NBC’s Jimmy Fallon returned to the subject of CBS and 60 Minutes firing Scott Pelley on Thursday by playing a satirical 60 Minutes intro that featured what he considered to be some of the replacements CBS could try to “appeal to Trump” and included Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. Fallon introduced his video by claimimg, “Well, the big story this week is that CBS fired Scott Pelley after he clashed with his new boss at 60 Minutes. Yeah, it seems like CBS is really trying to appeal to Trump. Check out the new 60 Minutes correspondents.”   Jimmy Fallon takes a second bite out of the 60 Minutes/Scott Pelley apple, "Yeah, it seems like CBS is really trying to appeal to Trump. Check out the new 60 Minutes correspondents." He then plays a satirical 60 Minutes open that features Nicki Minaj, Grimace from McDonald's, and… pic.twitter.com/sZpBxwH3n9 — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) June 5, 2026   The video started out with regular correspondents Lesley Stahl and Bill Whitaker, followed by three newcomers: LESLEY STAHL: I'm Lesley Stahl. BILL WHITAKER: I'm Bill Whitaker. NICKI MINAJ: I'm Nicki Minaj. GRIMACE [McDonald’s mascot]: I'm Grimace. VLADIMIR PUTIN [Via translator]: And I'm Vladimir Putin. Afterwards, Fallon reacted, “It seems like— It seems wrong, right? Seems off.” On Friday, Stahl and Whitaker announced they will be staying, which should put an end to this idea that 60 Minutes is about to turn into Trump TV. As for Fallon’s fake trio of newbies, despite all the caterwauling about Bari Weiss, the people she has actually hired cannot be credibly said to have gotten their new jobs as part of a drive to “appeal to Trump.” As for Fallon, he has the reputation of being the least nasty of the late night hosts, and there is a reason for that, but even he loves himself a “Trump loves Putin” or “X is a distraction from the Epstein files” quip. Here is a transcript for the June 4 show: NBC The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon 6/4/2026 11:40 PM ET JIMMY FALLON: Well, the big story this week is that CBS fired Scott Pelley after he clashed with his new boss at 60 Minutes. Yeah, it seems like CBS is really trying to appeal to Trump. Check out the new 60 Minutes correspondents. LESLEY STAHL: I'm Lesley Stahl. BILL WHITAKER: I'm Bill Whitaker. NICKI MINAJ: I'm Nicki Minaj. GRIMACE: I'm Grimace. VLADIMIR PUTIN [Via Translator]: And I'm Vladimir Putin. FALLON: It seems like— STEVE HIGGINS: Wow, Grimace. FALLON: It seems wrong, right? Seems off.

On Thursday afternoon, The New York Times released a long-rumored item about embattled Maine Democratic senatorial candidate and liberal media darling Graham Platner that detailed claims that many will find unsettling and even abusive toward ex-girlfriends. The major broadcast networks – ABC, CBS, and NBC – saw no reason to tell viewers about it on their flagship Thursday night newscasts. On their lead Friday morning shows, the blackout continued with nothing ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today, but CBS Mornings stepped out with nearly six minutes (5:42). CBS co-host Nate Burleson even teased it twice, including telling viewers before the “Eye Opener” set of teases that “we also have new allegations of misconduct by Senate candidate Graham Platner.” Following a lead-off report on the Senate passing President Trump’s border funding package, featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers declared: “A Democratic candidate in a crucial Senate race in Maine [is] facing explosive new allegations. The New York Times reports some women who used to date Graham Platner say they saw disturbing behavior. Platner was already facing scrutiny over explicit texts he sent to other women early in his marriage.”

Late on Thursday, the New York Times came out with a story by Katie Glueck and Lisa Lerer that featured GOP operative Lyndsey Fifield making accusations against progressive darling and Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, including how “she said he regularly grabbed her by the shoulders — sometimes hard enough to leave marks — and, on one occasion, yanked her out of a cab by her wrist after an argument when she wanted to stay in the car.” However, on Friday, Fifield torched The Times in a series of X posts for what was not in the story, including more evidence for her accusations that she was “set up” because The Times did not include other women who were going to accuse Platner of sexual assault despite telling Fifield they were going to. The Times also wrote, “Mr. Platner ‘strongly disputes’ any claims of physical intimidation or altercations, his campaign said. The Times could not independently corroborate Ms. Fifield’s account of the altercations.’”  The next morning, Fifield posted on X, “But then in early April the New York Times came to me. I asked how they got my number. I said I was not interested in sharing my story. They said but wait—there are other women. Women terrified to tell their stories, too, and you need to band together. WE will help you. We will protect you. Men can’t keep getting away with this.” I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists. As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word… — Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) June 5, 2026 She then added: I let them take pictures of my diary pages. I sent them screenshots of messages and gave them phone numbers and contacts. It was excruciating. I was surprised by what details I remembered, and as I poured through old messages I was horrified by how much I had forgotten. I explained very clearly that, like many women abused by their partners, I had not told anyone about his violence at the time—I had covered for and defended it. I accepted his earnest apologies. They said that’s fine because the diary entries and my on the record story was enough. They connected me to two of the other victims so we wouldn’t feel so alone. I insisted to each of them that I trusted the NYT journalists and that we were doing the right thing despite their (sadly very accurate) sense that something was wrong. One of the victims and I realized our relationships with Graham overlapped completely - he had been cheating on both of us the entire time we were together. In a second post, Fifield regretted having, “bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.” She soon realized something was off: But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed. After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)? Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate? Over at The Daily Caller, senior politics editor Will Upton pointed out that has had consequences, “The goal was to create enough doubt and ambiguity regarding Platner’s disgusting behavior to let my friend, Lyndsey Fifield, be smeared by Democrat Party operatives like Emma Vigeland and partisan media hacks like Krystal Ball. And that’s exactly what they did.” He also elaborated, “Prior to publication, I’m told that the Times spoke to two women who had credibly accused Platner of sexual assault. This detail was revealed to Fifield — likely in an effort to encourage her to divulge more of her story. Those women’s allegations never made it into the story. They were effectively ‘killed’ by the Times’s editors and by Platner’s attorneys, I’m told.” As for Fifield, she also recalled wondering: Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal? The editors said it was too much, they explained. The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so. It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life. It was not even a month ago that The New York Times ran physiologically impossible allegations of Israel using dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners, but now that control of the Senate is on the line with a candidate who, even if you were to remove his personal baggage, is still a left-wing radical, The Times appears to be deferring to the alleged abuser.

Apparently, even the most rabid left-wing politicians can draw reality checks from The New York Times when their radical agendas end up leaving their economies in the lurch. Times reporters Dana Rubinstein, Sally Goldenberg, Jeffery C. Mays, and Emma Goldberg ripped communist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on May 29, albeit with some tempered language: “Among Mamdani’s Priorities, Economic Development Seems Low on the List.” “Low on the list” is a funny way of saying the economy isn’t really a priority at all. They specifically called out Mamdani for leaving the top leadership role for the city’s Economic Development Corporation vacant, “deepening concern over his attention to the New York City economy.” Wow, who could have seen that coming? As Mamdani fills his ranks with dedicated socialists, wrote The Times authors, the EDC remains “rudderless,” as its intended mission is to “leverage city real estate and tax incentives to attract private capital and drive job growth across the five boroughs.” When your entire agenda is buoyed by fiscally derelict policies in one of the most highly taxed cities in the U.S., it’s easy to see why economic growth isn’t exactly being set up for a boom. To even lose the support of a leftist newspaper that was once willing to gaslight readers to protect Mamdani’s reluctance to condemn terrorist group Hamas over basic economics takes some insane levels of ineptitude: The uncertainty surrounding the E.D.C.’s leadership and direction has fed the notion, widespread among business leaders and moderate Democratic politicians, that Mr. Mamdani is insufficiently attuned to the health of New York City’s economy, and that his inattention potentially comes at his, and the city’s, peril. It’s still incredible they chose this hill to make its stand on for economic sense, even though anyone not blinded by extreme ideology could see Mamdani’s multibillion-dollar “freebie” agenda was a load of hogwash. His proposed $127 billion budget is being bolstered largely by massive tax hikes, which initially included a 9.5 percent property tax increase (and subsequently scrapped after massive opposition). Liberal CNN host Fareed Zakaria analyzed in February that NYC had already been “fiscally profligate” for so long, and Mamdani’s latest scheme was “similar to the annual expenditures of a mid-sized nation” like Greece or Thailand.  Apparently, none of that signaled further danger to The Times. In fact, it’s rich for them to complain about “economic development” as it then justified Mamdani’s equally asinine proposal to impose rent controls based on the musings of liberal firm Moody’s Analytics. “N.Y.C. Rent Freeze Wouldn’t Spell Doom for Most Landlords, Report Says,” read the June 3 headline by Times reporter Mihir Zaveri. But the four aforementioned Times reporters just played dumb: “It also raises larger and more fundamental questions: What kind of economic policy does the mayor want to embrace?” Here, let us help: it’s called communism, as AMAC concluded in a June 2 analysis:  As a whole, Mamdani’s housing policy creates a coordinated squeeze on private property. First, he freezes the rent, capping how much property owners can make. Then, he imposes expensive and complicated new requirements which landlords can’t afford because of the rent freeze. Finally, Mamdani’s army of lawyers and bureaucrats issue a flood of code violations in order to confiscate the buildings outright. It is reasonable to suggest no serious economist worth his salt would even dare say such an agenda copied and pasted straight out of Karl Marx’s playbook has anything to do with “economic development.” The Times may be missing the forest for the trees here, but at least they’ve picked up somewhat of a scent, but don’t expect that to last.  

U.S. job growth in May doubled expectations and the gains in March and April were higher than initially reported, the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported Friday. Total nonfarm employment increased a seasonally-adjusted 172,000, twice the 80,000 growth analysts had predicted. Meanwhile, job growth in March was revised up 29,000 to 214,000 and April’s increase was revised up 64,000 to 179,000, resulting in combine job growth 93,000 higher than previously reported, the new BLS report reveals. The seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate was unchanged from April, holding at 4.3%, and has remained in a narrow range of 4.3% to 4.5% since July 2025. Federal government employment was unchanged from April, holding at 2.68 million. Over the past 12 months, the federal government has shrunk by 271,000 jobs. Total government employment increased by 55,000, however, due to a 52,000 increase in local government. By industry sector, notable changes from April include: Leisure and hospitality added 70,000 jobs, well above the average monthly gain of 14,000 during the prior 12 months. Over the month, food services and drinking places added 48,000 jobs. Local government rose by 55,000, largely reflecting a gain in non-education jobs. Health care added 35,000 jobs in May, in line with the average monthly gain of 38,000 over the prior 12 months. Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction increased by 5,000 in May and is up by 10,000 since February. Financial activities employment declined by 22,000 in May and is down by 107,000 since a recent peak in May 2025. Over the month, job losses occurred in insurance carriers and related activities (-11,000) and commercial banking (-3,000). “Employment showed little change over the month in other major industries, including construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, information, professional and business services, and other services,” BLS reports. The business and economic reporting of CNSNews is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold.