CBS faces bad news from FCC chair, resentment from bitter '60 Minutes' host Scott Pelley



The Federal Communications Commission received a formal complaint on Oct. 16 from the Center for American Rights requesting an investigation into possible news distortion at CBS News. Weeks later, President Donald Trump filed a giant lawsuit against CBS, claiming $10 billion in damages and accusing the network of "partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference."

At issue: Bill Whitaker's "60 Minutes" interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris, which apparently underwent significant edits to make the Democrat appear intelligible and concise — possibly with the intention of misleading viewers ahead of the 2024 election.

Last month, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr rejected CBS' bid to dismiss the "news distortion" complaint concerning its Harris interview. On Monday, he delivered the network some more bad news, noting that the FCC is actively investigating the allegation of "news distortion" and that "all options remain on the table," reported Reuters.

'We're just going to apply the law.'

Some "options" could prove a real headache for CBS owner Paramount Global, which is seeking regulatory approval for its $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. The FCC could, for instance, block the merger.

"We're simply focused on the record that's before us," said Carr, who reopened the probe in January. "We're just going to apply the law and the facts."

Reuters indicated that CBS did not immediately provide comment.

While Paramount faces scrutiny from without, it also faces resentment from within.

"60 Minutes" talking head Scott Pelley opined Sunday on the April 20 resignation of the show's executive producer, Bill Owens, and complained on air about changes at Paramount amid its talks with Trump to settle the lawsuit and attempts to complete the SkyDance merger.

"It was hard on [Owens] and it was hard on us," said Pelley. "But he did it for us — and you."

'No one here is happy.'

Blaze News previously reported that Owens noted in a memo to staff that he could no longer run the show in an "independent" fashion.

"Over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for '60 Minutes,' right for the audience," wrote Owens.

Pelley, continuing with his brief hagiography of Owens, said, "Stories we've pursued for 57 years are often controversial: lately, the Israel-Gaza war and the Trump administration. Bill made sure they were accurate and fair. He was tough that way."

"But our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways," said Pelley. "None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires."

The talking head noted that "no one here is happy" about Owen's departure, claiming that his departure demonstrated "he was the right person to lead '60 Minutes' all along."

'They should lose their license!'

The New York Times reported that representatives for Paramount and President Trump are engaged in settlement talks and that mediation is expected to kick off this week.

Trump noted in an April 13 post on Truth Social, "I am so honored to be suing 60 Minutes, CBS Fake News, and Paramount, over their fraudulent, beyond recognition, reporting. They did everything possible to illegally elect Kamala, including completely and corruptly changing major answers to Interview questions, but it just didn't work for them."

"They are not a 'News Show,' but a dishonest Political Operative simply disguised as 'News,' and must be responsible for what they have done, and are doing," continued the president. "They should lose their license! Hopefully, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as headed by its Highly Respected Chairman, Brendan Carr, will impose the maximum fines and punishment, which is substantial, for their unlawful and illegal behavior."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

When a Democrat says it, it's not a lie

A belated happy Earth Day (April 22) to anyone who gives a shit. If CNN's chief climate correspondent Bill Weir is right (he definitely isn't, but for the sake of argument), it could be the last one we'll ever get to celebrate. Even by the low standards of mainstream journalism, Weir is a horribly obnoxious liberal weirdo. He is best known for naming his son River after conceiving him "in a lighthouse" and for celebrating the child's birth by publishing an absurdly long (and absurdly public) letter apologizing for bringing him into a polluted world full of greedy corporations and "climate change" skeptics. Days before the election in 2024, Weir told CNN's audience that "life on Earth" may cease to exist if Kamala Harris lost. If that's the case (it isn't), Democrats probably shouldn't have nominated such awful candidates.

The post When a Democrat says it, it's not a lie appeared first on .

Trump to take on infamous 'Signalgate' editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who pushed 'many fictional stories'



President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he will be meeting with Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of the Atlantic who most recently broke the now-infamous "Signalgate" story.

Trump asserted that Goldberg had previously published "fictional stories" about the president and his administration. Despite this, Trump will be interviewed by Goldberg and other journalists from the outlet for a story entitled "The Most Consequential President of this Century."

'I am doing this interview out of curiosity, and as a competition with myself, just to see if it's possible for The Atlantic to be "truthful.'''

"Later today I will be meeting with, of all people, Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor of The Atlantic, and the person responsible for many fictional stories about me, including the made-up HOAX on 'Suckers and Losers' and, SignalGate, something he was somewhat more 'successful' with," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

One "hoax" Trump is referring to includes Goldberg's article from September 2020 that claimed the president called Americans who died in combat "suckers" and "losers." The article relies on anonymous sources who alleged that Trump talked down on fallen soldiers during a 2018 trip to France, which was heavily refuted by over a dozen on-the-record sources, including several administration officials.

"Jeffrey is bringing with him Michael Scherer and Ashley Parker, not exactly pro-Trump writers, either, to put it mildly!" Trump added. "The story they are writing, they have told my representatives, will be entitled, 'The Most Consequential President of this Century."

Although Goldberg's journalistic career has not always been flattering to the president, Trump said he was open to the interview for personal reasons.

"I am doing this interview out of curiosity, and as a competition with myself, just to see if it's possible for The Atlantic to be 'truthful.' Are they capable of writing a fair story on 'TRUMP'? The way I look at it, what can be so bad – I WON!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Sarah Palin back in court with opportunity to take the New York Times to cleaners over false report



Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is back in court and ready to hold the New York Times accountable over an error-laden 2017 editorial that falsely linked her to a mass shooting.

Reuters indicated that opening statements will kick off Tuesday morning before U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, the Clinton appointee who improperly dismissed Palin's lawsuit in 2017 and tainted the jury the second time around.

Background

On June 14, 2017, an anti-Trump leftist from Illinois took aim at House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) and several other Republican lawmakers who were practicing for a charity baseball game. Alexandria Police officers and U.S. Capitol Police officers were able to permanently neutralize the shooter but not before he hit Scalise and three others.

The New York Times editorial board rushed to exploit the shooting for political purposes.

'No such link was established.'

Just hours after the first shots were fired, the liberal paper suggested the attack was likely evidence of the supposed ease with which Americans can get their hands on guns. The board also insinuated that Republicans helped set the stage for such an event with heated political rhetoric, accusing Sarah Palin's political action committee of directly inciting a 2011 mass shooting that left former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) injured.

The editorial board stated:

In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

Contrary to the Times' assertion, there was no clear link to political incitement — something the paper already knew and was quickly reminded of by some of its own writers. In fact, the Times previously reported that "we have no idea" whether Loughner saw the PAC's map and that he was "likely insane, with no coherent ideological agenda." Furthermore, Palin's PAC did not superimpose "stylized cross hairs" on Giffords and other Democrats.

The liberal paper subsequently issued a correction admitting as much:

An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established. The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs.

Palin, evidently unwilling to let the Times off so easily, filed a lawsuit later that month.

The former governor's complaint claimed that the Times used its false assertion about Mrs. Palin "as an artifice to exploit the shooting that occurred on June 14, 2017."

"As the public backlash over The Times' malicious column mounted, it responded by making edits and 'corrections' to its fabricated story, along with half-hearted Twitter apologies — none of which sufficiently corrected the falsehoods that the paper published," said the complaint. "In fact, none mentioned Mrs. Palin or acknowledged that Mrs. Palin did not incite a deranged man to commit murder."

A dismissive Clinton judge

Rakoff dismissed Palin's original lawsuit in August 2017 on the basis of an evidentiary hearing where then-Times editor James Bennet was the sole witness.

Two years later, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Rakoff had "erred in relying on acts outside the pleadings to dismiss the complaint" and "impermissibly credited Bennet's testimony and weighed that evidence in holding that Palin had not adequately alleged actual malice."

The federal appellate court noted further that Palin's amended complaint "plausibly states a claim for defamation and may proceed to full discovery."

Despite his chastisement, Rakoff wasn't done pressing his thumb on the scale for the apparent benefit of the Times.

The trial was held in 2022. While the jury was still deliberating, Rakoff announced he was going to throw out Palin's lawsuit, indicating that no reasonable jury could find that the liberal paper and Bennet acted with malice, reported LawandCrime.com.

'The district court's Rule 50 ruling improperly intruded on the province of the jury.'

"I think that there is one essential element that plaintiff has not carried its burden with—the portion of actual malice relating to belief in falsity or reckless disregard in falsity," said Rakoff. "The law sets a very high standard. The court finds that that standard has not been met."

Despite ruling that the lawsuit should be thrown out and effectively telling the jury what to think, the Clinton judge permitted the jury to go through the motions and come to a verdict. The jury ultimately found the Times not liable.

Palin once again appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit, and once again the 2nd Circuit took issue with Rakoff's approach, granting the former governor a new trial.

"While the jury was deliberating, the district court dismissed the case again — this time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50," wrote the circuit judges noted in their August 2024 ruling. "We conclude that the district court's Rule 50 ruling improperly intruded on the province of the jury by making credibility determinations, weighing evidence, and ignoring facts or inferences that a reasonable juror could plausibly have found to support Palin's case."

'Trust in the media has declined.'

The appeals court noted that other "major issues at trial — specifically, the erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction, a legally erroneous response to a mid-deliberation jury question, and jurors learning during deliberations of the district court's Rule 50 dismissal ruling — impugn the reliability of that verdict."

Back in court

Rakoff and lawyers for both sides reportedly picked five women and four men Monday for the nine-person jury.

Rakoff told lawyers ahead of jury selection on Monday that the appeals court "seems to think I got it wrong in a lot of ways," reported the Associated Press. The judge noted further that he had gone "back and read the entire opinion, painful though it was."

While the Times is going before the same Clinton judge who treated it favorably in the past, there appears to be some apprehension at the paper this time around. A pair of Times writers noted Sunday:

Trust in the media has declined, and the Manhattan jury pool may have shifted to the right. A number of defamation lawsuits in the past three years have resulted in eye-popping payments, raising the stakes in the Palin case. And the retrial comes as President Trump and his administration have attacked the notion of an independent press, deploying litigation, investigations and other strong-arm tactics against news organizations.

RonNell Andersen Jones, a law professor at the University of Utah, told the paper, "It may prove to be a real barometer of the changing public attitude about the press and the changing appetite for American press freedom."

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesman for the Times, stated, "We're confident we will prevail and intend to vigorously defend the case."

Kenneth Turkel, a lawyer for Palin, apparently left the courthouse Monday without commenting on Palin's effort to hold the Times to account for at least one of its many distortions of the truth.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

CNN Forced To Fact-Check Itself After Claiming Trump Lied About Transgender Mice

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-3.09.34 PM-e1741291895219-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-3.09.34%5Cu202fPM-e1741291895219-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]In his joint address to Congress on Tuesday, President Donald Trump highlighted the “appalling waste” in government spending, including $8 million being allocated to making mice “transgender.” Trump’s point was crystal clear: Taxpayers are spending millions on research trying to prove that it’s OK to pump boys full of estrogen and girls full of testosterone. […]

Democrats flip-flop on 'fake peace agreement' following Zelenskyy's Oval Office meltdown



Democratic lawmakers are struggling to keep their story straight in the aftermath of the now infamous Oval Office spat between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President Donald Trump, and Vice President JD Vance on Friday.

Zelenskyy's combative meeting with Trump and Vance sent politicos into a tailspin, prompting some of his longtime supporters like Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to denounce the Ukrainian president. At the same time, Democrats like Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut were left scrambling to defend Zelenskyy, causing a slew of mixed messages in the media.

While Democrats try to sort out their own narrative, Trump has consistently upheld his own position.

Murphy at first insisted that the minerals deal was a "fake peace agreement" that would force Ukraine to submit to President Vladimir Putin's will. At the same time, Murphy said that he encouraged Zelenskyy to sign the very deal he criticized just days before.

"Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington," Murphy said moments before the Oval Office spat. "He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine."

"This is the latest MAGA conspiracy," Murphy later said in response to a headline claiming Democrats pressured Zelenskyy to reject the peace deal. "Total lie. The meeting with [Zelenskyy] was bipartisan - led by a Senate Republican. We all encouraged him to sign the minerals deal. But yes - he did make clear he wouldn’t accept a bad 'ceasefire' deal that sold out his country."

Murphy's bizarre messaging continued during an appearance on CNN, where he claimed that Zelenskyy was somehow both "ready to sign the agreement" but also "had an obligation" to have a conversation with Trump about the "disaster that would be wrought for Ukraine" if the agreement was signed.

Murphy is not the only Democrat who has had difficulty messaging on the fallout from Zelenskyy's Oval Office appearance. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut originally categorized the minerals deal as a "step toward strengthening American support for Ukraine" but later said the deal was just "Trump's appeasement to Putin."

"An inspiring, heartening conversation with President Zelenskyy this morning," Blumenthal said Friday. "The agreement today is a step toward strengthening American support for Ukraine, but real, reliable security guarantees are needed. We must be consistent in our steadfast commitment to Ukraine."

"Trump’s appeasement to Putin—Peace at Any Price—makes him Moscow’s perfect mouthpiece," Blumenthal said of the peace deal. "Zelenskyy wants peace but not at the price of Ukraine’s freedom & independence. Europe is supporting him. So should we. Kremlin propaganda is applauding & lauding Trump—a disgrace for America."

While Democrats try to sort out their own narrative, Trump has consistently upheld his own position.

"The only President who gave none of Ukraine’s land to Putin’s Russia is President Donald J. Trump," Trump said in a Monday Truth Social post. "Remember that when the weak and ineffective [Democrats] criticize, and the Fake News gladly puts out anything they say!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

DNC anti-'misinformation' account caught pushing provocative fake audio of Donald Trump Jr.



The Democratic National Committee's rapid response account FactPostNews, established in January as part of an initiative to "combat online misinformation," was caught Wednesday pushing a fake audio clip purporting to show Donald Trump Jr. voicing support for turning against Ukraine and arming Russia.

"The audio in question, which was amplified by the official X account of the DNC, along with countless other major anti-Trump accounts, is 100% fake," a spokesman for Donald Trump Jr. told ABC News. "It appears to be an AI-generated deepfake."

Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the co-founder of GetReal Labs who is an expert on digital forensics and synthetic media, appeared to agree, suggesting that the audio viewed millions of times and shared at least 6,600 times on X was most likely generated by artificial intelligence.

The clip was presented as an excerpt from the Feb. 25 episode of Don Jr.'s podcast ... even though the episode still had not been uploaded.

In the fake audio clip shared by the DNC's FactPostNews account, thousands of other partisan accounts, and foreign outfits like Visegrád 24, a voice made to resemble Trump Jr.'s says, "I honestly can't imagine anyone in their right mind picking Ukraine as an ally when Russia is the other option."

"I mean, just think about it: Massive nuclear power loaded with natural resources everyone needs, literally the biggest country on the planet. And ha ha, there's Ukraine, which has Chernobyl and some radiation-proof dogs," continues the voice. "Meanwhile, the Biden administration is like, 'Oh, yeah, this is definitely the ally we need. Let's dump all our money into them.' Honestly, if anything, the U.S. should have been sending weapons to Russia."

Mediaite reported that there were immediately suspicions about the authenticity of the audio, especially since the clip was presented as an excerpt from the Feb. 25 episode of Don Jr.'s podcast, "Triggered with Donald Trump Jr.," on Spotify, even though the episode still had not been uploaded to the platform as of Thursday morning. In the full Feb. 25 episode that aired on Rumble, the remarks were nowhere to be found.

Andrew Surabian, a Republican strategist and spokesman for Donald Trump Jr., tweeted, "This is 100% fake AI generated audio, but I'm sure that won't stop anti-Trump resistance accounts from continuing to dishonestly spread it."

Citing a policy against "misinformation," a spokesman for the DNC told ABC News that the post was removed as soon as it was learned that the audio spread online was fake.

When Democrats launched FactPostNews, DNC chief mobilization officer Shelby Cole said in a statement, "The Republican disinformation machine is powerful, but we believe a stronger weapon is giving people the facts about how Trump and his administration are screwing over the American people."

The DNC does not appear to have bothered issuing a public apology for presenting provocative Russia-based falsehoods to its audience as "facts."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Blaze Media jumps into White House press pool, signaling legacy media's weakening stranglehold



The White House Correspondents' Association has long determined which journalists get to participate in the presidential press pool, effectively guaranteeing the legacy media's unrivaled access to the nation's chief executive along with its ability to determine what information is ultimately disseminated to the public.

Citing a desire to restore power to the people, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Tuesday that the White House press team, not the WHCA, will now determine who populates the pool.

The White House wasted no time switching things up. On Wednesday, it displaced the establishment media in the pool and brought in Blaze Media senior politics editor and Washington correspondent Christopher Bedford along with a TV correspondent from Newsmax.

'The Trump administration understands how vital fair and balanced media access is.'

Bedford, representing new media, also attended President Donald Trump's first Cabinet meeting, where he pressed Elon Musk about the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency's next moves.

"This is the first time in history a new media reporter has been selected to be part of the pool," Bedford told BlazeTV's "Blaze News Tonight: The Mandate." "There was, of course, some grumbling about that."

— (@)

"Today's coverage signifies how Blaze Media is expanding to provide our audience with the best news about the Trump administration's effort to implement the mandate of the people," stated Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson. "Chris Bedford is one of the best journalists in the nation and obviously needed to be part of the White House press pool."

Peterson noted further that "for years, legacy media has derived its power from monopolizing control over access to the White House and powerful government officials. The Trump administration understands how vital fair and balanced media access is to preserve and strengthen our form of government. But this story is ultimately not about us or the Trump administration, but serving our audience: concerned and responsible American citizens."

Diversifying the pool

The shake-up took place a day after U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden declined to restore the Associated Press' spot in the press pool and suggested that the WHCA's control was "odd."

'New voices are going to be welcomed.'

"It feels a little odd that the White House is bound by certain decisions that this private organization is making," McFadden reportedly said during a hearing Monday. "Seems to me the White House could decide to throw out the White House Correspondents' Association altogether."

The White House evidently agreed.

"A group of D.C.-based journalists, the White House Correspondents' Association, has long dictated which journalists get to ask questions of the president of the United States in these most intimate spaces. Not any more," said Leavitt.

"Legacy outlets who have participated in the press pool for decades will still be allowed to join — fear not — but we will also be offering the privilege to well-deserving outlets who have never been allowed to share in this awesome responsibility," Leavitt said Tuesday.

"New voices are going to be welcomed in as well."

While the five major television networks will continue to take part in the pool on a rotational basis, they will be joined by streaming services, including podcasters, as well as by new media and print outlets shut out by previous administrations.

The White House press team did not immediately respond to a question about the significance of the changes.

After announcing Bedford's admission to the White House press pool on "The Glenn Beck Program," Rikki Ratliff-Fellman, director of programming at Blaze Media, quipped, "I can hear the screams from the legacy media from here."

— (@)

The screams

Elements of the legacy media were prickled by the WHCA's replacement and the changes to the press pool that followed.

WHCA president and Politico reporter Eugene Daniels said in a statement Tuesday, "This move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States."

The following day, Daniels announced that the WHCA's board of directors would no longer distribute pool reports or assist with "any attempt by this administration or any other in taking over independent press coverage of the White House."

'That monopoly no longer exists.'

A spokesman for the New York Times called the White House's decision an "effort to undermine the public's access to independent, trustworthy information about the most powerful person in America."

The Times' chief White House correspondent, Peter Baker, reflexively launched into Russia comparisons, writing, "This reminds me of how the Kremlin took over its own press pool and made sure that only compliant journalists were given access."

It is worth noting that on Wednesday, the left-leaning publications ABC, Axios, Bloomberg, NPR, and the New York Times had people in the pool.

Jacqui Heinrich, a news anchor and senior White House correspondent for Fox News, did not invoke Russia but was similarly bent out of shape, tweeting, "This move does not give the power back to the people — it gives power to the White House."

Jordan Schachtel, publisher of the Dossier, suggested that Heinrich's complaint amounts to whinging from the "token right of center outlet allowed in the WHCA cartel."

"Upstarts and competitors were frozen out and it greatly benefited those already inside the group," continued Schachtel. "Now that monopoly no longer exists."

The top editors at the Associated Press, Reuters, and Bloomberg issued a joint statement Wednesday suggesting that the White House's decision to admit one wire service to the press pool on Wednesday, as opposed to the usual three, amounted to a threat to America's access from the free press.

"We believe that any steps by the government to limit the number of wire services with access to the president threatens that principle. It also harms the spread of reliable information to people, communities, businesses, and global financial markets that heavily depend on our reporting," said the editors.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Critics blast liberal reporter for seizing upon hurricane devastation to belittle North Carolinians' beliefs



The Guardian, a leftist publication based in the U.K., is facing criticism over a Sunday article that seized upon the devastation wrought in North Carolina by Hurricane Helene as an opportunity to belittle locals' beliefs, attack President Donald Trump, and push a climate alarmist agenda.

The article was penned by the Guardian's "senior climate justice reporter" Nina Lakhani — a British national who previously suggested that nTrump was a terrorist and a fascist; pushed the Russian collusion hoax; claimed that America's border wall created "environmental and cultural scars"; advocated for banning white men from positions of power; and called the British monarchy a "white supremacist institution."

After insinuating that Trump and Elon Musk were to blame for delayed disaster relief, the Guardian reporter expressed concern that in her travels through Buncombe County, North Carolina, "the climate crisis was largely absent from people's thoughts" in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.

Resident Twila Little Brave, for instance, told the Guardian about her struggles in the wake of the hurricane, her gratitude about being alive, and how the efforts of her community, not her government, helped her survived the ordeal.

Sharon Jarvis, a 59-year-old woman who lives on a mountain slope on the outskirts of the community, criticized the Biden administration's disaster relief or lack thereof and noted that Christian relief groups, local churches, and other volunteer or nonprofit groups — not the government — stepped into the breach to help.

David Crowder, the pastor at a Barnardsville Baptist church, discussed tough living conditions along with potential threats to local pride and the storm's transformation of the landscape.

Since Brave, Jarvis, and Crowder failed to furnish Lakhani with the talking points the foreign reporter needed for her preferred narrative, Lakhani clumsily shoehorned them into the piece herself with the help of fellow travelers.

'We've failed to communicate this in a way that reaches some of the most vulnerable people.'

Lakhani insinuated that Brave and others who "have found comfort from attributing Helene to God's will" were ignoramuses, noting that "the science is clear: the intensity of the wind and rain during Helene was supercharged by the climate crisis, and the frequency and severity of such storms will increase as the planet continues to warm — driven by the world's dependence on the burning of fossil fuels."

While dismissive of locals' religious beliefs, Lakhani appeared more than willing to accept as gospel truth an assertion from Thomas Karl, the former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information, that might rely on misleading and inaccurate claims.

Lakhani shared Karl's belief that "these events will become more intense and stronger. But somehow we've failed to communicate this in a way that reaches some of the most vulnerable people, while they're getting false information from places they trust."

The government watchdog group Protect the Public's Trust noted in a complaint last year that the NOAA's Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters tracking project relies on economic data and cannot as a consequence "distinguish the effect of climate change as a factor on disaster losses from the effect of human factors like increases in the vulnerability and exposure of people and wealth to disaster damages due to population and economic growth."

'This is a vile, mean-spirited article.'

The so-called Billions Project not only has been been cited in over 1,200 articles but has been characterized by the U.S. Global Change Research Program as a "climate change indicator" and had its data cited in 2023 as evidence that "extreme events are becoming more frequent and severe" in the same federal program's "Fifth National Climate Assessment."

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. noted in a study published June in the Springer Nature journal npj Natural Hazards:

NOAA incorrectly claims that for some types of extreme weather, the dataset demonstrates detection and attribution of changes on climate timescales. Similarly flawed are NOAA's claims that increasing annual counts of billion dollar disasters are in part a consequence of human caused climate change. NOAA's claims to have achieved detection and attribution are not supported by any scientific analysis that it has performed.

Despite outstanding questions about the veracity of claims of intensifying weather, Lakhani framed Karl's statement as the "clear science," then echoed his concern about the germination of alternate viewpoints regarding the storm and broader weather patterns.

Lakhani complained that "false rumors and conspiracy theories," as well as "fossil fuel-friendly" narratives, appear "to resonate among even those directly hit by floods and fires."

When criticizing so-called "disinformation," Lakhani turned to a fellow traveler to shore up her narrative — Sean Buchan, the so-called research director at the leftist censorship outfit Climate Action Against Disinformation.

Buchan appeared to insinuate that rural North Carolinians and other disaster-struck Americans were not smart enough to grasp "climate science" because it is "complicated and nuanced and requires patience." As a result of locals' supposed inability to understand what he and Lakhani believe to be true, Buchan suggested that "propagandists and bad actors will show up in person or online to fill the information vacuum."

Matt Van Swol, a former nuclear scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River National Laboratory, called the Guardian article "absolutely disgusting."

"This is a vile, mean-spirited article from The Guardian," continued Van Swol. "Everything mountain-folk HATE about big city reporters is covered in this article."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Rubio destroys CBS News anchor with facts after she tries blaming Holocaust on free speech



CBS News' Margaret Brennan did her apparent best last month to corner or to extract concessions from Vice President JD Vance. In the "Face the Nation" interview, Vance rejected both Brennan's dated liberal presumptions and the shaky premises shoring up her various lines of attack, proving the host's best was not good enough.

Brennan, evidently still committed to hitting Vance with a critique that sticks, attacked the vice president during her interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which aired on Sunday. The CBS News host concern-mongered about the impact of Vance's Friday speech at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, particularly his criticism of European censorship, and suggested that free speech set the stage for the Holocaust.

Rubio, like Vance before him, refused to indulge Brennan's fantasy and instead pointed out the falsity of her revisionist history.

In his Friday speech, Vance blasted European nations for their ruthless suppression of political movements and ideas; their destructive mass migration policies; their dismissal of citizens' concerns; and their attacks on religious liberties. Vance further expressed concern that Europe is turning its back on the values that it once shared in common with America.

While largely well received on this side of the Atlantic, various European officials took umbrage at the vice president's fact-based observations.

Germany's socialist defense minister Boris Pistorius, for instance, claimed that Vance's doubts about European democracy were "not acceptable," even though authorities in Pistorius' country have worked to ban, vilify, disarm, de-bank, and criminalize Alternative for Germany, a massively popular right-leaning populist party set for another electoral success later this month.

"He lectured about what he described as censorship, mainly focusing, though, on including more views from the right," Brennan told Rubio over the weekend. "He also met with the leader of a far-right party known as the AFD, which, as you know, is under investigation and monitoring by German intelligence because of extremism. What did all of this accomplish, other than irritating our allies?"

Rubio told Brennan that the European apoplexy over Vance's speech more or less proved the vice president's point.

'I have to disagree with you.'

"Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion? We are, after all, democracies," said Rubio. "I think if anyone's angry about his words, they don't have to agree with him, but to be angry about it, I think, actually makes his point."

The secretary of state noted further that European leaders frequently criticize the United States, but "we don't go around throwing temper tantrums about it."

Brennan tried contextualizing European officials' irritation over Vance's speech with the help of a revisionist history, stating that Vance "was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups."

Rubio prevented the host from skating past the insinuation that Europeans, Germans in particular, are sensitive about critiques of censorship because the Holocaust was somehow the result of free speech.

"I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide," said Rubio. "The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews, and they hated minorities, and they hated those that they — they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews."

"There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none," continued Rubio. "There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany. They were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that's not an accurate reflection of history."

'People are losing their minds.'

According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's Holocaust Encyclopedia, the Nazi regime abolished freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the early 1930s, shuttering or seizing anti-Nazi publications and controlling all forms of media content, including burning books deemed un-German.

Not only was free speech virtually nonexistent when the Nazis ran Germany, but in the preceding years, there were numerous limitations on speech — certainly enough to torpedo a modified version of Brennan's thesis.

Responding to an argument from a critical race theory scholar that resembled Brennan's insinuation, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression President Greg Lukianoff noted that nothing about the rise of Nazism or the Holocaust supports the claim that speech restraints could have prevented a genocide.

Lukianoff wrote:

Weimar Germany had laws banning hateful speech (particularly hateful speech directed at Jews), and top Nazis including Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch and Julius Streicher actually went to jail for violating them. The efforts of the Weimar Republic to suppress the speech of the Nazis are so well known in academic circles that one professor has described the idea that speech restrictions would have stopped the Nazis as "the Weimar Fallacy." The Weimar Republic not only shut down hundreds of Nazi newspapers — in a two-year period, they shut down 99 in Prussia alone — but they accelerated that crackdown on speech as the Nazis ascended to power. Hitler himself was banned from speaking in several German states from 1925 until 1927.

Critics blasted Brennan for her apparent historical illiteracy.

Vance wrote, "This is a crazy exchange. Does the media really think the holocaust was caused by free speech?"

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) tweeted, "Free speech caused the Holocaust in an insanely stupid take."

"People are losing their minds," wrote investigative reporter Matt Taibbi. "It's mass hysteria."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!