The Most Obvious Question Liberal Media Refuses to Ask About the Iran War

Doubtless, the war launched by US President Donald Trump is not popular among ordinary Americans.

According to the latest public opinion poll, only a minority of Americans—part of the dwindling core of Trump’s supporters—believe that the US-Israeli aggression against Iran has merit.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in early March 2026, only 27 percent of Americans approve of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran—while 43 percent disapprove and 29 percent are unsure.

This pro-war constituency is likely to remain supportive of Trump until the end of his term in office, and long after.

However, the war on Iran is not popular, and it is unlikely to become popular, especially as the Trump administration is reportedly fragmented between those who want to stay the course and those desperate for an exit strategy. Such a strategy would allow their president to save face before the midterm elections in November.

Mainstream media—aside, of course, from the pro-war chorus in right-wing news organizations, podcasters, and think tanks—also recognize that their country has entered a quagmire.

If it continues unchecked, it will likely prove worse than the war in Iraq in 2003 or the long war in Afghanistan, which lasted 20 years and ended with a decisive American defeat in August 2021 following the withdrawal of US forces and the collapse of the Afghan government.

Both wars have cost US taxpayers an estimated $8 trillion, including long-term veteran care and interest on borrowing, according to the Brown University Costs of War Project.

Iran is already promising to be even more costly if the insanity of the war—instigated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war-crazed government—does not end very quickly.

Many Americans may understand the difficult situation in which Trump’s unhinged behavior and his unexplained loyalty to Netanyahu have placed their country. What they rarely confront is the moral dimension of that crisis.

Though they speak of the war’s failure—the lack of strategy, the lack of preparation, the absence of an end goal, and the confusion surrounding its objectives—very few in mainstream media have taken what should have been the obvious moral position: that the war itself is criminal, unjustifiable, and illegal under international law.

Keep reading

Correcting the NY Times ACIP Reporting on Vaccine Injury

Seeing Sunday’s NY Times headline titled Confidential Report Calls for Sweeping Changes to Track Covid Vaccine Harms, a reflexive question flashed in the minds of even the most staunch defenders of legacy vaccine policy – Is the NY Times about to dismiss the Covid vaccine injured?

For those who don’t care to read the outlet’s reporting, here are what the author’s chose to add as closing words:

“The basis of supposed Covid vaccine injury syndrome is even less persuasive and thus even less directly relevant to vaccine policy…”

For experienced readers, seeing who the article’s lead author is should have caused pause immediately. When is comes to journalistic integrity, Apoorva Mandavilli is not who comes to mind.

In an October 6, 2021 NYT’s article titled A New Vaccine Strategy for Children: Just One Dose, for Now Mandavilli stated that 900,000 U.S. children have been hospitalized due to Covid. She was forced to correct the glaring error when the real number was found to be slightly more than 63,000.

In 2022 Mandavilli reported on the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation of Pfizer’s Covid shot for kids 5-11-years-old. NY Times initially reports, “Nearly 4,000 children aged 5 to 11 have died from a Covid-related condition called multisystem inflammatory syndrome during the pandemic.”

Mandavilli was again forced to add a correction

Keep reading

Trump Administration Goes After the Media for Negative Coverage of the Iran War

In recent days, senior Trump administration officials have increased their criticism and complaints about negative coverage of the US-Israeli war against Iran, with President Trump even suggesting certain media outlets could face “charges for treason.”

Trump made the comments in a long post on Truth Social put out on Sunday night, where he claimed that Iran has been feeding “false information” to the “Fake News media” and said fake AI videos were being circulated.

The president said there was a fake video that showed the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on fire. “The story was knowingly FAKE and, in a certain way, you can say that those Media Outlets that generated it should be brought up on Charges for TREASON for the dissemination of false information!” Trump wrote.

While a fake video of Abraham Lincoln was circulated on social media, there’s no indication that it was picked up by any major media outlets. The only media outlet President Trump named in his post was The Wall Street Journal, which he accused of “false reporting” over a report on five US Air Force refueling tankers being damaged by an Iranian missile strike in Saudi Arabia.

However, Trump also acknowledged that one tanker was damaged and that the other four were back in service, which doesn’t refute the Journal report since it said the aircraft were not fully destroyed and were being repaired.

“The five US Refueling Planes that were supposedly struck down and badly damaged, according to The Wall Street Journal’s false reporting, and others, are all in service, with the exception of one, which will soon be flying the skies,” Trump said.

The president also pointed to comments from Brendan Carr, the head of the Federal Communications Commission, who is threatening to revoke the licenses of news broadcasters for their coverage of the war in Iran. “I am so thrilled to see Brendan Carr … looking at the licenses of some of these Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic ‘News’ Organizations,” he added.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has also complained that media outlets haven’t been “patriotic” enough in their coverage. “We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies,” Hegseth said at a press conference on Friday. “Yet some in this crew, in the press, just can’t stop. Allow me to make a few suggestions. People look up at the TV, and they see banners, they see headlines. I used to be in that business. And I know that everything is written intentionally.”

The US war chief continued, “For example, a banner or a headline: ‘Mideast war intensifies,’ splashing on the screen the last couple of days, alongside visuals of civilian or energy targets that Iran has hit, because that’s what they do. What should the banner read instead? How about, ‘Iran increasingly desperate,’ because they are. They know it and so do you, if it can be admitted.”

Hegseth described a headline that said the “war is widening” as fake despite the conflict spreading across the region. He suggested a “real headline” for an “actually patriotic press” could say “Iran shrinking, going underground,” though senior Iranian officials attended a public Quds Day march in Tehran that same day.

Keep reading

Trump threatens media with treason charges over Iran war coverage

US President Donald Trump has threatened media organizations with treason charges, accusing them of knowingly colluding with Iran to cast doubt on Washington’s decisive “victory.”

In a lengthy Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump alleged that “fake news” outlets had been spreading false information supposedly fabricated by Iran using artificial intelligence.

“The fact is, Iran is being decimated, and the only battles they ‘win’ are those that they create through AI, and are distributed by Corrupt Media Outlets,” Trump wrote.

Trump claimed that Tehran has circulated fabricated footage showing attacks on US military assets, including alleged strikes on refueling aircraft and naval vessels.

Keep reading

Veteran ’60 Minutes’ reporter says the network ‘crumbled’ under Trump’s pressure

A veteran “60 Minutes” journalist slammed the previous owners of his parent network, CBS, for settling an election interference lawsuit with President Donald Trump.

“Our previous owners at CBS faced political pressure and crumbled‚” Scott Pelley said, according to The Guardian’s Jeremy Barr, referencing the fallout over the legal dispute between Trump and CBS. Pelley was introducing former “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens at the National Press Foundation Annual Journalism Awards Dinner last week. 

Pelley was referencing former CBS parent company, Paramount Global, before it was merged with Skydance Media, run by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Oracle founder and Trump ally Larry Ellison.

In the days leading up to the 2024 presidential election, CBS News aired its “60 Minutes” interview featuring then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Critics at the time noticed that an answer she gave to a question about Israel that first aired in a preview clip on “Face the Nation,” which was mocked by conservatives for her “word salad” comments, appeared to have been swapped with a different answer that aired during the primetime election special the next evening.

Trump accused the network of election interference and filed a $20 billion lawsuit against the company. 

After months of contentious mediation, Paramount and CBS settled Trump’s lawsuit for a sum expected to be north of $30 million, including $16 million upfront for Trump’s presidential library.

Keep reading

When Do Protest Observers Become Lawbreaking Participants?

When an ICE agent shot and killed Minneapolis resident Renee Good after she allegedly obstructed immigration authorities with her vehicle, disobeyed their commands, and attempted to flee – drawing fatal fire from an officer nearly struck by the vehicle – politicians and pundits decried her death as murder. They called it particularly unjust because she was not acting as a protester but a legal observer.

After federal agents arrested Don Lemon for allegedly disrupting a St. Paul church service in protest of the same Twin Cities immigration enforcement surge Good had opposed. His lawyer defended the former CNN anchor as a journalist, persecuted by the Trump administration for having carried out “constitutionally protected work” in violation of his First Amendment rights.  So too did myriad media organizations ranging from the National Association of Black Journalists to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

While Good’s shooting presents a distinct issue, her case and Lemon’s highlight the complex legal issues surrounding those who claim to be chronicling protests. Legal observers and journalists have long worked on the frontlines of civil unrest, the former documenting instances of alleged police misconduct in violation of constitutional rights to peaceably assemble, and the latter chronicling the assemblies. Their efforts have brought transparency and accountability. But what happens when legal observers and journalists act, or are seen by authorities as unlawful protestors rather than the neutral parties they are supposed to be? To what degree do their titles afford them special protections from prosecution in a court of law?

These questions have been brought into sharp relief as the Trump administration has brought hundreds of cases against people whom it alleges have not merely monitored but participated in illegal actions impacting immigration enforcement operations. 

We respect the First Amendment and the right to peacefully protest,” a DOJ spokesperson told RealClearInvestigations, but “journalists and observers are not provided special protections to obstruct law enforcement operations.”

Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Lubet, who has criticized the Trump administration’s approach to immigration, concurred that legal observers “have no special legal status,” nor do journalists have “license to engage in violence or disruption.” But, he added, “law enforcement authorities should have a heavy burden to show that a journalist…or legal observer…had overstepped their role.”

Although it did not respond to a request for comment, the American Civil Liberties Union has litigated against federal law enforcement authorities in connection with ICE’s activities in Minnesota. It argues that the government is violating the “constitutional rights” of people “observing, documenting, and protesting ICE activity in their neighborhoods.”

Like so many issues, the very nature of protest and the definitions of legal observers and journalists have come into question during the Trump years. America has a long history of protest, but the anti-ICE protests are different. Typically, protestors have engaged in somewhat organized demonstrations, with law enforcement responding if there is violence or property damage. But residents of Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and other sanctuary jurisdictions to which the second Trump administration has surged ICE agents have turned this dynamic on its head by arriving at the scene in response to law enforcement actions, and sometimes challenging such efforts.

It is hard to distinguish protestor from legal observer as many self-described ICE-watchers pursue officers in their cars and approach them during encounters – often times with phone in hand to record the events, and, they claim, to deter misconduct. Alex Pretti, an armed man who was killed by border patrol agents in Minneapolis after appearing to come to the assistance of another protestor, had been filming the scene before his deadly encounter. While he was widely described as a legal observer, just a few days prior, he had kicked in the taillight of an ICE vehicle, raising the murky issue of whether one can toggle back and forth between protester and observer depending on the circumstances.

Keep reading

PressSec Demands Retraction of ABC Report on Alleged Iranian Drone Threat

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called on ABC News to retract prior reporting that the FBI warned of an Iranian drone attack on California in retaliation for US actions.

ABC reported that the FBI had assessed that Iran had considered or aspired to conduct drone attacks in California, according to law-enforcement sources cited by the outlet, and that investigators were examining intelligence indicating Iran had explored the possibility of launching drones from ships or other platforms near the US West Coast.

Leavitt said the report was inaccurate and demanded that ABC issue a correction or retraction, arguing the reporting misrepresented intelligence about potential Iranian retaliation.

No Iranian attack on California has occurred, and officials said authorities continue to monitor potential threats.

Keep reading

Leading US Papers Defend the Indefensible in Iran Aggression

The United States and Israel are, for the second time in less than a year, committing “the supreme international crime” against Iran (FAIR.org7/3/25). Editorials in three of the United States’ most prominent newspapers, the New York TimesWall Street Journal and Washington Post, offered varying degrees of support for the aggression.

The Times waffled about bombing Iran, the Journal enthusiastically supported it, and the Post had fewer concerns about the war than the Times but more than the Journal. Crucially, however, all three papers rationalized the US/Israeli assault.

The Journal provided full-fledged endorsements of the unprovoked attack, writing in its first editorial (3/1/26), headlined “It’s Too Soon for Iran ‘Off-Ramps,’” that “the first two days . . . have been a striking success.”

“The biggest mistake President Trump could make now would be to end the war too soon,” it said.

The Journal (3/2/26) took the same approach in its next editorial, “Trump Enforces His Red Line on Iran,” calling the aggression a “necessary act of deterrence.” “It carries risks as all wars do,” the piece read, “but it also has the potential to reshape the Middle East for the better and lead to a safer world.” The editors reiterated that their “main concern is that Mr. Trump may stop too soon.”

Killing upward of 175 Iranians at a girls’ elementary school (FAIR.org3/2/26) didn’t temper the degree to which the US/Israeli aggression was a “striking success,” nor was the possibility of similar massacres a “risk” or a “concern” of the editors.

Keep reading

“What Kind of F*cking Bullsh*t is This?” – Megyn Kelly GOES OFF After Catching 60 Minutes Fraudulently Splicing Pete Hegseth Interview to Push Pro-Israel Narrative 

Former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly went off this week on CBS and Bari Weiss this week, saying they “just cannot seem to help themselves making deceptive edits” after they spliced an interview with Pete Hegseth to misrepresent his comments and run cover for the foreign state of Israel. 

“They do not give a sh*t about misleading you over at CBS, the old CBS, or the new CBS, which has a brand new agenda,” Kelly said, accusing CBS of “trying to shove Israel into the debate” by completely changing the framing of a question in post-interview edits.

CBS and its parent company, Paramount, were previously forced to pay millions of dollars to President Trump and agreed to change their editorial policy in a settlement with President Trump following the infamous edited “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris in 2024.

Last year, the network and its parent company were acquired by Skydance Media, led by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Larry Ellison. Skydance is now one of the world’s largest and most powerful media conglomerates, controlling CNN, CBS, HBO, MTV, Paramount+, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Showtime, TNT, TBS, Adult Swim, and more, following the acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery after Netflix pulled out of a bidding war with Paramount Skydance. Netflix notably pulled out, allowing Skydance to proceed with the deal, after Attorney General Pam Bondi opened an antitrust inquiry into Warner’s already agreed-upon deal with Netflix.

Under Ellison and Skydance, the Free Press co-founder Bari Weiss now serves as CBS’s new editor in chief.

So, naturally, with Trump allies taking over the media landscape, you’d expect the media to be fairer and more honest, but it appears that’s not the case.

In a recent interview with Hegseth, CBS used tactics similar to those previously used with Kamala Harris. They altered the question posed to Hegseth, making it appear that he was defending Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s prosecution of the war in Iran, which Hegseth has admitted isn’t always in alignment with US objectives.

“Do you want to address that criticism?” host Major Garrett asks Hegseth after a narrator says, “Some normally enthusiastic supporters of the President have criticized him, suggesting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled the US into a war that, to their minds, did not put American interests first.”

Then, as if Hegseth was defending Netanyahu and Israel, in response to arguments that Israel pulled the US into the war, the clip then shows Hegseth telling Garrett, “All I know is, I’m in the room every day, and I see how President Trump operates and what he’s putting first, and it’s America, Americans, and American interests.”

Keep reading

Former TV Reporter Arrested After Palomar Mountain Shootings Investigation

A former television news reporter has been arrested in connection with two shootings in San Diego County that investigators say may have been motivated by race, as reported by The New York Post.

Ricardo Berron, a former on-air reporter for the Spanish-language networks Univision and Telemundo, was taken into custody on March 10 at San Diego International Airport as he was preparing to leave for a vacation, according to authorities.

Following his arrest, Berron briefly addressed the allegations when speaking outside his home in Chula Vista.

“Pretty soon everything will be cleared up,” Ricardo Berron told the California Post at his $900,000 home, where he lives with his wife and children.

Berron, 46, is a married father of five. The four-bedroom, two-bathroom home sits at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac approximately 11 miles from downtown San Diego. The property measures about 1,700 square feet.

Law enforcement officials say Berron is facing potential hate crime charges connected to two separate shootings involving Hispanic victims on Palomar Mountain, located about 67 miles north of Chula Vista.

Authorities believe the same suspect was involved in both incidents.

Investigators allege Berron targeted the victims because of their ethnicity.

Keep reading