A journalist or newsperson knows better than to make absolute, broad, sweeping statements about something they didn’t know about or that was easily disprovable; they would hedge on the existence of an edge case that could embarrass them. But that wasn’t the case with Whoopi Goldberg of “The View,” the moderator for what ABC has claimed to the FCC is a “bona fide news program.” According to Goldberg this week, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool “never had algae before” President Trump’s renovations, and “nobody” wants voter ID laws.
Amid the liberal media’s obsession with the Reflecting Pool earlier in the week, “The View” took a big gulp from that watering hole. Goldberg’s hyperbole even got support from a gullible audience member:
<blockquote>
GOLDBERG: Look this. [Points to screen showing workers in the reflecting pool] I mean, they look like they are fishing in the reflecting pool. They&#8217;re trying to get – they&#8217;re trying to get the algae out. This thing never had algae before!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: No!
</blockquote>
Obviously, that was patently false. Even the anti-Trump journalists at <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-reflecting-pool-is-about-to-be-drained-again-heres-what-to-know">PBS were able to admit</a> that algae are naturally occurring and Trump’s renovations didn’t play a role. We also know the National Park Service has used hydrogen peroxide to kill algae blooms since 2021, when they switched away from chlorine.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
ABC News moderator Whoopi Goldberg claims Trump was the one who vandalized the reflecting pool and that he&#8217;s going to go to prison for 10 years. 
She falsely claims &#8220;this thing never had algae before&#8221; the renovations. <a href="https://t.co/G5egXOXCtC">pic.twitter.com/G5egXOXCtC</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2069076182113321077?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 22, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Goldberg beclowned herself later in the week when proclaiming that no one wanted voter ID laws:
<blockquote>
It doesn&#8217;t have the votes. So, he&#8217;s trying to push to, and do all kinds of stuff. It just — It&#8217;s ridiculous. It&#8217;s — The bill that would force people to have I.D. when they come to vote, and nobody wants it.
</blockquote>
It’s impossible to make the claim “nobody” wants voter ID when poll after poll has shown over 80% bipartisan support for the measure. That’s more than what’s needed for a supermajority vote.
Despite supposedly being a “bona fide news program” under the ABC News umbrella, Goldberg was ignorant of the fact that even her own network gave credence to the fact that it was a popular policy.  “An August 2025 Pew Research Center study found that 83% of the more than 3,500 people surveyed are in favor of requiring voters to show government-issued photo ID at the polls,” <a href="https://abcnews.com/Politics/fact-check-trump-save-america-act-amid-push/story?id=130505183">ABC wrote about the Pew Research Center poll</a>.
That’s not to mention that a majority of states (36) already require voters to present ID.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
ABC News moderator Whoopi Goldberg falsely claims &#8220;nobody wants&#8221; voter ID laws. 
Sunny Hostin decries that the SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship. <a href="https://t.co/2CMFwkZX5Q">pic.twitter.com/2CMFwkZX5Q</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2070163835726483674?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Nothing about “The View” is a “bona fide news program.” <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/1896964078590984451">Goldberg has been very vocal</a> about how their role is to push Democratic Party messaging and anti-Trump fearmongering to the daytime TV audience. She’s even gotten into arguments about it in defense of their work.
A “bona fide news program” is supposed to share facts and tell its audience the truth. As shown here, “The View” does neither. That’s why the <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2026/06/23/mrc-leads-charge-strip-view-bona-fide-news-status">Media Research Center is leading the charge</a> to strip “The View” of that status.
“While The View may once have qualified for an exemption, the evidence shows that it has for years operated for political purposes and is therefore not entitled to an exemption from the law. The MRC has the documentation to demonstrate that “The View” is a partisan political operation that advocates for Democrats and their party, against President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans, and for the political priorities of the left,” MRC President David Bozell wrote in <a href="https://cdn.newsbusters.org/blog_attachment/THE%20VIEW%20Ex%20Parte.pdf-1781899751546.pdf">a public comment filing to the FCC</a>.
The MRC also provided the FCC with “2,473 separate pieces of evidence documenting The View’s pervasive bias and, at times, willful electioneering as exhibits to this comment.”
ABC couldn’t even get the facts right when trying to muster supporters to submit public comments. On June 22, they told viewers they had until July 6 to submit a comment. In actuality, public comment ended that day at the close of business. Only reply comments were allowed to be submitted by July 6.
Despite their own incompetence, ABC and “The View” will likely cry foul if the FCC ignores the comments filed after the deadline.
***
Nicholas C. Fondacaro is the associate editor for the Media Research Center and NewsBusters.

Disney 2026 Upfront Red Carpet

Only A Sith (And Whoopi Goldberg) Deals In Absolutes

DW Opinion

Fake News

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Media Bias

Reflecting Pool

The View

Voter ID

Whoopi Goldberg

An Al Jazeera cameraman mourned as a journalist killed by Israel was also a Hamas sniper operative, <a href="https://x.com/IDF/status/2068442916977275317">according to the Israel Defense Forces</a>.
Ahmed Washah was killed Saturday in central Gaza after an Israeli drone targeted a home in the Bureij refugee camp. Al Jazeera and multiple media outlets described him as a cameraman for Al Jazeera Mubasher, Al Jazeera’s Arabic-language live channel. Al Jazeera said two other people were also killed and others were wounded.
But the IDF says Washah was not simply a journalist and was targeted in the strike because he was “a terrorist in Hamas’ military wing who served as a sniper operative.” The IDF also said Washah had recently advanced sniper attack plans and worked alongside his brother, Mohammed Washah, whom the military described as a key terrorist in Hamas’ rocket and weapons production headquarters. Ahmed was <a href="https://honestreporting.com/ahmad-washah-hamas-terrorist-who-masqueraded-as-an-al-jazeera-journalist/">reportedly</a> killed alongside Siba’i Abu Hasna, a member of Hamas’ <a href="https://honestreporting.com/ahmad-washah-hamas-terrorist-who-masqueraded-as-an-al-jazeera-journalist/">Shadow Unit</a>, which is responsible for guarding hostages kidnapped into Gaza.
Ahmed was widely presented as an Al Jazeera cameraman killed by Israel. While leaving out his ties to Hamas, NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/world/gaza/israeli-airstrike-kills-al-jazeera-cameraman-rcna350990">reported</a> that Ahmed was an Al Jazeera cameraman killed by Israel and noted that his brother Mohammed, an Al Jazeera Mubasher correspondent, was killed in a separate Israeli strike in April. Al Jazeera, meanwhile, <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/21/kind-principled-palestinian-journalists-remember-slain-gaza-journalist">said</a> Ahmed became the 12th network employee killed by Israel and said he had covered numerous stories for the outlet, including what Al Jazeera described as “several massacres” committed by Israel in Gaza.
The IDF <a href="https://x.com/IDF/status/2068442916977275317">posted</a> publicly that Ahmed “served as an Al Jazeera photojournalist” while simultaneously operating as a Hamas sniper. The IDF also described Mohammed as “a key terrorist in Hamas’ rocket and weapons production headquarters” and said he also operated “under the guise of an Al Jazeera journalist” before he was killed in April.
After the IDF’s claims about Ahmed were challenged online, it <a href="https://x.com/IDF/status/2069422062117003612">posted</a> a photo of his apparent military ID and a video showing him firing a rifle into the air. 
That context has received less attention from the legacy media than the initial description of Ahmed as a journalist killed by Israel. A Google AI Overview shown for a simple search of “Al Jazeera journalist” described Ahmed as “an Al Jazeera cameraman who was killed in an Israeli airstrike in central Gaza” and listed him among “recent notable and slain journalists from the region.” The summary does not mention the IDF’s claim that he was a Hamas sniper operative.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="wp-image-1122099 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/IMG_8248-907x576.jpeg" alt="" width="907" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/IMG_8248-907x576.jpeg 907w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/IMG_8248-300x190.jpeg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/IMG_8248-768x488.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/IMG_8248.jpeg 1093w" sizes=" (max-width: 907px) 100vw, 907px" /></div>
The same pattern appeared in headlines from major outlets. NBC headlined its article, “<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/world/gaza/israeli-airstrike-kills-al-jazeera-cameraman-rcna350990">Al Jazeera cameraman killed in Gaza months after his journalist brother died in a separate strike</a>.” The Guardian’s headline read, “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/20/al-jazeera-cameraman-ahmed-wishah-killed-in-israeli-strike-on-gaza">Al Jazeera cameraman Ahmed Wishah killed in Israeli strike on Gaza</a>.”
An Associated Press report carried by <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/israeli-army-confirms-journalist-killed-in-gaza-calls-him-hamas-terrorist-11665140/amp/1">NDTV</a> also identified Ahmed as an Al Jazeera cameraman killed in an Israeli strike. The report said the Israeli military asserted that Ahmed had been part of Hamas’ military wing and had posed a threat to troops in the area.
Al Jazeera has denied Israel’s claims about Ahmed, according to NBC News, and condemned his killing, calling it an attempt by Israel to silence and intimidate journalists. NBC also reported that a source close to Hamas told the Committee to Protect Journalists that Ahmed had no affiliation with the organization.
 Prominent anti-Israel figures, including New York City <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/06/23/us-news/al-jazeera-journalist-that-mamdani-mourned-was-allegedly-hamas-sniper-idf-claims/">Mayor Zohran Mamdani</a>, portrayed Ahmed as a journalist killed by Israel while criticizing the IDF. 
“More than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military since the so-called ceasefire,” Mamdani said Monday. “Even an Al Jazeera journalist, Ahmed Washah, was killed this past Saturday by an Israeli strike.” Mamdani did not mention the IDF’s claim that Washah was a Hamas operative.
The IDF’s claim does not erase reports that Ahmed worked for Al Jazeera. But those reports also do not erase the IDF’s claim that he served in Hamas’ military wing and had recently advanced sniper attack plans against Israeli troops.
Since the first reports described Ahmed as a journalist without including Israel&#8217;s claim that he was also a Hamas sniper, many readers were left with a narrow version of the story. Israel&#8217;s account presents a very different version of the strike than the one circulating online.

Hamas

Al Jazeera ‘Cameraman’ Killed In Gaza Was Hamas Sniper Operating Under Press Cover, IDF Says

Al Jazeera

Gaza

Israel

Israel Defense Forces (IDF)

Zohran Mamdani

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Across the country, Americans are preparing their 4th of July cookout menus and making stops at their local fireworks stands as the excitement surrounding America’s 250th birthday ramps up. But in typical fashion, left-wing media outlets are doing everything they can to trivialize the patriotic moment. 
Last week, the Atlantic published an article about international travelers visiting America for the first time to attend the World Cup. Several visitors have recently gone viral for praising aspects of American culture, such as one Japanese man who <a href="https://x.com/Realsociedad10m/status/2065084769466204310">recommended</a> everyone go to Texas Roadhouse for the “absolute best” ribeye or a Swedish girl <a href="https://x.com/elsathora/status/2064142970190758034?s=12">declaring</a> that she had “the best food ever” at a local Indiana diner.
However, as one might expect from legacy media, the Atlantic&#8217;s article <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/06/world-cup-tourists-america/687572/">“The Feel-Good Story of the World Cup is Too Good to Be True</a>” argues that this is all a facade. It points out that certain influencers who have been a part of the pro-America trend are actually acting for selfish reasons. It argues that the aforementioned Swedish girl is a social media influencer, therefore dismissing her affection for America although she has repeatedly insisted that her “enthusiasm for American culture is genuine.” The article also cites the X user Nobunaga, who had been posting AI generated content praising America. Although Nobunaga’s posts were done in jest, the Atlantic mocked patriotic Americans for responding to the posts with enthusiasm. The New York Times published a similar <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/style/world-cup-tourists-american-food-tiktok.html">article</a>, “World Cup Fans in the U.S. Are Sightseeing at… Buc-ee’s and Bass Pro Shops?” that mocked American culture for being “mundane.” 
The success of these World Cup fans’ posts reveals that Americans are desperate for patriotic messages. They are sick of hearing that America is “dark, aggressive, and lawless,” as <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/trump-mistake-venezuela-injustice/685560/">described</a> by the Atlantic less than six months ago. They are sick of allegedly neutral journalists claiming America has a “<a href="https://nypost.com/2022/05/18/us-racism-a-white-cultural-problem-cnns-nia-malika-henderson/">white cultural problem</a>” or that they live in a “<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/the-view-co-hosts-clash-after-sunny-hostin-attributes-trump-win-racism-misogyny">misogynist country.</a>” They are sick of social media posts by Democratic party leaders, such as Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, that <a href="https://x.com/RepJeffries/status/1985417876258611651">refer</a> to America as a “malignant clown show.” 
The mainstream media can’t stomach the patriotic messages World Cup tourists are so eager to share. Videos of travelers trying <a href="https://x.com/washghost1/status/2068097190237470935?s=12">BuzzBallz</a> outside of a 7-Eleven and <a href="https://x.com/TONYxTWO/status/2068516485367009655">thanking America</a> for being “so friendly and so accommodating” are making the media seethe. They spent years trying to push the narrative that American culture was inherently toxic. They fixated on divisive propaganda, alleging the U.S. was racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, bigoted, and evil.
They have desperately tried to pretend that the love of international travelers is nothing more than vapid consumerism. Unfortunately, that narrative falls flat as videos emerge of tourists <a href="https://x.com/BuzzPatterson/status/2066883493674754099">belting</a> out the U.S. national anthem or <a href="https://x.com/Trivela_Futebol/status/2069013328069009722">dancing</a> together in the middle of Central Park. The international love for America isn’t born from a mythologized &#8220;consumer culture.&#8221; It’s a reaction to American glory. As tourists pour in from across the globe and experience the joys of American culture firsthand, legacy media outlets are being forced to watch their web of lies get exposed. 
One of their worst lies has targeted the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/foreign-soccer-fans-are-discovering-something-many-americans-forgot">rising social media star Freddy</a>. The soccer fan from Germany has earned three-quarters of a million followers after posting about his experiences across America, from <a href="https://x.com/FreddyLA7/status/2063853754449850487">Waffle House</a> to <a href="https://x.com/FreddyLA7/status/2067003781804355904">NASA</a>. He has shown nothing but love to America, profusely thanking cities for their hospitality. Naturally, the Atlantic tried to speculate that this was all a fabrication, alleging that his content isn’t genuine and that his posts don’t “reflect reality.” The article&#8217;s author speculated about his intentions and criticized him for remaining anonymous. It’s pretty crazy to believe that his entire posting journey is, as the author insists, an attempt to fulfill what “professional influencers dream of.” It’s even crazier to realize that mainstream media and their liberal audiences can’t comprehend the notion that somebody could genuinely love America. The Left can’t fathom that America is actually good. 
The simple truth underlying this wave of media criticism is that liberal elites hate American culture. They have spent a long time sneering at middle America for watching football on Sundays, listening to Johnny Cash, and making the best BBQ in the world. They have isolated themselves in universities and progressive institutions, distancing themselves from the working-class citizens they claim to represent. They don’t want people like Freddy drinking slushies at Buc-ee’s or enjoying an Astros game. They don’t want people to gush about Walmart or get excited over free refills. They don’t want people to realize that America is the greatest country on earth. The story of the 2026 World Cup isn’t “too good to be true”; the story of the 2026 World Cup proves that America represents everything that is good and true. 
***
Brooke Brandtjen is a writer and journalist from Wisconsin who focuses primarily on culture, politics, and religion. She is a senior contributor at New Guard Press, a publication she joined while attending Hillsdale College.

US-FBL-WC-2026-SCOTLAND-FANS

The America-Love Story The Media Never Wanted To Go Viral

America 250

Legacy Media

Upstream

World Cup

Since the moment President Donald Trump decided to name Tulsi Gabbard as his Director of National Intelligence, it was clear she was going to enter the job under fire.
The <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/classified-whistleblower-complaint-about-tulsi-gabbard-stalls-within-her-agency-027f5331">Wall Street Journal</a> has targeted her. National Review has targeted her. The Washington Post and the New York Times and — let&#8217;s just say a veritable host of legacy media outlets and gossip rags have all run attacks on her. On X, she is a frequent target of internet gadflies who want her out of the job.
And now, just as she’s leaving office, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/06/21/tulsi-gabbard-her-guru-mysterious-messages-that-helped-shape-her-political-career/">The Washington Post</a> lobs an “exposé” about her personal life and religious practices. Meanwhile, the so-called “journalists” have painfully little to say about her releasing the Fauci files — how he “provided millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research” — and ties to communist China. Keep focusing on the “real” scandals, journos; the rest of us have real work to do, and Tulsi Gabbard was a leader all the way to the end.
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;"><iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/OKLV6D3fxRxAlwwXLXSPCk02024uX02TgFN?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=52d2b23e-5f4c-4cd0-93e6-f31765c576ce&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=2026-06-19%20Tulsi%20Releases%20The%20Fauci%20Files&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2F61d7b551-138a-4879-a448-fe7f6679a78d.png&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
I know what leadership looks like. There are certain principles that define leaders — leaders who have the opportunity to shape the lives of countless people by the principles they embrace and how they apply them in times of friction. The unwavering pursuit of the truth, uncompromised moral clarity, steadfast honesty, and a disciplined yet passionate loyalty to the people they’re entrusted to lead — these are the high standards we should demand of our leaders.
Unfortunately, not everyone understands these principles or upholds such standards, and this reflects the mentality and motivation of her critics, who see her leadership and the principles she embodies as a threat to their narrative and institutional power, even as she leaves office under the most honorable of circumstances.
This is nothing new in the arena of politics, but for me, it’s personal.
The world may know her as Director, Representative, Lt. Colonel, or presidential candidate Gabbard, but to my daughters and me, she’s Tulsi. There is no one on this planet I trust more. She is also the first person I call when I need a real answer. Not a filtered one, not a safe one, not one designed to protect an image or position. She carries this mentality through every facet of her life and will continue to do so as she walks this next journey beside her husband.
Knowing Tulsi Gabbard is to know her answers are grounded in what is right, filtered through one standard: the Constitution. Nothing else factors into it. Not her own best interest, not what puts her in the safest position, not what is easy or comfortable, and certainly not what someone wants to hear.
In the political world, the cynic would assume this is how things operate: When someone speaks the truth, when they refuse to bend, play along, or say what is convenient, they should expect coordinated attacks. There are no facts or accountability involved. There are only carefully timed headlines and smear campaigns designed to sow seeds of doubt with the intent to bring that person’s character into question.
That is not journalism; it’s a playbook. And we should demand better — not only because Tulsi Gabbard deserves it, but because she holds herself to higher standards in everything she does. These are very large shoes to fill for the next DNI, and we should expect nothing less than the standard she set and her unwavering pursuit of the truth, despite attacks even from within her political sphere.
The attacks on Tulsi Gabbard weren’t just about her; they’re about what happens to anyone who refuses to compromise their principles for politics and power. So when outlets like the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal published pieces aimed at discrediting her, I do not see journalism in the traditional sense. I see a familiar pattern: discredit the person so you don’t have to engage with what they are actually saying and doing. Create enough noise so people stop asking real questions. Turn truth into controversy so it becomes easier to dismiss. And allege, without basis, anything you want to claim based on the need to remove someone who doesn’t share your maximalist ideology.
That approach may work on people who do not know Tulsi. For those of us who have actually sat across from her, spoken with her, and understand how she thinks and operates, the narrative does not hold; it collapses under the weight of reality.
That Tulsi Gabbard was — and continues to be — a target is not a sign of a flawed leader; it’s often the clearest indicator of an unflinching, purposeful one. In life, you have to choose between being liked and being trusted. One is easy and more popular; the other actually matters when it counts. In today’s environment, Tulsi’s choices put her in the crosshairs of an establishment that looks suspiciously at those who choose truth over narrative and heartfelt belief over talking points.
When she decided to leave the Democratic Party, it was not because it was easy. It surely was not popular, and it wasn’t because it put her in a better position. She did it because she believed it was right. It harkens back to a line I like to recall from Theodore Roosevelt: “It behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher.”
Tulsi Gabbard is a leader who sets a high standard. We are a better country for it and a better people for demanding and trusting such leadership. At some point, we have to decide what type of leaders we want — leaders who say what is convenient or leaders who say what is true? Do we want people who protect their position or people who protect the principles they swore to uphold? You will never get both.
What makes Tulsi Gabbard a trusted, principled leader — and a target — is not her title or position; it’s that she could not be easily influenced, redirected, or controlled by the systems that so many others learn to operate within. She did not shift with pressure. She did not abandon her values based on headlines. She never prioritized perception over principle. Until her last day, she continued to operate from a fixed point: the Constitution and the service of the American people.
That is exactly what this country claims to want. And when someone actually lives it, it’s interesting who they scare. So, thank you, Tulsi, for your commitment to service, for standing your ground in the face of your enemies, and for your decision to live by a high standard of principles, even in leaving office. A grateful nation, and a friend, bids you fair winds and following seas.
***
Dakota Meyer is a United States Marine. A veteran of the war in Afghanistan, he was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions during the Battle of Ganjgal on September 8, 2009, in Kunar province, Afghanistan. He is also a NYT bestselling author and the owner of DASH Hydrate.

US-POLITICS-INTELLIGENCE-GABBARD

Dakota Meyer: Tulsi Gabbard Always Fights For America First

Anthony Fauci

Director of National Intelligence

Trump Administration

Tulsi Gabbard

Vice President J.D. Vance waded into the pit of vipers that is ABC’s &#8220;The View&#8221; on Tuesday. Armed with his wit and the facts, Vance was assailed on all sides by the panel of liberal ladies who slung lies and conspiracy theories at him, and he defused all of it — many times by just asking for evidence or questioning where it came from, and often triggering them.
Almost out of the gate, Vance had to defuse mischaracterizations of President Donald Trump’s comments about the economy and affordability. “President Trump has called affordability a hoax. He said that, not me,” claimed Joy Behar. In one of her many out-of-turn questions, Ana Navarro chided, “He [Trump] just said he loved the inflation.”
“Well, I got to defend the president on the hoax point. What the president said is the idea that Republicans caused the affordability problem is a hoax,” Vance told Behar. To Navarro, he noted: “What he said is that he loves the fact the inflation is going to come down when this war is over. That&#8217;s what he said.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
And we get the first clash. 
Vance FACT-CHECKS The View for spewing misinformation about what Trump has said about inflation. <a href="https://t.co/1DLYMZzcz1">pic.twitter.com/1DLYMZzcz1</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2066908417088774509?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Interrupting Vance’s answer to a question about the Epstein files, Navarro tried to implicate Trump in the billionaire’s crimes by noting, “They were best friends for a decade.” Vance was still able to get in his fact-check:
<blockquote>
So, number one is, yes, Donald Trump said this. He knew Epstein back in the 1980s. He also threw Epstein out of his club when he found out he was a creep and reported him to the police. That&#8217;s something the media often misses when it reports the story. They tell the fact they knew each other in the ’80s, which the president himself admits. They ignore the fact that he narced on him to the police and ultimately led to Jeffrey Epstein&#8217;s downfall.
</blockquote>
It’s worth noting that moderator Whoopi Goldberg had <a href="https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2026/02/19/view-has-new-excuses-their-names-epstein-files-whoopis-jet">shifting explanations</a> after a <a href="https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2026/02/04/whoopi-goldberg-requested-epstein-jet-fly-her-monaco-charity">NewsBusters investigation </a>of the Epstein files found an email from someone associated with her requesting to borrow his infamous jet.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sunny Hostin asks Vance about releasing the Epstein files but gets angry when he says he believes the conspiracies about Epstein and powerful people. 
He point out that Epstein hates Trump and it&#8217;s evident in the emails, he calls out the media for hiding the fact Trump called the… <a href="https://t.co/SVxAWsHI5v">pic.twitter.com/SVxAWsHI5v</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2066909968142361045?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Continuing to be a spigot of misinformation, Navarro repeatedly clashed with Vance on the issue of illegal immigration.
At one point, when Vance was setting the record straight on the lie that Trump called all Mexicans rapists and noted he was talking about Central American countries releasing criminals to go north, Navarro interrupted to falsely claim “there’s no evidence” and “this was made up.”
“Ana, we know that there were people released from prisons who were encouraged to come to the United States,” Vance pushed back. Navarro actually gave a tacit admission that it was true when she argued, “It wasn&#8217;t like it was in the Mariel [Boatlift] … it wasn’t where it was like a purposeful open up the jails, open up the insane asylums and flood Florida.”
Navarro also threw out the massive whopper, suggesting that the Trump administration was essentially torturing thousands of children:
<blockquote>
There are thousands of children, 6,200, that are being held in places like Dilley Detention Center that people that have visited — I don&#8217;t know if you have — talk about the subhuman, infrahuman conditions, the lack of clean water, the lack of medical attention, lack of education.
</blockquote>
Of course, she provided no evidence for such a claim, and Vance called out the story as coming from “one person with a political bias.” But when Vance seemingly tried to bring up how the Joe Biden administration lost hundreds of thousands of migrant children, he got shut down by Sunny Hostin.
On Friday’s show, Navarro said that if Trump were on the show, she would treat him the same way and “push back on the lies.”
Arguably one of the most brazen lies came from Goldberg about something that came out of her mouth during the interview.
After insinuating that Vance and the administration were racist and othering minorities, she snapped at Vance and got aggressive for accurately describing what she said:
<blockquote>
GOLDBERG: What did black people do to this administration that has allowed it to really stigmatize folks of color?
(&#8230;)
VANCE: But let me just give you an example. Okay, so you say we’re anti-minority or anti-black —
GOLDBERG: No, I didn&#8217;t say that! I asked. See.
VANCE: Okay, fine. Fair. Fair.
GOLDBERG: Don&#8217;t start any stuff with me, man!
</blockquote>
Goldberg’s comment definitely sounded accusatory to an honest listener.
Amid that exchange, when Vance asked her for a specific example of her purported claim of the erasure of black history, all she could do was get flustered and assert, “there’s so many.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sunny Hostin asks Vance about releasing the Epstein files but gets angry when he says he believes the conspiracies about Epstein and powerful people. 
He point out that Epstein hates Trump and it&#8217;s evident in the emails, he calls out the media for hiding the fact Trump called the… <a href="https://t.co/SVxAWsHI5v">pic.twitter.com/SVxAWsHI5v</a>
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2066909968142361045?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So many, just like the lies &#8220;The View&#8221; tells.
***
Nicholas C. Fondacaro is the associate editor for the Media Research Center and NewsBusters.

ABC’s “The View” – Season 25

Vice President Vance Assailed On All Sides By The View’s Lies

JD Vance

When I saw the news that Vice President JD Vance would be appearing on “The View,” my concern as someone who works every day with right-of-center political voices was not about how he would perform. It was genuine confusion over why conservatives continue handing ratings, relevance, and credibility to the very institutions that have spent years demonizing them.
Nobody seriously doubts that JD Vance can handle “The View.” There may not be a Republican politician in America today better equipped for exactly that environment. Vance is quick, disciplined, and uniquely skilled at walking into hostile interviews without allowing himself to be defined by the hostility.
That ability is a large part of why many conservatives came to understand what Donald Trump saw in Vance. Plenty of Republicans questioned whether it was the right choice. The issue was not that Vance lacked intelligence or talent. The concern was that Trump had chosen someone who immediately found himself at the center of a damaging political controversy: the “childless cat lady” comments.
These comments became exactly the kind of media storm campaigns dread. Democrats saw an opening, critics argued they would alienate women voters, and many wondered whether Trump had created an unnecessary vulnerability for himself.
It was not until Vance sat across from Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press” in August 2024 that Trump’s confidence in Vance started to make sense. Vance did not dodge questions about his “cat lady” comments, nor did he retreat into meaningless consultant language. He pushed back where he disagreed and explained his broader argument, shifting the conversation toward families, affordability, and the pressures Americans face in building their lives.
Whether you support him or not, it has become impossible to ignore: JD Vance is an exceptionally gifted communicator. He can debate, think on his feet, and challenge people without appearing rattled. He has the rare political skill of walking directly into difficult conversations and coming out stronger.
That is why my concern with his appearance on “The View” has nothing to do with whether he will succeed. He almost certainly will. The issue is what happens when he does.
A strong performance from Vance means viral clips, massive attention, and renewed relevance for the very platform conservatives argue has spent years treating them with contempt.
This is not a random Republican commentator looking for exposure. This is the vice president of the United States and one of the most important figures in the future of the Republican Party. Whether or not he eventually runs for president, Vance is clearly positioned as one of the leading figures who could carry Trump’s political movement into its next chapter.
Access to someone like that has value, and “The View” is about to receive all the benefits that come with it.
The ratings will come. Clips will spread across every social media platform. Conservatives will celebrate Vance pushing back. Liberals will celebrate the hosts challenging him. Everyone will argue for days, and “The View” will have gotten exactly what it wanted: attention and relevance.
The question is why conservatives keep handing it to them.
For years, Republicans have argued that the problem with much of legacy media is not simply disagreement. Debate is necessary. Conservatives should sit down with people who see the world differently.
The problem is the contempt.
Shows like “The View” do not merely criticize Republican policies. They routinely portray Trump and his supporters as something darker than political opponents. Conservatives are labeled hateful, racist, dangerous, and morally defective. The disagreement is no longer simply about competing visions for the country. It has become a judgment about the character of the people who hold those views.
That rhetoric has consequences. America is living through an era of extraordinary political hostility. There have been multiple attempts on President Trump’s life. Political violence and dehumanization are no longer abstract concerns; they are realities.
Yet the institutions that contribute to this culture rarely have any incentive to change. They get to continue the same behavior and still receive access to the most important figures in the movement they spend their days attacking.
Joy Behar reinforced this disconnect last year when she suggested Republicans were not appearing on “The View” because they were afraid to face tough questions. The response from conservatives was immediate. Clay Travis, Buck Sexton, Riley Gaines, Matt Walsh, Jennifer Sey, and others pushed back with <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/conservatives-come-receipts-after-the-view-claims-theyre-afraid-come-show">receipts</a> showing a very different reality: they were not avoiding the show. They had been trying to get on it.
As a publicist who works primarily with right-of-center personalities, I can attest to the falsehood of Behar’s excuses firsthand. Conservatives are not afraid of “The View.” In fact, many actively seek opportunities to sit across from people who disagree with them and make their case to audiences outside the conservative bubble.
Conservatives are eager to enter those hostile rooms. But they are continually blocked from entering them at all.
But now, “The View” gets JD Vance. Not because the show has changed. Not because the conversation has improved. And not because there has been some meaningful effort to understand the voters the hosts have spent years mocking.
They get him because everyone knows it will make great television.
But what happens after the cameras turn off?
The hosts of “The View” are unlikely to walk away reconsidering how they talk about conservatives. The next day, the same conversations will continue. The same voters will be reduced to the same stereotypes. The same political divide everyone claims to worry about will remain exactly where it was.
And “The View” will have gotten everything it wanted.
It will have received the ratings, attention, and cultural relevance that come with hosting one of the most important figures in the Republican Party. And it will have received all of that without changing anything about how it covers conservatives.
That is the broken incentive structure.
If institutions can spend years demonizing conservatives and still receive access to the movement’s most influential voices whenever they want a viral moment, why would they ever change?
JD Vance has already proven he can walk into hostile rooms and win. The question now is whether conservatives should keep rewarding those rooms simply because they know how to win inside them.
***
Vanessa Santos is a political communications specialist and the president and CEO of Renegade DC.

JD Vance Brings The News To The View’s Fake News

ABC News

Conservatives

Recently ousted &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; anchor Scott Pelley registered record-low self awareness level — and gave the impression that he&#8217;d never before encountered a normal human being — during a New York Times interview over the weekend.
Pelley, who was fired &#8220;for cause&#8221; by &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; executive producer Nick Bilton after raging at the network&#8217;s new leadership, expressed his complete bewilderment that new top exec Bari Weiss would ask his former colleagues at CBS News about bias in their coverage.
WATCH:
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;"><iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/ERJQ007zu2nWUWdtvbAS7t1FZro3SJ00kO?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=6eb57625-9db8-4944-b086-21ada5f6066e&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=Scott%20Pelley%20reveals%20he's%20never%20met%20a%20normal%20person%20in%20his%20l&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2Fe231650e-3b9a-458d-ac05-f39e16919dff.jpg&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
&nbsp;
&#8220;She, I am told, said something to the effect of, &#8216;Why do you think the country thinks you&#8217;re biased?'&#8221; Pelley explained, adding, &#8220;But she didn&#8217;t offer any kind of a metric.&#8221;
Pelley went on to suggest that there was no reason for Weiss to even ask such a question, saying, &#8220;Why do you think so? Do you have a poll? Is there market research? What are you talking about?&#8221;
AllSides.com, a media watchdog organization, rates CBS News reporting tends to &#8220;<a href="https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cbs-news-online-media-bias">lean left</a>,&#8221; and Pew Research data shows that, accordingly, more Democrats than Republicans view CBS News as a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2025/06/10/the-political-gap-in-americans-news-sources/">trustworthy source</a> of information.
While it&#8217;s certainly possible that Pelley never saw the AllSides assessment or the Pew Research data, it&#8217;s unlikely that he was unaware of the lawsuit, filed by President Donald Trump against &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; over edits made to a pre-election interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.
CBS News parent company Paramount paid out $16 million over the Harris interview, which Trump and numerous others alleged had been deceptively edited to clean up several of her &#8220;word-salad&#8221; answers. The interview aired in early October 2024, just weeks prior to the election — and Paramount, without issuing an apology, agreed to the $16 million settlement in July 2025.
Pelley&#8217;s first post-ouster interview raised a number of questions, particularly after he also claimed that he&#8217;d &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scott-pelley-takes-military-cosplay-to-new-level-in-deluded-nyt-interview">been in combat</a>&#8221; for the United States and claimed that watching people he&#8217;d worked closely with lose their jobs at CBS News was like personally witnessing the &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scott-pelley-compares-cbs-ouster-to-family-being-murdered-in-over-the-top-interview">murders</a>&#8221; of close friends and family members.

60 Minutes

Scott Pelley Reveals He’s Never Met A Normal Person In His Life

Scott Pelley Reveals He's Never Met A Normal Person In His Life

Bari Weiss

CBS News

Media

Politics

Scott Pelley

Over the past decade, the biggest news outlets in our country have resorted to reporting that is tainted by their journalists’ personal beliefs, regardless of political affiliation. Apparently, the virtue of objective reporting has become a thing of the past. Being a student at the Missouri School of Journalism has shown me that the main contributor that often doesn’t get the attention it deserves is the dwindling standards of journalistic ethics.
In one of my core journalism classes this past semester, my professor argued that “objectivity harms,” claiming that the ideal itself is essentially dead in the media today. This claim allowed her to justify the uncritical imposition of her own beliefs on a class of nearly 200 students. The irony was hard to miss. The course, Cross Cultural Journalism, was designed to teach students how to represent different groups fairly and accurately in the media. However, it became clear during the week on International Politics and Conflict that this was not the lesson being taught.
Instead of discussing the various approaches that journalists have taken to represent international powers and explain their conflicts, class was spent watching a biased documentary about a Palestinian mayor. After what can only be described as a <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-firsthand-look-at-the-anti-israel-bias-in-college-classrooms/">problematic class discussion</a>, in which my professor pushed the genocide libel and allowed classmates to yell at one another to voice opposition, she decided to invite the filmmaker for a Q&amp;A.
At one point in his discussion, the filmmaker said he wouldn’t have been able to make this film after October 7 because it was “made for an audience that no longer exists.”
He explained that the documentary was made for those who were either neutral or uneducated about the complexities of the conflict, and even though many of his scenes presented opinions that demonized Israel, his attempt at objectivity during our discussion was refreshing. I could agree with him that the discourse on the conflict has lost a certain capacity for neutrality, and therefore the audience his film was intended to serve.
Having a person who seemingly has strong opinions critical of Israel restrain himself from pushing his own beliefs onto a group of students gave me a chance to find common ground. My professor, however, took a different approach.
Throughout the dialogue, she repeatedly inserted her own political opinions. When discussing the current status of former Palestinian mayor, Musa Hadid, she asked rhetorically, “There’s still a Ramallah?” She also repeatedly minimized Hamas’s <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47754">part</a> in the beginning of the war, often trying to shift the blame to Israel or oversimplifying the whole issue.
In doing so, she transformed the class into another exercise in reinforcing preconceived anti-Israel beliefs. More importantly, it showcased the extreme bias my professor holds, her disregard for journalistic integrity, and the influence professors wield in their classrooms.
My earlier negative experience of voicing an unpopular opinion convinced me to stay quiet this time around. Expressing my beliefs didn’t seem worth the trouble.
If this class were taught by a responsible professor, it would have allowed for a multitude of ideas and interpretations, capitalizing on the fact that students come from different backgrounds, political ideologies, and socioeconomic statuses to simulate the kind of audience we will be writing for as prospective journalists.
The lesson implicitly being taught here is that if a journalist believes strongly enough in a narrative or a specific side of an issue, the journalistic ethics we’ve been taught can be bent or altogether forgotten to fit that narrative. At best, this kind of subpar journalism produces an uninformed society. At worst, it empowers activist movements that cause more harm than good.
I hope my peers eventually come to understand the power journalists hold and strive to act responsibly. All stories have more than one side, and it’s our duty as journalists to explore each perspective when forming personal beliefs.
***
Leore Tal is a contributing writer for The College Fix, a Journalism and Political Science student at the University of Missouri, and an undergraduate Fellow with the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA). Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of CAMERA.

Quill Feather Pen in hand

How Journalism Schools Are Baking Bias Right Into The Cake

Journalism

The Left&#8217;s institutional control is falling apart. They thought they had the government.
Then President Trump won, and the Republicans won, but the Left thought they had the media. More than anything, they thought they had the media.
But last night, that magical world dissolved before their very eyes.
CBS News fired longtime “60 Minutes” anchor Scott Pelley, making clear that the show would no longer be an agitprop outlet for the Left.
But without institutional control, what happens to the Left? What do they do next?
The answer? They move even farther to the Left.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-ep-2437?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
The left-wing and mainstream media narrative today is that “60 Minutes” was a magical place filled with objective journalism. Then right-wing fire-breather Bari Weiss and her evil Zionist paymasters arrived, and now they&#8217;re firing stalwarts like old-style journalist Scott Pelley from “60 Minutes.” How dare they touch this bastion of journalistic integrity?
False. “60 Minutes” was never objective. It was always a Left-wing outlet. That&#8217;s the reason why the Left is angry that changes are being made.
They saw this as their institutional preserve and now that preserve has been violated. Like a naturally beautiful piece of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge being touched by human hands, it must not be.
They&#8217;ve been promoting the notion that Bari Weiss is some sort of flaming Right-winger. That&#8217;s crazy. I&#8217;m friends with Bari; she is not Right-wing on a huge number of issues. She is pro-LGBT, obviously. She is pro-choice, obviously. She used to describe herself as a center-left person. If you went back about 25 years, she&#8217;d be a moderate Democrat.
So what is the actual story here?
The key story here is the Democrats are losing control of a lot of their key institutions. If there&#8217;s any overarching sort of theme to the Trump era, it is that Democrats thought they had undeniable control of virtually every key institution in American life and now, one by one, that&#8217;s coming apart for them.
“60 Minutes” was considered the tip of the spear in the objective journalism universe.
Those of us who&#8217;ve been watching mainstream legacy media for a long time recognize that the so-called objective media is usually anything but objective; usually it is just a Left-leaning group of people who pretend to be objective.
Scott Pelley was fired. The reason he was fired is that there were changes made over at “60 Minutes.” Nick Bilton, a tech journalist and filmmaker, was appointed to shake up “60 Minutes” because the ratings were poor and there were problems with journalistic integrity.
Bilton was publicly accosted by Scott Pelley at a meeting where he introduced himself to the staff. This was after CBS had fired the previous executive producer, her deputy, and a couple of the show&#8217;s correspondents.
With absolute self-centered arrogance, Pelley called it Black Thursday.
That&#8217;s true for an enormous number of journalists and pseudo-journalists in the online space. They are simply narcissists; the only thing they regret about the camera is that it is not a mirror.
Bilton said Bari loves the institution, loves “60 Minutes.”
Pelley got up in full self-righteous mode, knowing, of course, that he was trying to get himself fired. Let&#8217;s be clear: that&#8217;s what he wanted. He wanted to be a martyr. If you&#8217;re going to have your airtime reduced, it’s better to be a martyr.
If you&#8217;re Colin Kaepernick and you&#8217;re about to get benched, much better that you go out protesting the national anthem.
So Pelley decided this was his moment of bravery and resistance. (Maybe they&#8217;ll make a movie about him.)
He said Bari was murdering “60 Minutes,” that she did not love this place, that she was trying to kill it; that she had no qualifications for her job.
It is incredible to me when people talk about qualifications in the journalistic world. The idea that journalism is a job for which you require a license or a qualification is ridiculous. It ain’t like being a heart surgeon.
Bari Weiss was an editor at the New York Times before she started The Free Press, one of the most successful independent journalistic endeavors in America. But she has no qualifications?
Yet Scott Pelley, who reads stuff from a teleprompter on camera, says she has no qualifications for her job.
Bilton wrote a letter that stated:
<blockquote>I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I&#8217;m new to 60 Minutes, I&#8217;ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner.
It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday&#8217;s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama.
I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal. Despite yesterday&#8217;s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.
Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (&#8220;CBS&#8221;) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.</blockquote>
A great letter.
Applause for Nick Bilton. This alone means that his tenure has been worth it. This is how you should treat insubordination.
“60 Minutes” pretends that it is an openly objective institution. The notion that “60 Minutes” was a bastion of objective journalism is not true.
It’s another institution that is finally being remade to veer toward objectivity.
And the Left is panicking.

truth_bomb

The Left’s Media Fortress Has A Breach

Ben Shapiro

Opinion

The media are fully convinced that the best way for the United States to confront China and Iran is simply to do whatever they want.
President Donald Trump has been confronting both countries for two terms. And yet, according to The New York Times and The Washington Post, somehow China and Iran have the upper hand.
That&#8217;s a weird thing to say. Iran does not have a leadership class. They are all dead. Iran does not have forward military capacity. It&#8217;s been destroyed. Iran does not have a navy. They&#8217;re at the bottom of the Strait of Hormuz. They don&#8217;t have an air force. They can&#8217;t fly anything but low-level drones.
Iran doesn&#8217;t have a functioning economy, but somehow, Iran is winning?
Meanwhile, China, which has a massive debt problem, a massive demographic problem, and serious military issues — its military is wildly inferior to that of the United States — is also winning?
According to these media outlets, the best strategy is to make nice with the Chinese, to hug them, to give them everything they could possibly want; to go to the Iranians and cut a deal where we free up billions of dollars so they can rebuild their entire military machine.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-dubunking-nytimes-iran?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
I&#8217;m not sure what else you&#8217;re supposed to gain from news analysis from The New York Times that says Iran gained leverage in the war, or this from The Washington Post: “China gains major edge on U.S. amid Iran war, intelligence report finds.”
China has no oil. It receives a majority of its oil from the Strait of Hormuz, which is closed. How is China trying to become magically stronger in some way? Iran has nothing functional in it. Yet somehow they are magically winning.
The media’s perspective is that China and Iran have gained leverage.
The Times reports, “Nearly three months into the conflict, the Iranian regime has succeeded in confounding U.S. and Israeli expectations for a speedy victory.”
Of course, all of this depends on your definition of victory. We have not had a victory on planet Earth in which one side gets on the deck of an aircraft carrier and signs a surrender document for roughly 80 years.
If by victory over the U.S. you mean Iran has no top-level military, their government is barely holding on to power, their economy is nonfunctional, and that they are, in desultory fashion, firing drones at shipping — that’s a pretty narrow definition of victory.
The Times writes: “The regime survived a wave of targeted killings early in the war. It then managed to turn the tables on its more powerful adversaries, introducing something of a stalemate. Since mid-March, Iran has maintained control over the Strait of Hormuz, an international waterway crucial to the world&#8217;s oil and gas trade. It has been able to limit U.S. and Israeli strikes on its energy industry. It even got President Donald Trump to rein in Israel&#8217;s war in Lebanon against Hezbollah and Iranian-backed militia.”
Most of these points are false. If Iran maintained control over the Strait of Hormuz, they would be able to ship their own oil out; they would be able to toll ships that were traveling.
They can’t.
Sure, President Trump is concerned about the spike in oil prices that would accompany an Iranian counter-fire against the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. But as far as limiting U.S. and Israeli attacks on its energy industry, President Trump is not sure that he wants to do that, because he is not sure that he wants to destroy the lifeline of a future Iranian regime if they were too moderate. He&#8217;s concerned that hurting the energy supplies in Iran would hurt the Iranian people.
As far as the war in Lebanon, the Israelis are still pursuing military action in Lebanon, and they&#8217;re likely to pursue it further as time goes on because Hezbollah is not giving up the ghost.
Nonetheless, The New York Times did find “experts” to explain that Iran is winning. Nicole Grajewski, who teaches at the Center for International Studies at Sciences Po in France, said, “Iran definitely has the advantage here. The U.S. is just kind of flailing at the moment.”
In what sense do they have an advantage?
The idea here is that Iran is pressuring the UAE and Qatar, except the UAE wants the United States to go even further. Saudi Arabia may be lobbying the United States not to go further, but that&#8217;s only because the United States has not evidenced a willingness to go all the way. If the United States were to say to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, “We&#8217;re toppling the regime,” both of those states would be onside, but they don&#8217;t want half-measures.
Thus, the pressure is not on the United States in the sense that America is about to be damaged; the pressure is on Iran regarding whether the regime lasts.
Iran&#8217;s strategy, according to The New York Times, of targeting oil fields and surrounding countries, “has shifted much of the focus of the war to the crucial question of how to get the strait reopened —  and how to limit Iranian leverage over it in the future. Efforts to pressure Iran to reopen the crucial waterway have proved unsuccessful.”
There are options that President Trump does not want to use, but he certainly could. Nonetheless, according to the New York Times, “Iran, though deeply damaged by the war, is likely to emerge from it with a valuable new asset” — I assume this means shutting down the shipping in the Strait — “having at least partial control over the strait would not only be a source of revenue for the regime, but also a form of geopolitical strength.”
They could have done that before. That&#8217;s the whole point. Do you want a regime that could have shut the Strait at any point to have a ballistic missile umbrella and nuclear weapons?
The answer is no.
It is yet to be seen how the war ends, but to suggest that Iran is somehow stronger now than they were before the war is crazy.
They just did something that they had to do because they were basically on their last legs if they had not shut the Strait of Hormuz. That was their last point of leverage, which, by the way, puts them at odds with China, which needs that oil. If they had not closed the Strait of Hormuz, and if it were to reopen without their economy reopening, they would be in very, very serious trouble.
How about China? The Washington Post is trying to claim that China is benefiting from all this, which is hard to see since their economic growth has slowed and they&#8217;ve been relegated to stealing our tech.
Nonetheless, according to The Washington Post, “A confidential U.S. intelligence analysis details how China is exploiting the war in Iran to maximize its advantage over the United States across military, economic, diplomatic, and other fields &#8230; The assessment, the officials said, was produced this week for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, and has raised alarm within the Pentagon about the geopolitical cost of Washington&#8217;s standoff with Tehran.”
We should be very clear. There are many intelligence reports presented to the military, so we don&#8217;t know how important this one was. Was it sort of a consensus? Unclear.
“Officials talked about the finding,” the Post continued. “China has sold weapons to Persian Gulf allies of the United States&#8230; Beijing has also assisted countries around the world struggling to meet their energy needs.”
That would be weird given that Beijing does not have access to oil and natural gas.
The reality is that the United States has become the chief exporter of oil and natural gas on Earth, thanks to developments in the Strait of Hormuz. You can see graphics showing the large number of ships leaving American shores with American LNG.
According to the Washington Post, “The war has also drained the U.S. with massive stocks of munitions that would be critical in a potential standoff with China over the fate of Taiwan. The Iran conflict &#8230; has allowed Beijing to observe how the U.S. fights war and learn how to plan its own future operations.”
Beijing would have learned that in any conflict anyway. As far as munitions stocks being short, the reality is that&#8217;s why we need to ramp it up. We should have been ramping it up beforehand. The fact that Joe Biden didn&#8217;t ramp it up, the fact that Barack Obama slashed our military by leaps and bounds, did not help.
“The report notes that Beijing has incorporated popular criticisms of the war into public messaging,” the Post writes.
Of course that&#8217;s true, but none of this is a surprise. China trying to take advantage of an international conflict is not a gigantic shock. But the notion that China is somehow better off when it can&#8217;t import oil from Iran or Qatar or UAE or Saudi Arabia, how?
This doesn&#8217;t mean China doesn&#8217;t have counter moves. Any country worth its salt has counter moves. The question is, are they better off now or were they better off five months ago? And the answer is China was a lot better off five months ago.
But don&#8217;t worry, you can always find an expert. Jacob Stokes, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security — a left-wing think tank — says, “On balance, the war in Iran is massively improving China&#8217;s geopolitical position.”
I have doubts that that is the case.
Nonetheless, there are people who are trying to pretend that Beijing is doing well, that Beijing is actually somehow making common cause with Japan and South Korea and Australia.
I don’t think so.
People who don&#8217;t like Trump are claiming that China is going to step in and win the moral party arguments.
I have a hard time believing that unless you&#8217;re an idiot.
Stokes says, “China has an opening to portray the United States as an aggressive, unilateralist power in decline because Washington cannot stop itself from getting embroiled in a bloody and costly Middle East wars.”
First, this is not a particularly bloody nor particularly costly Middle East war. Second, if you want to believe a Chinese attempt to portray us as an aggressive unilateralist power while they threaten Taiwan, eat Hong Kong, threaten Japan, and build bases in the middle of the ocean to attack the Philippines, you are simply stupid.
If you&#8217;re the kind of person who wants to believe that China can make a moral case on the world stage, I would suggest you need to get your brain checked because you have a serious disability of some kind.
But count on the media, in all circumstances, to take the side that says that America ought to be weaker in the world. That&#8217;s become a popular point of view on both the Left and the Woke Right.
The truth has always been that the world is a much better place when America is stronger.
President Trump understands that.

haters_gonna_hate

Haters Gonna Hate. What The Anti-America Crowd Is Lying About

Communist China

Iran

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has spent years being treated by mainstream media as the go-to expert on hate groups and extremism. Now it is facing an 11-count federal indictment for wire fraud, lying to a bank, and money laundering.
As Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto recently put it, the SPLC does not act like a neutral watchdog. It behaves more like a competitor to real journalism, with every incentive to hype threats because “hate pays.”
The real test is whether the institutions that have propped it up will finally take these charges seriously. So far, the response has been disappointing. The indictment claims the SPLC secretly funneled millions of dollars to leaders of the very white-supremacist groups it claims to track, including more than $270,000 to an organizer of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. That rally gained instant notoriety, and it became prime fodder for left-leaning media that endlessly replayed former President Joe Biden’s misleading claim about Trump saying there were “very fine people on both sides.”
Three of the Big Four news apps — Google, Yahoo, and MSN — completely ignored the April 21 indictment. Apple News featured just two stories on the scandal, both from left-leaning outlets. As for the other three apps, the story did not crack their top 20 headlines in the days after it broke. Wikipedia went even further than ignoring it. Editors buried the indictment deep in the SPLC’s page, 65 paragraphs down under a mild “criticism” heading. Efforts to move it higher, including into the lead section, were quickly shot down. One editor said it had “no place so far up.” Key details, like the payments to the Unite the Right organizer, were stripped out as “UNDUE.”
They also removed references to the indictment from the Unite the Right rally page itself, despite the obvious connection, and blocked it from the list of groups the SPLC labels as hate groups. This protective editing stands in sharp contrast to how quickly Wikipedia highlights indictments against Republicans and conservatives.
It is not just dishonest coverage. Wikipedia still treats the SPLC as a “generally reliable” source, letting editors cite it over 7,000 times. Meanwhile, right-leaning outlets like Breitbart, Fox News, the New York Post, and The Daily Wire are heavily restricted or blacklisted. After the indictment, editors shut down debates about the SPLC’s special status and even topic-banned a dissenting editor.
The bias runs deep. The SPLC’s “extremist” files and hate lists still get prominent placement on pages about conservatives like Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh, Jack Posobiec, Moms for Liberty, and the Alliance Defending Freedom. At the same time, the SPLC is accused of quietly paying an Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America and a leader of the National Socialist Party of America while publicly condemning them.
Wikipedia matters because it dominates Google search results and AI summaries. Google has given millions to the Wikimedia Foundation, and tech giants like Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft partner with it. When these platforms downplay damaging news about a favored group while keeping its power to label enemies intact, tens of millions of people get a distorted picture every day.
This fits a broader pattern tracked by the Media Research Center’s Free Speech America project. Our monitoring of the Big Four news apps shows consistent favoritism toward liberal sources. Paired with Wikipedia’s practices, it shows how big tech amplifies left-leaning gatekeepers and sidelines stories that do not fit the narrative. In short, major news aggregators and Wikipedia have buried the SPLC indictment. They have protected one of the Left’s most powerful smear machines from real accountability while it keeps attacking conservatives online.
When the information gatekeepers suppress a major federal corruption case against an organization that shapes so much of our public debate, they erode trust across the board. Millions of Americans end up seeing a cleaned-up version of reality that serves the SPLC’s defenders, not the truth.
***
David Bozell is president of the Media Research Center.

Wikipedia

How The SPLC Gets Big Time Protection From Big Tech — And Why It Matters

Big Tech

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

Brian Karem, the longtime White House correspondent and author of “Free the Press: The Death of American Journalism and How to Revive It,” just <a href="https://www.salon.com/2026/04/24/why-im-boycotting-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner/">published</a> a fiery Salon piece declaring he’s boycotting this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner (WHCD). His reason? President Donald Trump is attending. “I will not be attending,” Karem writes. “I have no desire to participate in this hypocrisy.” He accuses Trump of “discredit[ing], insult[ing] and abus[ing] reporters,” closing off access, suing news organizations, and stacking the briefing room with “right-wing propagandists posing as independent reporters.” He laments a “spineless and worthless” corporate media that won’t fight back hard enough.
If the press is truly under siege, if American journalism is dying, as Karem’s book title insists, then why does one President showing up to a black-tie dinner feel like an existential threat? The truth is simpler, and far more American: The press has never been more free. It’s just no longer the exclusive property of the old gatekeepers.
For decades, the press wasn’t a marketplace of ideas — it was a cozy cartel. Three television networks, a handful of powerful newspapers, and the annual WHCD (affectionately, or not, known as “nerd prom”), where reporters mingled with the very officials they were supposed to hold accountable. Access was everything. Favors were traded over cocktails. Stories that challenged the narrative often died quietly in the editing room.
Karem himself is a product of that system. He successfully sued to regain his press pass during Trump’s first term. He’s covered administrations for years from inside the bubble. Yet now he’s shocked that the man millions of Americans elected twice refuses to play by the old rules. Trump didn’t invent presidential control over White House access — it’s not a public utility, and never has been. Every president has shaped the briefing room to suit his style. What’s different is that Trump says the quiet part out loud, and millions of Americans cheer him for it.
Meanwhile, legacy outlets spent years pushing stories that later crumbled: the Russian collusion narrative (later walked back by intelligence officials), the Hunter Biden laptop promoted as “Russian disinformation,” and COVID-era claims that shifted with the political winds. Trust didn’t evaporate because of Trump’s tweets. It collapsed because Americans could see the spin in real time. Gallup’s latest poll shows just <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/695762/trust-media-new-low.aspx">28%</a> of Americans have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in mass media — the lowest on record.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/wired-in-live-white-house-correspondents-dinner-special-edition?elementPosition=0&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">Watch the White House Correspondents&#8217; Dinner LIVE on The Daily Wire</a>
The internet shattered the cartel. X, Substack, podcasts, YouTube, and independent sites let anyone with a smartphone and the courage to speak publish instantly. Citizen journalists reach millions without begging corporate approval.
Substack alone has exploded past 35 million monthly active subscribers by 2026, with paid subscriptions growing rapidly as readers vote with their wallets for independent voices. Podcasts and newsletters from moms, veterans, and everyday Americans now influence the national conversation more than evening newscasts ever did. Legacy newsrooms are hemorrhaging staff and subscribers, not because of “right-wing propagandists,” but because competition works. When the old guard calls this the “death of journalism,” what they really mean is the death of their monopoly.
Viewpoint diversity has never been higher. Before 2016, newsrooms in Washington, D.C. and New York City leaned overwhelmingly one way — studies routinely showed that over 90% of political donations from journalists went to Democrats. Conservative perspectives were dismissed as fringe. Today, parallel ecosystems flourish. Trump didn’t kill journalism; he accelerated its breakup into a true marketplace of ideas. Americans can now choose sources that reflect their values instead of being force-fed a single narrative.
Real-time corrections happen daily. The Hunter Biden story suppression, the lab-leak theory dismissal, and “transitory” inflation spin were all exposed not by internal ombudsmen but by independent outlets and the American public.
Legally, the press has never been safer. The First Amendment remains untouched. Presidents have always limited access, issued criticism, and occasionally sued when reporting crossed into falsehood. Trump’s “enemy of the people” line is protected speech, just as the media’s daily insults toward him are. No journalists are jailed. No newspapers are shuttered. Contrast that with actual authoritarian regimes where reporters face prison or worse. Reporters Without Borders may wring its hands, but America still ranks among the freest nations on earth for press freedom.
The WHCA dinner itself proves the point. It’s a celebrity schmooze-fest that raises scholarship money while reporters pose for selfies with power brokers. Karem and more than 250 colleagues (including Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson) signed a <a href="https://x.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/2046181834506096954/photo/1">letter</a> decrying “unprecedented attacks.” Yet the event was never about “vigorous press” — it was about access and glamour. Boycotting Trump because he shows up exposes the hypocrisy: The dinner was fine when it roasted him in 2011 or when comedians mocked him in absentia. Now that he’s back in the room as the elected president, suddenly it’s unbearable.
Karem’s Salon piece is revealing. He praises past colleagues for “standing up” to Trump and laments today’s “compliant reporters” softened by buyouts and diluted by new voices. He wants the old rules back — where a small guild decided the narrative and everyone else followed. Americans rejected that model in 2016, 2024, and again now.
The press isn’t dying — it’s democratizing. It’s becoming more representative, more accountable, and more responsive to the people it serves.
The question isn’t whether the press will survive Trump. The real question is whether the old guard will adapt to a truly open marketplace or keep boycotting reality while the rest of us move forward.
The press has never been more free. And that’s the American way.
***
Bethany Miller is the Director of Communications at NRB, managing editor of The Conservateur, and a senior fellow at Concerned Women for America.

Fake news graffiti

President Trump’s Appearance At The WHCD Isn’t A Threat To Journalism — Journalists Are

Free Press

Mainstream Media

White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Menu