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!

The media’s misinformation machine is built to last — here’s why



Liberal bias in the legacy press is nothing new, but conservatives rarely delve into the “how” and “why” behind it all. With the 2024 election — and the elite-media interference that accompanied it — behind us, the legacy press has shifted from protecting the Democratic Party to attacking it in certain cases. Three books on liberal media bias explain why the media elite’s misinformation machine may never cease.

Though it’s nearly 25 years old, Bernard Goldberg’s “Bias” remains a valuable resource. It was one of the first books to address this issue and gets to the heart of the problem within the journalism industry. The book, subtitled “A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News,” recounts Goldberg’s experience as a 28-year veteran reporter at CBS. He was fired after airing complaints to the Wall Street Journal about CBS’ growing leftward drift, including that of his boss, Dan Rather.

There is no fairness, balance, or impartiality — only straight advocacy for a hard-left agenda.

Goldberg recalls his years at CBS and elsewhere, noting that the industry attracts people who want to “change the world.” Conservatives, who value religion, heritage, nation, and family and generally do not seek to upend ancient institutions, are unlikely to fit this mold. This might explain what a friend recently told me: his graduating class of 100 at a top journalism school had about “two and a half conservatives,” himself included.

Goldberg writes that these “change the world” types don’t see themselves as biased when attacking conservative policies or opinions. They view their preferences as simply “common sense” — a phrase Rather used in a conversation with Goldberg. But considering how sheltered journalists’ lives are, far removed from 99% of America, the question is: common with whom?

Goldberg notes that his colleagues were fine with lying to their audience if they believed it would draw attention to an important cause and lead to “positive change.” One example of what he calls a “noble embellishment” involved reporters in the 1980s and '90s attempting to portray heterosexuals as equally susceptible to AIDS. This tactic, designed to alarm straight people, ignored the reality that AIDS was primarily a problem among gay males. Goldberg points to an article headlined “40% of AIDS sufferers are heterosexual.” But the story failed to acknowledge that most of the 40% were intravenous drug users, with few actually contracting the disease through heterosexual sex.

“Bias” does an excellent job of exposing media do-gooders’ moral blindness. Goldberg recounts how Rather and his colleagues were furious after he accused CBS News of bias in the Wall Street Journal. One of them even compared reading the piece to discovering his wife had been raped. Such sensitivity is, of course, rich coming from an industry that supposedly supports whistleblowers and whose entire existence revolves around interfering with other industries — never mind invading people's private lives. Consider former Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz, who cried after being criticized for doxxing the social media influencer "Libs of TikTok."

Manufacturing discontent

Matt Taibbi’s 2019 book “Hate, Inc.” also exposes the media’s hypocritical oversensitivity. While on the campaign trail in 2004, for example, Taibbi recalls receiving a complaint from the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz after apparently breaking an unwritten rule by taking video of the press section without permission. Once again, the media establishment feels aggrieved over something it does all the time.

Taibbi’s book, subtitled “Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another,” shifts from the media’s fake alarmism over liberal causes to the newer, more damaging phenomenon of “manufacturing discontent” between Republicans and Democrats. Taibbi describes this as “selling siloed anger” to attract more clicks and views. He writes that today’s mass-media consumer is often given content that simply confirms their prejudices, “about whatever or whoever the villains of the day happened to be: foreigners, minorities, terrorists, the Clintons, Republicans, even corporations.”

Taibbi harshly criticizes figures like Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow (each featured on his book’s cover). He especially criticizes Maddow, a former friend, for pushing the “Russiagate” conspiracy theory to cope with Donald Trump’s 2016 win. Taibbi’s friend Glenn Greenwald has commented on the seriousness of pushing such a pernicious lie, noting that it likely still fuels Democrats’ bloodlust for Russia’s defeat in its conflict with Ukraine.

It’s all activism now

Outlets like Maddow’s MSNBC essentially sell a “consumer product” to people, Taibbi notes. They offer viewers a “political safe space” that aligns with a specific political party. Media studies professor Andrey Mir explores this in his 2020 book “Postjournalism and the Death of Newspapers,” where he details how the media’s business model has changed in the post-internet era, altering how news is selected and reported.

Previously, leftist media analysts like Noam Chomsky argued that the establishment press skewed coverage to placate the wealthy elite (advertisers’ most coveted demographic). Now, the press skews coverage to cater to its activist readership. With advertisers moving to more efficient technologies like Facebook and Google — which control 80% of the advertising market — newspapers have turned to what Mir calls paid-up “members” and donors for revenue. These people, like everyone else, can read the news online for free but choose to give their money to outlets because they like what they say.

Treating such outlets as advocacy groups, Mir explains, means that only the largest publications — such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, the ones most capable of spreading the message — will attract support. What these “advocacy group members” are paying for, then, is not just to stay informed, but to push the outlet’s message and shape public opinion in the way they want it to be.

Previously beholden to corporate advertisers (again, Chomsky’s view), the legacy press is now dependent on the activists who fund it. As a result, daily story selection is driven by “the most resonating pressing social issues that could justify fundraising and stimulate readers to donate.” This process incentivizes journalism to “mutate into propaganda.” There is no fairness, balance, or impartiality — only straight advocacy for a hard-left agenda.

What it means for “save-the-world” types to now work for other “save-the-world” types is that expectations for the elite media to change should be even lower. To any conservative expecting the corporate left-wing media to come to their senses after Kamala Harris’ recent defeat and perhaps reduce their bias: It’s unlikely to happen any time soon.

Newsweek tries gaslighting Americans again — this time about Trump's deportation numbers



Newsweek, a left-leaning outfit that has repeatedly prioritized narrative over facts and common sense, continued the pattern last week with a story mutilating key facts in an apparent effort to paint the Trump administration's deportation efforts so far as a relative failure.

Dan Gooding, a British reporter covering immigration for Newsweek in New York City, claimed that with the Trump administration's current rate of deportations, "it would be on track to deport half the number of migrants removed during former President Joe Biden's last full fiscal year in 2024."

The trouble with Gooding's claim, which he insinuated was evidence of President Donald Trump fumbling the ball on a major campaign promise, is that he centers it on a misreading of the facts.

The Newsweek writer apparently based his assertion on the the say-so of an unnamed "expert"; the Department of Homeland Security's Feb. 4 announcement that 5,693 illegal aliens had been deported or removed from the country during Trump's first two weeks in office; and a comparison to a dataset that also incorporates the number of foreign nationals turned away by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the border.

'The failing legacy media has resorted to lying.'

Gooding noted that "the last monthly figures available from Biden's presidency, for November 2024, show 48,970 total removals, averaging around 12,200 a week."

That figure is, however, not the number of deportations or removals for that month. According to the Office of Homeland Security Statistics, the 48,970 figure reflects total repatriations for the month of November, including removals, expulsions, and returns.

Returns, which are not based on an order of removal, include voluntary departures, voluntary returns, and withdrawals of application for admission. Returns, which accounted for the majority of repatriations in fiscal year 2024, were not mentioned in the DHS announcement where Goodman sourced the starting point for his comparison.

Alex Pfieffer, White House principal deputy communications director, told Blaze News the Newsweek article, which has yet to be corrected, is "comparing apples to oranges."

"The failing legacy media has resorted to lying instead of honestly covering President Trump's successful immigration policies," said Pfeiffer.

Although Newsweek got the facts wrong again, Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, recently made clear that he wants to beef up arrests and deportations.

Homan told NewsNation Tuesday on the topic of ICE arrests, "If you look at the rest of interior enforcement, it's about three times higher than it was a year ago today. Three times higher is good, but I'm not satisfied. There are more criminal aliens that need to be arrested, hundreds of thousands."

"Sanctuary cities are putting roadblocks up. We've got leaks. So we need to increase the arrests of illegal aliens, especially those with criminal convictions. So we're going to continue," added Homan.

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

Trump says raw footage of Kamala Harris' '60 Minutes' interview proves 'election interference'



Failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris' interview with "60 Minutes," which aired on Oct. 7, was a disaster replete with word salads.

At the time, keen observers deduced, on the basis of major differences between Harris' responses shown in a preview of the interview and the one presented in the final, that CBS News had engaged in deceptive edits with the apparent intention of portraying the Democrat as passably coherent ahead of the election, something the network vehemently denied.

The Federal Communications Commission, which received a formal complaint on Oct. 16 from the Center for American Rights requesting an investigation into possible news distortion, released the raw footage and full transcript of the interview on Wednesday. The footage reveals that CBS News indeed went to great lengths to make Harris appear intelligible and concise — possibly with the intention of misleading viewers.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr noted on X that the commission will now seek comment regarding the news distortion complaint through March, writing, "The people will have a chance to weigh in."

Night-and-day differences

Bill Whitaker of CBS News' "60 Minutes" asked Harris at one stage in the interview whether America lacked influence over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his strategic decisions in the Middle East. Whitaker then stated, "It seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening" to the Biden-Harris administration.

'CBS should lose its license.'

The version of the interview that went to air and was reflected in CBS News' official transcript was edited so that Harris appears to say in response, "We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end."

It's clear from the raw footage that Harris actually responded with one of her signature word salads:

Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.

Harris' answer to Whitaker's question about what the U.S. could do to prevent the Israel-Hamas war from "spinning out of control" was relatively succinct in the manipulated version that CBS News originally aired. In reality, it was another meandering mess.

Here is Harris' response as it originally appeared on CBS News:

Well, let's start with October 7. 1,200 people were massacred; 250 hostages were taken, including Americans; women were brutally raped, and as I said then, I maintain Israel has a right to defend itself. We would. And how it does so matters. Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. This war has to end.

Here is what Harris actually said:

Well, let's start with October 7. Because obviously, what we do now must be in the context of what has happened. And as I reflect on a year ago, and that 1,200 people were massacred — young people at a festival, at a music festival — 250 hostages were taken, including Americans, women were brutally raped. And as I said then, I maintain Israel has a right to defend itself. We would. And how it does so matters. And as we fast-forward into what we have seen in the ensuing weeks and months, far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. And we know that, and I think most agree, this war has to end. And that has to be our number-one imperative, and that has been our number-one imperative. How can we get this war to end? Well, critical elements of that are we have got to get a hostage deal and a ceasefire deal done. We have to — we have to get aid in. We have to lay the path toward a two-state solution.

CBS News originally made it appear as though Harris said, in response to Whitaker's question about whether the U.S. has any sway over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, "The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles."

In reality, Harris largely dodged the question, talking about military aid to Israel, Israel's self-defense against missile attacks, and the perceived need to pressure Israel into bringing the war to an end.

President Donald Trump noted in a Truth Social post on Thursday, "CBS and 60 Minutes defrauded the public by doing something which has never, to this extent, been seen before. They 100% removed Kamala's horrible election changing answers to questions, and replaced them with completely different, and far better, answers, taken from another part of the interview. This was Election changing 'stuff,' Election Interference and, quite simply, Election Fraud at a level never seen before."

"CBS should lose its license, and the cheaters at 60 Minutes should all be thrown out, and this disreputable 'NEWS' show should be immediately terminated," added Trump.

More gaslighting

CBS News doubled down on its denial of wrongdoing Wednesday, noting in a statement, "The 60 Minutes broadcast was not doctored or deceitful."

The network suggested further that in the case of its reworking of Harris' answer to the question of whether Netanyahu was listening to the Biden administration, "We edited the interview to ensure that as much of the vice president's answers to 60 Minutes' many questions were included in our original broadcast while fairly representing those answers."

'News distortion calculated to confuse, deceive, and mislead the public.'

Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, similarly did her part to suggest that there was nothing wrong with CBS News' significant manipulation of Harris' responses, stating, "The transcript and footage of this interview provide no evidence that CBS and its affiliated broadcast stations violated FCC rules."

"The FCC should now move to dismiss this fishing expedition to avoid further politicizing our enforcement actions," continued Gomez.

Implications

The release of the footage may bode well for President Donald Trump, who filed a lawsuit against CBS News and "60 Minutes" demanding at least $10 billion in damages for the "malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion calculated to confuse, deceive, and mislead the public."

The lawsuit stated, "To paper over Kamala's 'word salad' weakness, CBS used its national platform on 60 Minutes to cross the line from the exercise of judgment in reporting to deceitful, deceptive manipulation of news."

"President Trump brings this action to redress the immense harm caused to him, to his campaign, and to tens of millions of citizens in Texas and across America by CBS's deceptive broadcasting conduct," wrote Trump's attorneys.

Trump's lawsuit may complicate or even kill the planned multibillion-dollar merger between CBS' parent company, Paramount, and the Hollywood studio Skydance.

The New York Times indicated ahead of the release of the interview footage that executives at Paramount were pushing for a settlement to the lawsuit — a settlement that would apparently have to do without an acknowledgment of wrongdoing from Bill Owens, the executive producer of "60 Minutes," who vowed Monday not to apologize to the 47th president "for anything we have done."

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

Wikipedia blacklists Blaze News and other right-leaning sources, ensuring it's a one-stop liberal propaganda shop



Wikipedia maintains that articles on its site "should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."

A new study by Media Research Center Free Speech America highlighted that Wikipedia has discounted right-leaning sources as reliable and prohibited their citation in articles, all but guaranteeing that the site is little more than a repository for liberal propaganda.

It's no secret that Wikipedia's volunteer editors are predominantly ideological myopes favorable to leftist causes, ideas, and personalities and antipathetic to conservatives of various stripes.

For instance, editors at Wikipedia, whose parent company blew 29.2% of its 2023-2024 budget on race-obsessive DEI programs, tried to hide Vice President JD Vance's military accomplishments in the lead-up to the 2024 election; strategically eliminated any mention of Kamala Harris' appointment as border czar on the list of executive branch czars; advocated deleting the entry detailing the mass killings executed by communist regimes, citing an anti-communist bias; labeled Elon Musk's temporary suspension of journalists who allegedly violated his platform's terms of service as the "Thursday Night Massacre"; and gaslighted readers about the history, existence, and nature of cultural Marxism, characterizing the well-defined and well-chronicled offshoot of Marxism as a a "conspiracy theory."

'Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead.'

A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia — now run by the former chief operating officer for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and previously run by a censorious alumna of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader program who stated that "our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that is getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done" — suffers a "significant liberal bias in the choice of news media sources."

The Dutch researchers noted further that "this effect persists when accounting for the factual reliability of the news media."

Wikipedia, which now deals primarily in "propaganda" and exists only to "give an establishment point of view" according to co-founder Larry Sanger, has apparently leaned harder into its bias.

The new MRC study noted that Wikipedia editors are permitted to cite a variety of leftist publications that have a reputation for pushing false narratives and fake news, including Jacobin, Mother Jones, NPR, and Rolling Stone, but are precluded from citing publications not similarly staffed by liberal activists.

Citing the Wikipedia page on reliable and perennial sources, the study highlighted that numerous reputable right-leaning publications have been blacklisted.

Wikipedia states, for instance, that Blaze News, the Daily Wire, the Daily Caller, the Epoch Times, Fox News, ZeroHedge, the Washington Free Beacon, the Federalist, RedState, the Media Research Center, and the Alexander Hamilton-founded New York Post "should normally not be used" as sources and "should never be used for information about a living person."

"Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate," added the Wikipedia entry on reliable sources.

'It is now only reliable for pushing a radical narrative.'

Whereas most right-leaning publications were flagged as "generally unreliable," Breitbart News appears to have been among the few singled out for a formal blacklisting. Wikipedia alleged that the "site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact" and complained that the publication had revealed the identity of multiple Wikipedia editors.

The New York Times qualifies as reliable despite falsely accusing President Donald Trump of lying about Democrats' abortion ambitions; characterizing the suggestion that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan lab that conducted dangerous experiments on coronaviruses as a "fringe" "conspiracy theory lack[ing] evidence"; printing false Hamas propaganda; pushing the Russian collusion narrative; and misleading readers on various other issues.

Rolling Stone, which has paid out millions in the past for false and defamatory reporting, appears not to have learned its lesson, lying, for instance, in recent years about an imagined Florida book ban and smearing Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire. It was also characterized as "generally reliable."

Politico similarly received a reliable rating despite — or perhaps as a result of — its willingness to help a cabal of former intelligence officials interfere with the 2020 election by mischaracterizing the New York Post's reliable Hunter Biden laptop story as "Russian disinfo," and to mislead Americans about the working relationship between former President Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for the benefit of the former vice president's campaign.

According to the MRC study, only 16% of left-wing media sources were unable to secure Wikipedia's stamp of approval. Meanwhile, 100% of right-leaning sources were effectively blacklisted.

The MRC study noted further that the predicable result is that "conservatives, Republicans, and Trump appointees are smeared, maligned, and slandered by the most popular online source for information about people."

Christopher Bedford, senior editor for politics and Washington correspondent for Blaze Media, noted, "You've got to remember, none of this — none of it — is based in fact. We were right about COVID, right about Biden, right about immigration, right about trans. We were right about virtually every major contested issue impacting this country for the past 10 years, while over and over again outlets from the New York Times to PolitiFact were embarrassingly wrong."

"They can't handle that, and so the ideologues ban us," continued Bedford. "It's pathetic, but it's also dangerous, and every penny you give to support this project is a penny given against speech and truth."

Dan Schneider, MRC vice president, noted, "There used to be a joke about how Wikipedia could not be relied on by historians and academics. Wikipedia has now become the joke."

"Its radical editors and staff reveal their contempt for conservatives in almost everything they inject into descriptions," continued Schneider. "It was never something people could rely on for accurate information. It is now only reliable for pushing a radical narrative."

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

Blaze News original: Pro-lifers dunk on New York Times for falsely accusing Trump of lying about Dems' abortion ambitions



The New York Times has demonstrated on numerous occasions a willingness to bend or abandon the truth, especially when doing so might further leftists' political agendas.

The paper rushed, for instance, to print Hamas propaganda in October 2023, falsely suggesting that the Islamic Jihad rocket misfire that blew up a hospital in Gaza, killing hundreds, was actually an Israeli airstrike. The paper also did its apparent best last year to furnish Democrats with the misleading narrative they needed to launch attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices — reliant upon claims that even the Washington Post knew weren't worth a jot of ink. When President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, setting the stage for mass-murdering Mexican cartels to be designated foreign terrorist organizations, the Times undermined its credibility again, suggesting that identifying and holding terrorists responsible for their actions might hurt the economy.

This is far from an exhaustive list. In fact, the Times — a paper compromised by the CIA during the Cold War — recently misled readers on another issue, claiming that President Donald Trump had misrepresented Democrats' aims regarding abortion.

Pro-life groups were quick to hammer the Times over its latest publication of fake news and its corresponding attempt to obfuscate a damning truth.

'The Times has an obligation to report this evidence.'

In a letter shared with Blaze News, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser told the executive and political editors of the New York Times that "while abortion remains an issue that evokes strong opinions, feelings, and reactions, such personal perceptions cannot overtake journalists' obligation to report fairly, accurately, and impartially."

Highlighting information the Times apparently decided to gloss over, Dannenfelser noted that "the Times has an obligation to report this evidence, cite the facts, and allow readers to come to their own conclusion without the interference of bias, omission, or misinformation that has often characterized your coverage of the issue."

'Debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party.'

Among the articles Dannenfelser raised concern about was Times health policy writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg's Jan. 24 article, in which Stolberg stated that Trump "repeated false claims about abortion rights" in his video address to pro-life advocates at the 52nd March for Life, singling out his suggestion that Democrats are pushing "for a federal right to unlimited abortion on demand up to the moment of birth and even after birth."

Of course, to accept that Trump's assertion is false would mean discounting what Democrats have said and how they have voted in recent days and years.

NBC News, which Stolberg would apparently have readers believe was dealing in Trumpian falsehoods, noted in 2023 that some Democrats "insist on a sweeping national standard that goes beyond the one set by Roe v. Wade, which gave women the right to have an abortion before a fetus is considered viable and allowed states to set limitations for abortions after that time frame."

The same report noted that the "notion of debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party, particularly reproductive rights advocates."

Multiple Democratic lawmakers have voted repeatedly to advance the so-called Women's Health Protection Act, which would codify a federal right to abortion with virtually no limitations or requirements, enabling health care providers, including incentivized abortionists, to end a child's life after fetal viability on the basis of a "good-faith medical judgment" that the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the mother's health.

National Review previously noted that the WHPA's chief sponsor in the Senate admitted that the bill "doesn't distinguish" between physical and mental health and that the legislation advises courts to "liberally construe" the provisions of the act. A risk to a mother's emotional state of mind could, therefore, potentially qualify as a risk to the mother's "health."

When asked whether he supports any limits on abortion, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, one of the many Democratic lawmakers who championed the WHPA, responded, "I don't believe so, no."

Such legislation would put the nation on a path to emulating at least eight Democratic states plus Washington, D.C., where there are no restrictions on third-trimester abortions.

Per Trump's suggestion, Democrats similarly want to minimize protections for babies who initially survive abortionists' attempted executions.

'Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence.'

When the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act went to a vote on Jan. 23, a total of 210 House Democrats voted against requiring health care practitioners to save babies who survive attempted abortions. Senate Democrats kept the sister bill from advancing a day earlier.

This is how the New York Times characterized the Democrat lawmakers' efforts to deprive abortion survivors of protection: "Senate Democrats blocked a Republican-written bill on Wednesday that could subject some doctors who perform abortions to criminal penalties, thwarting the G.O.P.'s first attempt to restrict reproductive rights since the party has secured its governing trifecta."

"The facts are in President Trump's favor," Dannenfelser said in her letter. "Democrats have not been shy about also publicly stating their support for abortion at any stage and without limits. A long list of Democrats, ranging from Senators John Fetterman, Mark Kelly, and Patty Murray, to Governor Katie Hobbs and former Governor Ralph Northam have refused to name a point before birth at which they think abortion should be limited."

"It's clear to us and to many other readers that the Times isn't just reporting on a debate but taking a side, placing its thumb on the scale in favor of the pro-abortion argument," continued the pro-life advocate. "As editors, you know well that these intentional word choices matter. The facts matter. Truth matters. Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence in legacy news publications."

Blaze News reached out to Stolberg, asking her to clarify what precisely Trump had said in the above quote that was false. The Times reporter did not respond by deadline.

The conservative nonprofit CatholicVote was among the other groups and pro-life advocates that blasted the Times for its "false reporting," stating, "Uh, @nytimes, Democrats literally just voted against giving medical care to babies who survive botched abortions and can't name a single abortion limit they support."

Tim Graham, executive editor of MRC's NewsBusters, stated, "America's most prestigious newspapers routinely paint pro-lifers as extreme. They can't seem to locate themselves on the opposite extreme. Is it because they consider themselves the moral center? Extending the 'right to choose' to terminate babies ... born alive may seem logical to them. But it defines a radical fringe."

The apparent eagerness on the part of fellow travelers to mislead on Democrats' real objectives regarding abortion might be informed by polling showing that only a minority of Americans think abortion should be legal in all cases.

A 2024 Pew Research poll found that only 25% of Americans support the legality of abortion in all cases. A May 2024 Gallup poll found that 50% of respondents supported legal abortion, but only under certain circumstances. A previous Gallup poll found that only 22% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the third trimester.

A Knights of Columbus-Marist poll revealed on Jan. 23 that 67% of Americans — including 55% of respondents who identified as "pro-choice" — said that limits should be placed on when abortion is allowed.

Emma Camp, an assistant editor at Reason, recently noted in the Atlantic, "The grim reality of later abortion is simply too much for most Americans to countenance — and reasonable policymakers should listen to them."

"Most Americans believe that third-trimester abortions should be restricted. If Democrats want a platform that truly reflects majority opinion, they should address the question of what to do about later abortions and adopt a position that protects abortions in the first trimester while limiting second- and third-trimester abortions to pregnancies with fetal abnormalities or maternal health crises," added Camp.

Democrats don't, however, appear keen to heed the concerns of Americans. Unwilling to abandon the promise of limitless abortion, they must rely on the media to gaslight the public about what they are really up to. Stolberg appeared more than willing to do her part.

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

FACT CHECK: John McAfee Video Is Not Recent

A video shared on X claims to show deceased computer software developer John McAfee in 2025. “I know who you are, and I saw what you did” 👀 Mary Mother of God…. Is John McAfee alive?! pic.twitter.com/MJMPvELIWS — Jay Anderson (@TheProjectUnity) January 23, 2025 Verdict: False The video has been circulating since at least 2023. Fact […]

New York Times sets high bar for derangement by suggesting Trump's 'terrorist' label for cartels could hurt economy



Mexican drug cartels are responsible for the untimely deaths of hundreds of thousands of people over the past two decades. When factoring in the fentanyl they smuggle into the United States, the cartels are also culpable for the deaths of over 200 Americans a day. In addition to dealing in murder and addiction, they routinely engage in mass kidnappings, rape, torture, and political intimidation.

Evidently keen for a change, President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Monday setting the stage for Mexican cartels as well as other criminal gangs operating in the Western hemisphere, including MS-13, to be designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The New York Times, afforded an opportunity with a new year and a new administration to embrace common sense, instead reverted to its old ways on Wednesday, concern-mongering about the economic impact of Trump's plan to identify and hold terrorists accountable.

The piece in the Times — a paper compromised by the CIA during the Cold War, reflexively willing to print Hamas propaganda, and instrumental in recent Democratic attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices — stated at the outset that "President Trump's executive order designating Mexican cartels and other criminal organizations as foreign terrorists could force some American companies to forgo doing business in Mexico rather than risk U.S. sanctions."

Maria Abi-Habib and Simon Romero of the Times, both based in Mexico City, suggested that American companies fearing sanctions might think twice about doing business south of the border, especially with terrorists involved at various levels in supposedly legal industries, "from avocado farming to the country's billion-dollar tourism industry." The terrorist designation will make it easier to prosecute businesses and individuals suspecting of aiding the cartels, which could come down to transferring money to a compromised Mexican entity.

Fabian Teichmann, an expert on terrorist financing, told the Times that banks might be among the organizations that will ultimately decide it's no longer worth doing business with potential cartel members.

"Banks might say, 'We don't want to be anywhere close to those who are considered to be terrorists, so we want to avoid that risk,'" said Teichmann. "From a banking perspective, that will be a very reasonable decision."

'The Cartels' activities threaten the safety of the American people, the security of the United States, and the stability of the international order.'

There are, of course, steps businesses can take to avoid working with terrorists.

The American firm FTI Consulting noted in a recent report that "the potential FTO designations underscore the urgent need for heightened due diligence when engaging with third parties."

"Recommended actions include conducting thorough background checks on potential partners, suppliers, employees and clients to ensure no direct or indirect connections to criminal organizations," continued the report. "Risk assessments of third parties should include close monitoring of changes in ownership, financial health and legal standing. Enhanced due diligence also requires regular updates to internal databases, cross-referencing with OFAC and other international sanctions lists, and utilizing advanced screening tools for continuous monitoring."

Whereas the FTI report, which was cited in the Times report, made clear there are possible steps corporations could take to ensure they're not getting into bed with killers, Abi-Habib and Romero nevertheless cast doubt on the possibility of identifying businesses devoid of cartel links, insinuating that the greater risk is not Americans going into business with mass-murdering rapists and drug traffickers but what might happen economically if they took the higher ground.

The Times, which failed to consider potential gains from Trump's EO such as fewer terrorists and a check on the opioid crisis that cost the U.S. an estimated $1.5 trillion in 2020 alone, suggested that the terrorist designation might lead to American companies having to wean off Mexican labor; a loss to the Mexican economy in the form of reduced remittances, in which the nation received $63.3 billion in 2023; and unilateral American military strikes on terrorists and terrorist facilities.

Trump, who has a mandate to do things the New York Times does not like, has a different set of concerns.

"The Cartels' activities threaten the safety of the American people, the security of the United States, and the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere," he stated in his executive order Monday. "Their activities, proximity to, and incursions into the physical territory of the United States pose an unacceptable national security risk to the United States."

'Journalists at the New York Times get together in an editorial meeting and actually come up with this s**t.'

"It is the policy of the United States to ensure the total elimination of these organizations' presence in the United States and their ability to threaten the territory, safety, and security of the United States through their extraterritorial command-and-control structures, thereby protecting the American people and the territorial integrity of the United States," added the president.

Regarding the Times article, Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) wrote, "The New York Times publishes its own version of 'abrazos no balazos' — 'hugs not bullets' — a term popularized by former Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador, calling for gentle treatment of drug cartels."

"That was a bad strategy for Mexico," Lee continued. "It'll fare no better in the U.S."

"Of course it is the New York Times concocting this framing," tweeted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R).

Stephen Miller, contributing editor at the Spectator, wrote, "A room full of journalists at the New York Times get together in an editorial meeting and actually come up with this s**t and publish it. There's not a single person in the room who goes hey wait a second."

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

FACT CHECK: Video Claims To Show Family Dancing To LA Fires

A video shared on X claims to show a family dancing as they watch the Los Angeles wildfires. 🔥 A family in Los Angeles had fun dancing during the fire. pic.twitter.com/kvg0t1oz9I — Journalite (@journaIite) January 12, 2025 Verdict: False The video is from December 2024, while the Los Angeles wildfires started in January 2025. It shows a […]