Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald Trump's proposed Health and Human Services secretary, has pledged to "Make America Healthy Again" primarily by tackling the "chronic disease epidemic" and the corporate capture of federal regulatory agencies.

The environmental lawyer's adjacency to the Republican president and his recent criticism of experimental gene therapies have made him a frequent target for criticism by lawmaking recipients of Big Pharma lobbying money and the liberal media. In their efforts to dunk on Kennedy, establishmentarians have in many cases exposed their true loyalties as well as their aversion to inconvenient facts.

The New York Times is now among the outfits that has risked such exposure in its desperation to characterize Kennedy as "wrong."

'The science shows that these dyes cause hyperactivity in children, can disrupt the immune system, and are contaminated with carcinogens.'

By attempting to miss a point that Kennedy was making in a recent interview, the Times' Christina Jewett and Julie Creswell unwittingly defended his thesis. Critics have since descended upon the liberal publication, mocking it over its botched fact-check.

At the outset of their article, titled "Kennedy’s Vow to Take On Big Food Could Alienate His New G.O.P. Allies," Jewett and Creswell wrote, "Boxes of brightly colored breakfast cereals, vivid orange Doritos and dazzling blue M&Ms may find themselves under attack in the new Trump administration."

After highlighting why food titans that produce unhealthy products are "nervous" about the incoming administration, Jewett and Creswell tried nitpicking through some of Kennedy's concerns, zeroing in on his recent remarks about the ingredients of Kellogg's Froot Loops cereal.

In September, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) moderated a four-hour round table discussion on Capitol Hill about American health and nutrition.

During her presentation, Vani Hari, a critic of the food industry who founded FoodBabe, shared the ingredient lists for multiple food products in the U.S. versus in Europe and stressed the need for limits on additives and dyes in breakfast cereals.

Together with Jason Karp, founder and CEO of the healthy living organization HumanCo., Hari highlighted the color difference between the Froot Loops cereal produced for American consumption and the version produced for consumption in Canada.

The brighter artificial colors are more attractive to children — and helpful with sales — but apparently harmful to their health.

Hari recently told Blaze News:

The science shows that these dyes cause hyperactivity in children, can disrupt the immune system, and are contaminated with carcinogens. There are safer colors available made from fruits and vegetables, such as beets and carrots. Food companies already don't use artificial dyes en masse in Europe because they don’t want to slap warning labels on their products that say they 'may cause adverse effects on attention in children.' If food companies like Kellogg's can reformulate their products without artificial dyes to sell in other countries, there is no reason why they can’t do that also here in America.

The food activist added, "As there are over 10,000 food additives approved for use in the United States, while Europe only allows 400, the [incoming] administration should prioritize taking control of the alarming amount of food additives in our food supply."

'This is of particular concern for fetuses and babies under the age of 6 months, whose blood-brain barrier is not fully developed.'

Kennedy appeared on Fox News the following day and referenced Hari's presentation, saying, "A box of Froot Loops from Canada or from Europe ... has a completely different group of ingredients. It's actually colored with vegetable oils, which are safe. Ours are colored with chemical oils, which are very, very dangerous."

Following the election, Kennedy revisited the example in a MSNBC interview, saying offhand, "Why do we have Froot Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients, and you go to Canada and it's got two or three?"

The Times seized on Kennedy's critique of Froot Loop, writing:

Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many artificial ingredients, questioning why the Canadian version has fewer than the U.S. version. But he was wrong. The ingredient list is roughly the same, although Canada's has natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used "for freshness," according to the ingredient label.

In the same paragraph that the Times claimed Kennedy was wrong about Froot Loops having more artificial ingredients in Canada than in the U.S., the liberal publication effectively pointed out he was right on the money.

According to the National Library of Medicine, butylated hydroxytoluene — used as a preservative in fats and oils as well as in packaging material for fat-containing foods — has been shown in animal studies to increase serum cholesterol, reduce growth in baby rats, and increase absolute liver weight. The NLM and the Canadian government also recognize BHT as harmful to the environment.

Red dye 40 is made from petroleum and has been approved by the FDA for use in food and drinks. It has been linked in some studies to hyperactivity disorders in children. The Cleveland Clinic indicated that red dye 40 also has various potential side effects, including depression, irritability, and migraines.

Yellow dye 5 or tartazine is another synthetic food colorant linked to numerous adverse health effects. It is reportedly restricted in Austria and Norway owing to the allergies, asthma, skin rashes, hyperactivity, and migraines it can apparently cause.

A 2021 paper in the peer-reviewed journal Advances in Nutrition noted that blue dye 1 has been found to cause chromosomal aberrations and "was found to inhibit neurite growth and act synergistically with L-glutamic acid in vitro, suggesting the potential for neurotoxicity. This is of particular concern for fetuses and babies under the age of 6 months, whose blood-brain barrier is not fully developed."

'This is beyond absurd.'

The paper noted further that having found blue dye 1 to have cytotoxic and genotoxic effects, some researchers "advise that caution must be exercised when using it for coloring food."

Children are the biggest consumers of such artificial food dyes.

Critics blasted the Times over its bizarre "fact-check," which said he was wrong then unwittingly explained why he was right.

"This is what passes for a 'fact check' at The New York Times," wrote Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. "The media lie a lot, but fortunately for us, they are also VERY stupid."

"Americans are being poisoned under the status quo food and health institutions, and regime media wants you to believe that Bobby Kennedy pushing for reform is somehow the problem. Make it make sense!" added Kirk.

Molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University tweeted, "I read the paragraph multiple times yesterday, trying to make sense of what the idiot writer had written. I could only conclude that the idiot writer had written the equivalent of '2 + 2 = 5.'"

One critic quipped, "'As you see, the ingredient list is just completely identical, except the US product contains formaldehyde, cyanide, and nearly undetectable levels of saxitoxin."

"Crazy," tweeted Elon Musk.

Pershing Square Capital Management founder Bill Ackman wrote, "This is beyond absurd. The @nytimes says @RobertKennedyJr 'was wrong' about Froot Loops having too many artificial ingredients compared to its Canadian version, and then goes on to explain the artificial colorings and preservatives in the U.S. vs the Canadian version. @RobertKennedyJr is right and The NY Times is an embarrassment."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) noted, "In their defense, their comedy writers are really strong."

The Times has since blamed an "editing error" and rewritten its Orwellian paragraph to read:

Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many ingredients. In an interview with MSNBC on Nov. 6, he questioned the overall ingredient count: 'Why do we have Froot Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients and you go to Canada and it has two or three?' Mr. Kennedy asked. He was wrong on the ingredient count, they are roughly the same. But the Canadian version does have natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used 'for freshness, according to the ingredient label.

The New York Times' credibility has taken a massive hit in recent months and years. After all, it was an exponent of the Russian collusion hoax; falsely claimed Trump supporters killed U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick with a fire extinguisher; falsely reported on the basis of terrorist propaganda that Israel blew up a Gazan hospital; and suggested that the Babylon Bee, a satire website, was a "far-right misinformation site."

Despite its trouble getting the facts right, it recently teamed up with Media Matters to get BlazeTV hosts censored, citing concerns over "misinformation."

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

As expected, liberal media melts down over multiracial, working-class Trump victory — especially Van Jones

President Donald Trump long cautioned supporters that they needed to turn out in such numbers that the election would be "too big to rig." The American people obliged him, turning most of the map red and ensuring that the 45th president of the United States would become the country's 47th president as well.

Not only is Trump expected to surpass 310 Electoral College votes, having won all seven key battleground states including the state where he was shot by a would-be assassin, he is also set to become the first Republican to win the popular vote in 20 years.

The liberal media, having made clear in advance that this was not the outcome they wanted, are not handling things well — especially not CNN talking head Van Jones.

Midway through what appeared to be a breakdown, Jones suggested that transvestic minors and illegal aliens are going to wake up scared and that black women are in for "a lot of hurt."

CNN panelist David Urban, who served as senior adviser to Trump's other successful presidential campaign, told Jones, "We need to recognize that over half of America feels very strongly about the things that Donald Trump feels strongly about: a secure border, the economy, crime. They might not like — he might not be a perfect messenger, but the message resonated."

'We're not garbage.'

"Democracy is a luxury when you can't pay your bills," continued Urban, referring to the democracy-themed concern-mongering that Democrats leaned into in recent months.

Urban said that the multitudes of Americans who supported Trump are now sitting back, sneering at "the elite" and saying, "''We told you so. We're not garbage. We're hardworking people. We believe in these things,' right? People don't like to be talked down to."

The Republican noted further that the coalition whose members found resonance with Trump's message was racially and ethnically diverse.

According to CNN's exit polls,

45% of Hispanic voters, 38% of Asian voters, 12% of black voters, 55% of white voters, and 53% of voters from other racial or ethnic groups cast ballots for Trump.
44% of Americans 18-44 voted for Trump, and 51% of Americans 45 or older did likewise.
60% of Catholics, 71% of Protestants, 19% of Jewish Americans, and 42% of Americans from other faiths voted for Trump.
64% of military veterans supported Trump.
49% of voters making less than $50,000 a year voted for Trump, while 48% voted for Harris.
54% of Americans with no college degree and 41% of Americans with a college degree voted for Trump.
54% of first-time voters cast ballots for Trump.
44% of voters from union households cast votes for Trump.

Rather than engage with Urban's point about the diversity of the coalition behind Trump, Jones focused on the disappointment of certain voters that their racial identity would not be partially reflected in the person of the president:

There are African-American women who know a little bit about being talked down to and know a little bit about their economic dreams being crushed, who tried to dream a big dream over the past couple of months. And tonight they are trading a lot of hope for a lot of hurt. They were hoping that maybe this time, this time, one of their own could be seen as worthy. And once again they are facing rejection.

According to Jones, "it's going to be harder than it should be tomorrow for [black women] to hold their heads up."

'Stooges will be stooges.'

The talking head suggested that extra to disappointed identitarians, Trump's win is a "nightmare" for parents of cross-dressing youth and for foreign nationals violating American immigration law.

"If you are a parent of a trans kid, your child's face was used as a springboard to power for somebody," said Jones, intending his remarks as a barb against Trump, not the physicians who profit wildly off so-called "gender-affirming care" procedures on kids. "That doesn't feel good."

"There are going to be people tomorrow who are going to be handing clothes at the dry cleaners who don't have papers," continued Jones. "There are going to be people who are going to be cleaning your teeth tomorrow who don't have papers, and they're terrified tonight."

The multimillionaire stressed that it's "not the elite who are going to pay the price. It's people who woke up this morning with a dream and are going to bed with a nightmare, and those people didn't deserve to be respected and held and talked to. Those are the people going to pay the price for whatever Donald Trump decides to do."

Molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University later responded to Jones' rant, "Stooges will be stooges. Especially the stupidest among them."

Jones was far from the only talking head finding it difficult to cope after it became clear that Harris had no chance of eking out a win.

Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks, for instance, suffered a meltdown reminiscent of his response to Trump's 2016 electoral victory, this time attacking Democrats for delivering "loss after loss after loss."

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

Why the media doesn’t fear defaming Donald Trump

Have you ever wondered why reporters don’t seem to hesitate to say and repeat things about Donald Trump that simply aren’t true — as if they have no fear of defamation liability?

This sort of thing happens because the U.S. Supreme Court about 60 years ago invented a First Amendment doctrine that protects the media from defamation liability, at least in lawsuits brought by public figures.

The 'actual malice' standard technically allows the media to defame politicians of both parties equally. But they don't. Not by a mile.

If you’re wondering which words in the First Amendment tell reporters they are free to defame activists, politicians, and other public figures without fear of being sued, you’re on the right track. Nothing in the text, structure, or original public understanding of the First Amendment talks about or even leads logically to an absurd rule insulating the media from defamation liability.

The fact that the Constitution doesn’t support this rule didn’t stop the Supreme Court from deciding in a 1964 case called New York Times v. Sullivan that a defamation action brought by a public figure cannot succeed unless the defendant acted with “actual malice.”

The Supreme Court defined “actual malice” to mean knowledge of the offending statement’s falsity or reckless disregard as to its truthfulness. For obvious reasons, the news media industry loves Sullivan, as it gives reporters and media companies almost a complete pass when it comes to defaming public figures.

But the fact that media companies love the Sullivan case doesn’t change the fact that the Supreme Court invented this doctrine out of thin air.

Even if one thinks immunizing media companies against defamation liability might be a good idea for policy reasons, that doesn’t change the fact that it finds no support in the Constitution. As a practical matter, moreover, it’s become apparent that New York Times v. Sullivan disproportionately — indeed, overwhelmingly — helps Democrats and creates a severe disadvantage for Republicans in the political process.

Think about it: The media are all but immune from defamation liability when speaking about public figures, including politicians, so, given that the media are almost seamlessly aligned with Democrats, they can hit Republicans more or less all they want without fear.

And they do!

In essence, all the media must do to avoid liability when attacking Donald Trump and other Republican politicians is have some thin, arguable basis to show that when they defamed a Republican, they didn’t know they were speaking falsely.

That means they can be negligent when speaking falsely about Republican politicians like Trump.

Of course, reporters will insist “that’s not fair to say New York Times v. Sullivan allows us to single out Republicans. After all, the same standard applies regardless of a politician’s party affiliation.” But that overlooks the overwhelming, increasingly obvious bias within the news industry in America.

So yes, the “actual malice” standard technically allows the media to defame politicians of both parties equally. But they don't. Not by a mile.

Thus, not only is the Sullivan decision wrong because it isn’t rooted in the Constitution (but claims to be), but it also leaves countless victims of defamation without recourse, encourages lazy journalism, and provides a huge, unfair advantage to Democrats in politics.

Some jurists and legal scholars have noted that it may be time for the Supreme Court to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan and that litigants facing this standard should begin making arguments for overturning that unfortunate precedent.

In any event, it’s wrong for Democrats to enjoy an unfair advantage arising out of a fake constitutional doctrine created out of thin air by the Supreme Court 60 years ago.

Editor’s note: This article has been adapted from a thread that appeared on X (formerly Twitter).

The media’s ‘war on misinformation’ loses all credibility

Like many in the influential yet shrinking elite media bubble, the Atlantic is in a panic over misinformation. In an October 10 article titled “I’m Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is,” Charlie Warzel laments how Americans no longer automatically follow the directives of the establishment or rely on the media-academia-expert complex to think for them. Warzel frames the issue differently, describing it as “nothing less than a cultural assault on any person or institution that operates in reality.”

“It is difficult to capture the nihilism of the current moment,” he writes. “The pandemic saw Americans, distrustful of authority, trying to discredit effective vaccines, spreading conspiracy theories, and attacking public-health officials.”

The media’s lies and disinformation began well before 2020 and continue today.

Warzel contends that things only worsened from there. He describes “journalists, election workers, scientists, doctors, and first responders” as victims in a “war on truth” because they “must attend to and describe the world as it is,” which, in his view, makes them dangerous to people who resist “the agonizing constraints of reality” or who have financial and political interests in perpetuating misinformation.

Warzel, of course, is not alone. Recently, many have sounded the alarm against the so-called plague of misinformation allegedly affecting society today. Among these voices, the most authoritative have come from a who’s who of Democratic Party leaders.

Hillary Clinton: “I think it’s important to indict the Russians just as Mueller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda and whether they should be civilly, or even in some cases, criminally charged, is something that would be a better deterrence.”

Tim Walz: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

John Kerry: “If people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence. So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation.”

And, of course, Kamala Harris: Social media companies “are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and it has to stop.”

Nowhere in Warzel’s article, or in any of these bold pronouncements and threats against dissenting voices, is there the slightest acknowledgment of a simple, undeniable truth: We stopped trusting them because they lost our trust. Science, once a self-correcting pursuit of truth, has become Dr. Fauci’s “the Science” with a capital S — a dogma similar to the one that the church used to stifle Galileo.

Much of the media, formerly our bulwark against state tyranny, now operates as the Democratic Party’s ministry of propaganda. When Donald Trump burst onto the political scene in 2015 and went on to secure the GOP’s nomination a year later, the media decided objectivity was no longer necessary. Instead, their new mission became crusading against Trump at every opportunity. Our loss of trust in these former arbiters of truth was a natural result.

Rather than acknowledging this erosion of trust, these politicking journalists, along with academics and political allies in their bubble, labeled any resistance to their often-false narratives as “misinformation.” Researcher David Rozado has documented a sharp rise in mentions of “misinformation” and “disinformation” in the media and academia, starting in 2016 — the year of Trump’s election.

Seriously, not literally

Warzel and others with a similar viewpoint might argue that the media began addressing misinformation in 2016 because Trump himself started spreading it, thereby inspiring a wave of conspiracies and outlandish claims from his supporters. There is some truth in this. Trump undoubtedly pushed the boundaries of acceptable political discourse and often lacked substantial proof for his claims.

While politicians have always bent the truth, Trump — a salesman from the high-stakes world of real estate rather than a lawyer like most national politicians — didn’t shy away from exaggeration. His go-to phrases — “the best ever,” “the worst ever,” “like no one’s ever seen before” — were part of his rhetorical style of inflation and hyperbole.

I would argue that most people, regardless of education, recognize Trump’s claims for what they are. Trump talks like that braggadocious, big-talking uncle we all know — not like a slippery politician skilled at lying through subtle phrasing and misleading statistics. People understand not to take Trump literally. In fact, unlike most politicians, Trump’s supporters know exactly what he stands for.

Ironically, despite claims from the left that Trump is a shameless liar, many people support him precisely because he speaks openly and directly about things other politicians might only hint at. That transparency, though often crude, appeals to his base. I would agree, however, that Trump has likely lowered the level of our political discourse more than anyone in recent memory. But crudity is not the same as deception. If anything, it’s the opposite of deception.

In any discussion of lies and misinformation in politics, the “Big Lie” attributed to Trump — widespread election fraud in 2020 — looms large. But an undeniable fact remains: The media’s lies and disinformation began well before 2020 and continue today. These distortions cover a wide range of topics and often involve coordination among news outlets, scientists, academics, and others.

Warzel’s alleged defenders of truth against misinformation have committed numerous notable infractions against reality.

Expert alarmism

For years, the media, relying on handpicked “experts,” has bombarded us with alarmist rhetoric about the imminent danger of manmade climate change. They promote a phony 97% consensus among climate scientists while censoring evidence-based alternative views, despite data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that doesn’t fully support such alarmism.

We were falsely told that President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. This baseless accusation led to years of costly investigations that hamstrung his administration, while the New York Times and the Washington Post received Pulitzer Prizes for their extensive reporting on these unsubstantiated claims.

During the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots, which brought American cities to their knees with widespread arson, vandalism, looting, and destruction of small businesses, we were told these events were “mostly peaceful protests.” This disinformation campaign, along with the promotion of critical race theory and anti-law enforcement ideologies, led to lenient or nonexistent prosecutions for those involved. Meanwhile, the media labeled the events of January 6, 2021 — which resulted in far less loss of life and property damage — as an “armed insurrection” and an attempted “coup.”

The media omitted key facts about January 6, including that Trump, the alleged instigator, had warned top advisers days before that many protesters would be coming to the Capitol and requested the National Guard be prepared. They ignored and defied his request. Consequently, those involved in the Capitol breach were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and given disproportionately harsh sentences for what, in many cases, amounted to minor infractions, often limited to acts of trespassing.

On the eve of the 2020 election, the media — including Twitter and Facebook — suppressed the New York Post's explosive story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, labeling it “Russian disinformation.” This suppression likely influenced the election outcome in Biden’s favor. Only later, when it no longer mattered, did the media reveal that the laptop and the story were real. Anyone who dismisses Trump’s claims of 2020 election interference must first contend with this major flaw in the media’s “Big Lie” narrative.

Accounting for COVID

The COVID-19 era exposed how the media colluded with the government to spread fear, propaganda, and disinformation while silencing evidence-based alternative views. Continued censorship on these issues — including the absurd censorship and deplatforming of respected scientists like Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer of mRNA technology used in COVID vaccines — limits full and frank discussion.

The handling of the lab-leak theory of COVID’s origin provides a glaring example. Initially dismissed as a “conspiracy theory,” the lab-leak hypothesis now holds wide acceptance, yet the media originally pushed a flawed natural-origin narrative. Acknowledging a lab origin would have implicated Dr. Anthony Fauci, who approved gain-of-function research tied to the virus’ creation.

To discredit the lab-leak theory, scientists coordinated with Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins to publish an influential paper in Nature, arguing for a natural origin. Yet, their contemporaneous communications reveal they did not believe the narrative they promoted. The media amplified this false narrative, labeling dissenters as conspiracy theorists whose claims had been thoroughly “debunked.”

War, dementia, and ‘cheapfakes’

The media uncritically promoted the Biden administration’s false narrative that the Russia-Ukraine war was an “unprovoked” attack by Moscow. While Putin bears responsibility, evidence strongly suggests that the attack was substantially provoked by neoconservatives within the Biden administration. These actions built upon the Obama administration’s support for the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s government in favor of a more anti-Russian regime.

Biden administration officials continued to draw Ukraine foolishly closer to NATO, despite knowing that establishing an enemy alliance on Russia’s border was a red line for Putin — just as it would have been for the United States had Canada joined the former Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact or placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

The media also colluded with the Biden administration and others close to Joe Biden to hide his cognitive decline and ongoing descent into dementia. They attempted to gaslight the public, dismissing videos of Biden’s apparent incapacity — including moments like talking to a dead politician — as “cheapfakes.” When the June presidential debate made Biden’s condition undeniable, the media feigned shock.

After Biden was ultimately compelled to drop out of the race by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and wealthy donors, the media continued their false narrative. They portrayed his withdrawal not as an action forced on him by party elites despite his objections but as a courageous decision he made to protect democracy against Donald Trump.

Covering for Kamala

Once Democratic Party bosses appointed Kamala Harris to replace Biden, the media launched an unprecedented, coordinated effort to portray her as something she clearly was not: capable, intelligent, informed, inspiring, visionary, eloquent, articulate, honest, principled, and free of responsibility for the Biden administration’s mismanagement of the economy and immigration.

This full-scale media campaign included giving Harris and her running mate a month-long pass on unscripted interviews and press conferences. When they finally faced the media, reporters served up softball questions, allowing them to evade or respond with vapid pabulum or evasive nonanswers without follow-ups.

The presidential and vice-presidential debates further underscored this bias, with moderators framing topics to favor the Democratic ticket and engaging in misleading “fact-checks” exclusively for the Republican candidates. During the vice presidential debate, moderators even conducted fact-checks, despite rules prohibiting them.

The October “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris stood out as a particularly egregious example. Unlike the unaltered footage of Biden’s apparent cognitive struggles, CBS edited out Harris’ incoherent rambling in response to a question about Israel. They skipped directly to a slightly more coherent part of her answer, creating a genuine “cheapfake.” While the Biden clips aimed to reveal his cognitive deficits that his administration and the media sought to hide, the shameful editing stunt at “60 Minutes" blatantly tried to conceal Harris’ cognitive deficits from the public.

Who are you gonna believe?

In the face of this longstanding barrage of lies, propaganda, and disinformation, only two types of people would retain complete trust in the powers-that-be: 1) those deeply embedded in the Democratic Party-aligned information bubble, lacking the motivation, common sense, or drive to seek alternative perspectives; and 2) complete morons.

Most of us, thankfully, fit into neither of those categories — nor the massive overlapping area where the two converge. As a result, we no longer take anything from the media and their allies at face value. This widespread disillusionment, however, has led many to a point where it’s difficult to discern truth from misinformation, struggling to balance healthy skepticism with slipping into loony conspiracy land. Social media further amplifies this predicament, acting as both an escape from the distortions of the mainstream narrative and a potential detour from reality itself.

And yes, it’s a problem. But before the media priests blame us for opting out of their funhouse hall of mirrors, I have a suggestion for them: Take a long, hard look in one of those mirrors, recognize your own complicity, and ... well ... stop lying to us!

New York Times and Media Matters team up to censor BlazeTV hosts and other conservatives

The New York Times and the leftist outfit Media Matters dropped complementary hit pieces Thursday, accusing BlazeTV hosts Steve Deace, Mark Levin, and Jason Whitlock — along with various other prominent voices in conservative media, including Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, and Lara Trump — of "election misinformation."

The apparent aim of this coordinated attack, which the Washington Post did its part to reinforce, is to pressure the Google-owned platform YouTube to demonetize or possibly even deplatform Democrats' ideological opponents before Election Day.

"Being lumped in with those fine fellows, and being labeled an enemy number one from the official Pravda of the regime, is truly the greatest honor of my career," Deace told Blaze News.

'It defines "false claims" and "election misinformation" so broadly.'

Times reporter Nico Grant gave the plot away in advance when asking Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and Mike Davis of the Article III Project on Monday about their respective memberships in the YouTube Partner Program, their track records of demonetization, and history of notes from YouTube regarding "misinformation."

Grant, whom Carlson told to "f*** off," indicated that Media Matters, a leftist organization founded by Democratic operative David Brock that is presently being sued by Elon Musk for alleged defamation, identified "286 YouTube videos between May and August that contained election misinformation, including narratives that have been debunked or are not supported with credible evidence."

Blaze News previously reached out to the Times and Media Matters for a working definition of "misinformation" but did not receive a response from either outfit. As a result, it remains unclear whether the Times' false or misleading reports about Russian collusion, former Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann, the death of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, and jihadists' missile misfire at a Gazan hospital would qualify.

Journalists Matt Taibbi and Paul D. Thacker wrote Friday on the "Racket News" Substack, "The problem with the Times piece is it defines 'false claims' and 'election misinformation' so broadly that legitimate questions or analyses and even jokes get wrapped in with far-out conspiracy tales."

Media Matters did, however, shine some light on what sort of claims it apparently feels should not be uttered on YouTube, namely: suggestions "that the election process is 'rigged' against Trump, that the legal cases against him constitute 'election interference,' that Democrats want and are enabling noncitizens to vote in order to win the election, and that Kamala Harris was 'illegally installed' as the Democratic nominee in a 'coup' against Joe Biden."

If Media Matters gets its way, then YouTube might penalize critics for highlighting the unmistakable efforts by Democrats to throw Trump in prison before the election and to remove him from the ballot; Democratic lawmakers' publicly stated plans to invalidate a lawful Trump victory; the Biden-Harris Department of Justice's lawsuits aimed at restoring the voter registration of thousands of suspected foreign nationals; or for questioning the nature of Biden's ouster as Democratic candidate and Harris' voteless candidacy.

Media Matters specifically complained that BlazeTV host Mark Levin said in May that Democrats "will do anything for votes — imprison Trump, steal elections," and that Democrats would "change the electoral process" to get more votes.

The Democratic attack dog attacked Levin further for apparently suggesting in July that Democrats "stole the election from their own primary voters and they're going to install somebody who hasn't gotten a single delegate on her own."

Media Matters also set its sights on Deace, complaining:

Right-wing radio host Steve Deace said Democrats would be "dropping ballots" and "bussing people in … to keep the spigot going until they get what they want" on Election Day. Deace continued, "All they’re trying to do is make her credible enough so they can fortify this thing at the end here."

Media Matters was apparently distressed to learn that Deace could exercise his First Amendment rights and suggest on YouTube that Democrats might want to get the polls "within their narrative margin to justify cheating."

The hit piece also noted that BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock accused California of "manipulat[ing] voting."

A YouTube spokeswoman told the Times that the company reviewed eight videos identified by the liberal paper and found that none of them violated its community guidelines. However, that's not what the Times originally reported.

'But what they meant for evil, I will choose to use for good.'

"A YouTube spokeswoman said none of the 286 videos violated its community guidelines," wrote Grant.

The Times has since issued a correction:

An earlier version of this article misstated the number of videos that YouTube reviewed when asked for comment on whether they contained misinformation. YouTubesaid it reviewed eight videos, which were identified by The New York Times and referenced in the article, not all of them, and found that those eight did not violate its community guidelines; it did not comment on whether they contained misinformation.

The YouTube spokeswoman whose response was initially misrepresented by the Times apparently also told Grant, "The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season."

Evidently not all are keen on open debate and free speech.

Kayla Gogarty, an LGBT activist who interned at the Human Rights Campaign before becoming "research director" at Media Matters, said, "YouTube is allowing these right-wing accounts and channels to undermine the 2024 results."

Media Matters was not entirely impotent regarding its censorious crusade. The Times indicated that YouTube censored three videos and placed "information labels" that link to supposedly factual information on 21 other videos.

Deace told Blaze News, "The timing of this hit piece is obviously to induce Google, which also owns YouTube and thus the two largest search engines on this planet, to censor those of us who are among the most effective in deconstructing the Left's attempts to deconstruct America right before the election. But what they meant for evil, I will choose to use for good."

Taibbi and Thacker summarized the attack campaign thusly:

A DNC-aligned group produces a "report" documenting a sciencey-sounding quantity of "misinformation" incidents, then passes the scary number to a politically willing mainstream news outlet, which trumpets the new "facts" while publicly and privately pressuring platforms to remove offending material. Welcome to the new "accountability journalism."

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

Tucker Carlson delivers the 'perfect response' to NYT journo plotting a hit piece against conservative media

Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and Mike Davis of the Article III Project revealed Monday that a New York Times reporter reached out to them for comment regarding an upcoming hit piece about so-called "misinformation" — the likely objective of which is to get conservative commentators demonetized or possibly removed from YouTube.

Shapiro pre-emptively attacked the paper and its apparent collaborators at the leftist outfit Media Matters, while Carlson shared screenshots of his fiery textual exchange with Times reporter Nico Grant.

"Would I like to participate in your attempt to censor me?" Carlson wrote to Grant. "No thanks. But I do hope you'll quote what I wrote above and also note that I told you to f*** off, which I am now doing. Thanks."

Grant apparently opened with an introduction and the following note to Carlson on Monday: "I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment for an upcoming article that takes a look at how political commentators have discussed the upcoming election on YouTube. We rely on an analysis conducted by researchers at Media Matters for America."

Media Matters for America is a leftist organization founded by Democratic operative David Brock. It claims to document "conservative misinformation throughout the media" and to notify "activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions."

Media Matters, now led by Angelo Carusone — the former Democratic National Committee employee who fought to get Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck ousted from Fox News and was responsible for the "#DumpTrump" campaign in 2012 — now serves as an attack dog for the Democratic Party, characterizing dissenting views as "misinformation."

'So the New York Times is working with a left wing hate group to silence critics of the Democratic Party?'

Media Matters is presently in hot water, as Elon Musk's social platform X sued the leftist organization last year for alleged defamation. Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Media Matters' request to have that lawsuit dismissed in August.

Grant asked Carlson to comment on the following points, which will apparently be including in the planned Times piece:

"Media Matters identified 286 YouTube videos between May and August that contained election misinformation, including narratives that have been debunked or are not supported with credible evidence."
"Researchers identified videos posted by you in those four months that contain election misinformation."
"We feature a clip of you saying: '...All the sadness we've seen after the clearly stolen election. All these bad things happen, but people I know love each other more.'"

Shapiro and Davis appear to have been asked to comment on the same points but on different quotes.

'These outlets are beneath contempt.'

Grant gave away the plot with three follow-up questions, in all three cases, about the conservatives' membership in the YouTube Partner Program, their track records of demonetization, and history of notes from YouTube regarding "misinformation."

Carlson, wise to Grant's apparent scheme, responded, "So the New York Times is working with a left wing hate group to silence critics of the Democratic Party? Please ask yourself why you're participating in it. This is why you got into journalism? It's shameful."

"I hope you're filled with guilt and self-loathing for sending me a text like this," continued Carlson. "Please quote me."

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales said of Carlson's reply to Grant, "Epic."

Elon Musk tweeted, "Perfect response."

Mike Needham's forward-looking conservative think tank America 2100 tweeted, "These outlets are beneath contempt. 1) Powerful activist groups (Media Matters) put out enemy hit lists. 2) The press (New York Times) publishes the names to send a signal to Big Tech. 3) Big Tech dutifully censors the enemies. They're the enforcement arm of the Left."

Conservative filmmaker Robby Starbuck wrote, "YouTube needs to be very careful how they respond to this story or risk a massive exodus from their site. Treating right wing content creators differently is going to become increasingly an offense that loses you a lot of business. People have alternatives now."

Chris Pavlovski, the CEO of the video platform Rumble, noted, "The corporate media is on their campaign to deplatform as many conservative voices as possible. This type of activist garbage is not possible on Rumble. @TuckerCarlson, we have your back."

Blaze News reached out to Grant and Media Matters for comment as well as for their definitions of "misinformation" but did not receive responses by deadline.

Grant has set his X page to private, so that his past tweets are now protected.

Shapiro referred to the anticipated Times-Media Matters hit piece as an "October surprise."

"What, precisely, is NYT doing?" wrote Shapiro. "It's perfectly obvious: using research from Media Matters, a radical Left-wing organization whose sole purpose is destroying conservative media ... in order to pressure YouTube to demonetize and penalize any and all conservatives ONE WEEK FROM THE ELECTION."

While noting that he supported the view that Biden won the 2020 election, Shapiro emphasized that the Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to suggest otherwise.

"This is totally scandalous. In 2020, the legacy media shut down dissemination of the Hunter Biden laptop story and laundered the claim that it was all Russian disinformation, all to get Joe Biden elected," continued Shapiro. "In 2024, they're even more brazen: they're openly trying to intimidate YouTube, one of the most dominant news platforms in America, into shutting down anyone who isn't pro-Kamala."

Shapiro worked his way up to echoing Carlson's sentiment, concluding, "The New York Times wants comment? Here's my comment: kindly, go f*** yourself."

U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt responded by echoing the defiant, nearly assassinated Republican president, "Fight, fight, fight!"

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

'Legendary': CNN bans conservative guest after he breaks leftist panelists' thin skin

1776 Project PAC founder Ryan Girdusky's conservatism frequently puts him at odds with leftist panelists on CNN, although for the most part, past engagements have been relatively civil. Things took a turn on Monday's "NewsNight with Abby Phillip" when the titular host of MSNBC's canceled "The Mehdi Hasan Show" insinuated that Girdusky, President Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and others with whom he disagreed on matters of policy are Nazis.

Evidently tired of the worn-out liberal smear, Girdusky turned the tables — which was particularly easy given Hasan's reputation for "anti-Israel agitprop" — and made a dark joke about the former Al Jazeera presenter perhaps being a terrorist.

After landing a rhetorical punch that left Hasan repeating himself and the other panelists melting down, Girdusky was kicked off the set and banned from the show.

"You can stay on CNN if you falsely call every Republican a Nazi and have taken money from Qatar-funded media," Girdusky noted afterward on X. "Apparently you can't go on CNN if you make a joke. I'm glad America gets to see what CNN stands for."

Background

Trump held a high-energy campaign event Sunday at Madison Square Garden. The venue was at capacity, and the rally went swimmingly despite the best efforts of Harris supporters to cancel and spoil the event.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal likened the event to a Nazi rally at the Garden in 1939, as opposed to the Democratic Party's national conventions at the Garden in 1976, 1980, and 1992.

MSNBC, Time magazine, and various other liberal publications soon dutifully regurgitated the Democrats' suggestion that Trump's campaign event was essentially the Nazi rally of the day — meaning that all those present, including 94-year-old Holocaust survivor Jerry Wartski, were themselves Nazis or Nazi sympathizers.

Counterstrike

On Monday, CNN host Abby Phillip and Girdusky debated whether the media had just defamed Trump or all those in attendance at the Garden rally.

Hasan, an exponent of the false narrative about the Hunter Biden laptop story, chimed in to defend the media's characterization.

According to Hasan, there were even more examples from the rally that were reminiscent of the exterminationists of yesteryear.

There was still Tucker Carlson doing replacement. Don Jr. did replacement. And then Trump himself turned up and talked about invading and occupying our country, which is the language of the far right. He talked about enemy of the people, which is Joseph Goebbels. He talked about the enemy within, which is literally Hitler. I mean, these are the — my problem is — I get it, which [is] nobody wants to be called Nazis. It's very inflammatory.

"If you don't want to be called Nazis, stop doing, stop saying —" said Hasan, at which point Girdusky leaned forward to point out that the Israel critic was casting stones from a glass house.

"You're called an anti-Semite more than anyone in this table," said Girdusky.

'It is fine to call anyone on the political right a Nazi.'

"I'm a supporter of the Palestinians," said Hasan. "I'm used to it."

"Yes. Well, I hope your beeper doesn't go off," responded Girdusky.

Israel hid explosives inside pagers used by Hezbollah terrorists and triggered them in September, killing at least 11 individuals and injuring over 4,000 others in Lebanon and parts of Syria.

Hasan did his best to misconstrue Girdusky's dark humor into a death wish.

"Did you just say I should die?" said Hasan. "Did you just say I should be killed?"

Girdusky apologized, indicating that was not his meaning and that he thought Hasan had signaled support for Hamas. Phillip attempted to intervene, but there was no consoling Hasan.

"You just said I should get killed on live TV," said Hasan. "You said you hope my beeper shouldn't go off."

Former Biden-Harris campaign staffer Ashley Allison fed on Hasan's rage and berated Girdusky, weaving criticism of the conservative into yet another attack on Trump.

After more hand-wringing, the show went to break.

Banned

Phillip began the next segment — from which Girdusky was noticeably absent — with an apology, not to the conservative for the Nazi smear, but to Hasan for the beeper joke.

"I want to apologize to Mehdi Hasan for what was said at this table. It was completely unacceptable. When we get this discussion started, you'll see that Ryan is not at the table. There is a line that was crossed there, and it's not acceptable to me," said Phillip. "It's not acceptable to us at this network. We want discussion. We want people who disagree with each other to talk to each other. But when you cross the line of a complete lack of civility, that is not going to happen here on this show."

CNN confirmed to Blaze News that Girdusky "will not be welcomed back at our network."

In response to questions about whether Nazi and terrorist accusations were weighted differently and whether Hasan might also face repercussions, CNN stated, "There is zero room for racism or bigotry at CNN or on our air. We aim to foster thoughtful conversations and debate including between people who profoundly disagree with each other in order to explore important issues and promote mutual understanding. But we will not allow guests to be demeaned or for the line of civility to be crossed."

Phillip revealed late Monday night that CNN has asked Hasan back, portraying the leftist who previously suggested that non-Muslims are subhuman and that all homosexuals are pedophiles as a victim.

"We really hope that he will join us again soon," said Phillip.

Blaze News reached out to Girdusky for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.

"It is fine to call anyone on the political right a Nazi," tweeted Max Abrahms, associate professor of political science at Northeastern University. "It is not okay to call an antisemitic Qatar agent who runs PR for terrorists a terrorist."

Sean Davis, co-founder of the Federalist, said of the comment that got Girdusky ousted, "Absolutely legendary comeback, and a clinic on the only way to handle garbage corporate media.

Jack Posobiec, senior editor at Human Events, noted, "Understand what just happened[.] Mehdi Hasan called Ryan Girdusky, a Polish-American, a Nazi[.] Ryan responded with a quip about beepers[.] Ryan was kicked off, and CNN apologized to Hasan for his comments[.] That's how it works at CNN."

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

The truth about the New York Time's source deep-fries Kamala Harris' McDonald's narrative

Kamala Harris has attempted to convince Americans on the campaign trail that rather than growing up the silver-spooned daughter of an affluent couple afforded the luxury of routinely flying back and forth between pricey homes in two countries, she was alternatively the product and a member of the middle class.

A critical component of this narrative is Harris' claim that she worked at McDonald's in 1983 — a claim not reflected in her past résumés and for which the vice president has produced no evidence.

Democrats and the liberal press have attacked President Donald Trump and others who have suggested that Harris' origin story is bogus. The New York Times dutifully did its part on Oct. 20 but accidentally torpedoed the narrative by naming its only other source besides Harris: a hardcore Harris booster.

At the outset, the Times' Heather Knight and Nicholas Nehamas likened doubts about Harris' politically expedient and unsubstantiated claim to birtherism, then shifted the burden of proof onto Trump:

Vice President Kamala Harris has recalled her stint at a Bay Area McDonald’s 41 years ago in introducing herself to voters — a biographical detail relatable to millions of Americans who have toiled in fast-food restaurants. But former President Donald J. Trump has repeatedly accused her of inventing it. Lacking a shred of proof, he has charged that she never actually worked under the golden arches — recalling his earlier false claim that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

President Donald Trump masterfully trolled his opponent while tapping into classic Americana last weekend, donning an apron and serving up french fries to supporters at a McDonald's in Feasterville-Trevose, Pennsylvania.

'They don't want to report it because they're fake!'

"Now I have worked at McDonald's," Trump told reporters at the drive-through window. "I've now worked for 15 minutes more than Kamala. She never worked here."

In the lead-up to his brief stint as a fry cook, Trump repeatedly mocked Harris over her summer job claim, writing on Sept. 1, for instance, "Kamala said she worked at McDonalds — She never did. Lie!"

"She said she worked and grew up in terrible conditions, she worked at McDonald’s. It was such — she never worked there!" Trump told a crowd in Indiana last month. "And these fake news reporters will never report it. They don't want to report it because they're fake! They're fake!"

According to the Times, "Mr. Trump's seeding of doubts about Ms. Harris's story, while insidious and outside the lines of traditional fair play in politics, advances his goal of portraying Ms. Harris as a fraud."

The first time Harris publicly mentioned ever having allegedly worked at McDonald's was reportedly in 2019, when pandering to striking workers in Las Vegas. Harris suggested in September that she worked at the restaurant during college, echoing a campaign ad from the previous month. On another occasion, Harris suggested that she worked at McDonald's to help pay for law school, which she attended several years after leaving Montreal.

The Times produced no verifiable evidence of Harris' claims. Instead, it took the word of Harris, her campaign spokesman, and hearsay from a woman named Wanda Kagan.

As the Washington Free Beacon has noted, the Times portrayed Kagan as a family friend who heard about the McDonald's gig from Harris' deceased mother. The liberal paper neglected to inform readers that Kagan, the only source backing the McDonald's claim besides Harris and her campaign, is herself a Harris booster who has in recent weeks and months actively supported the Democrat's candidacy.

The Times noted only that Kagan was a "friend who had known Ms. Harris as a teenager and remained in touch with the family for years afterward" — a "close friend of Ms. Harris' when they attended high school together in Montreal, [who] said she recalled Ms. Harris having worked at McDonald's around that time."

The reality is that Kagan is much more than an old friend.

The Beacon noted that Kagan served as a surrogate for Harris during the Democratic National Convention, telling MSNBC in August, "It's an emotional and chilling ride, and I'm just overwhelmed with happiness for my friend, and I'm happy to be alive to be able to witness her now fighting for the people of America."

Earlier this month, Kagan posted a video from a Harris campaign event, captioned, "Blessed to be on the stage with @Vp, and the first one she toasts. Cheers to brighter future with @kamalaharris as president!"

Kagan, the partisan whose hearsay is holding up the Times' rebuttal to Trump's criticism, previously told PBS News that she lost touch with Harris after high school.

"I lost touch after she went to college and then I went to college. But then I stayed in touch with her mom still, and — but then I still had a pretty unstable life again, so I was moving a lot, and so I lost her mom's contact number," said Kagan, adding that she didn't reach out directly again until Harris was San Francisco's district attorney.

If secondhand information from a partisan who wasn't in touch with Harris during her college years is the extent of the Times' evidence, then perhaps it is not Trump who "lack[s] a shred of proof."

Spokesman Charlie Stadtlander told the Beacon the Times' Oct. 20 article "was a thoroughly reported and edited piece of independent journalism."

"The Times stands behind it completely," added Stadtlander.

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: Americans don't trust the media. Here are 7 examples of why they probably shouldn't.

Trust in the mass media has bottomed out.

Gallup, which has been tracking public trust in newspapers, TV, and radio for over 50 years, revealed Oct. 14 that a plurality (36%) of Americans have no trust at all in the mass media. 33% of respondents said they don't trust the mass media "very much." Only 31% of Americans indicated they trust the media to report the news "fully, accurately and fairly."

Some academics and media outfits have in recent years tried to pin this breakdown of trust on President Donald Trump and on other individuals who have expressed contempt for the mainstream press, such as the late Rush Limbaugh. Although simple and politically expedient, such explanations fail to account for why this decline was under way long before Trump's descent down the golden escalator on June 16, 2015, and the debut of Limbaugh's self-titled show in October 1984.

Extra to considering several proposed drivers of the broader trend, Blaze News spoke to Jacob L. Nelson, associate professor in the University of Utah’s Department of Communication and author of "Imagined Audiences: How Journalists Perceive and Pursue the Public," about both Gallup's findings and what his own research has revealed about Americans' degrading trust.

While there are multiple and in some cases competing explanations for why Americans don't trust the media, one thing is clear: The continuous advancement of brazen falsehoods and deceptive narratives is not helping.

Blaze News has highlighted seven egregious examples of false or misleading reports that have served both to justify Americans' distrust and to illustrate what a trustworthy media might seek to avoid.

Bad diagnosis

Gallup data indicates that the decline in Americans' trust in the mass media has been under way since 1976. Among those signaling a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in the media, there appears to have been a brief rebound from 2000 to 2003, but the downward trend resumed in 2004 — around the time weapons of mass destruction were not discovered in Iraq.

This year, a record-low number of respondents (31%) expressed a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media — down one point from last year's similarly abysmal figure.

Meanwhile, outright distrust rose from 4% in 1976 to 36% in 2024, briefly cresting at 39% last year.

Slight distrust rose from 22% in 1976 to a high of 41% in 2016. It now sits at 33%.

In the Trump years, trust in the media skyrocketed among Democrats.

Broken down by party affiliation, Gallup indicated that 54% of Democrats, 27% of independents, and 12% of Republican respondents signaled a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the media.

Republican trust in the media dropped off around the time of the Watergate scandal and in the lead-up to President Richard Nixon’s resignation. After a brief increase, trust began steadily declining from 1976 onward, enjoying partial though fleeting recoveries at points in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The biggest one-year drop appears to have taken place between 2015 and 2016.

Independents' trust, though historically stronger than that of their Republican counterparts, has — with only a few exceptions — largely degraded in parallel.

Democrats' trust (i.e. "great deal" / "fair amount") tells a different story.

Starting six points higher at first measure in 1972, Democratic trust declined parallel to Republicans' trust from the end of the Vietnam War until 1997 but then began zigzagging erratically during George W. Bush's first term. During the Obama years, trust dropped, reaching an all-time low of 51% in 2016. However, in the Trump years, trust in the media skyrocketed among Democrats, reaching an all-time high of 76% in 2018 — amid the lead-up to the first impeachment of the Republican president.

According to Gallup, Democrats' trust in the media tanked 16 points between 2022 and 2024 to 54%.

Another telling insight from the survey is the generational divide.

Geriatrics' trust in the media currently sits at 43%, having bounced around the high 40s for the past 14 years. Respondents ages 50-64, meanwhile, are less trusting, with only 33% expressing confidence in the media. Only 26% of Americans ages 18-49 expressed a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the media.

Possible drivers

This decline has prompted a great deal of speculation in recent years about potential causes.

Some analysts have suggested that the growing distrust in the media is the result of a far greater social crisis. While less an answer and more a prompt for additional question, this is nevertheless borne out by polling data.

Gallup indicated earlier this year that the public's average confidence in 17 institutions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, organized religion, higher education, and banks, has been lower than 30% for the past three years.

As television news and newspapers are among the institutions least trusted, it's clear they are still excelling at shedding public confidence.

Journalist and author Matt Taibbi noted in a recent Canadian state media documentary that trust may have been degraded in part by a change in the media's business model. Taibbi noted that prior to the 1990s, American broadcast news sought to secure the largest possible audience with minimal objectionable content. But facing increased competition, these outlets began targeting specific demographics in the early 2000s.

This, coupled with technological disruptions — AI is now threatening a new shake-up — has allegedly helped to polarize the media landscape.

Owing to the rise of social media and supposed democratization of information, the mainstream media also has faced increasing competition for the public's trust and attention from new sources and platforms.

The Pew Research Center revealed Oct. 16 that young American adults and Republicans are now almost as likely to trust information from social media sources as from national news organizations.

The survey found that among all U.S. adults, 74% of respondents said they had a lot or some trust in local news organizations. 59% said the same of national news organizations. 37% said social media sites had secured their confidence. Whereas the supermajority of Democrats trusted both local and national news organizations, 66% of Republicans supported local outlets and only 40% supported national news organizations — narrowly beating social media sites by three points.

Among adults 18-29, 52% expressed confidence in social media sites, 56% in local news, and 71% in national news organizations.

Blaze News senior editor Cortney Weil noted that extra to providing Americans with alternative information sources, social media platforms such as X have been helpful in illuminating deceptive media practices.

Between Trump and Elon Musk's purchase of perhaps the most powerful social media platform in the world, everyday Americans can see that members of the media all too often launder their preferred narrative through their reporting under the guise of journalism.

Some Americans may have begun nurturing distrust not only after achieving a better understanding of how the proverbial sausage is made but upon discovering who is operating the grinder and where.

There appears to be incredible ideological conformity in the press, where liberals are grossly overrepresented. A 2020 study published in the journal Science Advances indicated that a survey of U.S. political journalists found that among the 78% of respondents who identified with or leaned toward a particular party, eight in 10 said they were liberal/Democrats.

'I have to present myself as someone who is deeply skeptical.'

The problem of real or perceived viewpoint bias is compounded by the de-localization of newsrooms over time to coastal hives amid sweeping consolidation.

"Unless and until media outlets step away from the NYC/D.C./L.A. bubbles and venture out into real America, I don't harbor much hope for them," said Weil.

While these factors might account for Republicans' disproportionate distrust, the lack of intellectual diversity in the press has turned off liberals as well, such as Peabody Award-winning editor Uri Berliner, who complained — just prior to his conveniently timed ouster — that NPR, where he worked for 25 years, had become an "openly polemical news outlet serving a niche audience."

Money-poisoned wells and oversaturation

Professor Jacob Nelson at the University of Utah has spent years analyzing trust, objectivity, and bias in reporting. Nelson told Blaze News that in his research, interviewees suggested when asked about their confidence in the media that "the news as a whole is inherently untrustworthy."

"My sense is that that's in large part due to the fact that the media environment has grown so saturated and now comprises so many different providers of news, many of which are antagonistic toward one another and sort of presenting themselves as, 'We are the ones who have the truth, and if you go elsewhere, that is not where you find the truth,'" said Nelson.

"And rather than make people feel as though, 'Okay, I can trust this outlet,' I think that oftentimes people feel, 'Okay, well, if everyone is telling me that everyone is untrustworthy, then I feel like I can't trust anyone, or at the very least, I have to present myself as someone who is deeply skeptical,'" continued Nelson. "'Otherwise, I might be construed as being, you know, like a sucker or someone who is not savvy enough to make sense of what's true or what's false in the world.'"

While reluctant to opine on a possible correlation between the rise of populism and the decline in public trust, Nelson speculated that an anti-elitist verve and sensitivity to patronization might prompt some Americans to discount the supposed expertise of media professionals and harbor distrust.

Nelson suggested that a significant factor affecting trust is the perception that journalism is compromised by commercial interests.

"We did these interviews with people where we asked them, 'Do you trust journalism? Why or why not?'" Nelson told Blaze News. "The question that we kept asking people was, 'Why is it that you think that news organizations are attempting to deceive you? What is their motivation for not giving you the truth, for putting you in a position where you feel like you have to go out of your way to do your own research?'"

"What people often said was that news organizations were doing it for profit-oriented reasons more so than they were doing it for ideological reasons," said Nelson.

Nelson noted that in the case of CNN, which is "perceived as having a left bent," interviewees suggested that the purpose of the anti-Trump coverage was not to "brainwash the public into voting for Democrats" but rather to cater to their liberal audience — possibly as something of a profit-motivated retention and growth strategy.

Nelson ultimately suggested that greater transparency among news outlets about their funding sources as well as a strengthening of local journalism might help arrest and possibly even reverse the downward trend.

While these strategies might alleviate news consumers' concerns about commercial interests, there remains the problem of honesty and accuracy in reporting.

Fake news

The news has virtually always been partisan.

Political parties frequently funded newspapers, particularly in the so-called "party press era," when editors from the 1780s until the mid-19th century would propagandize in favor of their partisan benefactors. Various papers across the country still have their originator's political affiliation in their names.

'He is simply repeating what he has been told.'

And there's always been fake news, although Trump certainly helped make the branding stick.

In "Homage to Catalonia" — a memoir about the Spanish Civil War that Victor Gollancz in the U.K. and prominent elements of the American left ultimately tried to torpedo — George Orwell documented the discrepancy between pro-red Western news accounts of the war and what was actually taking place on the ground.

Orwell, who fought on the side of the republicans and other leftists, highlighted, for instance, that British war correspondent John Langdon-Davies was advancing bogus claims likely fed to him — as had been the case with other foreign journalists — by the minister of propaganda.

"He is simply repeating what he has been told and, as it fits in with the official version, is not questioning it," wrote Orwell.

Orwell was especially sensitive to the Stalinist press' intentional mischaracterization of his allies in the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification, who were defamed, then effectively liquidated.

"What was noticeable from the start was that no evidence was produced in support of this accusation [i.e., that they were fascist saboteurs]," wrote Orwell. "The thing was simply asserted with an air of authority. And the attack was made with the maximum of personal libel and with complete irresponsibility as to any effects it might have upon the war."

To the extent that such news was informative, it served primarily to inform Orwell about the competing power narratives of his day.

Many decades later — after the public learned of the CIA's global propaganda network and infiltration of news organizations stateside — the American media dutifully repeated what they were told by the George W. Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as it fit in with the official version.

Susan Moeller, professor of media and international affairs at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism, noted that while there were a handful of skeptical journalists,

it was rare for even these reporters to critically probe the political choices that underlay the link between September 11, weapons of mass destruction and Iraq in the "War on Terror." The stultifying patriotic climate not only prompted sympathetic coverage of White House policy, it silenced much of the political opposition that the media could have utilized in order to provide alternative voices and policy options. As a result, most American media did not act to check and balance the exercise of executive power, essential to the functioning of a civil democracy.

Although there have always been fake news and partisan activism in the media, Andie Tucher, a historian and journalist who teaches at Columbia Journalism School, suggested in "Not Exactly Lying" that something changed early in the 20th century when journalists aspired to report the news objectively.

The promise of unadulterated fact and the survival of old reflexes apparently set the stage for new forms of falsehood, including of the Stalinist and WMD varieties — as well as the potential for greater disenchantment among news consumers.

If the American media today were not working under the pretense of sharing the objective truth, then perhaps it wouldn't be as jarring to learn of CBS News' apparent deceptive edit of Kamala Harris' recent interview; to read Jeffrey Goldberg's election-time agitprop in the Atlantic; to learn from Chris Cuomo that it is supposedly illegal to possess copies of WikiLeaks documents; or to watch a CNN reporter standing in front of burning buildings in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during the BLM riots while the chyron read, "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting."

The collapse of the narratives around the Russian collusion hoax, electoral interference by Russian trolls, ivermectin, the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, masks, and vaccine efficacy similarly might not be as harmful to the public's confidence in the media were news outlets not masquerading as truth-tellers — as hunters and gatherers of the "facts" dedicated to "bring[ing] you the story" in order to edify and protect democracy from dying in darkness.

Here are seven particularly egregious cases of fake or misleading news illustrating what the media might seek to avoid when trying to win back the trust of the American public.

1-3. Armenta, Rittenhouse, and Sandmann

Last year, Carron Phillips penned an article for the sports news website Deadspin accusing a young Kansas City Chiefs fan, Holden Armenta, of wearing "blackface."

"It takes a lot to disrespect two groups of people at once. But on Sunday afternoon in Las Vegas, a Kansas City Chiefs fan found a way to hate Black people and the Native Americans at the same time," he wrote.

The vicious textual attack, which allegedly resulted in death threats against the Armenta family, evidenced Phillips' willingness to prioritize narrative over facts. After all, a reporter deserving of the public's trust might have acknowledged, for starters, that the boy's face was actually painted red and black — the colors of his favorite team.

With some additional digging, the writer may have also learned that the boy's grandfather was actually on the board of the Chumash Tribe in Santa Ynez, California — a hint that the cultural appropriation angle might not have wings.

The family was cleared by a Delaware judge earlier this month to pursue its defamation lawsuit against Deadspin.

Kyle Rittenhouse is another young man traduced by elements of the increasingly distrusted press.

At the age of 17, Rittenhouse shot three radicals who mobbed him during the Aug. 25, 2020, leftist riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He killed two of his attackers — a domestic abuser with multiple convictions and a convicted violent child molester — and disarmed the third, who had advanced on him with a loaded gun.

Rittenhouse was initially charged with homicide, attempted homicide, and reckless endangering but was ultimately acquitted on all counts in November 2021.

Elements of the media, including Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks, repeatedly characterized Rittenhouse as a murderer, while others, including Harper's Bazaar, insinuated that he was somehow a racist, even though all three of his attackers were white. The Nation managed to do both, claiming Rittenhouse got away with murder because of racism.

Former Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann was also unfairly maligned by the press, which appeared keen to ignore visual evidence that would have upset their preferred narrative.

The media painted Sandmann, then 16, as a racist and a bully for allegedly "smirking" while an Indian elder, Nathan Phillips, banged a drum in his face during the 2019 March for Life in Washington, D.C., and while Black Hebrew Israelites hurled insults at him and his classmates.

The New York Times, for instance, falsely reported that Sandmann "prevented Phillips' retreat while Nicholas and a mass of other young white boys surrounded, taunted, jeered and physically intimidated Phillips."

The Washington Post and CNN were among the media outfits that ultimately settled defamation lawsuits with Sandmann.

4. ‘This is MAGA country’

Unlike the three young men just mentioned, the media took an entirely different approach when covering former "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett's hate hoax.

In early 2019, Smollett hired two Nigerian-born brothers to place a noose around his neck, rough him up, and shout anti-gay slurs in view of a street camera in Chicago. Smollett said that his attackers yelled, "This is MAGA country!" and later told the press he was targeted because of his criticism of Trump.

Like Kamala Harris, who rushed to label the incident a "modern-day lynching," the media largely accepted the story uncritically, despite the implausibility of key aspects of the actor's story.

Vanity Fair, for instance, suggested in an article titled "Empire's Jussie Smollett Hospitalized After Racist, Homophobic Attack" that the perpetrators were white. The Advocate published a piece titled, "The Attack on Jussie Smollett Is an Attack on All Black Queers."

As Smollett's yarn began to unravel, journalist Sam Sanders admitted to NPR's "Morning Edition" that "in the coverage of this story, some of the basic tenets of journalism, David, were just abandoned. A lot of newsrooms failed to use words like 'alleged' when talking about this story."

Smollett was convicted of five felony counts of disorderly conduct for making a false report to the police.

5. Hunter Biden laptop as Russian 'disinformation'

Ahead of the 2020 election, the New York Post reported on the damning contents of Hunter Biden's laptop and raised various questions about then-candidate Joe Biden, especially about his questionable ties to Ukraine and ties to his son's business dealings.

Elements of the intelligence community antipathetic to President Donald Trump rushed to protect Biden, releasing a public letter on Oct. 19, 2020, asserting that the Hunter Biden laptop story had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation" intended to hurt the Democrat's candidacy.

Among the cabal of former intelligence officials were reportedly active CIA contractors. One of those contractors, former CIA acting director Michael Morell, later testified to Congress that he organized the letter to "help Vice President Biden" but more specifically, to help "him to win the election."

Politico hurriedly published the letter along with an article titled "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say." While acknowledging that the signatories presented no new evidence, Politico attempted to reinforce the strategic narrative with the suggestion by then-National Counterintelligence and Security Center Director Bill Evanina "that Russia has been trying to denigrate Biden's campaign."

Politico also recycled what turned out to be false claims from "top Biden advisers" casting doubt on some of the allegations in the Post's report, namely Biden's ties to his son's business dealings and Burisma.

When covering the letter, the Huffington Post went farther, characterizing the New York Post's legitimate report as a "smear campaign."

Business Insider went farther in its attempts to help the intel officials discredit the Post's report, quoting its then-writer Sonam Sheth, now an editor at the facts-estranged publication Newsweek, who said of the allegations about Biden, "There is no evidence that these claims hold merit, and they've been debunked by intelligence assessments, news reports, congressional investigations, and witness testimony."

6. Israel's jihadist rocket

Ten days after Hamas terrorists massacred thousands of Israelis on October 7, 2023, an explosion took place outside the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza. The cause of the blast was ultimately determined to have been an Islamic Jihad rocket that misfired.

However, the Associated Press and other media organizations proved willing at the outset to regurgitate terrorist propaganda blaming Israel.

The AP ran with the headline, "Israeli Airstrike Hits Gaza Hospital, Killing 500, Palestinian Health Ministry Says."

The New York Times tweeted, "Breaking News: An Israeli airstrike hit a Gaza hospital on Tuesday, killing at least 200 Palestinians, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry, which said the number of casualties was expected to rise."

CNN ran a headline presuming Israeli involvement, which read, "Palestinian health ministry says 200 to 300 people may have been killed in Israeli strike on hospital in Gaza."

Confronted with the reality of the situation and significant backlash, these and other publications ultimately walked back their misleading reports.

The Times, for instance, admitted days later that that "the early versions of the coverage — and the prominence it received in a headline, news alert and social media channels — relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified. The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was."

7. 'Very fine people'

Establishment news outlets provided Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and other Democrats with a useful but false account of Trump's remarks regarding the August 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where among the protesters and counterprotesters were leftists, individuals critical of the removal of a Confederate statue, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists.

The media desperately tried to suggest that Trump referred to white supremacists and possibly even Nazis as "very fine people."

The Atlantic ran an article titled "Trump Defends White-Nationalist Protesters: 'Some Very Fine People on Both Sides.'"

Former Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan also suggested that Trump treated "white supremacists and those who protest them as roughly equal."

ABC News reported, "Trump quickly blamed both sides for the conflict, adding that there were 'very fine people' among both the protesters — which included white supremacists and white nationalists — and the counterprotesters."

The AP reported, "President Donald Trump declared anew Tuesday 'there is blame on both sides' for the deadly violence last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, appearing to once again equate the actions of white supremacist groups and those protesting them."

These efforts forced Snopes to ultimately admit — to the chagrin of leftists at the New Republic — that Trump had done no such thing.

Days after the "Unite the Right" rally, President Trump held a press conference, where a reporter asked him about the neo-Nazis at the demonstration. Trump said, "As I said on, remember this, Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America."

After Trump noted that violent instigators were on both sides of the demonstration and that some people present at the rally had simply been protesting iconoclasm, a reporter said, "The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville."

Trump replied:

Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

Snopes underscored that "he wasn't talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who he said should be 'condemned totally.'"

"For every instance of hard-nosed journalism, the media engage in ten instances of partisan tomfoolery," Cortney Weil told Blaze News. "I'd say, 'Stop lying,' but that doesn't really get to the heart of the problem. Even Satan can cite scripture accurately when doing so suits his purposes."

Weil stressed that "until they prove otherwise, members of the media as a whole remain a snake in the grass."

Blaze News reached out for comment to editors of the Washington Post, NPR, Salon, and CNN but did not receive responses by deadline.

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

'He outright LIED': The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg is back with another 'dishonest' Trump smear — but it's quickly debunked

The Atlantic's editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, is at it again, smearing former President Donald Trump with anonymous sources and providing ammunition for Democrat political attacks ahead of Election Day. Unfortunately for Goldberg and his anti-Trump narrative, people who were actually in the room at the time the remarks were supposedly made have indicated that nothing of the sort happened — that it's more fake news.

Army Private Vanessa Guillén — posthumously promoted to the rank of specialist — was murdered inside the armory at Fort Hood in April 2020 by a fellow soldier.

Goldberg claimed that Trump volunteered to help financially with Guillén's funeral but then raged upon learning the total cost. According to the hit piece, Trump said, "It doesn't cost 60,000 bucks to bury a f***ing Mexican!" and ordered his then-chief of staff, Mark Meadows, not to pay.

Meadows, a leading character in Goldberg's narrative, noted Tuesday, "I was in the discussions featured in the Atlantic's latest hit piece against President Trump. Let me say this. Any suggestion that President Trump disparaged Ms. Guillen or refused to pay for her funeral expenses is absolutely false."

'President Donald Trump absolutely did not say that.'

"He was nothing but kind, gracious, and wanted to make sure that the military and the U.S. government did right by Vanessa Guillen and her family," added Meadows.

Ben Williamson, a former senior communications adviser for the Trump White House and spokesman for Meadows, provided insight into the extent of Goldberg's dishonesty, highlighting the substantial disparity between Meadows' statement, as provided to the Atlantic, and what was ultimately printed in the final piece.

Williamson indicated that he shared the following statement from Meadows with the Atlantic via text:

President Donald Trump absolutely did not say that. He was nothing but kind, gracious, and wanting to make sure that the military and the U.S. government did right by Gloria Guillen and her daughter Vanessa Guillen. As for the allegation that he told me to refuse payment: That is not true.

Williamson noted that the "Atlantic translated that comment to 'didn't hear Trump say it.' Treat this dishonest piece accordingly."

'He used and exploited my clients, and Vanessa Guillen's murder ... for cheap political gain.'

Trump spokesman Alex Pfeiffer similarly relayed a narrative-killing statement to the Atlantic from then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller's chief of staff, Kash Patel, but it appears to have made it into the article unscathed:

As someone who was present in the room with President Trump, he strongly urged that Spc. Vanessa Guillen's grieving family should not have to bear the cost of any funeral arrangements, even offering to personally pay himself in order to honor her life and sacrifice. In addition, President Trump was able to have the Department of Defense designate her death as occurring "in the line of duty," which gave her full military honors and provided her family access to benefits, services, and complete financial assistance.

Natalie Khawam, the attorney for the Guillén family quoted in the Atlantic hit piece, characterized Goldberg as a liar.

"After having dealt with hundreds of reporters in my legal career, this is unfortunately the first time I have to go on record and call out Jeffrey Goldberg," wrote Khawam. "Not only did he misrepresent our conversation but he outright LIED in HIS sensational story. More importantly, he used and exploited my clients, and Vanessa Guillen's murder ... for cheap political gain."

Extra to noting the curious timing of the hit piece, Khawam tweeted, "Not only did Trump support our military, he also invited my clients to the Oval Office and supported the I Am Vanessa Guillen bill too."

Goldberg's smear was so unbelievable that even Guillén's sister, Mayra, put her foot down Tuesday, calling out the Atlantic for its dishonesty and ghoulish attempt to exploit the service member's death for political purposes.

"Wow. I don't appreciate how you are exploiting my sister's death for politics," wrote Mayra Guillén. "Hurtful & disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members. President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family & Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today."

Even though Goldberg's report has significant credibility issues, the Democratic National Committee circulated it widely as though it were true — just as it circulated Goldberg's last election-time hit piece.

Weeks ahead of the 2020 election, Goldberg claimed that during a trip to Paris in 2018, Trump called fallen soldiers "suckers" and "losers."

Despite its liberal skew, even Snopes acknowledged there was "no evidence of an audio or video recording of the remarks in question, nor was there any documentation, such as transcripts or presidential notes, to independently confirm or deny the alleged quotes' authenticity."

Blaze News senior editor for politics Christopher Bedford noted shortly after Goldberg's 2020 hit piece debuted that Goldberg had centered his piece on "secondary-source rumor-mongering" even though it was contradicted by substantial primary sources, including both people and documents.

"That should have earned a swift no-publish call, but instead their qualms went completely unmentioned," wrote Bedford. "An unskeptical belief the president is a bad man who must be defeated has led to discarding an ever-growing number of essential journalistic practices. It's the reason more and more Americans don't trust their media — and it's a good one."

None of those problems stopped Democrats from running with a story they'd already known was coming. The 2020 hit piece was published on a Thursday night, but by Friday morning, MSNBC's "Morning Joe" had "the exclusive" on a polished Democrat attack ad featuring veterans attacking Trump over specific allegations in the article.

Laurene Powell Jobs — the president of Emerson Collective, which owns the Atlantic — just happens to be one of Kamala Harris' biggest financial backers and has been shoveling cash her way since 2003. Goldberg's article ostensibly serves as a different kind of campaign support.

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

'Very stupid': New York Times beclowns itself with botched 'fact-check,' proving RFK Jr.'s point

As expected, liberal media melts down over multiracial, working-class Trump victory — especially Van Jones

Why the media doesn’t fear defaming Donald Trump

The media’s ‘war on misinformation’ loses all credibility

Seriously, not literally

Expert alarmism

Accounting for COVID

War, dementia, and ‘cheapfakes’

Covering for Kamala

Who are you gonna believe?

New York Times and Media Matters team up to censor BlazeTV hosts and other conservatives

Tucker Carlson delivers the 'perfect response' to NYT journo plotting a hit piece against conservative media

'Legendary': CNN bans conservative guest after he breaks leftist panelists' thin skin

Background

Counterstrike

Banned

The truth about the New York Time's source deep-fries Kamala Harris' McDonald's narrative

Blaze News original: Americans don't trust the media. Here are 7 examples of why they probably shouldn't.

Bad diagnosis

Possible drivers

Money-poisoned wells and oversaturation

Fake news

1-3. Armenta, Rittenhouse, and Sandmann

4. ‘This is MAGA country’

5. Hunter Biden laptop as Russian 'disinformation'

6. Israel's jihadist rocket

7. 'Very fine people'

'He outright LIED': The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg is back with another 'dishonest' Trump smear — but it's quickly debunked

Horowitz: The failure of the mRNA shots is on display for all with open eyes

IT BEGINS: Rachel Maddow's Massive Salary Slashed at MSNBC

Joy Reid says 'vulnerable' people have 'legitimate feelings' of fear against friends and family who voted for Trump

Oregon DMV Busted Allowing People Of ‘Unknown Citizenship’ To Register To Vote

Rural counties across the US are trying to secede from Dem-compromised blue states

Report: Planned Parenthood Sold Murdered Babies To California School To Experiment On Their 23-Week-Old Bodies

WATCH: Bud Light pokes fun at marketing missteps in latest Shane Gillis ad

Seriously, not literally

Expert alarmism

Accounting for COVID

War, dementia, and ‘cheapfakes’

Covering for Kamala

Who are you gonna believe?

Background

Counterstrike

Banned

Bad diagnosis

Possible drivers

Money-poisoned wells and oversaturation

Fake news

1-3. Armenta, Rittenhouse, and Sandmann

4. ‘This is MAGA country’

5. Hunter Biden laptop as Russian 'disinformation'

6. Israel's jihadist rocket

7. 'Very fine people'

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.