The Left has thrown a completely counter-factual fit about how the Paramount takeover of CBS created some kind of “MAGA-coded” news division under Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss. No one who watches network news on a daily basis right now can see much of a difference today between CBS and ABC and NBC. But mere internal questioning of whether CBS could attempt to be less biased to the left has caused a tsunami of panic.Now, as the Paramount merger with Warner Brothers-Discovery approaches its conclusion, 12 attorneys general filed a last-minute lawsuit to block it – but they won’t say it’s about keeping Weiss & Co. out of the CNN news business. It’s led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and supported by 11 other Democrats, from Arizona to Minnesota to New Jersey.It’s comical to see news reports from NPR and CNBC pretending this is a nonpartisan crusade. They left the Democrat Party angle out of this entirely, even as Bonta tries to claim this is all about making sure Hollywood doesn’t lose any movie-making jobs. The pro-Bonta reporters aren’t noticing what Gov. Gavin Newsom is doing to drive movie-making out of California.Leftists like Oliver Darcy of Status were miffed that these Democrats didn’t explicitly object in their brief to the merger over its potential CNN effects, but everyone can guess that’s part of the angst.On NPR's All Things Considered, anchor Scott Detrow asked vaguely about “the political overtones.” Media reporter David Folkenflik didn’t say Bonta was a Democrat, but he talked about him “standing in front of the big Hollywood sign that looms over LA, he said, quote, ‘America has no kings in government or our economy.’" No Kings? CNN and the other networks aren’t a democracy. Internally, they are a one-party state like California, and any interloper who asks questions about a liberal tilt is treated like a human virus. It was the same for Folkenflik’s editor Uri Berliner, who was cast out of NPR after attempting internally to bring any semblance of balance to the “news” product.Folkenflik warned about the new Paramount overlords. Larry Ellison is “one of the richest people on Earth, an adviser and financial supporter of the president. His son, David Ellison...a Hollywood producer, has given money to Democrats, but has celebrated Trump and brought in a new editor in chief at CBS News when they took over CBS and Paramount just last summer.”When Netflix first successfully bid for WBD, you didn’t find the Folkenfliks of the world fretting that Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos and co-founder Reed Hastings were prominent individual donors and fundraisers for Barack Obama. That wasn’t a red flag, because keeping CNN in the Obama fold isn’t alarming. It’s comforting.Folkenflik added his Bari Weiss fright bite: “CBS, you know, would be perhaps under the same umbrella as CNN, which is currently part of Warner Bros. Discovery. That new editor-in-chief has criticized the mainstream media for being too anti-Trump, and several correspondents have left the network, been fired or resigned, criticizing her for bias.” Giggle when they call themselves the “mainstream media.”At CBS, arrogant leftists like 60 Minutes activists Scott Pelley and Sharyn Alfonsi throwing fits of insubordination and getting fired was meant to imply there’s been a massive sea change in what people see when they tune in on Sunday nights. Once again, viewers haven’t seen a massive change in their stories. But leftists cannot abide anyone even questioning their aggressive partisanship to steer America toward that “right side of history.”

Two out of the three network Elitist Media evening newscasts covered the Supreme Court justices appearing before the House of Representatives in order to ask for additional enhancements to their security details. Shockingly, NBC omitted the hearing outright.ABC covered the hearing but completely omitted any mention of where the violence was coming from. Watch the full report as aired on World News Tonight on Tuesday, July 14th, 2026:  WATCH: @ABCWorldNews manages to report on the Supreme Court justices coming before the House and asking for more security funding, with no mention that leftwing violence is triggering this funding. No mention of Chuck Schumer's "you will reap the whirlwind", and no mention of… pic.twitter.com/uNavxLWgya— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) July 15, 2026 DAVID MUIR: Tonight, 24 hours after a suspect was arrested in a rented truck near Capitol Hill, police saying he was armed and allegedly saying he was going to the Supreme Court. Tonight, here, the very rare testimony on The Hill, two Supreme Court justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and how she explained her bulletproof vest to her son. Here's Jay O'Brien.JAY O’BRIEN: 24 hours after Capitol Police say a man with a gun in a rented Ford Bronco was arrested after asking for directions to the Supreme Court…DAVE JOYCE: Welcome, both Justice Kagan and Justice Coney Barrett.O’BRIEN: Tonight, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan pleading for more security funding, saying they face an alarming rise in threats. Barrett, describing how she explained her bulletproof vest to her 12-year-old son.AMY CONEY BARRETT: They wanted to know what it was and why I had it, and I didn't know how to respond because maybe I lack imagination, but I didn't expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why I had to wear one.O’BRIEN: And Barrett, describing a swatting incident at her home just last month.BARRETT: One of my teenage sons opened the door to go out with friends and saw in our street- it was full of police cars who had responded to a false report of gunshots and raised voices in my home.O’BRIEN: Last year, a man was sentenced to eight years in prison for planning to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Kagan telling lawmakers she and her colleagues now live in a different world.ELENA KAGAN: Right now, each of us has a detail of between 4 and 8 security people, and they accompany us pretty much everywhere. So life has changed a great deal for all of us.O’BRIEN: And, David, you heard Justice Kagan there describing that alarming rise in threats. That man arrested just yesterday, allegedly asking directions to the Supreme Court. Police say they spotted a gun. Justice Kagan saying that threats against the court spiked 25% just last year. David.MUIR: Extraordinarily alarming. Jay O’Brien, live on The Hill. Thanks, Jay. There was no mention whatsoever of leftwing violence, which fueled these attacks against the Supreme Court. Justice Barrett specifically mentioned the Dobbs opinion, which overturned Roe v. Wade, but that got cut from the broadcast. Testifying about rising threats being made against the Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett details the threats made against her and her family and why her service on the bench has put her in the position of “explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why I had… pic.twitter.com/vDvM4vgqnP— NewsNation (@NewsNation) July 14, 2026 How is it that "two years ago, around the time of the Dobbs leak" doesn't make it into the soundbites? It explains the underlying event that triggered threats of violence and insane protests at the Justices' homes. How does none of that make it in when it is so proximate to the soundbites they did use?There was also one major instigation of violence against the Court that no one mentioned: Chuck Schumer’s infamous “whirlwind” speech:  In which Chuck Schumer threatens TWO sitting Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. pic.twitter.com/pA3mryeVK2— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 4, 2020 To his credit, Congressional Correspondent Jay O’Brien addressed the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh (and surprisingly said that “a man was convicted). Otherwise, there was little interest in exploring where the threats of violence were coming from.Likewise, CBS omitted Schumer and specific mentions of leftwing violence. But to his credit, Senior White House Correspondent Ed O’ Keefe mentioned Dobbs, as well as the multiple attempted assassinations of President Trump. Here is that report, as aired on the CBS Evening News on Tuesday, July 14th, 2026: WATCH: @CBSEveningNews covers SCOTUS' ask for increased security funding. To their credit, they mention the spike in threats post-Dobbs, and multiple assassination attempts against POTUSTONY DOKOUPIL: You know, Ed, the other big story in Washington today- for the first time… pic.twitter.com/tOi5NNVrwc— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) July 15, 2026 TONY DOKOUPIL: You know, Ed, the other big story in Washington today- for the first time since 2019, Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court testified before Congress. We had Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. They warned of a rise in security threats against justices. Listen.AMY CONEY BARRETT: Roughly six weeks ago, I was the victim of a swatting incident. At that point my teenage son, one of my teenage sons, opened the door to go out with friends and saw in our street, it was full of police cars, who had responded to a false report of gunshots and raised voices in my home.DOKOUPIL: So, Ed, what are they asking for here, and what's the bigger context? It's not just the Court facing potential violence.ED O’KEEFE: That's right, Tony. They are seeking $14.6 million more to give each of the nine Justices six security agents to provide them and their families with 24/7 protection, and it's all because of increased threats against the High Court. Justice Kagan said Supreme Court Police expect a 38% increase in threats this year against the Justices after a 25% spike last year. Threats have been ticking up especially since the decision to reverse Roe vs. Wade leaked back in 2022 and caused a political uproar. It is rare for justices to testify publicly to Congress, but their request for more security funding comes amidst increased threats against federal judges and the murder of some judges’ family members, as lawmakers continue to face threats of their own, and of course amid the assassination attempts on President Trump and other shootings outside here at The White House in recent months. The increase in political violence now an increased cost for taxpayers. Tony.DOKOUPIL: Ed, thank you very much. Shockingly, there was no mention of this hearing on NBC Nightly News, which led the newscast off with the explosive diarrhea parasite. NBC demonstrates that what is hidden from coverage is often more important than what makes it to air. And both ABC and CBS, to varying degrees, displayed the insidious nature of bias by omission by downplaying or neglecting to mention the ideology that has been driving the threats against the Supreme Court for the past several years.

SnapStream On Tuesday’s Morning Joe, the MS NOW’s morning talk program led with the news of an ICE-involved shooting death in Maine. Frequent guest and The New York Times opinion writer Mara Gay used the shooting discussion to label “many” Trump officials as “white supremacists” before she related the shooting to the removal of Temporary Protected Status and “anti-democratic behavior.”Gay continued the Scarborough-led conversation of the Maine shooting, similar to last Friday when he screamed at ICE funding and “Don’t Tread on Me” license plates. She started by saying she was not a Maine resident nor an immigrant, but she was a “proud American.” Gay then stated, “This administration has made every single American complicit in these deaths.”Scarborough then connected back to ICE funding and related the situation back to moderate Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins. He remarked about Collins and other Republicans: “They’ve sat back and let this happen.” Frequent Morning Joe guest and New York Times Opinion Writer Mara Gay labeled some Trump Administration officials as "white supremacists" who "don't care" about the politics after ICE-involved shootings. She continued, "They're cruel, and this is what they want." pic.twitter.com/h3JvExJiJE— Nick (@nspin310) July 14, 2026 Gay labeled some officials in the Trump administration, who she called hardliners, as “white supremacists.”"But the other thing here is the hardliners in this administration. They don't care about the politics because many of them are white supremacists and they don't care,” she continued. ”They're cruel, and this is what they want.The writer then connected the ICE shooting to the removal of TPS status of Haitian and Syrians in the US, after the Supreme Court ruled DHS could remove temporary statuses. She wondered: “Why is this administration doing something that is so obviously bad politics in addition to cruel and un-American?”In close of her white supremacist accusation, she implied immigration policies were part of “all the anti-democratic behavior from this White House.”  CNN This Morning's Audie Cornish also talked about the Maine shooting and asked if ICE has acted differently or if the shootings revealed "a little bit of a standing operating procedure here." pic.twitter.com/NVktc4O5Rb— Nick (@nspin310) July 14, 2026 CNN This Morning also covered the shooting in Maine, and host Audie Cornish asked if the recent shootings revealed “a little bit of a standing operating procedure” of ICE. Instead of true talk on the shooting in Maine, Gay took the opportunity to opine about democracy and white supremacy, which was not surprising due to her history of comments on Morning Joe, as previously documented by NewsBusters.The white supremacy claim had little to no relation to the shooting issue at hand, and her comments were more about her own views on immigrants, especially those in the country illegally. Paired with Cornish’s allegation of ICE shooting as “standing operating procedure” of ICE, the morning cable news shows' reaction to the events in Maine showcased the renewed build-up of immigration enforcement-dominated news coverage in the lead-up to the midterms.The transcript is below. Click "expand"MS NOW’s Morning JoeJuly 14, 20266:10:41 AM Eastern(..)MARA GAY: Right. And I just want to say, you know, I don't live in Maine. I'm not an immigrant, but I'm a proud American. And this administration has made every single American complicit in these deaths. This is happening with our taxpayer dollars that could be going to schools, to health care.JOE SCARBOROUGH: Because of what -GAY: Because - SCARBOROUGH: -  Susan Maine and Republicans are doing. GAY: That’s right.SCARBOROUGH: They’ve sat back and let this happen.GAY: But the other thing here is the hardliners in this administration. They don't care about the politics because many of them are white supremacists and they don't care. They're cruel, and this is what they want. This is the same administration that removed protections for Haitians, for Syrians. At the same time, it's allowing more Afrikaners only, white South Africans only, in. So, this is all one of a piece. And when we ask ourselves, why is this administration doing something that is so obviously bad politics in addition to cruel and un-American? I think we need to really look carefully at all the anti-democratic behavior from this White House, because this is not a popular policy. So why would someone pursue a popular policy in a midterm year?(...)

Last Friday, President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that he had given orders to the U.S. Military to “completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran” if he’s assassinated, which Iran has threatened to do many times. On Monday’s episode of MS NOW’s The Last Word, host Lawrence O’Donnell spun Trump’s post on a technicality, implying that, should they succeed in assassinating the President, Iran might be just fine.O’Donnell claimed that Trump’s power only existed in “lightweight fiction that include, say, Bond villains who issue orders to destroy the world if anything happens to them.” They can't hide the straight fact that they WANT Iran (or anyone) to kill Trump. It's what they hope and pray to their non-binary false god every day.And they're talking about it on the 2-year anniversary of Butler.Source: @MSNOWNews's @Lawrence on @TheLastWord, July 13, 2026 pic.twitter.com/8w3RIxvhgk— Cici Marie (@Cici_Marie_1776) July 14, 2026 First he was Satan, now Trump’s a Bond villain. Add that to the endless list of names the left will call their favorite orange boogeyman. This new threat from Trump, O’Donnell cried, was “Constitutional madness.” “Dead presidents don’t bomb,” he said.Sure, if Trump meets his end from an Iranian assassin, he probably won’t be the one to push the button himself. But if Iran killed our president, that would be an unmitigated act of war. J.D. Vance, even as a skeptic of the Iran bombings, surely wouldn’t hesitate to respond.But O’Donnell suggested that Vance wouldn’t definitely do that. Instead, he acted like what the Vice President’s tendencies and loyalties were complete mysteries, and blamed White House reporters for not grilling Vance about precisely this subject:Here's the really, really crazy thing about the state of the White House press corps. In the year and a half since February 4th, 2025, when Donald Trump first said he left instructions to obliterate Iran if he is assassinated, not one White House reporter, and not one reporter anywhere else with access to J.D. Vance, has ever asked the Vice President if he has been given that order by Donald Trump and if he intends to follow that order if he becomes President in this scenario Donald Trump imagines. . . Will J.D. Vance give the order to kill everyone in Iran? Doesn't @MSNOWNews have White House correspondents? They could very easily ask this question if they want to.You know why they won't? Because the answer is glaringly obvious. pic.twitter.com/o7LNnph4yl— Cici Marie (@Cici_Marie_1776) July 14, 2026 Even though leftist networks like MS NOW are crumbling, they still have reporters that attend every briefing from the administration. O’Donnell’s colleagues could easily reach out to Vance if they wanted to ask that question. So, why haven’t they? According to O’Donnell, it’s either because the reporters have too much “intellectual laziness,” or, “because everyone in the world who needs to know about these things, very much including the regime in Iran, knows that the Constitution does not allow dead presidents to bomb anyone.”It’s less the Constitution and more the laws of nature that don’t let dead people drop bombs. However, O'Donnell also claimed that if Vance were to carry out Trump's desire, it would be "morally repugnant" despite Trump's post saying nothing about an order "to kill everyone." Yeah, the leftist White House reporters do indeed have "intellectual laziness," but you can definitely bet that if Iran kills Trump, it'll be the last mistake they'll ever make. pic.twitter.com/vEfb7cJeUd— Cici Marie (@Cici_Marie_1776) July 14, 2026 The liberal media wasn’t harping on Trump’s post for its Constitutional accuracy. Instead, they’re talking about it because they want their audience to think Trump wants to kill over 93 million Iranians.The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:MS NOW's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell7/13/2610:04:19 p.m. Eastern LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Well, Donald Trump's childish fantasy about what the presidency is could now destroy the careers of people who share that fantasy. Just before midnight on Friday, Donald Trump proved once again that he thinks that the title “President of the United States” comes with powers that only exist in fiction, lightweight fiction that include, say, Bond villains who issue orders to destroy the world if anything happens to them. Donald Trump actually wrote at 11:18 p.m. on Friday, "1000 missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!" Exclamation point. "Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing and able for a one year period of time, subject to extension, to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran." That Trump composition is overflowing with more than one variety of madness. But for the moment, let's just consider the constitutional madness. Dead presidents don't bomb. Donald Trump actually thinks that orders given by a dead president are something that "The U.S. Military is ready, willing and able" to do. The next time any general testifies to Congress, that general should be asked if the United States military is ready to carry out the destruction of Iran for Donald Trump if Donald Trump is assassinated.That general might very well be fired if that general testifies that, of course, the military doesn't take orders from dead presidents and that the only the new president, in this scenario, J.D. Vance, could order a military attack on Iran. Donald Trump obviously doesn't know that. I mean, he really doesn't know that. It's not the first time Donald Trump has said this crazy, after-death threat. On February 4th, 2025, the New York Times reporter David Sanger ran a story under the headline "Trump Says He Left Instructions to ‘Obliterate’ Iran if It Assassinates Him." The Times article included this line: "In fact, experts say, a president cannot leave instructions for military action after his death. That decision would have to be made by his successor, who would then be commander in chief." Yes, experts say that, as do high school students, and anyone else who has the vaguest idea of what the presidency and vice president are and how they work. Here's the really, really crazy thing about the state of the White House press corps. In the year and a half since February 4th, 2025, when Donald Trump first said he left instructions to obliterate Iran if he is assassinated, not one White House reporter, and not one reporter anywhere else with access to J.D. Vance, has ever asked the Vice President if he has been given that order by Donald Trump and if he intends to follow that order if he becomes President in this scenario Donald Trump imagines.And since Friday night at midnight, no reporter has made any attempt to ask J.D. Vance about Donald Trump saying "Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing and able . . . to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran. Will J.D. Vance give the order to kill everyone in Iran? That's the kind of thing that the formerly serious Hugh Hewitt would have asked Donald Trump years ago, before Hugh Hewitt decided to become a Trump cheerleader. In a live interview with Donald Trump today, this is the only thing Hugh Hewitt or Donald Trump said about J.D. Vance.[Cut to audio]HUGH HEWITT: Now that - if the Democrats win the House, they're going to impeach you. And I don't care what the argument is. They're just going to find a way to impeach you. You know, J.D. Vance could represent you, and he can be in the Senate doing the same thing. Have you thought about that? He's a good lawyer.DONALD TRUMP: Well, I don't like to think about it too much because I think we're going to do well.[Cut back to live]O'DONNELL: "He's a good lawyer" who has never tried a case, never defended a client in the courtroom anywhere. There are two reasons why the White House press corps has never asked J.D. Vance whether he will follow Donald Trump's orders after Donald Trump is gone. One is the intellectual laziness to many of them bring to their job and the other—the other thing is, this is the biggest part of it, I guess, no one believes Donald Trump. No one in the world believes Donald Trump about this. No one in Iran believes that the President of the United States can leave orders that then get executed after he's gone, because everyone in the world who needs to know about these things, very much including the regime in Iran, knows that the Constitution does not allow dead presidents to bomb anyone. That power would not belong to Donald Trump in the scenario that he presents. It would belong to the new President, J.D. Vance. The whole world knows that. But Donald Trump's utter immunity to personal humiliation allows him to publicly issue this utterly empty, completely frivolous, and morally repugnant threat that reeks of constitutional illiteracy.

Don’t believe your lying eyes! CNN tried every narrative trick in the book to pre-spin the blockbuster June inflation numbers before anybody even knew what the data was going to say. YouTube The typical CNN Business culprits — Senior Writer Alicia Wallace and Senior Reporter David Goldman — released a so-called “analysis” July 13 on the Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly report on consumer prices, which was released a day later. “Don’t be fooled: America’s inflation problems aren’t going away anytime soon,” read their obnoxious headline. Despite acknowledging the June numbers could signal an easing on inflationary pressures, Wallace and Goldman concocted their predictable flapdoodle to project disaster anyway, “but that doesn’t mean the inflation resurgence is over: Prices could keep rising uncomfortably for years.”The official BLS inflation data released after Wallace and Goldman’s piece went live showed that consumer prices actually declined 0.4 percent on the month and eased to a 3.5 percent rate on the year. That crushed consensus estimates by Dow Jones economists for a 0.2 percent decline on the month and a slight ease to a 3.8 percent year-over-year rate from the 4.2 percent high in May. The monthly decline was the sharpest in six years. On a yearly basis, inflation in fact cooled a whopping 0.7 percentage points, both figures in effect rendering Wallace and Goldman’s premature obfuscations to the contrary appear downright idiotic.What kind of “analysis” was this anyway? What exactly were Wallace and Goldman analyzing? This is like a food critic blaming a restaurant’s shrimp cocktail for giving him stomach cramps despite never eating it in the first place. Wallace and Goldman dismissed the expected inflation cooling cold turkey as just being driven by volatile drops in energy. “But stripping away volatile oil prices, the inflation picture isn’t looking quite so rosy.” Yes, the supposed analysts tried to determine the core inflation metrics prima facie:“But a drop in energy costs doesn’t magically erase price hikes already set into motion by the previous surge in oil and fuel prices or the constricted supply of critical materials like fertilizer and metals.”But Wallace and Goldman whiffed here too. Despite projecting that core inflation would remain in the “uncomfortable” 2.9 percent territory from May “for a while,” the metric per BLS actually cooled to a 2.6 percent rate, reflecting an ease in inflation pressure not necessarily manipulated by volatile fluctuations in the food and energy sectors. It’s pretty rich seeing Goldman kvetch about unreliable energy metrics when he tried using a single snapshotted Brent Crude futures chart in May to predict that we wouldn’t see $70 a barrel oil prices again until 2032 if the conflict over the Strait of Hormuz ensues. Apparently oil price projections are only reliable when convenient to however CNN chooses to spin a story on a given day.  Reading Wallace and Goldman’s pre-worked propaganda in retrospect begs the question of what kind of stargate did they believe themselves to be seeing through:“On top of that, the United States is dealing with what economists call ‘sticky’ inflation. Inflation gets particularly sticky when prices for services rise – think haircuts, trips to the doctor or the vet, that recent oil change or car repair. Those prices tend not to go on sale, and they also move in one direction: up. (When was the last time your gym membership fell?)”But as CNBC reported, the objectively great inflation report reflected “an easing in services costs, particularly for housing,” aside from the drop in energy prices. Oof! Talk about taking a pie directly to the face!