HBO’s host of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver, traveled to NBC’s Late Night with Seth Meyers on Monday for one of his periodic visits to his network-based cohorts. During his visit, Oliver and Meyers reminisced about the time Oliver promised Justice Clarence Thomas $1 million to “get the fuck off the Supreme Court,” with Oliver doubling down, “Honestly, I'd open it up again.” Meyers recalled that “there is something that has not happened yet that you threw out into the universe. You basically offered Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year—not just a million dollars, a million dollars a year if he resigned from the Supreme Court.”     Amid cheering from the audience, Oliver also remembered that it is “so easy to feel that way when you didn't make the offer and I felt exactly like you until the offer went out on TV. I was so excited. "Oh, that was fun. That show went really well. Oh [bleep], it's about to happen now, isn't it?" After a bit about how Oliver’s wife was not as thrilled as the audience with the idea, he declared, “It was both a huge relief and massively disappointing that he didn't take it.” Meyers then wondered, “What was the window of time you gave him?” Oliver then doubled down, “It was—we gave him 30 days. Honestly, I'd open it up again. If— ahead of — As long as—As long as he gets out before the—before they're doing the June decisions. I would be willing to open discussions again.” After a bit of self-revelation that Thomas probably wasn’t watching, Meyers joked that Thomas’s wife Ginni was, which led Oliver to continue, “Yeah, if you want to get in touch and open up the negotiations again, I still have the contract in the drawer in my desk, and I'd be willing to do that. Again, until one of us dies, and hopefully that will be you.” For Meyers, that last bit was “just self-preservation” to avoid having to make large amounts of million-dollar payments, but Oliver doesn't have to worry because Thomas isn't the corrupt vote-seller the bit pretends that he is. Here is a transcript for the May 6-taped show: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 5/7/2024 1:08 AM ET SETH MEYERS: There is something that has not happened yet that you threw out into the universe. You basically offered Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year -- not just a million dollars – JOHN OLIVER: Yeah. MEYERS: -- a million dollars a year if he resigned from the Supreme Court. OLIVER: I did do that. I did, yeah. Yeah. Easy. MEYERS: Easy. OLIVER: Easy -- so easy to feel that way when you didn't make the offer and I felt exactly like you until the offer went out on TV. I was so excited. "Oh, that was fun. That show went really well. Oh [bleep], it's about to happen now, isn't it?" MEYERS: Now, I imagine there's multiple people you just – OLIVER: Oh, yeah. Yes. MEYERS: -- Have to talk to about that. People, lawyers – OLIVER: For sure. MEYERS: Your wife. OLIVER: Definitely. MEYERS: Were they as applaud-y as this group? OLIVER: I would say my wife was on the low side of the applaud-y. It was more, "What did you just tell me?" I did say to her, it's until one of us dies. And I think that if he takes the offer -- MEYERS: Not you or your wife, you or Clarence Thomas. OLIVER: No, yeah, that's what I'm -- no, no. Yeah. Well, you diagnosed the awkwardness in that room really well. “Why would you put that in the offer, you sociopath?”  Until I or Clarence Thomas die. And I did feel like if he took the deal that there were going to be some people so angry with me that they were going to kill me. Therefore, my wife wouldn't be on the hook for the money. But she didn't take that as the reassuring statement that I hoped. “Oh, I won't be around for that. Don't worry. It's fine.”  But it would have -- if he said -- it was both a huge relief and massively disappointing that he didn't take it. MEYERS: What was the window of time you gave him? OLIVER: It was -- we gave him 30 days. Honestly, I'd open it up again. If-- ahead of -- As long as -- MEYERS: Yeah. OLIVER: As long as he gets out before the -- before they're doing the June decisions.  MEYERS: Yeah. OLIVER: I would be willing to open discussions again. So Clarence, I know I keep -- every time I'm talking to Clarence through the camera here. MEYERS: Sure, yeah, yeah. Of course. OLIVER: Clarence, I know you're a big fan of Seth. MEYERS: Yeah. I think he -- I think he's not, but Ginni has it on. OLIVER: Ginni-- Ginni is just a fan of just the canon of Late Night. MEYERS: Oh, just loves it, yeah. OLIVER: Yeah, if you want to get in touch and open up the negotiations again, I still have the contract in the drawer in my desk, and I'd be willing to do that. MEYERS: That's really cool. OLIVER: Again, until one of us dies, and hopefully that will be you. MEYERS: More than fair. OLIVER: You know, like -- MEYERS: That's just self-preservation.

First on MRC Business: George Soros’ Open Society Foundations sunk massive amounts of cash into several universities—most of which have been a breeding ground for radical anti-Israel students and whose administrations responded poorly to protestors, agitators and rioters trespassing, breaking into and occupying buildings and harassing Jewish students. Both the New York Post and Politico have reported on Soros’ connections to the groups leading the anti-Israel protests. And now, an MRC Business investigation exposed how Soros has also given at least $34,638,060 to the nine universities that have made headlines for their slow response to anti-Semitic protests and riots, as well as their ineffectual or possibly even sympathetic administrators. Among the recipients of Soros funding connections were Columbia University, Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), University of North Carolina (UNC), University of Southern California (USC), City University of New York (CUNY), the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and, of course, the University of California Berkeley from 2016 to 2022. Soros also poured money into media and journalism-related initiatives at several of these schools, including $2,399,360 to Harvard, $1,827,560 to Columbia, $366,369 to UNC and $125,000 to CUNY.  The accusations of anti-Semitic sentiments at Harvard, MIT, UPenn and Columbia were so severe that all four presidents of these universities have been called to testify before Congress. The presidents of UPenn and Harvard resigned in disgrace due to their failure to address campus anti-Semitism. Former Harvard President Claudine Gay also failed to clearly condemn the anti-Semitic phrase “From the River to the Sea,” which calls for the genocide of the Jewish people. The president of Columbia only allowed police to clear out trespassing anti-Israel agitators after they barricaded themselves inside a building, trashed it and prevented people from going in or out.  At CUNY and UNC, anti-Israel hecklers tore down the American flag while raising the Palestinian flag above the campus. Students have occupied and attempted to occupy buildings, trashed their campuses with garbage and graffiti, and acted with basic impunity due to a lack of decisive actions from their university administrations.  Other universities have taken anti-Semitism more seriously. University of Florida president Ben Sasse famously stood his ground against violations of campus policy on campus and in the pages of The Wall Street Journal.   At Florida State, the administration cleared out a prohibited encampment in five minutes, faster than former President Harry Truman recognized the restoration of Israel. The University of Notre Dame chose to have anti-Israel protestors arrested after their event continued after its allotted time. The University of South Florida has also enforced its policies against anti-Israel protesters.  Princeton University took action against students occupying a campus building, having 13 arrested for this incident while having two other students arrested to enforce a policy against tents.   Of five universities that acted swiftly to condemn unlawful behavior by anti-Israel agitators, Soros gave a total of $1,685,040 from 2016 to 2022. That’s a lot less than $34 million.  MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider asked why these universities have tolerated this behavior for so long. “This draws into question whether the Hamas nine are allowing these agitators to run amok so as to keep the gravy train flowing. Columbia seems addicted to the Soros cash. Will the Hamas nine universities do anything to keep the money flowing?” Schneider asked.  Not all the anti-Israel agitators have been students, according to the New York Post. The Post, citing law enforcement sources, stated that 134 of 282 people arrested during recent violent protests at New York universities had no connection to the schools they were arrested at. New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) backed the idea that campus protests were being inflated or even led by “outside agitators” during a May 1 press conference.  The Post also reported in an April 27 article that some of “the protests are being encouraged by paid radicals who are ‘fellows’ of a Soros-funded group called the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR),” which pays them up to $7,800 and trains them to organize pro-Palestinian campaigns.  Disturbingly, Soros has a long record of funding anti-Israel groups. Soros gave $525,000 to Jewish Voice for Peace between 2017 and 2022, a group that has figured prominently in campus protests.  Even POLITICO, far from a conservative media outlet, recently reported that Soros has funded three anti-Israel groups involved in the campus protests: Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow and the Adalah Justice Project. As noted by the New York Post, all three of these radical groups have been involved in anti-Israel protests since Hamas launched a terror attack against Israel last fall.  During the aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attack, MRC President Brent Bozell and Schneider pointed out that Soros had heavily funded seven of the groups that spoke up in defense of acts of Hamas terrorism. This included $550,000 in donations for the pro-Hamas group Al-Shabaka, which issued a horrifying statement papering over murder and rape with the phrase “decolonization is not a metaphor.” The leftist billionaire also made an absurd comment about the terrorist group, saying that America and Israel “must open the door to Hamas.” The president of Soros’ Open Society Foundations Lord Mark Malloch-Brown has also advocated in favor of Hamas, arguing that “Hamas must be a party to a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on Soros’s funding of anti-Israel causes. Note: The author of this article graduated from the University of Notre Dame. 

YouTube, the famous video-sharing platform, was shockingly co-opted by the Biden White House to become the gold standard of censorship.  On May 1, the House Judiciary Committee’s Select Weaponization of Government Subcommittee released a voluminous report exposing lengthy correspondence between the White House and Facebook, YouTube and Amazon.  YouTube’s team was particularly receptive to the demands of the administration and was touted by Biden officials as an exemplar to prod other companies, specifically Facebook.  Meta Director of Global Engagement Nick Clegg stated that Senior White House Coronavirus Advisor Andy Slavitt informed him about attending a “misinfo” meeting where “the consensus was that FB [Facebook] is a ‘disinformation factory.’” In contrast to Meta, Slavitt claimed that YouTube “has made significant advances to remove content leading to vaccine hesitancy whilst” the Mark Zuckerberg-owned platforms “lagged behind.” Leaked emails show that YouTube’s relationship with the Biden administration began in January 2021. Early on, Biden officials like White House Digital Director Rob Flaherty expressed an interest in YouTube’s content moderation policies, specifically around vaccine hesitancy. On April 12, 2021, Flaherty sent an email to YouTube to inquire about the company’s acts to stifle dissenting opinions on vaccines. “Heya – A while ago, I met with folks from Google about misinformation and COVID-19,” Flaherty wrote. “Was hoping to connect again with folks from your side about the work you’re doing to combat vaccine hesitancy, but also crack down on vaccine misinformation.”     The following day, on April 13, a Google employee communicated to a coworker instructions to add to the “Feb COVID19 Misinformation Deck” and referenced a meeting with Flaherty in which the White House official expressed a keen interest in “borderline content.” A Google calendar invite sent to Flaherty references a meeting with YouTube on April 21 titled “YouTube Vaccine Misinfo Meeting.” The topic of the briefing was “general trends seen around vaccine misinformation” and “the empirical effects of YouTube’s efforts to combat misinfo, what interventions YouTube is currently trying, and ways the White House (and our COVID experts) can partner in product work.” According to Flaherty, the concerns about vaccine hesitancy were a matter of nationwide policy concern and reflected the personal desires of President Biden himself.  “But we want to make sure that you have a handle on vaccine hesitancy generally and are working towards making the problem better,” Flaherty wrote in an April 21 email. “This is a concern that is shared at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the WH, so we’d like to continue a good-faith dialogue about what is going on under the hood here. I’m on the hook for reporting out.” Internal emails from Google’s team reveal that Flaherty was very hands-on with YouTube’s censorship activities and was prodding them to go even further to eliminate dissenting views. “It’s worth noting this quote from WH Digital Director Rob Flaherty (Who, as this group knows, has been tough on us at times)...” a Google employee mentioned.   Occasionally, the YouTube team would be actively threatened by Flaherty and had their motives called into question, other emails show. In a July 20, 2021 email, Flaherty demanded accountability from YouTube after a CNN fact-checker tweeted a screenshot that showed “anti-vaccine” content. One of the suggested videos was a debate on vaccines between legal scholar Alan Dershowitz and environmentalist attorney (now Independent presidential candidate) Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  “We had a pretty extensive back and forth about the degree to which you all are recommending anti-vaccination content,” Flaherty said. “You were pretty emphatic that you are not. This seems to indicate that you are. What is going on here?” In one instance, Flaherty also requested that YouTube actively propagandize by promoting the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine. “Now that the FDA has approved Pfizer, I’m making the rounds to get a sense from the various platforms how (or if) folks are planning to promote it in any way,” Flaherty wrote. “We’d appreciate a push here, given the fact that this is an oft-cited blocker for many folks,” he added.  The influence of the Biden White House was so pervasive at YouTube that its Trust and Safety Team actually sent a draft of its new content moderation policies for vaccine content to the White House for final approval. “Our YouTube Trust and Safety Team is working to finalize a new policy to remove content that could mislead people on the safety and efficacy of vaccines,” said an email sent from a Google employee to Flaherty. “We would like to preview our policy proposal for you and get any feedback you may have. Are you available to meet this Friday (9/24) or Monday (9/27)?”  Coordination between the White House and YouTube was not limited to vaccines, however. Other subjects that the White House pushed to be censored included “Russian misinformation,” “climate misinformation” and “reproductive health misinformation” (abortion). The May 1 report also uncovered that the Biden administration exerted similar pressure on Facebook and Amazon. Like YouTube, Facebook changed its content moderation policies as a result of applied pressure from the Biden White House. Amazon, while not a social media platform, changed its usual practices to suppress books on its website that questioned vaccines or other COVID narratives.   Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable

Since late January of 2012, the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard has once a week featured a “Mainstream Media Scream” selection in his “Washington Secrets” column. For each pick, usually posted online on Monday, I provide an explanation and recommend a “scream” rating (scale of one to five). This post contains the “Liberal Media Screams” starting in January 2023. > For 2021 and 2022, for all of 2020. For all of 2019. For all of  2018. (Re-named “Liberal Media Scream” as of June 11, 2018.) “Mainstream Media Screams” for: > July-December 2017 posts; January through June 2017; July to December 2016; for January to June 2016; for July to December 2015; for January to June 2015. (2012-2014 are featured on MRC.org: For 2014; for June 17, 2013 through the end of 2013. And for January 31, 2012 through June 11, 2013.) Check Bedard’s “Washington Secrets” blog for the latest choice and his other Washington insider posts. Each week, this page will be updated with Bedard’s latest example of the worst bias of the week. (For more of the worst liberal media bias, browse the Media Research Center's Notable Quotables with compilations of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media.)   ■ New on May 6: Liberal Media Scream: ABC’s Karl cries wolf with DEFCON 1 Trump warning See the posting on the Washington Examiner's site where you can watch the video and read Baker's assessment. A week later, Bedard's article will be posted here.   ■ April 29: Liberal Media Scream: Could you cry more, George Stephanopoulos? (Washington Examiner post) For years, George Stephanopoulos ran block and worse for former President Bill Clinton. First, it was Gennifer Flowers, and then Travelgate and Whitewater. Multiple other scandals followed. His boss got away with most and didn’t face the music until he was finally impeached for lying about the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. But on Sunday, in an editorial to lead off his ABC Sunday talk show, the former Clinton spokesman ripped into former President Donald Trump, who is facing several court cases for what some legal analysts see as political attacks. That every move Trump makes is hit by the media or added to his legal troubles isn’t enough for Stephanopoulos. Instead, and the reason he’s our feature for this week’s Liberal Media Scream, he wants Trump treated differently, claiming that the former president has pushed the nation to the brink of civil war despite now being the candidate most people want to win in November, according to CNN. “It’s all too easy to fall into reflective habits, to treat this as a normal campaign where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power,” he lectured on Sunday. “But that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenets of our democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens,” he added. From Sunday’s This Week on ABC: Good morning, and welcome to This Week. Until now, no American president had ever faced a criminal trial. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment for retaining and concealing classified documents. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment or a state indictment for trying to overturn an election or been named an unindicted co-conspirator in two other states for the same crime. No American president ever faced hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments for business fraud, defamation, and sexual abuse. Until now, no American presidential race had been more defined on what’s happening in courtrooms than what’s happening on the campaign trail — until now. The scale of the abnormality is so staggering that it can actually become numbing. It’s all too easy to fall into reflective habits, to treat this as a normal campaign where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power. But that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenets of our democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Speaking of tests, George Stephanopoulos has failed the journalism test. He seems quite proud of it and likely speaks for all too many in the news media who think they have the moral superiority to declare Trump voters not only misguided but guilty of putting the basic tenets of the country at risk. So, Stephanopoulos, a top Clinton spokesman in the 1990s who suppressed from voters information about his candidate’s misdeeds, will save us all by using those left-wing political instincts to decide which candidate voters should be allowed to pick.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 22: Liberal Media Scream: Historian Meacham says ‘patriotism’ demands Biden win (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is a rare five-screamer featuring a liberal journalist turned “historian” and biographer claiming that voter patriotism demands reelecting President Joe Biden over former President Donald Trump. Jon Meacham, the former top editor of Newsweek, said on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, “Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It’s not just an allegiance to your own kind. That’s nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot.” Talking more like an East Coast elitist than a Tennessee native, the liberal analyst added with seriousness, “I’m lucky in that I don’t have particular policy passions, particular issues.” And he included a condescending little jab at his home state. “I want the constitutional order to continue to unfold, and President Biden is devoted to that constitutional order. Donald Trump is self-evidently not. And I would say to my Republican friends — and I live in Tennessee, so that’s redundant — that it is, in fact, a moral question.” Here is Meacham, on Real Time with Bill Maher, reacting to the news that former Attorney General William Barr (a Trump critic) will vote for his former boss: JON MEACHAM: What Barr is doing, and what so many — I sometimes think of them as the Peter Millar Republicans, right, these are Republicans who are not full MAGA people, they’re men’s grill types who don’t want Democrats picking judges or setting tax rates. They talked themselves into this twice. In ’16 and in ’20. And then came December and January of 2020 and 2021, and, at that point, I believe, and I say this with care, that it is become evident, to me, anyway, that there is a patriotic duty to support President Biden against Donald Trump for this reason: Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It’s not just an allegiance to your own kind. That’s nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot, and I’m lucky in that I don’t have particular policy passions, particular issues. I want the constitutional order to continue to unfold, and President Biden is devoted to that constitutional order. Donald Trump is self-evidently not. And I would say to my Republican friends — and I live in Tennessee, so that’s redundant — that it is, in fact, a moral question…. To me, the interesting thing about the Republican Party is if you are, in fact, going to put partisanship as your central organizing principle, if reflexive partisanship is the most important thing — I would argue that you need to go back and read George Washington’s farewell address. You need to read the founders that otherwise, you know, they love. You know, they love the founders when they can move it around to agree with them. It’s very clear that if party spirit became the organizing principle, that, that was going to be fatal to the Constitution, and it’s very interesting when Barr said it’s “suicide.” The idea that President Biden is leading us to national suicide. I’m not sure what he’s talking about, but Lincoln used that image in his first major speech in the 1830s. He said if we ever fall, it’s not going to be from a foreign foe: It’s going to be from someone internally rising up and mastering those passions. And those passions about partisanship, that’s what’s ruining us. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Could Meacham be any more condescending and elitist? So much for the pretense of being a journalist and not a partisan activist. His take: I’ve decided which candidate is bad for America, so if you vote for that one, you are not only not a patriot, but you will bring about the destruction of the nation. And he wonders why his neighbors in Tennessee don’t appreciate him for denouncing them as on ‘the wrong side’ of ‘a moral question.’ I bet they have a lot more respect for his views than he does for theirs.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 15: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   ■ April 8: Liberal Media Scream: Joy Reid wants prison, not airport, named for Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream revealed again just how easy it is to make cable TV hosts suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” go nuts. With Congress on Easter break, there wasn’t much Capitol Hill news last week. So when a report was posted about a GOP proposal to rename Dulles International Airport after former President Donald Trump, MSBNC turned all its guns on the idea. On the ReidOut, host Joy Reid said it was bad enough that the “worst” airport in America is named after Eisenhower-era Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. “Let’s make it worse” by naming it for Trump, she said. Instead, she suggested that Trump’s name be put on a Miami prison, a reference to the legal cases he faces, one in Florida. She and her guests, including Ali Velshi and Fordham University professor Christina Greer, piled on. Greer even bashed Washington’s national airport being renamed after former President Ronald Reagan. Reid said, “Yeah, I just call it ‘DCA.'” From Friday’s The ReidOut on MSNBC: JOY REID: Let’s talk a little about this idea of renaming Dulles. Now, Dulles is not the best airport — it might be the worst airport in America. The Republicans are like, “Let’s name it after Donald Trump.” I love the fact that it’s named after one of the most diabolical secretaries of state who destroyed Iran and a bunch of Central America. ALI VELSHI: But let’s make that worse. REID: Let’s make it worse. Also, the Democrats have said, “Instead, let’s name a prison after Trump.” Thoughts? Thoughts? Thoughts? Name a prison in Miami? VELSHI: That is a fantastic idea. … REID: I think this is a great opportunity for the nerds at the table just to talk about Allen Dulles and also his brother — it was John Foster Dulles, I think, and Allen Dulles, and both of them were involved in destroying Guatemala and Iran. VELSHI: Yeah. REID: So I feel like that’s important, and that’s given me the opportunity, so, thank you, Republicans. CHRISTINA GREER: Well, I mean, we’ve — they’ve already renamed National, Reagan, which I refuse to call it. REID: Yeah, I just call it “DCA.“ Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Glad something about Trump made them laugh, a brief break from the usual full hour of irrational anger at any mention of anything Trump. Naturally, Reid couldn’t hide how her contempt for Republicans goes way beyond just Trump. It’s a disdain so deep she’s still mad about Ronald Reagan getting an airport named for him and the foreign policy of a president who left office more than 60 years ago.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 1: Liberal Media Scream: Top editor joins CNN host in ripping MAGA with their ‘truth’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is a rare but deserved five-screamer in which the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer joins with a CNN host to condemn former President Donald Trump and his MAGA followers. Appearing on CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt, editor Chris Quinn explained why he wrote a weekend letter to readers about the paper’s anti-Trump coverage. He said, “These are people that watch Fox News or Newsmax and they believe it because they — it appears credible. Then they come to our platforms and see the opposite and they’re conflicted because they like us. They read us for the sports coverage or the local news, or what have you.” Quinn added, “This was for them. I had to, I owed them some sort of an explanation. And the reason it was so difficult is I don’t want to demean them. I don’t want to criticize them. But I can’t stray from the truth. The truth is this guy is a monster. He’s the worst president in history and many people understand that. Those who get their news from not credible sources believe what they’re hearing.” Hunt said, “You said — another piece of this to your point of what the truth is, you said, ‘Trust your eyes. Trump, on Jan. 6, launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it.’ And just before that you write, ‘This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw but our eyes don’t deceive us.'” “And I think that this is the piece of it that gets me because I was there on that day and I looked out the window and I saw these people trying to attack the Capitol. And then, now, half of these political leaders are trying to say no, actually, that thing that you saw with your own eyes did not happen.” From today’s CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt: KASIE HUNT: How to cover former President Donald Trump is — quite literally — one of the hardest, thorniest questions facing us as journalists. It is something that I think about quite literally every single day when I wake up to join all of you. And it is especially true in the wake of Jan. 6, which affected me both personally and professionally in addition to, of course, having enormous implications for our democracy. This is why this all stood out to me. The Cleveland Plain Dealer decided they wanted to address this with their readers head-on over the weekend. The editor, Chris Quinn, writes this: “The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information. The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse.” And joining me now is Chris Quinn. He is the editor of the Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com. Chris, thank you so much for being here. It’s an honor to have you. CHRIS QUINN: Good morning. HUNT: So I loved how you approached this because you started with your readers — with the people who write to you about this. Many of them, of course, are supporters of Donald Trump. And you write some of them are more thoughtful than others, shall I say. But this is something that I have wrestled with because there are so many people in the country who support Donald Trump and many of them have reasons for doing that that have to do with the circumstances that they face. We don’t want to lose empathy for those people. We don’t want to not speak to those people. To be, you know, advocates and helpful in terms of providing those people with information. But you sat down and you grappled with this question, and you tried to explain why you’re doing what you’re doing in the way that you’re doing it. Can you explain a little bit more of that to all of us right now? QUINN: Yeah. This was a very challenging piece to write. It actually took me almost six months to get my thoughts together. I get two kinds of correspondence from Trump supporters and one is not nice. It’s very condescending and sneering. And I kind of chalk that up to people who had felt left out of society. Donald Trump gave them a club to participate in. And there’s nothing I can say or do to help them understand what we’re doing. But the other half write me with great courtesy and implore me for an explanation. They say, “You are dismissing a large segment of the country when you say that Donald Trump is the monster you describe him as and I don’t see him that way. What do you say to me?” These are people that watch Fox News or Newsmax and they believe it because they — it appears credible. Then they come to our platforms and see the opposite and they’re conflicted because they like us. They read us for the sports coverage or the local news, or what have you. So this was for them. I had to, I owed them some sort of an explanation. And the reason it was so difficult is I don’t want to demean them. I don’t want to criticize them. But I can’t stray from the truth. The truth is this guy is a monster. He’s the worst president in history and many people understand that. Those who get their news from not credible sources believe what they’re hearing. HUNT: Yeah. I will just say I think that the decline in our local media is a crisis for many, many reasons, but not least is that you, as a local paper, have a level of trust with people in your communities that is simply not possible to establish when you are a national news organization. And I think that really comes through in this piece that you wrote. And you said — another piece of this to your point of what the truth is, you said, “Trust your eyes. Trump, on Jan. 6, launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it.” And just before that you write, “This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw but our eyes don’t deceive us.” And I think that this is the piece of it that gets me because I was there on that day and I looked out the window and I saw these people trying to attack the Capitol. And then, now, half of these political leaders are trying to say no, actually, that thing that you saw with your own eyes did not happen. Was it that that really was the thing that underscored this the most to you as well? QUINN: Yeah. And look, it’s heartbreaking what you’re seeing today. I come from a state where we’ve had senators like George Voinovich and John Glenn — people who would never have stood by during these recent years and allowed what’s happened to happen. And today, we have J.D. Vance and we might have Bernie Moreno, whose claim to fame is they want to be puppets for Donald Trump. And it’s not what we should be about. And that’s why I referenced that New Yorker piece in what I wrote because the New Yorker had a book review that looked back and said the reason Hitler came to the fore wasn’t because a bunch of people went and voted to have a fascist leader. It was because the people in government, in trying to get power for themselves, appeased him and that allowed him to rise. That’s what we have going on. Everybody knows what the truth is. The people in Congress were there. They were under threat from it. But for expedience, they’re denying it happened. HUNT: Do you think that those people who are looking to enable Donald Trump, as you say, what is the — their level of culpability here? I mean, obviously, you talk about Trump, himself, and his, the actions that he takes and his role in trying to hang on to power. But these enablers, I mean, what responsibility do they bear? QUINN: I think they have full responsibility. I think journalists who veer from the truth are going to end up having full responsibility. Look, we’re a regional newsroom and we’re doing well. We’re actually one of the local newsrooms that’s kind of figured it out and we’re thriving and we’re not in any danger of going away. But we have our limited influence. And so, we’re doing what we can. We’re, you know, we ask ourselves what’s the right thing to do here? The right thing to do is to call this out, not to say there’s two sides to Donald Trump. There aren’t two sides to Donald Trump. Anybody who has been watching and trying to discern what the truth is here knows that this guy tried to destroy our entire system of government and will do so again. Somebody has to say it. I wish people like Dave Joyce, a congressman from Ohio who’s a good guy, would stand up and just denounce it. Because if you started to have a few people of good conscience do that, maybe we could stop this wave, which is frightening beyond belief. HUNT: Well, I’m very grateful that you took the time to join us today, Chris, and I do commend reading this column. I will again say this is something I think about literally every single day because we do want to be a resource, a place for people who want to support Donald Trump or who feel dissatisfied with the system in their own lives. I just had to make sure that those ears are continuing to be open to us is a challenge that I grapple with every day. And I really appreciated reading this. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “With his smug moral superiority, Quinn encapsulates everything that’s wrong with modern journalism. He’s decided what ‘the truth’ is and his readers better get on board. No wonder fewer and fewer are buying local newspapers. They’ve become just as insulting to their readers as the national media have been for decades. Incredulous that anyone could see Trump as a better president than Biden.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 25: Liberal Media Scream: Condescending ‘Really?’ to Rubio’s wish to be Trump VP (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream reveals just how deep the disrespect for former President Donald Trump goes in the press, especially with those who have created a profitable side gig writing and talking about him. In just one word, ABC’s Jonathan Karl heaved up a sanctimonious putdown of Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) when the topic of the likely 2024 GOP presidential nominee’s pick for running mate was raised. Rubio has said he would be honored to get the nod, as have about a dozen other leading Republicans. What’s more, Rubio would likely help Trump add to his coalition to create a potentially winning ticket. But all Karl had to say was, “Really?” It didn’t end there. As Rubio explained the problems President Joe Biden dumped on America, Karl couldn’t help but complain, “You’re not suggesting that’s all happening because of Biden?” Rubio affirmed, “Absolutely I am.” Here’s the exchange on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: JON KARL: There was some reporting this week that you are possibly under consideration to be Donald Trump’s running mate. I don’t put a lot of stock in this reporting right now. We’re early. But you said it would be “an honor” to be offered a spot on his ticket. Really? SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Yeah, I think anyone who is offered the opportunity to serve this country as vice president should be honored by the opportunity to do it if you are in public service. I’m in the Senate because I want to serve the country. Being vice president is an important way to serve the country. But I’ve also been clear. I’ve never talked to Donald Trump. I’ve never talked to anybody on his team or family or inner circle about vice president. That’s a decision he’s going to make. He has plenty of really good people to pick from. KARL: I mean, the reason why I asked is, I mean, look what happened to the last guy. I mean, a mob stormed the Capitol, literally calling to hang Mike Pence, and Trump defended those chants of “hang Mike Pence.” RUBIO: I will tell you this, that when Donald Trump was president of the United States, this country was safer. It was more prosperous. We had relations, for example, in a part of the world that I care about called the Western Hemisphere that were very strong. We had a lot of good things done there. I think the country and the world was a better place when he was president, and I would love to see him return to the White House in comparison to the guy who’s there now, Joe Biden, who’s been a disaster economically. Look at the world. Every single day, we wake up to a new crisis, to a new conflict. Everything has gone on fire since the time Joe Biden took over. Afghanistan’s gone down. Ukraine has been invaded. Now the Philippines and the Chinese are on the verge of something bad happening every single day. Not to mention the threats to Taiwan. And we have this blowup in Haiti going on in our very own hemisphere. We wake up every single day, terrorist attacks, 9 million people across the border. That’s what matters to me. KARL: But, I mean, you’re not suggesting that’s all happening because of Biden? RUBIO: Absolutely I am. Absolutely I’m suggesting it’s happening because of Biden. He’s president and his weakness and his — KARL: It’s because of Biden that Russia invaded Ukraine? RUBIO: Absolutely. KARL: It’s because of Biden that Haiti? RUBIO: Absolutely. I mean Putin is sitting there, saying these guys can’t even stand up to the Taliban and they have to fly people hanging off the wings of these airplanes. Now is the time to go. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “How arrogant and condescending for a broadcast network TV host to scoff at a U.S. senator for saying he’d be ‘honored’ to serve as the vice presidential candidate of his party. And then, to act astonished over a common Republican talking point about President Biden’s foreign policy failures shows Karl is little more than a liberal political operative in the guise of a journalist who is incredulous that anyone could see Trump as a better president than Biden.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 18: Liberal Media Scream: ‘Bloodbath’ is what media are doing to Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream focuses on the media and President Joe Biden’s distortion of former President Donald Trump’s warning of an economic “bloodbath” if he’s not returned to the White House to stop China’s dumping of autos in the U.S. under Biden. The media, and now the Biden campaign, pulled the word out of a long Trump explanation at an Ohio political rally of auto sales to make it sound like he was calling for a civil war if he’s not elected. It’s very similar to what the media did after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots and spelled out how they’d treat a President Trump if given a chance. Leading that fake rant over the weekend was ABC and a guest on This Week, New York magazine’s Susan Glasser, formerly with the liberal-left Washington Post and Politico. Without any sign of embarrassment for distorting Trump’s words, Glasser ranted on about how threatening Trump is. In office, Trump did assail reporters for their “fake news” and overwhelming bias but also was the most accessible and talkative president during his one term. He followed an Obama-Biden administration that was condemned by journalists for avoiding reporters and using technology to go around the media. Susan Glasser on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: “Donald Trump, it seems to me, it’s very hard eight years into this. We still struggle with how to cover him as journalists, but in a way, the unhinged, rambling rants that you see from the former president of the United States are baked in, and I think, in a way, we are all desensitized and inured to the extraordinary, remarkable and very at times un-American and threatening things that the former president is saying. “I’m not saying it’s easy to understand how to cover it, but I think we have to cover it when the former president, who’s already incited violence among his followers, says that there’s going to be a bloodbath after the election if he does not win. He is telling us what he is going to do. … I’m sorry. I just have to say something. Like Donald Trump is attacking, in a broad-brush sense, the basic pillars of American democracy. Period. Full stop. If that’s not news to you. It’s not about tariffs. That’s not the reason why millions of Americans are supporting Donald Trump. Let’s be real about that.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Yes, after eight years of constant hyperventilating by journalists, over supposed outrageous comments from Donald Trump, many have become ‘inured,’ but it’s not journalists. It’s the public to the media’s never-ending scare-mongering about Trump bringing an end to ‘the basic pillars of American democracy.’ Glasser’s answer: Double down and get more journalists to be even more aggressive in denouncing Trump. Good luck with that, convincing anyone who has already tuned out such vitriol.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 11: Liberal Media Scream: Hollywood freaks over Trump (Washington Examiner post) Hollywood’s awards season has finally ended and in perfectly normal election-year fashion: Tinseltown freaking out over former President Donald Trump’s possible return to the White House. Oscars host Jimmy Kimmel got a retort from Trump after he blasted the former president and his Republican allies. Kimmel responded, “Well, thank you, President Trump. Thank you for watching. I’m surprised you’re still — isn’t it past your jail time?” But his shruggable performance was far outdone by the angry venting of actor Robert De Niro, who stepped up his attacks on Trump. On Friday, De Niro pleased Bill Maher’s audience by blasting Trump. “Vote for Trump and you’ll get the nightmare. Vote for Biden and it will be back to normalcy,” he began. To laughter and applause from Maher’s Los Angeles studio audience, De Niro marveled at how anyone could support Trump. He called the poll-leading former president “a total monster” who will install a “dictatorship.” More insults followed: “sociopathic, psychopathic, malignant narcissist,” as well as an “idiot” and “clown.” From Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO: ROBERT DE NIRO: The bottom line is: It’s Biden vs. Trump. We want to live in a world that we want to live in and enjoy living in or live in a nightmare? Vote for Trump and you’ll get the nightmare. Vote for Biden and it will be back to normalcy. … The guy is a total monster, and anybody, I don’t understand it. I guess they get behind the kind of logic: They want to f*** with people, screw them because they’re unhappy about something. He’s such a mean, nasty, hateful person. I’d never play him as an actor because I can’t see any good in him — nothing, nothing at all, nothing redeemable in him. Whoever the people are who want to vote for him, and they look like intelligent people around there, for some reason, it can’t be, it cannot be. If he wins the election, you won’t be on the show anymore. He’ll come looking for me. They’ll be things that happened that none of us can imagine. That’s what happens in that kind of a dictatorship — which is what he says. Let’s believe him. Take him at his word. He’s a sociopathic, psychopathic, malignant narcissist. He is a dangerous person … the people who somehow think he’s going to be the answer to their prayers, whatever those are. BILL MAHER: Did you know him as fellow New Yorkers? DE NIRO: Never wanted to know him. MAHER: Never wanted to, you must have crossed — DE NIRO: He was an idiot. He was a clown. He was a clown in New York. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Rants like this from pretentious Hollywood celebrities probably drive more to vote for Trump than dissuade anyone from supporting him. How many care about the all-too-predictable left-wing political views of lefties in Hollywood who always denounce the Republican candidate and advocate for the Democratic one? Not anyone who is drawn to Trump.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 4: Liberal Media Scream: Media role is reeducating you on greatness of Bidenomics (Washington Examiner post) President Joe Biden has apparently realized that pitching “Bidenomics” is a loser politically, but his White House forgot to tell its media echo chamber. According to an Issues & Insights report, Biden has “ditched” the term, with the report noting Biden and his White House used the term 59 times last July. By last month, it got a mention just 10 times. That makes sense since most polls show that the public viewed the term negatively because they feel that the economy is poor and that prices are unjustifiably high. But the well-paid Washington media thinks the public is stupid and needs to be reeducated on just how great Bidenomics is for them. For example, this week’s Liberal Media Scream features longtime editor and columnist Margaret Sullivan telling fellow anti-Trumper Christiane Amanpour that it’s up to them to make sure people understand the consequences of their wrong-headedness. “You know,” Sullivan said on Amanpour’s show, “people think that the economy is not doing well. You know, do our public service mission, which is to make sure, as sure as we can, that we have an informed electorate. Whose fault is that? Well, it’s partly the fault of the media. And I think that that ought to be rectified.” From Saturday’s The Amanpour Hour on CNN CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: The horse race and an age-old dilemma. Why the obsession over Biden’s age misses the point. MARGARET SULLIVAN, GUARDIAN: I wonder whether people are as aware of Trump’s authoritarian plans as they are of Biden’s age. AMANPOUR: My next guest says enough is enough with the media’s hyperbolic herd mentality coverage of Biden’s age and competency. Critic, columnist, and academic Margaret Sullivan urges us to get real about the issues because this election is about much more than, quote, “chasing clicks.” SULLIVAN: I think that the leaders of major American news organizations should have front and center in their minds, and be communicating to their staffs, that this is an extremely consequential election and we should be doing our public service role that it’s not so much about chasing the latest clicks and the latest horse race coverage but rather to make sure that we’re getting the stakes of the race across to people. You know, people think that the economy is not doing well. You know, do our public service mission, which is to make sure, as sure as we can, that we have an informed electorate. Whose fault is that? Well, it’s partly the fault of the media. And I think that that ought to be rectified. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “What Margaret Sullivan advocates is exactly why the media have lost all credibility and trust for most Americans. She’s decided Trump is too dangerous to be president, so journalists should throw away all standards of journalism by openly joining Team Biden to convince voters of Biden’s virtues while downplaying his negatives. And then journalists wonder why they are seen in such low esteem when they are little more than Democratic Party operatives.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 26: Liberal Media Scream: Trump Derangement Syndrome flies off the charts (Washington Examiner post) The media have been on a rantfest lately, warning that former President Donald Trump will end democracy and execute his enemies. Just consider what Bob Costas said over the weekend. “You have to be in the throes of some sort of toxic delusion in a toxic cult to believe that Donald Trump has ever been, in any sense, emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, or ethically fit to be president of the United States,” he said. But that’s nothing compared to our Liberal Media Scream focus on Tom Schaller, the author of White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy, who went further to attack the half of the nation that has supported Trump over the years. White rural voters, he told MSNBC’s Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski, “are the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay geodemographic group in the country. … They’re the most conspiracist group: QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, COVID denialism and scientific skepticism, Obama birthism.” And that’s just the start of his five scream rant. From Monday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC: MIKA BRZEZINSKI: As we barrel toward a likely rematch of the 2020 election, one candidate continues to have a hold over white rural voters. But it’s not Joe Biden, seen here as a boy on the right side of your screen, who went to public school, is the son of a used car salesman, and was born to a middle-class family in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Instead, it is Trump, here on the left side, a private school-educated son of a New York City real estate tycoon who became a millionaire at 8 years old and didn’t have to serve because he claimed he had bone spurs in his little feet. So, why is it that Trump appeals so much to a group he couldn’t be more different from? Joining us now, professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Tom Schaller, and journalist and opinion writer Paul Waldman. Their new book out tomorrow is entitled, White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy. Tom, I’ll start with you. Why are white rural voters a threat to democracy at this point? You would think, as we pointed out, looking at Joe Biden’s background and Donald Trump’s, that the opposite would be true. TOM SCHALLER: “We lay out the fourfold interconnected threat that white rural voters pose to the country. First of all, we show 30 polls and national studies that demonstrate this. So we provide the receipts in Chapter 6. They are the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay geodemographic group in the country. “Second, they’re the most conspiracist group: QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, COVID denialism and scientific skepticism, Obama birthism. Third, anti-democratic sentiments. They don’t believe in an independent press — free speech. They’re most likely to say the president should be able to act unilaterally without checks from Congress or the courts or the bureaucracy. They’re also the most strongly white nationalist and white Christian nationalists. And fourth, they’re most likely to excuse or justify violence as acceptable alternative to peaceful public discourse… “I think this is the disconnect, right? They’d rather channel their rage. I think what a lot of white rural Americans have decided is that their economic fortunes are decided by globalization and frankly, late-stage capitalism, which is eating up all the mom and pop stores and taking away the extractive industries, in coal and farming and so forth, so they might as well vote on their culture issues, they might as well vote on God, guns, and religion because they feel like neither party is going to deliver any material benefit. “They’re not going to reverse the closure of rural pharmacies and rural hospitals and rural healthcare facilities, which are disappearing not because of communism and not because of socialism but because of capitalism, right? Rural pharmacies and hospitals are closing because they’re not moneymakers, and unless they’re part of a regional chain, they’re disappearing. So Trump comes in and says, let’s just hate on cities, let’s just hate on minorities, let’s hate on immigrants, and at least they can deliver on that. And so they’re not even voting in their material interest anymore, and that’s causing a further decay and decline of rural communities.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “So, if a class of voters prefers a candidate you don’t like, it couldn’t be that they just have a differing opinion with which you can respectfully disagree. No, you must impugn and demean them to discredit their irrational preference for the candidate you condescendingly have decided is not in their best interest. And since this makes MSNBC viewers feel superior, you get a welcoming platform on the left-wing cable channel’s morning show.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 19: Liberal Media Scream: Colbert says Trump ‘going to prison’ better than sex (Washington Examiner post) Remember when late-night comedy shows were funny instead of being populated by left-wing lecturers? Case in point in our weekly Liberal Media Scream is Late Show host Stephen Colbert. Along with many people last week, he watched the televised testimony of Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis and her explanation of her affair with an attorney she put in charge of the election case against former President Donald Trump. “How good was this sex? Good enough to risk democracy over?” he asked in his monologue. Colbert then added, “You know what feels really good? Donald Trump going to prison. That — that, my friends — is what they call a real happy ending.” From Thursday’s Late Show with Stephen Colbert on CBS:     STEPHEN COLBERT: Now, I don’t know who’s telling the truth here yet, but I will say exchanging business cards isn’t exactly a meet cute. The movie’s not called When Harry Networked with Sally. Now, at one point, Willis had had enough and really laid into opposing counsel. FANI WILLIS: You’re confused; you think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial. COLBERT: Damn straight. Yeah. That’s right. That’s right. Here’s the thing. Yes, it’s true Donald Trump and his associates are on trial in this, one of the most important cases in the history of our republic. So, and, I’ve just got one follow-up question here: Given that if you are removed from the prosecution, it could delay this trial until after the election: How good was the sex? Good enough to risk democracy over? Because I’ve never had sex that good. You know what feels really good? Donald Trump going to prison. That — that, my friends — is what they call the real happy ending. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Liberals love to complain that Donald Trump has broken many norms, but prominent entertainment media figures like Colbert have destroyed late-night TV. It was a comedy refuge from hard-edged politics, but Colbert is using his show to advance left-wing talking points and push his hate of Trump and conservatives in the guise of comedy. It’s not funny, and a legend like Johnny Carson, whose political jokes were light-hearted and chided both sides, is rolling over in his grave.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 12: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC host laughably says press against Biden (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream has LOL written all over it. Imagine any cable news show host claiming that the media has a negative bias against President Joe Biden. LOL, right? That’s what happened on Sunday’s Meet the Press when MSNBC host Jen Psaki said the media showed its bias when it simply repeated what the nearly 400-page report from special counsel Robert Hur said about the president’s foggy mind. Psaki, who was Biden’s first White House press secretary, complained that the media should be attacking former President Donald Trump, not her former boss. “If you’re sitting in the White House and on the campaign right now, you’re absolutely banging your head against the wall at the way that the Thursday report has been covered, given all of the things” Trump has said and done, she said. From the roundtable on Sunday’s Meet the Press: JEN PSAKI: If you’re sitting in the White House and on the campaign right now, you’re absolutely banging your head against the wall at the way that the Thursday report has been covered, given all of the things that have happened this week, including, and I know you asked Chris Christie about this, the fact that Donald Trump yesterday suggested that Vladimir Putin should have free rein in attacking NATO allies, and what do we see is wall-to-wall coverage of whether a guy who is four years older than his opponent is too old to be president. KRISTEN WELKER: And we are going to get to NATO. Go ahead. BRENDAN BUCK, former spokesman to ex-speaker Paul Ryan: Part of that job, to bring that to the front is, it’s the president’s job to bring that out and attack his opponent. I mean, the president is not taking the opportunity on Super Bowl Sunday. He’s not taking, really, any opportunities. And we hear, time and again — PSAKI: First of all, that’s not true. It’s not being covered. He has traveled just as much as Donald Trump, as Barack Obama. It is hard to break through the cloud of Donald Trump in this media environment. That is true. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “A media hostile to a liberal cause or Democratic politician is such a novelty that liberal political operatives like Jen Psaki just can’t comprehend it. After three-plus years of sycophantic coverage of Joe Biden, he gets a few days of negative coverage, and she lashes out at the media for daring to briefly act as real journalists. Welcome to the world endured every day for decades by conservatives and Republicans.”   Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ February 5: Liberal Media Scream: Kristen Welker likes to lecture Republicans, too (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a look at new Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker’s treatment of Republican leaders. And surprise — not — she continues to be just as biased as former host Chuck Todd. First, she lectured House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on the border bill released by the Senate on Sunday. “You are now the speaker of the House. Do you not have a responsibility to your voters, to the people who put you in office, to address what you have called a crisis and catastrophe? Isn’t something better than nothing?” she said. Then, she passed along the Democratic talking point that after three years of aggressively enacting open border policies, “Joe Biden said he would shut down the border.” From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: KRISTEN WELKER: You have been calling for legislative change to actually deal with this problem. You are now the speaker of the House. Do you not have a responsibility to your voters, to the people who put you in office, to address what you have called a crisis and catastrophe? Isn’t something better than nothing? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Kristen, we did that. We did that nine months ago. And since we passed our measure in the House to solve this problem, and the reason we had to do it is because we saw that President Biden was not fulfilling his obligation under the law. That’s why it is such a failure of leadership, but we did our part. And by the way, since then, in the nine months since that bill sat on [Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumer’s desk, collecting dust, 1.8 million illegals have been allowed into this country, welcomed into the country, sent around the nation into every community — communities near everyone listening and watching this morning. And that is a catastrophe, and the American people know it, and that’s part of the reason that Joe Biden has the lowest approval rating of any president facing reelection. WELKER: Even former President Trump, though, called for legislative change on this issue. You have one of the slimmest majorities in the House in history. Don’t you have to compromise to get something done? What you passed in the House can’t pass in the Senate, Mr. Speaker. You know that. JOHNSON: We are willing to work. We are willing to work with the Senate. I am not disclosing that, and I’ve been very consistent for the hundred days that I’ve had the gavel. We are willing to work, but they have to be serious about it. If you only do a few of those components, you are not going to solve the problem, and Kristen, that is not a Republican talking point. That’s what the sheriffs at the border, the Border Patrol agents, the deputy chief of U.S. Border Patrol, a 33-year veteran of the agency, told us. He said that it’s as though we’re administering an open fire hydrant. He said, “I don’t need more buckets,” like the president has proposed. I need to stop the flow, and we know how to do that, but Joe Biden is unwilling to do it. WELKER: Let me ask you about your decision, and by the way, Joe Biden said he would shut down the border. He’s calling for more funding. He’s calling for you to pass this legislation. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “A perfect example of a so-called journalist serving as an advocate for Washington’s media-political establishment, demanding a recalcitrant conservative get in line and adopt the approved narrative.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 29, 2024: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   ■ January 22, 2024: Liberal Media Scream: Washington Post’s Rubin wants Trump ‘fascists’ reeducated (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features popular Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin doubling down on her Never Trump campaign. Appearing on the MSNBC weekend show Velshi exactly a year from Inauguration Day, the onetime conservative opinion writer said that the masses appearing at former President Donald Trump’s rallies “are part of a fascist cult.” And, she added, “they’re impervious to any kind of data, any kind of information. But what you have to do, if you care about democracy, is mobilize the people who already know that he’s a danger and reaffirm and reeducate the people who are perhaps kind of flirting in the middle — they’re soft Republicans, they’re never Republicans — about the danger of going back to Trump.” Rubin on MSNBC’s Velshi on Saturday: “Why it’s perhaps important to go to one of these rallies is to understand why he does have supporters. These people are part of a fascist cult. And let’s be honest, there are a lot of them. But a lot of them doesn’t mean that they are behaving logically or rationally. To the contrary, we’ve seen in other fascist regimes that millions of people, sometimes even a majority of the country, becomes intoxicated with an authoritarian figure, and these people are utterly irrational. If you speak to some of them, they will spit back these bizarro conspiracy theories. They actually believe in all of the mumbo-jumbo that he tells them. “So I think it would be a wake-up call about what these people are about, and, no, we’re not going to convince people who are part of the cult to switch. As you say, they’re impervious to any kind of data, any kind of information. But what you have to do, if you care about democracy, is mobilize the people who already know that he’s a danger and reaffirm and reeducate the people who are perhaps kind of flirting in the middle — they’re soft Republicans, they’re never Republicans — about the danger of going back to Trump. And I think that’s the job between now and November, and that’s the challenge for the Biden administration.” Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “How condescending of Rubin to be so comfortable denigrating supporters of a presidential candidate she despises with one of the most vile insults. Just because she hates Trump doesn’t make those going to his rallies, the very embodiment of democracy in action, ‘fascists.’ Whatever happened to liberals wanting to expand participation in the democratic process?” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 15, 2024: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC’s Mika all in to help Biden’s reelection (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features Mika Brzezinski, the co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, fawning over first lady Jill Biden in a sign of where the cable network stands before the 2024 presidential primary season begins. With easy questions quizzing Biden about her favorite emoji to dismissing chants of “Let’s go Brandon” that still follow the president, Brzezinski put on an able defense of the Biden White House. Among the questions posed to the first lady was this: “The division in this country, the cruelty of MAGA Republicans against your family. Does any part of you once in a while think, ugh, maybe we bow out?” The questions were part of Brzezinski’s Know Your Value “movement.” Our partners at the Media Research Center highlighted these from last Thursday’s show and today’s event at the White House: MIKA BRZEZINSKI: You’ve been married to President Joe Biden for 46 years. There have been Senate races, three presidential campaigns, eight years of your husband serving as vice president. Unthinkable personal loss and challenge, and now democracy is on the ballot. What do you think when you hear people say, “Well, I just can’t vote for Joe Biden this election?” What is it that they may not know about him at this point, especially when the alternative seems to want to change this nation so radically? BRZEZINSKI: Potentially another four years in the White House. With everything you do here, does yet another one give you any pause thinking of, like, the personal health and well-being for both of you? The division in this country, the cruelty of MAGA Republicans against your family. Does any part of you once in a while think, ugh, maybe we bow out? BRZEZINSKI: How have you been coping personally with the onslaught of accusations against your husband and your family, including and especially Hunter, the focus of a House Oversight Committee hearing holding, holding him in contempt, obsessing over him, showing pictures of him during vulnerable moments in his battle with addiction on the floor of the House. This would crush any family. BRZEZINSKI: What do you think when you hear Trump Republicans calling it “Biden crime family” or one congresswoman, “The Biden crime family sold out America,” Marjorie Taylor Greene, “He’s a liar, he’s mentally incompetent,” and let’s not even talk about what “Let’s go Brandon” means. But you have U.S. senators holding signs that say that. ….BRZEZINSKI: Your favorite emoji? JILL BIDEN: Oh, my gosh. The turquoise heart. BRZEZINSKI: Turquoise heart? BIDEN: Yeah. BRZEZINSKI: I don’t have the turquoise heart on my phone. What does that mean? BIDEN: It’s like the beach. It’s calm. BRZEZINSKI: Oh, I like that. BIDEN: Color of the sea. BRZEZINSKI: Do I type out turquoise heart? Comfort food? BIDEN: Oh, french fries. BRZEZINSKI: Umm. Yeah, yeah. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Mika Brzezinski is all in on the reelection of Joe Biden. First lady Jill Biden picked well in selecting Brzezinski to interview her, confident she wouldn’t be challenged as they both could commiserate with how awful Trump is and how mean Republicans are to her family, topped by letting her tout the turquoise heart emoji. How informative.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ January 8, 2024: Liberal Media Scream: Stephanopoulos judges Trump an insurrectionist, unqualified for 2024 (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is a five-screamer featuring an ABC host and former Clinton handler acting as judge, jury, and executioner of former President Donald Trump and his effort to remain on the 2024 primary ballots and let voters, not partisan state officials, decide his fate. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, on his Sunday show This Week, was quizzing his panel about the campaigns in some states to declare Trump ineligible for election because an official decided that the former president triggered a 14th Amendment ban on insurrectionists. On his show, which occurred the day after the third anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, one of his panelists suggested the Supreme Court will decide Trump is guilty but that it will be up to Congress and not the states to erase the GOP front-runner’s name from the ballots. “If you say he engaged in insurrection,” Stephanopoulos said, “I don’t see how you can escape the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment and say he’s qualified to run for office.” Panelist Donna Brazile, an influential liberal and former acting Democratic Party chairwoman, told her host, “I totally agree with you, George.” From the roundtable on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Sarah, what’s your guess on what the court does here? SARAH ISGUR, SENIOR EDITOR OF THE DISPATCH: I think you’ll have the Supreme Court hold that he is not disqualified from being on the ballot. They’ll overturn the Colorado Supreme Court. STEPHANOPOULOS: The question is, how will they do it though? ISGUR: Correct. I think they’ll say that, in fact, the 14th Amendment makes clear it’s up to Congress. If Congress can requalify someone by a two-thirds vote, there’s no timeline on that. Which means that, you know, as one of the amicus briefs has pointed out, it’s really supposed to be post-elections about holding office, not running for office. And so I think they’ll say it’s really Congress’s job. The states can’t make up their own standard. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it more likely than not? Et cetera. What’s interesting to me will be whether or not the Supreme Court goes out of their way in order to get those three, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson votes, in saying, “Yes, it was an insurrection, and yes, he engaged in it, but it’s up to Congress.” STEPHANOPOULOS: I don’t see how they can do that, Donna Brazile. If you say he engaged in insurrection, was the question I asked Nancy Pelosi, I don’t see how you can escape the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment and say he’s qualified to run for office. DONNA BRAZILE: I totally agree with you, George. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Another example of how Stephanopoulos remains a Democratic partisan first, a journalist a distant second. No true journalist would weigh in with a definitive conclusion on what the Supreme Court should do weeks before a ruling on such a contentious issue which divides Americans. Stephanopoulos has clearly put himself in the camp with those who want to deny the public’s ability to vote for whomever they prefer. So much for saving democracy from Trump when you want to subvert the process.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ December 25, 2023 and January 1, 2024: No Liberal Media Screams these weeks.   ■ December 18, 2023: Liberal Media Scream: Scaremonger Scarborough: Trump will ‘execute’ foes, crush ‘American experiment’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features MSNBC Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough’s latest anti-Trump ranting. The host, whose earlier claim that former President Donald Trump will “execute” foes should he be reelected won the Media Research Center’s “Worst Quote of the Year,” said on Monday that Trump would destroy America’s democracy, too. “A year from now, it could be over, the American experiment at an end one year from now,” Scarborough said in comments we graded a rare five out of five “liberal media screams.” His comments are clearly what the latest Rasmussen Reports survey was tapping into when it found that more voters than ever believe the left bias in the media has reached a new high. The comments also raise a question about what scaremongering liberal media figures will be saying in 11 months if Trump is on the verge of beating President Joe Biden. Scarborough on Monday’s Morning Joe in a discussion with Politico’s Jonathan Lemire: “One year from now, it could be over. American democracy could be over. Donald Trump, one year from now, could win. He’s told us what he is going to do. When I say American democracy is going to be over, I haven’t said this. Donald Trump is the guy who said it. He is the one talking about executing generals that are not loyal enough to him, a guy that’s talking about terminating the Constitution if it gets in the way of his power. He’s the guy that’s talking about taking off news networks he disagrees with. He’s the one talking about prosecuting and putting in jail people who disagree with him. He’s the one saying that. “So, a year from now, it could be over, the American experiment at an end one year from now. So, let me ask you, with that being the case and with Joe Biden’s poll numbers getting worse, why is the White House going around singing, ‘Don’t worry, be happy’? Because that’s basically what they’re saying. Why does Joe Biden still have all of his campaign people inside the White House? When are they going to go out and start working on the campaign — not of his lifetime, of our lifetime? When are they going to start acting like American democracy is on the line and stop telling everybody to not worry?” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Saying day after day after day the same over the top ‘the sky is falling’ warning to try to scare his viewers about Trump ending democracy is doing nothing but making Scarborough look every bit as unhinged as he wants people to see Trump. It may be catnip for MSNBC viewers, but Scarborough has become a parody of someone stuck inside a Trump Derangement Syndrome whirlwind unable to make cogent criticisms.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ December 11: Liberal Media Scream: PBS runs interference for Biden over Hunter scandals (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the efforts of Public TV and a Washington Post columnist to deflect the latest criminal indictment of first son Hunter Biden away from President Joe Biden. Following the tax charges filed by the Justice Department against Hunter Biden, the PBS NewsHour was eager to tell viewers on Friday that it saw no connection to the president. Anchor Geoff Bennett started with the “context” that Hunter Biden “does not work in the White House for his father in the way that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump did. And the indictment does not in any way implicate President Joe Biden.” PBS guest Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post also ran block for Biden. “For Republicans to try to make a connection between Hunter Biden and trying to say that, 'Well, if you’re going to go after Trump, well, why shouldn’t we go after Biden?' these are two completely different cases,” he lectured. From Friday’s PBS NewsHour: GEOFF BENNETT: So, let’s start with the latest legal trouble facing Hunter Biden, with the important context that Hunter Biden’s a private citizen. He is not seeking, nor has he ever held, public office. He does not work in the White House for his father in the way that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump did. And the indictment does not in any way implicate President Joe Biden. And yet this will certainly add to the problem

Former MSNBC host and current CEO and editor-in-chief of Zeteo Mehdi Hasan joined CNN NewsNight host Abby Phillip and Foundation for Defense of Democracies fellow and retired IDF Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus on Monday to discuss the latest Israel-Hamas War developments. Hasan finally got his comeuppance as Conricus accused him of “parroting Hamas’s talking points,” despite Phillip pointing out Hamas’s latest propaganda is just that: propaganda. Specifically, Phillip was talking about Hamas’s claims that it has accepted a ceasefire, “But it's really kind of a counterproposal that includes elements that they know Israel never agreed to. So, was this some kind of propaganda effort by Hamas to say, ‘we're at the table, we're agreeing to something’?” The short and correct answer would be “yes,” but Hasan suggested Hamas’s announcement was some sort of negotiating genius, “The Israelis apparently were on board until, of course, Hamas agreed, and then the Israelis’ bluff was called. And now they're saying, well, we don't agree to this proposal because we want to free the hostages, even though the proposal would help free the hostages. You saw Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper—”     Phillip cut him off, “Can I just pause you there for a second, because I think I just want to add one bit of information I think is critical here? The part that Israel didn't agree to is the part that calls for a permanent end to the war and I think this is really what is at issue here, that Israel has never agreed to that.” Undeterred by facts, Hasan kept rolling, “In what world is Hamas going to say, we're going to release all the hostages and you carry on killing us? Obviously, outside world, America, Western countries has been wanting a ceasefire for a while. We were told Hamas was the obstacle, and now they're calling Israel's bluff.” He also claimed “the obstacle to a hostage deal has always been Benjamin Netanyahu… Those are the words of Haim Rubinstein, the former spokesperson for the hostage's family, who told the Israeli press last week that Netanyahu’s been the obstacle. He says that they found out there was a deal on the table back on October 9th, 10th to get hostages released, but Netanyahu hid it from them.” Hasan naturally omitted the major detail that Israel would have to agree not to enter Gaza. No country that just suffered a crime that was the per capita equivalent of 13 9/11s was going to agree to that. Still, Hasan thought the reason for the war’s continuation is Israeli domestic politics, “He hid it from them because he knows that if he agrees to a hostage deal, his fascist colleagues and his coalition government will collapse his government. This is Israeli domestic politics.” Phillip then turned to Conricus, “If the hostages are all released, shouldn't Israel seriously consider ending hostilities in Gaza and allowing for a political settlement that leads to the future?” Later on, Phillip would press Hasan about how Hamas could dictate the terms of its own surrender in a war it started, but for now, Conricus began, “Yeah, I'm listening to the second edition of Mehdi Hasan's monologue that I saw earlier and it's not surprising that you're parroting Hamas' talking points.” He then doubled down while pointing out that the timing of Hamas’s announcement was awfully convenient: They're the ones for the last four months have been refusing any… now, when push comes to shove and when they see Israeli tanks lined up on their way to Rafah, all of a sudden they are agreeing. They're agreeing to something that wasn't on the table. And it's quite absurd that this is even how it's covered. And it’s classic deception 101 by an organization that is very savvy in deception and unfortunately has figureheads and mouthpieces all over western media doing their work, whether it's Al Jazeera or other places, and getting that message that out that Israel is the problem, when Israeli civilians and soldiers are the ones that have been abducted. That is the problem with Hasan. He sets up a strawman about Israel’s position, only this time someone was there to call him out on it. Other shows that think he is worth their while should do the same. Here is a transcript for the May 6 show: CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip 5/6/2024 10:24 PM ET ABBY PHILLIP: But I want to ask you about this reporting, about Hamas, saying publicly they've agreed to a ceasefire deal. But it's really kind of a counterproposal that includes elements that they know Israel never agreed to. So, was this some kind of propaganda effort by Hamas to say, we're “at the table, we're agreeing to something”? MEHDI HASAN: Well, look, the reporting we have says that, yes, it was an Egyptian-Qatari proposal that the Americans were involved in, too, Abby. The CIA director, Bill Burns, has been involved in this. The Israelis apparently were on board until, of course, Hamas agreed, and then the Israelis’ bluff was called. And now they're saying, well, we don't agree to this proposal because we want to free the hostages, even though the proposal would help free the hostages. You saw Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper— PHILLIP: Can I just pause you there for a second, because I think I just want to add one bit of information I think is critical here? The part that Israel didn't agree to is the part that calls for a permanent end to the war and I think this is really what is at issue here, that Israel has never agreed to that and that maybe this is a counter-proposal, but that means essentially that everybody has to get back to the table and agree to what is on the table now. HASAN: Yes. But let me just say, in what world is Hamas going to say, we're going to release all the hostages and you carry on killing us? Obviously, outside world, America, Western countries has been wanting a ceasefire for a while. We were told Hamas was the obstacle, and now they're calling Israel's bluff. The reality is, Abby, that the obstacle to a hostage deal has always been Benjamin Netanyahu. And those are not my words. Those are the words of Haim Rubinstein, the former spokesperson for the hostage's family, who told the Israeli press last week that Netanyahu’s been the obstacle. He says that they found out there was a deal on the table back on October 9th, 10th to get hostages released, but Netanyahu hid it from them. Those are the words of the spokesperson for the Israeli families of the hostages. And he hid it from them because he knows that if he agrees to a hostage deal, his fascist colleagues and his coalition government will collapse his government. This is Israeli domestic politics. PHILLIP: Lieutenant Colonel, what about that? I mean, if the hostages are all released, shouldn't Israel seriously consider ending hostilities in Gaza and allowing for a political settlement that leads to the future? JONATHAN CONRICUS: Yeah, I'm listening to the second edition of Mehdi Hasan's monologue that I saw earlier and it's not surprising that you're parroting Hamas' talking points. Really, let's put things here in perspective. We have a terrorist organization that abducted civilians and soldiers. They're the ones for the last four months have been refusing any deal that Israel, the U.S., Qatar, Egypt and others have put forward. And now, when push comes to shove and when they see Israeli tanks lined up on their way to Rafah, all of a sudden they are agreeing. They're agreeing to something that wasn't on the table. And it's quite absurd that this is even how it's covered. And it's classic deception 101 by an organization that is very savvy in deception and unfortunately has figureheads and mouthpieces all over western media doing their work, whether it's Al Jazeera or other places, and getting that message that out that Israel is the problem, when Israeli civilians and soldiers are the ones that have been abducted.

In case you missed it, Monday’s White House press briefing was dominated by questions about Hamas supposedly agreeing to a ceasefire deal that, as we would quickly find out, was one they more or less concocted on their own (as opposed to one backed by Egypt, Israel, Qatar, and the U.S.), so Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich made a point to wonder whether the Biden regime still wants Israel to win the war. “John, noting everything that you’ve said about the concerns expressed by the U.S., about the risk to Palestinians in Gaza with a full-scale operation, is the U.S. still aligned with Israel in its intention to eliminate the terrorist threat posed by Hamas,” Heinrich wondered to national security spokesman John Kirby.     When Kirby replied with a simple “of course”, Heinrich followed up: And is there any feeling that Hamas may be trying to trick the public in some way? You heard Israeli officials commenting on this latest proposal as a trick, and there’s been a lot of pressure...on the administration to make sure that the needs of Palestinians are — are being served and that the U.S. support for Israel isn’t, you know, overhanded. And you had the — the report come out earlier today, or maybe yesterday that the U.S. was potentially weighing withholding an arms shipment to Israel. Is there any concern that Hamas was trying to capitalize on that public pressure and, you know, play a trick, as Israeli officials put it? Since he’s apparently the only adult in the room with ounces of moral clarity (but not here when he did his best Jean-Pierre impression), Kirby said he would only be able to “answer that question unless I got between the ears of Mr. Sinwar, and that’s a place I really don’t want to be” and these questions need to go to him. Kirby then lowered the boom on these radical Islamists: You know, it’s interesting. I stand up here and answer questions. Karine, Matt Miller at the State Department, Pentagon colleagues, the President does, Prime Minister Netanyahu does, and the IDF military spokesman does. You know who hasn’t answered a single question about his intentions and what games he might be playing or where he intends to take this? Mr. Sinwar, head of Hamas, and I think it’s a — I think it’s high time that he answers some of these questions, and he come clean about what his intentions are. After he said the administration’s examining it, Heinrich questioned whether it’s “still a good idea to try to negotiate with terrorists”. Kirby countered that, unfortunately, “you gotta negotiate with who you got to negotiate to get people back with their families.” Heinrich closed whether she began with concerns about the U.S. supporting “Israel’s intention to eliminate Hamas.” Kirby didn’t back down and said Israel has the “right and responsibility to go after the Hamas threat — to eliminate that threat” that inflicted such harm on their citizens. The Fox correspondent also got in a few questions to Jean-Pierre on the pro-Hamas encampments on college campuses. After a “no” on the possibility that Biden would “get out there and talk to students,” Heinrich asked about whether President Biden and the administration would support a dismantling of a the (terrorist sympathizing) camp at the George Washington University (click “expand”): HEINRICH: GW’s president has called for Metro police in D.C. to intervene to dismantle what they’ve deemed an illegal encampment and D.C. police have so far refused to respond to that call. It’s happening in the President’s backyard. Is there any reaction from the White House on what should happen?” JEAN-PIERRE: So, that is something that I’m going to leave to the local law enforcement and universities., That’s for them to figure out — for them to work it through. They know what is happening on the ground, and we’ve always been very clear about that and we’ll continue to be clear about that. We’re going to continue to call for peaceful protest and, you know, dissent cannot lead to disorder and so going to continue to be very, very clear, as the President has been — as I have been, and so many of us here in this administration has been. HEINRICH: Any idea why DC police would not respond to this call? JEAN-PIERRE: I would — I would refer you to the D.C. police. That’s something for them to speak to. Elsewhere in the briefing, an Al Jazeera correspondent and The Wall Street Journal’s Annie Linskey kvetched to an unfortunately sympathetic Kirby about Israel shutting down the pro-Hamas, Qatari-funded Al Jazeera (click “expand”): LINSKEY: And just really quickly. The Israelis stopped broadcast of Al Jazeera over the weekend. Can you comment on whether that’s appropriate action for a United States ally? KIRBY: We don’t support that action. As we said, very clearly on World Press Freedom Day on Friday, I know Karine talked about this, the work of independent journalism around the world is absolutely vital. Um — it’s important to an informed citizenry and public, but it’s also important to — to — uh — to help inform the policy making process, so we don’t support that at all. LINSKEY: And did the President bring it up at all in his call? KIRBY: The focus of the call was on hostage deal and on Rafah. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: I’m gonna give you to — KIRBY: But you say my — sorry — I think I put a statement out this morning on that. So we have officially reacted to it. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Al Jazeera in the back. AL JAZEERA CORRESPONDENT: Thank you so much, Karine. Thank you, John. Uh, is that administration planning on discussing the banning of Al Jazeera in Israel with the Israeli government? We just celebrated the freedom of the press here in the United States and across the globe, and then this decision came and it was really a big shock. KIRBY: As I just said, we don’t — AL JAZEERA CORRESPONDENT: Will this administration raise this issue with the government of Israel? KIRBY: We have raised this issue and I made a — a public statement about it. On a different topic NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez and CBS’s Ed O’Keefe ended the briefing by questioning Jean-Pierre about the seemingly never-ending saga of Governor Kristi Noem’s (R-SD) memoir: NBC's @GabeGutierrez: “Just really quickly. What's your response to Kristi Noem’s comments, implying that Commanders should be put down?” KJP: “Look, you know, when we learned last week, obviously, like all of you in her book that she killed her puppy, you heard me say that was… pic.twitter.com/QmxlsIZlms — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 6, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the May 6 briefing, click here.

No one has ever accused the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View of having rational, measured responses to political happenings. Last year, they decried the legal notion that former President Trump was entitled to a fair trial; then on Tuesday, they wanted him sent to “Guantanamo Bay” with the terrorists because he violated the gag order for his hush money trial and was held in contempt of court. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg had a bit of a breakdown after playing a soundbite of Trump outside the New York City courthouse condemning the gag order as a violation of his constitutional right to free speech. “When did you read the Constitution?” she screeched. “You know, you could’ve had – you had four years to read the Constitution and figure it out,” she added before her words broke down into indiscernible animal noises: “But I – He just read it now. He just read it. It’s a ba gah [gags and hisses].” Feigning high-mindedness, staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) bloviated that she was “conflicted over whether or not he should be held in contempt and … put in jail for it.”     Hostin came down on the side “put him in the clink” in order to “prove a point” about how it’s the judge who controls the trial and not Trump: HOSTIN: The other thing I will say. We all saw, many of us are old enough to have seen the O.J. case. Remember how Judge Ito lost complete control of the courtroom. And I think that had a lot to do with the win. You cannot let Donald Trump be a runaway train in that courtroom. GOLDBERG: No. No. HOSTIN: It's not his courtroom. It's the judge's courtroom. And so, I think to make a point, to prove a point, put him in the clink! Why not? Put him in the clink! This turn in the conversation got Goldberg so excited she started doing a little peepee dance.   peepee dance pic.twitter.com/0Y88TA05wz — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 7, 2024   “But which prison would be best?” Goldberg wanted to know. “Rikers” Island was “number one” for both Goldberg and Hostin (the latter was so excited they were on the same page that she did her own unhinged convulsions). Goldberg then floated some other prisons including reopening Alcatraz and the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay: GOLDBERG: But you know, I'm okay if he goes to Alcatraz and they re-open it. HOSTIN: Maybe. GOLDBERG: You know? What about Guantanamo Bay? Okay. (…) That's right! What about Supermax? Supermax would be interesting. El Chapo was in Supermax, you know, hey now, he wants to be with the hip people, come on. Faux-conservative Ana Navarro loved the idea of sending Trump to Gitmo because it “would be close to Mar-a-Lago. Melania can come and visit.” She followed that up with mocking laughter. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 7, 2024 11:18:20 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: When did you read the constitution? [Laughter] You know, you could’ve had – you had four years to read the Constitution and figure it out. [Applause] But I – He just read it now. He just read it. It’s a ba gah [gags and hisses] – SUNNY HOSTIN: Even if he read it, it didn't matter to him. Right, Whoopi? I'm sort of conflicted over whether or not he should be held in contempt and put in pri -- he's already been held in contempt but put in jail for it. But I do think that 71 percent of Americans have said that he should be put in jail if he is convicted. The other thing I will say. We all saw, many of us are old enough to have seen the O.J. case. Remember how Judge Ito lost complete control of the courtroom. And I think that had a lot to do with the win. You cannot let Donald Trump be a runaway train in that courtroom. GOLDBERG: No. No. HOSTIN: It's not his courtroom. It's the judge's courtroom. And so, I think to make a point, to prove a point, put him in the clink! Why not? Put him in the clink! [Applause] GOLDBERG: Ooh, ooh, oh! If – I don't want this to sound like I'm doing wishful thinking. HOSTIN: Yes. GOLDBERG: But which prison would be best? [Laughter] HOSTIN: I know which one. GOLDBERG: I’m going to give you— HOSTIN: Rikers. GOLDBERG: Well, that’s what I – That’s number one; is Rikers! But you know, I'm okay if he goes to Alcatraz and they re-open it. HOSTIN: Maybe. GOLDBERG: You know? What about Guantanamo Bay? Okay. ANA NAVARRO: Oh, that would be close to Mar-a-Lago. Melania can come and visit. [Mocking laughter] GOLDBERG: That's right! What about Supermax? Supermax would be interesting. El Chapo was in Supermax, you know, hey now, he wants to be with the hip people, come on. So, these are my suggestions in case anybody wants to know. (…)

“O never give me over to my own heart’s desires, nor let me follow my own imaginations!”– John Wesley There are many reasons for the modern church’s loss of its prophetic voice, politics being just one of them. As in ancient times, trying to embrace what the rest of the world is doing has diminished the power of the church to address what used to be called “sinful behavior.” The latest, but surely not the last example, is what the United Methodist Church did last week at their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. Delegates voted 523 to 161 to replace the definition of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman and will now allow gay Methodist ministers to be ordained and perform same- sex marriages. They dropped language that said homosexual practice “is incompatible with Christian teaching.” African delegates voted against the change. What do they know that others have forgotten? Marriage between a man and a woman IS compatible with Christian teaching. The majority of delegates should read and obey the Scriptures that John Wesley, the founder of their denomination, preached without compromise. In Genesis, it says: “A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two will become one flesh.” The idea is to express love through mutual pleasure and produce children. (Genesis 2:24) Jesus quotes that verse in the New Testament, affirming traditional marriage (Matthew 19:5-6) In Judges, it says: “In those days Israel had no king. Everyone did as he saw fit” (Judges 21:25). We see that reflected in today’s attitudes about sex, marriage and so many other things. Paul writes that in the end times, “to suit their own desires, they will gather round them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Timothy 4:3). We have entered that age and not just when it comes to faith. It’s the same with politics and politicians, too many of whom are telling us what we want to hear, rather than what we need to hear. There are numerous warnings about what will happen – and has happened – if especially religious leaders ignore Scripture. The ancient Israelites were severely punished for doing just that and now too many Christian denominations are climbing into the same boat. But the boat is sinking, as reflected in the number of people who have left these churches. As The New York Times reported about Methodism three years ago, “ America’s second-largest Protestant denomination is in the final stages of a slow motion rupture that has so far seen the departure of a quarter of the nation’s roughly 30,000 United Methodist churches, according to the denomination’s news agency.” It has only gotten worse since then. What else should be expected if the preaching and teaching reflects what the secular world believes? Why attend these churches? Many congregants are fleeing to other denominations, spending their Sunday mornings at a local coffee shop or staying home. To put things on a secular level, most businesses that lose customers would change their way of doing business to win them back. Not the Methodists, Episcopalians, United Presbyterians, and a branch of Lutherans among others. They are doubling down. Strongly evangelical churches that believe and preach Scripture are growing. Heresy is a bad “business model” for the church. Martin Luther said: “Peace if possible, truth at all costs.” If we can’t agree on truth, then anything goes. Historically, the church has been a moral voice when it stood for what Scripture calls “righteousness.” It affirmed doing right things and opposed wrong things. It was a major influence in ending slavery, promoting the right to vote for women and civil rights. While there was opposition to all these, the right prevailed. If the church has lost its voice, who will speak up against wrong things? Who will listen?

Welcome to Woke of the Weak where I’ll update you about the most woke, progressive, insane, and crazy clips and stories that the left thinks is tolerable and well, point out why exactly they’re nuts. The left has a toxic tendency to think that it’s the arbiter of truth - that whatever progressives say is not only their truth but gospel truth and should not only be respected but widely accepted and spread throughout the nation. If you ask me, however, the left - well, most of it - is living in fantasyzland and needs nothing more than a reality check. This week we took a look at some of those examples of delusion. For starters, one teacher bragged about teaching his students about transgenderism. A different professor showed up to teach at UC Berkeley as a furry! At the same time, over at Columbia and Harvard, med students made cringey music videos to encourage students to attend their programs. I certainly hope that none of the “doctors” wasting their time making those videos become my physician anytime soon.   While thinking about people I don’t want to interact with, I’d also never like to interact with the man in the yellow dress and a sunhat who insisted that he deserved to use the women’s restroom. A different set of freaks held a pride event in Utah where kids were invited to check out the BDSM and fetish gear. Yup, that actually happened. Towards the end of the episode, we heard from a lady who explained that you were a bigot if you didn’t want to date an obese person, we saw a lady with lip injections the size of Texas and even a “demi-sexual trans lesbian.” Can’t make this crap up!

Meta has once again deemed Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ideas too dangerous to be allowed on Facebook and Instagram. Kennedy’s Super PAC American Values 2024 (AV24) announced Sunday that it will file a lawsuit against Facebook and Instagram’s parent company after the platforms suppressed links to Kennedy's newly released documentary, “Who is Bobby Kennedy?”  “Facebook is putting its thumb on the scale this election,” Kennedy posted on X. “Please help me understand how this Woody Harrelson film about my life violates Facebook’s community standards?”   Kennedy uploaded the 30-minute film to Facebook on May 3.  But when Facebook users tried to share links to the film’s website, the platform claimed the content violated its “Community Guidelines” and would not allow users to post. Instagram users had a similar experience when trying to post the link in Instagram stories, according to screenshots included in a TikTok video that Kennedy’s team posted on May 5. The Kennedy Beacon, the substack newsletter of AV24, alleged that Facebook and Instagram labeled the documentary as “spam,” and accused the film of  showing “support or praise of terrorism, organized crime or hate groups,” “solicitation of sexual services,” and “sale of firearms or drugs.” AV24 also alleged that Facebook and Instagram have shadowbanned the film, citing low engagement numbers as evidence.  Tony Lyons, the founder of AV24, lambasted Facebook and Instagram for their actions infringing on the rights of the American voter. “When social media companies censor a presidential candidate, the public can’t learn what that candidate actually believes and what policies they would pursue if elected,” Lyons told The New York Times. “We are left with the propaganda and lies from the most powerful and most corrupt groups and individuals.”  Meta has since claimed that the video being labeled spam was a mistake rather than overt censorship.  “It was mistakenly blocked and corrected within a few hours,” said Meta spokesman Andy Stone told The Times. Facebook did not respond to MRC Free Speech America's request for comment by publication time.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.