taxes in the country. People are still struggling to rebuild their homes from wildfires that happened more than a year ago. Even the entertainment industry is deserting California.

Instead of focusing on this, the columnist’s entire premise boils down to: Here’s how we can make sure a Democrat wins and how we can sabotage the winning Republican if it comes down to that.

Keep reading

Democrat Congresswoman Indicted Over Stolen Millions, Radio Silence From Legacy Media

Political commentator Scott Jennings raised concerns about allegations against Florida Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus McCormick, who has been indicted in connection with an alleged scheme involving $5 million in FEMA disaster relief funds.

“By the way, have you heard the one about the sitting Florida Congresswoman who stole millions of dollars in FEMA disaster relief funds and then used the money on her campaign for Congress?” Jennings said.

He questioned the level of public attention surrounding the case, adding, “No, you haven’t heard this story? Well, I wonder why that might be.”

Political commentator Scott Jennings raised concerns about allegations against Florida Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus McCormick, who has been indicted in connection with an alleged scheme involving $5 million in FEMA disaster relief funds.

“By the way, have you heard the one about the sitting Florida Congresswoman who stole millions of dollars in FEMA disaster relief funds and then used the money on her campaign for Congress?” Jennings said.

He questioned the level of public attention surrounding the case, adding, “No, you haven’t heard this story? Well, I wonder why that might be.”

Jennings continued, “Because I’ll tell you why the congresswoman in question is a Democrat, and that tells you everything you need to know about the state of the American media.”

He described the allegations as significant, stating, “Now this is not some minor ethics flap.”

Jennings emphasized the seriousness of the case, saying, “This is not a paperwork error. This is not a technicality here, folks.”

He added, “This is one of the most serious corruption cases involving a sitting member of Congress to come along in years.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Limits ISPs’ Liability For Online Piracy

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply curtailed when internet service providers can be held liable for copyright infringement committed by their subscribers, handing a major victory to broadband companies and dealing a setback to Sony Music Entertainment and other major labels seeking to combat online piracy.

In a 7-2 decision (with Justices Sotomayor and Jackson concurring only in the judgment), the justices ruled that Cox Communications Inc. cannot be held liable for the actions of customers who illegally downloaded and shared songs using its network, even after the company received more than 163,000 infringement notices from copyright holders. The ruling reverses a $1 billion jury verdict against the Atlanta-based cable and internet giant and clarifies long-standing uncertainties about secondary liability under U.S. copyright law.

The case stemmed from a 2018 lawsuit in which the labels accused Cox of willful contributory and vicarious infringement for failing to terminate repeat offenders. A federal jury in Virginia sided with the labels on both theories and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages. The Fourth Circuit upheld the contributory-liability finding but tossed the vicarious-liability verdict, leading to the Supreme Court appeal on the contributory issue alone.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said a service provider is liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended its service to be used for that purpose. “The provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement, which can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement,” he wrote.

Such intent exists only when the provider actively induces infringement – such as by marketing a product as a tool for piracy – or offers a service that is “not capable of ‘substantial’ or ‘commercially significant’ noninfringing uses,” the opinion stated, citing the court’s landmark 1984 decision in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios Inc. and the 2005 ruling in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. 

“Mere knowledge that a service will be used to infringe is insufficient to establish the required intent to infringe,” Thomas emphasized, rejecting the broader “material contribution” standard applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The decision rejects the Fourth Circuit’s holding that Cox could be liable simply by continuing to provide internet service to subscribers whose accounts were linked to repeated violations. “The Fourth Circuit’s holding went beyond the two forms of liability recognized in Grokster and Sony,” the opinion states.

Cox, which serves about six million subscribers, had argued it took reasonable steps to address piracy, including sending warnings, suspending service and terminating accounts after multiple notices. The company contractually prohibits subscribers from using its network for infringing activity. Sony Music Entertainment and other major labels countered that Cox’s efforts were insufficient.

Tuesday’s ruling is expected to have ripple effects across the telecom and entertainment industries – with industry executives long warning that expansive secondary-liability rules could force providers to monitor and police all user activity, raising costs and privacy concerns. Copyright owners have argued that without stronger accountability for intermediaries, online piracy remains rampant.

For Cox, the ruling caps years of litigation. The company has said it will continue to cooperate with copyright holders through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s notice-and-takedown process, though the court noted that the statute creates defenses rather than new causes of action.

Keep reading

Loyola’s student newspaper issues apology over Sheridan Gorman story — for correctly calling alleged killer an ‘illegal immigrant’

Loyola University Chicago’s student newspaper is facing backlash for apologizing for its coverage of freshman Sheridan Gorman’s murder — because editors labeled the alleged murderer an “illegal immigrant.”

The Loyola Phoenix originally reported — accurately — on accused killer Jose Medina-Medina‘s status as an illegal alien after he was charged on Monday with the execution of 18-year-old Gorman.

“Immigrant man charged in murder of Sheridan Gorman, DHS involved,” the student paper’s headline originally read, referring to Venezuelan national Medina-Medina, 25, as an “illegal immigrant.”

But the Phoenix later edited its story to describe Medina-Medina as a “Rogers Park Resident,” in reference to the Chicago neighborhood where Loyola’s main campus is located — and where Gorman was walking with friends when she was shot dead early Thursday.

“That headline didn’t reflect the most important elements in the story, and it was taken down minutes later to prevent any further harm to affected community members,” the newspaper said in a lengthy editor’s note on the article.

Keep reading

Trump’s FTC Wages a War on Media Criticism

NewsGuard, a company that rates news outlets’ accuracy using what it calls “apolitical journalistic criteria…to identify reliable sources of information,” has filed a lawsuit to block the Federal Trade Commission’s demand for a list of all its customers.

The FTC in May 2025 launched a wide-ranging probe into NewsGuard and 16 other groups—including left-leaning watch group Media Matters for America, and the Global Disinformation Index, a nonprofit media ratings service. The agency alleged the groups were part of “a conspiracy to boycott conservative and independent media.”

Deadline (2/6/26) reported that FTC chair Andrew “Ferguson has targeted NewsGuard, suggesting that it violated antitrust laws and that it was biased, as NewsGuard had given a low score to Newsmax, the conservative news site.”

NewsGuard’s lawsuit accuses the FTC of “brazenly using its power not for any issue concerning trade or commerce, but rather to censor speech simply because it disagreed with NewsGuard’s judgments about the reliability of news sources” (AP, 3/23/26).

NewsGuard also accused the FTC of holding up a $13 billion merger of advertising heavyweights Omnicom Group and IPG unless the merged company agreed not to use NewsGuard’s services.

Media Matters filed a similar lawsuit last summer to block sweeping FTC demands for documents; a federal judge ruled in the group’s favor, calling that FTC probe “a straightforward First Amendment violation” (Bloomberg, 1/22/26). The FTC has appealed the ruling against it.

Ferguson is yet another representative of the Trump regime trying to silence any criticism of the government or its right-wing support network. For regime apologists, of course, the FTC chief is a sacred warrior against liberals, protecting conservatives from insults and disagreement.

Keep reading