On Monday’s CNN This Morning and Morning Joe, the 6 a.m. hours of both programs covered Iranian state media reports of Iranian missiles supposedly striking U.S. Navy ships with special coverage. CNN went into ‘Breaking News’ mode as they cited Iranian state media report and later slightly aired the denials from a US Official in Axios.  As for Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough and David Ignatius gave more caveats to the Iranian reports, as they rightfully pointed out the regime’s previous lies. The MS NOW show still gave some credence to the report. At 6:25, CNN’s screen flashed with a voiceover announcement of “This is CNN Breaking News” as Cornish then stated, “Ok. We're just learning this breaking news out of the Middle East. Iranian state media is reporting that Iran claims to have hit a U.S. naval ship with two missiles.”   Monday's CNN This Morning treated an Iranian State Media report on Iranian missiles striking U.S. Naval vessels as credible. This led to Breaking News coverage on the network. There was no other reporting other than state media at first, but CNN ran with it anyway pic.twitter.com/tdmaeRhYaG — Nick (@nspin310) May 4, 2026   The CNN panel of journalists came in to hit on “Project Freedom,” the new U.S. military plan to open the Strait of Hormuz, as they questioned the U.S.’s might amid the reports. Courtney Subramanian of Bloomberg blamed the possible strikes on the absence of an international coalition. Another panelist, AP reporter and CNN analyst Seung Min Kim, thought about the possible next steps as she wondered how “our international partners respond.” The report CNN cited came directly from Iranian state media with little critical questions of it’s validity. A post on X displayed similar information to what CNN reported at the time.  However, it was extremely interesting that CNN would give a sole Iranian state media report enough validity to present Breaking News coverage with the information, as even the reporters on the panel treated the news as fully factual, even with Cornish’s very slight disclaimers.  The report was later deemed untrue, as the media cited a U.S. official who said it was false. Some other reports have claimed there were “warning shots.”   CNN's Nic Robertson said the report helped Iran and said, "in that context, over Project Freedom, Iran wins the day, it would appear.” CNN was part of the group that would have helped Iran win the day, as Robertson suggests, since they cited a false state media report. pic.twitter.com/yV7fIBNqPl — Nick (@nspin310) May 4, 2026   Later, with CNN editor Nic Robertson, Cornish mentioned, in an understatement Iran media sometimes “prove not to be True,” but instead was used to instill “fear.” Robertson agreed and amplified fears, and stated Iran has appeared to win the day:  Will Iran's messaging here put off those commercial vessels from transiting the Strait of Hormuz? And if it does, then in that context, over Project Freedom, Iran wins the day, it would appear. CNN was part of the group that would have helped Iran win the day, as Robertson suggests, since they cited a false report.    MS NOW's Morning Joe also broke in with coverage, but host Joe Scarborough made multiple references to the previous lies of the Iranian regime, as he and David Ignatius urged caution, with the possibility that some of what they have said amid this war has been confirmed. https://t.co/d0blQNVFg6 pic.twitter.com/sWdDLAYDna — Nick (@nspin310) May 4, 2026   On Morning Joe, there was a more balanced approach to the coverage of the event, as Scarborough’s principled Iran stance somewhat remained, as he called them liars while he also gave their reports some validity:  Again, this is Iranian state media. They have, of course, been lying since 1979. That said, in this war, often what they've reported has ended up being confirmed by Western news sources. Frequent guest David Ignatius urged caution and said “we have to be careful with this first report” before he went through hypothetical responses. But, Jonathan Lemire, similar to his previous want of war casualties to hurt Trump politically, then thought of potential escalation if the reports were true: “But this feels like it could be a step to resuming hostilities.”  CNN’s rush to report information from state media was a questionable decision when even Morning Joe and MS NOW urged caution about the reports. The transcripts from CNN and MS NOW are below. Click "expand": CNN This Morning May 5, 2026 6:25:47 AM Eastern CNN NARRATOR: This is CNN Breaking News. CORNISH: Ok. We're just learning this breaking news out of the Middle East. Iranian state media is reporting that Iran claims to have hit a U.S. Naval ship with two missiles. I'm going to bring in Mina al-Oraibi, Editor in Chief for The National. I want to talk to you about this because there have been these double blockades, and we know that the IGRC has been pushing very hard to prevent any movement from ships. Can you give us the context here? MINA AL-ORAIBI: So, this announcement by Iranian state media comes at a time when it's a test of wills. As you said, there's a double blockade. Iran started, of course, by blocking ships trying to come through the Strait of Hormuz and threatening any ships coming through. Then, of course, the U.S. is also stopping ships that are servicing Iran. And this is, of course, mainly about energy flows. But in general, all ships there are being targeted by Iran, and the U.S. is trying to force the Iranians to change their course of action. This breaking news that the Iranians are claiming that they've hit, not only targeted, but hit an American Navy vessel comes at a time hours after President Donald Trump said that they would ensure that vessels would be taken care of and allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz so that they would be an escort. Now, the Iranians are responding by saying, not only will we threaten vessels, we will actually attack the U.S. Navy itself. This could be a moment of military escalation if there is damage to the vessel. We're yet, of course, to hear from CENTCOM, American command here, in terms of the sort of damage that may have happened to the ship. CORNISH: As we said, this is all coming from Iranian state media.  (...) 6:30:12 Eastern CORNISH: Okay. Mina, thank you so much. I want to for those of you who are joining us, share this breaking news that we are talking about out of the Middle East. There's the Iranian state media, which is reporting that Iran claims to have hit a U.S. Naval ship with at least two missiles. Courtney, can I talk to you very briefly because you had been telling me what the U.S. Navy was actually sort of what was known about their capabilities in terms of escorting the ships? COURTNEY SUBRAMANIAN: Yeah. The U.S. had talked about, previously, starting escorts through the strait, but we know that the U.S. Navy is not able to protect more than 100 vessels at any point. Western defense officials have said this would absolutely require a multinational coalition, which the president, of course, has so far failed to put together. So, this feels like an effort by the White House to try and get more buy in from the international community. CORNISH: Right. And again, we are talking about this because this claim from Iran, from Iran, local media, is that two missiles hit a U.S. Naval vessel. Right. Like not an oil tanker, not something, not some other countries things, but going directly after the U.S. And its efforts to provide guidance or escorts. And we're awaiting any news from the white house today to find out what may have happened, or U.S. Centcom to talk about what may have happened. Is there any sense that moving forward that they had planned for this eventuality, meaning the attempted attack via missiles from Iran? SUENG MIN KIM: You would have to imagine that they're prepared for these contingencies because even almost immediately after the president announced the so-called Project Freedom, you know, you had Iran claiming that this would be a violation of the ceasefire. I don't think it was difficult to predict that something like this would happen.  So, immediately after, I would be really interested in seeing how, you know, our international partners respond. Because going back to Courtney's point, the president really tried to get NATO allies involved in using their warships to guide ships through the Strait of Hormuz. And they refused, which is actually what started this whole the latest anger from the president against NATO in the first place. So, we'll be interested to hear the reaction from the White House. I actually just reached out to the white house myself. CORNISH: Out to the white house. We've reached out to CNN, has reached out to CENTCOM. And then in the meantime, we actually have this statement from Iran, which reports that, quote, following a firm and rapid warning by its Navy, the entry of what it described as U.S. and Israeli enemy destroyers into the Strait of Hormuz was prevented. Obviously, if true, this could be a very severe escalation, giving that double blockade meant the Strait of Hormuz was at a standstill. And right as the president starts talking about getting things moving, Iran replies, in this way. (...) 6:34:14 AM Eastern CORNISH: Now, right now, we are hearing conflicting reports. Axios is reporting that the U.S. Officials are denying it. And again, our initial reporting had come from Iranian State Media. This is also a reminder of the fog of information war in the Strait of Hormuz. You have ships that are spoofing, meaning, um, faking their position. You have other ships that are flying different flags or pulling down their flags, and then you have double blockades.  It's actually kind of hard to know for all those sailors who are trapped exactly what is going on. And that's why the idea of guidance and this project from the white house was supposed to make a difference. And it's questionable as we awake on this Monday morning if it has. SARA FISCHER: We've talked about this before. The very first act of U.S. Aggression in Iran was bombing a school when it should have been where they thought they were bombing a military base that showed a level of distrust in our military's intelligence. So when we hear the U.S. Now denying that this even occurred or the nature that it occurred, the first thing that my gut goes to is you've gotten the Intel wrong in the past. So now I have to double check your math. Every single solitary time. (...) 6:37:45 AM Eastern CORNISH: In the meantime, we are trying to learn more from U.S. Centcom in their position about whether or not this happened. At the moment, Iran is making all the claims about having struck a naval vessel. You can read Mina's work in The National. Thank you so much for speaking with us. Stay with us. We're going to have more detail on this news out of the Strait of Hormuz. (...) 6:45:26 AM Eastern CORNISH: Nic, I just have to ask something here. Underline something. You said that Iran has claimed in the past to have taken actions that prove not to be true. And so the timing of this sort of begs the question about whether or not this is about instilling fear in all of the cooperative corporations, insurers, whoever, who were just starting to believe that the U.S. Would be able to guide them through the strait. NIC ROBERTSON: Yeah. I mean, it really doubles down on the concerns that those shipping shippers, insurance companies, the maritime, the mariners themselves have about entering the Strait of Hormuz. The UK Maritime Agency that watches that waterway, and other waterways, but it watches that waterway, reported earlier on today that a civilian vessel, a container ship, had been fired upon but with unknown projectiles. The crew was safe. There was no environmental damage.  But that same agency warned, uh, you know, commercial vessels that going into the Strait of Hormuz represented a huge danger. That if they did, they should try to stay close to the waterways of Oman on the other side of the strait from Iran. The incident that the Iranians are claiming is much closer to the Iranian coastline. But I think this sense and this warning and guidance that's being given to commercial vessels speaks precisely to that. Their existing fears. And undoubtedly, when Iran claims something like this, it will heighten those fears and concerns. And this is going to be a real space to watch. Will Iran's messaging here put off those commercial vessels from transiting the Strait of Hormuz? And if it does, then in that context, over Project Freedom, Iran wins the day, it would appear. (...) MS NOW’s Morning Joe May 4, 2026 6:29:03 AM Eastern JOE SCARBOROUGH: David Ignatius, we're talking about war, peace, ceasefires, a way forward. But right now, Iranian state media is saying that it has struck a U.S. Two missiles hit a U.S. Navy vessel near Jask Island after it ignored warnings from the revolutionary guard to halt. Again, this is Iranian state media. They have, of course, been lying since 1979. That said, in this war, often what they've reported has ended up being confirmed by Western news sources. So if, in fact, that is the case, that a U.S. Navy ships have been hit after ignoring warnings, obviously we've reached a new level of escalation. David. DAVID IGNATIUS: So, obviously, we have to be careful with this first report. But we're sure that that there is a very precarious situation in the Gulf now in which the U.S. is announcing a desire to help facilitate transit through the Strait of Hormuz, but isn't declaring an actual escort mission.  And this morning, we didn't talk much about it, but an Iranian commander said early this morning that U.S. ships would be fired upon if they challenged the Gulf, challenged the Iranian presence. So, we may be seeing a follow up. I'm thinking, as you are, as I'm sure all of our viewers are, what does President Trump do in response to this? When somebody shoots missiles at your ship, you then are almost obligated to take action. And so what was a precarious situation before now becomes even more so. I I'm sure that the Pakistani mediators who've been active now for several weeks are on the phone right now. If this is a revolutionary guard vessel outside the normal Iranian chain of command, that's one thing. If it reflects the decision by the leadership in Tehran, that's another. So much we don't know right now. But I must say, you can just see the black smoke rising from from the gulf and worry that the next, next stage could be another downturn. LEMIRE: Yeah. David, let's spend another minute on this. We should of course, reiterate from Iranian state media, it has not been independently verified. I've texted a few people in the trump administration. No word yet. I mean, you just broke a few moments ago that this alleged event occurred. But if it is true, it is a marked escalation that this is Iran suggesting that, you know, we do control the Strait of Hormuz, and this is a U.S. Warship. You know, there have been attacks on U.S. Ships earlier in the war, largely defended.  We have learned, though, that in recent reporting that Iran had more success hitting some U.S. Military bases in the region in the war’s first days than was first known. But if indeed there were some reports, Axios over the weekend reporting that what the president settled upon, this coordination cell for the Strait of Hormuz, was a little bit of a watered-down version. The original plan was to put U.S. Warships as an escort.  This, though, highlights the danger of that, and I agree. I think we all have to - we'll have to see what comes out of the White House and the President's Truth Social account in the next few minutes or hours. But this feels like it could be a step to resuming hostilities. (...) 6:34:43 AM Eastern SCARBOROUGH: So, David, speaking of reporting, I'm going to let you sort through this one for all of us. Barak Ravid, of course, with Axios, is saying that a senior U.S. Official denied that a U.S. ship has been hit by Iranian missiles. It is obviously - we're in the early moments of this. So I certainly am not placing any sort of moral equivalency between government of Iran and the U.S. Government. I will simply say we have two eyewitnesses saying that the ships were in fact hit, that according to Al Jazeera. And we have one senior official right now on background telling Axios that no U.S. ship was hit. So, hard to say, and we will need to wait at least a few hours before we get actionable information out of that area. But your thoughts on a U.S. Official denying it to Axios and then other news agencies saying that, in fact, a ship has been hit, according to two eyewitnesses. IGNATIUS: We speak of the fog of war. And here's an example we're having trouble seeing just what happened, and that's not an unusual situation. I think it's appropriate when U.S. Military commanders are careful in their descriptions of actions that are taking place until they've done a thorough examination of what's happened, and that may be some of what we're seeing. People don't want to come through with comments that almost require the president to take action until they know exactly what the situation is and have sized it up.  But, you know - this is a moment where every bit of intelligence gathering signals, monitoring capabilities that the United States government has, we should be glad they have, because they're going to - they will find out exactly what's happened, and then hopefully we'll have a careful process to decide what to do. SCARBOROUGH: Exactly. And we will see what happens. It is news in and of itself that Iranian state media wants the world to think they did strike two U.S. ships, while the President of the United States keeps talking about how we're moving toward a deal, moving toward peace, moving toward a plan to move forward in the Strait of Hormuz.  As you said, David, it does not appear the Iranians want peace. So, The Washington Post's David Ignatius, I know you've got to leave pretty soon. If you can stay with us a little bit longer, that'd be great. Okay, we'll see, David, and we'll continue also with a new polling and why this war in Iran is so unpopular and has been such a drag on the president and republicans. (...) 7:03:54 AM Eastern SCARBOROUGH: So, we have a couple of things going right here, right now. A little bit after we started the show, we got news reports that Iranian state media said that a U.S. warship had been attacked. Then, Axios said a White House Official denied that - or an administration official, one unnamed administration official denied that to Axios.  We're waiting to see. I saw a report out of the U.K. That tracks maritime traffic, put up a warning that a tanker had, in fact, been struck this morning.  So, a lot of conflicting news out of the Middle East right now. (...)

The Elitist Media evening newscasts rightly accorded significant coverage to last year's deadly Southern California wildfires. It is therefore unfortunate that they seem mostly disinterested in covering the arrest and revealed motive of the individual suspected in starting the Palisades Fire.   ABC and CBS did NOT cover the arrest of Jonathan Rinderknecht. ABC covered the end of the litigation between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, while CBS covered the Met Gala. There was simply no time to spare. NBC Nightly News did cover it. Here’s the report in its entirety as aired on Monday, May 4th, 2026: The sole report on the evening news of the Palisades firebug and his Luigi Mangione fixation aired on @NBCNightlyNews. More far-left violence exposed. pic.twitter.com/nwXbArLl3J — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 5, 2026 TOM LLAMAS: We're back now with new and disturbing details behind the deadly Palisades wildfire. Prosecutors now revealing the suspect may have been inspired by Luigi Mangione. Here’s Steve Patterson. STEVE PATTERSON: Tonight, new insight into the man accused of sparking last year's deadly Palisades Fire. An inferno that reduced neighborhoods to ash and left 12 dead. Court documents revealing the accused arsonist, 30-year-old Jonathan Rinderknecht, was fixated on Luigi Mangione, the man charged with a high-profile murder of a health care CEO in 2024. According to federal filings, Rinderknecht’s search history included “free Luigi Mangione,” and “let's kill all the billionaires.”  Prosecutors say the suspect, an Uber driver, was upset over a failed relationship on New Year's eve when he ignited the fire. Passengers from that night described him driving erratically, ranting about Luigi Mangione, later telling investigators, “The violence, that's what happened with that CEO recently, that's what happens when people get desperate.” Rinderknecht’s attorney claiming his client is innocent, telling the Associated Press the alleged motive is a “misguided theory". But it's a pattern officials are seeing elsewhere. Just last month, 29-year-old Charif Abdulkarim was charged with torching a massive California warehouse. Authorities say he also compared himself to Mangione and was fueled by anti-capitalist views. BILL ESSALYI: There is an extremely disturbing trend where people are resorting to violence to communicate political messages or economic messages. I don't know if this guy saw himself as Luigi but he’s an arsonist, he’s a criminal… PATTERSON: Both Rinderknecht and Abdulkarim have pleaded not guilty and are currently awaiting trial. Tom. LLAMAS: OK, Steve.  The most important thing, which anchor Tom Llamas and reporter Steve Patterson noted early on, is the suspected arsonist’s fixation with notorious CEO shooter Luigi Mangione. These days, it seems like an act of courage for the media to point out that there in fact exists left-wing violence. NBC did not blink and did not omit that particular angle from the story. The very top of the story cites the firebug’s Mangione fanboyism, as well as his call to “kill all the billionaires.” There is no going around what the fire was. The suspect’s rants to his Uber passengers further expose his deranged ideology. NBC then takes the step of mentioning that other recent fire, the warehouse factory blaze that started when a disgruntled worker lit toilet paper on fire. Patterson rightly attributed it to “anti-capitalist views.” It did not take a whole lot of time to put this report before viewers exposing left-wing violence, but it did  take courage- something seemingly lacking at CBS and ABC.

Leave it to the Soros regime to make it seem to the public like an economically-shellacked enemy of the U.S. is somehow winning its war against President Donald Trump. The liberal Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft — which boasts $2,025,000 in funding from George Soros between 2019-2023 — pushed an asinine claim by non-resident fellow Ian Proud April 28 headlined, “Iran and Russia are gaming the United States, and winning.” Proud then fear-mongered that Trump was running out of time to end the world before the American economy goes belly up. Proud attempted to prop up Iran’s illusory economic firewall, which new reporting proves is false in retrospect: “Both [Iran and Russia] have as a source of their strength considerable natural resources from which they can generate cash flow to sustain themselves during stand-offs with the West.” But as even pro-terrorist outlet Al Jazeera admitted May 2, “Prices surge, jobs disappear as war strains Iran’s economy.”  Meanwhile, a day after Proud’s piece was published, Trump’s arch-rival at the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, even conceded in his last policy press conference as chairman that “Growth is really solid ​across our economy. Some of that is ​that consumer spending is hanging in pretty well, the most recent data are good.”  But in Proud’s distorted reality, it is Iran that is “now ‘making a mint’ from the current war” and maintaining a “significant financial advantage.” But the data do not support these obfuscations in the slightest. In fact, the Iranian rial is now down a whopping 20 percent against the U.S. dollar since the start of the American naval blockade April 13, according to Brookings Institution senior fellow Robin Brooks. As Brooks summarized, “We're only three weeks into the blockade and this is the most visible sign it's already meaningfully disrupting Iran's economy. The blockade is working.” What kind of “significant financial advantage” is that? In fact, Al Jazeera noted that the “toxic mix” of the naval blockade, the Islamist regime’s near-total internet shutdown, the bombardment against Iran’s infrastructure, and ongoing U.S. sanctions have all been “pummelling the [Iranian] economy.” Since the start of the US blockade on April 13, the Iranian Rial is down 20 percent against the Dollar. We're only three weeks into the blockade and this is the most visible sign it's already meaningfully disrupting Iran's economy. The blockade is working.https://t.co/tkb1sh0KHN pic.twitter.com/j4fbhgElAW — Robin Brooks (@robin_j_brooks) May 4, 2026 What Proud is doing is the equivalent of saying boxer Deontay Wilder still had the advantage after Tyson Fury knocked him down to the canvas twice and left him bloodied in their rematch bout. Reading Proud’s ridiculous pro-Iran propaganda illustrates this analogy well: But, if Iran wasn’t going to buckle economically in the years before the war when its oil exports and earnings were sagging, it isn’t going to do so now, with the oil market booming in its favor. Economist Daniel Lacalle skewered this point in a sarcastic May 4 X post. “The Iran oil industry is doing awesomely well because the regime says so.” He continued: “That is why it bans the internet, so you cannot get any independent information. It is amazing that Western media buys and sells the regime's propaganda.” Apparently the Soros circle is guilty of buying and selling the same anti-American Kool-Aid, too.

The 2026 Pulitzer Prizes were awarded Monday afternoon and, after a four-year hiatus of holding a sitting president to account, they climbed back aboard their high horses to dole out seven prizes for Trump-bashing “journalism” to the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald, The New York Times, Reuters, and The Washington Post. Come Tuesday morning, the Media Research Center will present the fifth annual Bulldog Awards, spotlighting outstanding achievements in conservative media across eight categories (Behind Enemy Lines, Columnist, Investigative Reporting, Podcast, Reporting, Social Media Personality, Talk Radio Host, and Lifetime Achievement) to honor those Pulitzer committee would never consider. Back on the left, though, the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service — considered the most prestigious category — went to The Washington Post for stories that, as stated by administrator Marjorie Miller, “pierc[ed] the veil of secrecy around the Trump administration’s chaotic overhaul of federal agencies and chronicl[ed] in rich detail the human impacts of the cuts and the consequences for the country.”     TWEET: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WATCH: Pulitzer Prize for Public Service went to The Washington Post for its work “piercing the veil of secrecy around the Trump administration’s chaotic overhaul of federal agencies and chronicling in rich detail the human impacts of the cuts and the consequences for the… <a href="https://t.co/wE123tQSLU">pic.twitter.com/wE123tQSLU</a></p>— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/2051403715588800951?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> The other finalists were the “Chicago Tribune for its powerful coverage of the Trump administration’s militarized immigration sweep of the city,” and The Wall Street Journal for its smarmy stories ghoulishly insinuating Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump were close, close friends. The Investigative Reporting award went to The Times — beating out the San Francisco Chronicle on psych wards and ProPublica on generic drugs — for “deeply reported stories that exposed how President Trump has shattered constraints on conflicts of interest and exploited the moneymaking opportunities that come with power, enriching his family and allies.” The New York Times won the 2026 Pulitzer Prize in investigative reporting -- beating out SF Chronicle on psych wards and ProPublica on unsafe generic drugs -- for “deeply reported stories that exposed how President Trump has shattered constraints on conflicts of interest and… pic.twitter.com/Qxo8rbDEK3 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 4, 2026 In terms of public impact, our 2026 MRC Bulldog Award winner for Outstanding Investigative Reporting runs circles around The Times’s partisan drivel. Even the International and Local awards couldn’t escape being Trump-centric. In International Reporting, the AP triumphed for “for an astonishing global investigation into the state-of-the-art tools of mass surveillance created in Silicon Valley, advanced in China and spreading worldwide before returning to America for secret new uses by the U.S. Border Patrol.”  One of the finalists — The New York Times — focused on the collapse of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Even the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting was about bashing Trump as the AP won “for an astonishing global investigation into the state of the art tools of mass surveillance created in Silicon Valley, advanced in China and spreading worldwide before returning to America… pic.twitter.com/qTqWKqbKF7 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 4, 2026 The Chicago Tribune took home the Local award “ for its powerful coverage of the Trump administration’s militarized immigration sweep of the city.” Far-left Chicago Tribune wins 2026 Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting based on its powerful coverage of the Trump administration’s militarized immigration sweep of the city. that described in vivid muscular prose, how the siege-like incursion of ICE agents unified Chicagoans in… pic.twitter.com/PwTZ6SFjmm — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 4, 2026 The National Reporting was three-for-three in anti-Trump content. The award went to Reuters “for documenting how the President used the U.S. government and the influence of his supporters to expand executive power and exact vengeance on his foes,” beating Bloomberg on Trump ties to crypto and The Washington Post for Trump deportations. The Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting had all anti-Trump finalists. Reuters won “for documenting how the President used the U.S. government and the influence of his supporters to expand executive power and exact vengeance on his foes,” beating out Bloomberg on Trump and… pic.twitter.com/kAodqlDX4Z — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 4, 2026 The remaining anti-Trump Pulitzer came in Opinion Writing with works by non-binary New York Times contributing columnist “M. Gessen” — a woman pretending to be an it — that were deemed “an illuminating collection of reported essays on rising authoritarian regimes that draw in history and personal experience to probe timely themes of oppression, belonging, and exile.” Like with National Reporting, all three finalists came from the far left as Gessen won out over columns by The Times’s Nicholas Kristof on USAID and the Los Angeles Times’s Gustavo Arellano on Trump deportations. Non-binary “M. Gessen” of The New York Times won the 2026 Pultizer for opinion columns based on “an illuminating collection of reported essays on rising authoritarian regimes that draw in history and personal experience to probe timely themes of oppression, belonging, and exile”… pic.twitter.com/UJTVDf4f6t — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 4, 2026 The Pulitzers showed they’re on-board with the defamatory insinuation President Trump was an Epstein co-conspirator considering they gave a Special Citation to the Miami Herald’s Julie K. Brown for stories about Epstein from 2007 and 2008. They could have given this in any number of years prior, but their choice to do so now was no accident: Oh, NOW that Trump is President you give this out? The 2026 Pulitzer Prize board awarded a “Special Citation” to the Miami Herald for work from nine years ago about Jeffrey Epstein. pic.twitter.com/EaOdfUP8Tq — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 4, 2026 Other categories with Trump-bashing finalists (but not winners) included Explanatory Reporting (ProPublica on USAID), Beat Reporting (The Atlantic and New York Times on deportations), Criticism (New Yorker on right-wing media), Breaking News Photography (Reuters on Deportations), and Illustrated Reporting and Commentary (a Los Angeles Times and New Yorker contributor trashing Pete Hegseth and ICE and a syndicated freelancer on climate change, gun control, and the White House morphing into Moscow’s St. Basil’s Cathedral) The Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography went to a New York Times photojournalist “for his haunting, sensitive series showing the devastation and starvation in Gaza resulting from the war with Israel.” There were only four journalism categories without an anti-Trump winner and/or finalist with Breaking News going to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune for its coverage of the August 27 shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church, Texas Monthly in Features for a first-person account of the Hill Country, Washington Post in Featured Photography for a “photo essay on young family welcoming the birth of their first child as the father is slowly dying from cancer,” and Pablo Torre Finds Out in Audio for reporting about the Los Angeles Clippers. The Pulitzer committee also hand out awards in “Books, Music, and Drama,” which are also cesspools of liberal buffoonery. For example, Drama went to a play celebrating feminism in the 1970s while far-left pundit Jill Lepore won in History for a book whining about the Constitution as archaic and too difficult to radically change. The Pulitzer people gushed it was actually “a lively and engaging narrative that investigates why the Constitution is so difficult to amend, including a review of noteworthy failed amendments proposed by marginalized groups.” Over in “Books, Music, and Drama,” the Pulitzer Prize for History went to far-left pundit Jill Lepore for her book complaining about the Constitution as archaic and too difficult to radically change. The Pulitzer committee gushed it was “a lively and engaging narrative that… pic.twitter.com/tnQkH15PFq — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 4, 2026 And while it was a finalist, behold this doozy in Fiction: This was a real Pulitzer Prize finalist in the Fiction category: “Stag Dance by Torrey Peters, a story collection that explores versions of transgender consciousness across literary forms that seem familiar but whose effects are strange, challenging, and ultimately fresh.” pic.twitter.com/6hljjNYSKv — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 4, 2026 Before all this, however, Pulitzer Prize administrator Miller delivered absurdly pompous opening remarks seemingly embracing May the Fourth by channeling Emperor Palpatine from Revenge of the Sith: Pulitzer Prize administrator Marjorie Miller: “This is always a day of celebration in our communities, but perhaps never more so than today as we face tremendous political and economic pressures. In light of these, let me begin by saying we shouldn’t have to say: ‘The Pulitzer… pic.twitter.com/aj9tUB5ib9 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 4, 2026 Pulitzer Prize administrator Marjorie Miller: “Unfortunately, [demanding a free and independent press] bears repeating now as media access to the White House and Pentagon is restricted. Free speech is challenged in the streets, and the President of the United States has filed… pic.twitter.com/H3xI8srWwg — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 4, 2026

It’s time to find out who had the Worst Media Quote of the Week. This interactive series is where you — our loyal NewsBusters visitors and MRC supporters — get to vote on which leftist journalist or celebrity had the worst media quote of the week.   Much appreciation to all who voted last week via NewsBusters and the MRC’s various social media sites (Facebook, Instagram and X.com).   The results of the Worst Media Quote of the Week are in and the winner is… Jimmy Kimmel! ABC’s late-night talk show host ran away from the pack with 76 percent of the vote. Kimmel won for this sick joke: “Our First Lady Melania is here. Look at Mel, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.” Former MSNBC host Joy Reid came in second place with 20 percent. Finishing last was former NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd at 4 percent.   Check out the following clip (via the MRC Video team) to see the nominees in action:    Watch the worst quotes here, presented by @Schineman pic.twitter.com/ivUZ3PuoCj — Media Research Center (@theMRC) April 30, 2026   WINNER (76 percent of the vote)   Jimmy Kimmel: First Lady Has a “Glow Like an Expectant Widow” “Our First Lady Melania is here. Look at Mel, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.”— Host Jimmy Kimmel during a mock version of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner as aired on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, April 23.   SECOND PLACE (20 percent of the vote)   Joy Reid Suggests Assassination Attempt Was Staged “Donald Trump is allegedly shot in the ear [in Butler, Pennsylvania], although no one’s ever shown us any medical records….There’s just odd things that keep happening around Trump. And we know that Viktor Orbán allegedly, allegedly, according to Washington Post’s reporting, there was a plot by the Russians to stage an assassination, fake assassination for Orbán….When something seems too perfect, people, they don’t – they don’t believe in it. And Donald Trump now again gets victimized by an alleged would-be assassin in front of the perfect witnesses – the press.”— Former MSNBC host Joy Reid on her podcast The Joy Reid Show, April 27.   THIRD PLACE (4 percent of the vote)   Chuck Todd Whines: I’m Not Going to Any More Trump Events, Chaos Follows Him “I’m not going to any more events where Trump is at them. I don’t feel safe….Chaos follows him and you are less safe, right? If you decide to go into his orbit, you have become less safe.…He’s more likely to have you be the target of Iranian assassins….The guy doesn’t care when people commit violence in his name, he only cares when the violence is committed against him, and he does not see that he is a contributor to the atmospherics of the world we’re living in.” — Former NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd on the So What with Chris Cillizza? podcast, April 27.   Thanks again to all who participated!    Sponsored by James P. Jimirro