“A short time ago, the United States began major combat operations in Iran,” President Donald Trump announced Saturday morning in a brief address providing hope to Iranian citizens and explaining to Americans how the action is vital to world safety. “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating eminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people,” Trump said: “It’s menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world. For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted “Death to America!” and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder targeting the United States, our troops and the innocent people in many, many countries.” Most importantly, the operation is necessary to stop Iran’s ongoing work rebuilding its nuclear weapon and long-range missile capacity, Trump said. The U.S. obliterated both programs once and is prepared to do it again, the president vowed: “We will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. It’s a very simple message: they will never have a nuclear weapon.” Trump also addressed the Iranian people, telling them that, once the smoke has cleared from the operation, they will have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be free – if they take it: “Finally, to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take This will be probably your only chance for generations. “For many years you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. “So, let’s see how you respond.” “America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force,” Trump told the oppressed Iranians, calling them to action. “Now, is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is within your grasp. “Do not let it pass,” Trump urged. pic.twitter.com/BZuJDudLej — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2026

The headline was big. TV Insider put it this way:  CNN, MS NOW & Fox News Ratings: Which Network Just Had Massive Month?  The story reported:  February was a huge month for Fox News, with the network averaging 34% more primetime viewers and 35% more total day viewers than competitors CNN and MS NOW combined throughout the month, according to Mediaite. With an average 2.61 million primetime viewers between Monday and Sunday, Fox News crushed CNN and MS NOW, which averaged a combined 1.94 million primetime viewers (807,000 average for CNN and 1.14 million average for MS NOW). Notably, Fox News also topped CBS, which averaged 2.4 million primetime viewers in February.  For Fox News, these primetime numbers were a 28% increase compared to January, while CNN and MS NOW also saw 22% and 28% increases, respectively. When President Trump gives a State of the Union speech, the highest-rated network is Fox, as they announced: "FOX News Media’s coverage of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday, February 24th was the highest-rated in television with an audience of 11.5 million viewers and 1.9 million in A25-54 demo across FOX News Channel, FOX Network and FOX Business Network." But Fox News was not alone. Newsmax, in the wake of President Trump’s State of the Union Address, headlined:  Newsmax Delivers 4M-Plus Viewers in Breakout State of Union Coverage (Full disclosure, I am a Newsmax TV contributor.) The story reported: Newsmax announced Thursday that more than 4 million Americans tuned in across its channels for the network's comprehensive live coverage of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address Tuesday night. The coverage marks a major ratings and digital milestone for the company. Unsurprisingly, the story caught the eye of the media-watching President Trump. And shortly there was another Newsmax headline:  Trump Congratulates Newsmax for 'Big Numbers' With SOTU That story reported:  “President Donald Trump on Friday congratulated Newsmax for its high ratings showcasing his State of the Union address on Tuesday. "Congrats to Newsmax. Big numbers! President DJT," the president wrote in his Truth Social post. Trump shared Newsmax’s report that more than 4 million viewers tuned in for live coverage of his speech. Trump also posted to his Truth Social a link to Newsmax's story on its high SOTU ratings that drew a cable audience exceeding the combined viewership of Fox Business, CNBC, and NewsNation by 23%.” Big numbers they were indeed. But beyond the Newsmax aspect of the story, when you add in the considerably huge Fox ratings, there was a much larger significance to the story. The hard fact here is that over the decades the media world has been changing - changing slowly at first and then rapidly. There are millions alive today who have literally no memory of a time when there were, at first, just two television networks -- CBS and NBC. The straggler in this was ABC. Then, eventually, there was the government-run Public Broadcasting Service, which was born on November 3, 1969. In today’s world there are cable channels everywhere, as it seems. But it took awhile. Fox News didn’t exist until 1996. The history tales record that when launched Fox could only draw 10 million viewers. But a mere four years later Fox could be found in some 56 million homes. By the end of 2020 Fox was, per Wikipedia, “the most-watched network in cable news history.” It was a media revolution for sure. And the revolution in the modern media kept going. (Not to mention the creation of the Internet and the invention of “streaming” TV networks on computers.) In 1998, journalist Christopher Ruddy created Newsmax as a digital media company. By 2014, Newsmax TV was launched to 35 million subscribers. And on Newsmax has gone, gaining strength seemingly every minute of the day. Just this last week, as Trump himself took personal note, the Newsmax coverage of his State of the Union address.  was able to headline:  Newsmax Delivers 4M-Plus Viewers in Breakout State of Union Coverage The story reported:  Newsmax announced Thursday that more than 4 million Americans tuned in across its channels for the network's comprehensive live coverage of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address Tuesday night. The coverage marks a major ratings and digital milestone for the company.... The Newsmax channel alone drew 2.8 million total viewers Tuesday night, according to Nielsen, while an additional 1.3 million streaming viewers watched coverage on Newsmax2, underscoring the growing reach of the network's digital platforms. The Newsmax audience was so large on cable that its total audience exceeded the combined viewership of Fox Business, CNBC, and NewsNation combined by 23%. When you add it altogether…the ratings of Fox, of Newsmax, conservative news sites like The Washington Times and The New York Post, and talk radio after that, (more of which in a second) it is, in other words, a moment to understand that what America (and the world!) is witnessing here - yet again - is the change and growth of the modern conservative media. As mentioned, not only is this about Fox and Newsmax very successfully appearing in a cable slot but streaming on computers around America and the globe. The fact that the stunning growth of both Fox News and Newsmax TV has happened so relatively quickly is a testament to the ongoing media revolution that is long gone from the days of three broadcast TV networks plus another funded by the government. The media revolution of today has reached all corners. This last week the world took note of the fifth anniversary of the passing of talk radio’s legendary Rush Limbaugh. It was Rush who lifted conservative talk radio into an American daily habit. He noted this back in 2020:  You are tuned to the most-listened-to radio talk show in America. Our projections using our own modeling techniques, our computer modeling projections, we are now able to project an audience, weekly audience of 62.7 million people. Stunning. And that’s before you added the audiences for Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and all manner of others on the national and local radio circuits. Added altogether and it is no wonder Donald Trump sits in the White House. Over time as conservative media gathered steam - from Fox to Newsmax to talk radio and the Internet streaming of one conservative site after another - it changed the political lay of the land. The question now is how this will affect the ability of the Left - the Democrat Party - to elect their candidates. Starting with their candidates in this November’s elections. This November the GOP will be fighting to keep its majorities in the House and Senate, as well as electing more Republican governors. And come January 20th of 2029 there will be a new President in the White House - a Trump successor. One suspects the power of all this relatively newly created conservative media that has been growing in strength over the decades will play a good-sized role in all of those elections. The question is: What will America look like come January of 2027? Not to mention in January of 2029? Stay tuned.

MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart works for a network that openly presents itself as an outlet for progressives, but when he joined Friday’s PBS News Hour to discuss Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros.—which would include CNN—Capehart hilariously claimed “that the media isn't necessarily liberal.” Host Geoff Bennett actually kicked things off with The Atlantic writer and podcaster David Brooks, “And if the deal closes, it means that one family, in this case, the family that has been so far deferential to President Trump, would control CBS, CNN, HBO, and TikTok. How do you see it?”   In non-Iran news, after David Brooks gave a sort of centrist take on Paramount aquiring Warner Bros., Jonathan Capehart hilariously claims "Well, I would argue that the media isn't necessarily liberal, when you look at the fact that the number one cable channel and the number one… pic.twitter.com/EJUIP3FdYm — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 28, 2026   Brooks gave a rather uninspiring centrist answer. On one hand, he acknowledged, “I have found media business incredibly boring and pointless. And I have been able to do that because I worked at Dow Jones, News Corp, New York Times, PBS. I have worked at all these agencies. And the business structure of the business had no effect on me. There's never been a moment in my career where I had the sense that somebody on the business side of things was going to try to influence anything I ever did.” However, he also lamented, “But that seems to be changing. And the malefactor here is Donald Trump. Once Trump starts playing political favorites among—whether it's Anthropic versus OpenAI or whether it's Netflix versus Paramount, then, of course, the companies have to be mindful of that.” Reverting to his first instinct, Brooks conceded that new CBS News chief Bari Weiss’s intention to shake things up is not unreasonable, “And I'm a guy who—I don't know Bari Weiss particularly, but I support what they're trying to do. I think it's time to mix up the media. That we got a little too progressive, a little too elite, and if Bari Weiss can change the mind-set, all power to her.” Flip-flopping again, Brooks lamented, “But if this is being done for lobbying and business, which it sure looks like it is, then that's the real deterioration in the business we're in.” Even that centrist position was too much for Capehart, “Well, I would argue that the media isn't necessarily liberal, when you look at the fact that the number one cable channel and the number one viewing channel is Fox News Channel.” Proving that he hasn’t watched CBS since the Weiss takeover, Capehart continued, “This idea that there are liberals out there running around through the media indoctrinating people and changing—you know, setting the narrative, I just think is wrong. I think bringing a Fox-like mentality and demeanor to CBS News and potentially to CNN, I think in the end makes the American people worse off.” He also added, “Our job as journalists, and I'm speaking specifically of CNN in this case in this deal. Folks turn to CNN for news. They turn to them for just what is happening in the country. And if what's happening at CBS is bound—could happen at CNN, then our country and our profession will be in worse shape.” Brooks would respond, “One reason Fox exists is because all the other mainstream networks don't have Trump supporters.” That is correct, but it includes PBS. It is also ironic that Brooks, the supposedly conservative half of Brooks and Capehart, spends most of his time agreeing with Capehart. Here is a transcript for the February 27 show: PBS News Hour 2/28/2026 7:46 PM ET GEOFF BENNETT: And if the deal closes, it means that one family, in this case, the family that has been so far deferential to President Trump, would control CBS, CNN, HBO, and TikTok. How do you see it? DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I have found media business incredibly boring and pointless. And I have been able to do that because I worked at Dow Jones, News Corp, New York Times, PBS. I have worked at all these agencies. And the business structure of the business had no effect on me. There's never been a moment in my career where I had the sense that somebody on the business side of things was going to try to influence anything I ever did. But that seems to be changing. And the malefactor here is Donald Trump. Once Trump starts playing political favorites among—whether it's Anthropic versus OpenAI or whether it's Netflix versus Paramount, then, of course, the companies have to be mindful of that. And I'm a guy who — I don't know Bari Weiss particularly, but I support what they're trying to do. I think it's time to mix up the media. That we got a little too progressive, a little too elite, and if Bari Weiss can change the mind-set, all power to her. But if this is being done for lobbying and business, which it sure looks like it is, then that's the real deterioration in the business we're in. BENNETT: How do you see it, Jonathan? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, I would argue that the media isn't necessarily liberal, when you look at the fact that the number one cable channel and the number one viewing channel is Fox News Channel. This idea that there are liberals out there running around through the media indoctrinating people and changing—you know, setting the narrative, I just think is wrong. I think bringing a Fox-like mentality and demeanor to CBS News and potentially to CNN, I think in the end makes the American people worse off. Our job as journalists, and I'm speaking specifically of CNN in this case in this deal. Folks turn to CNN for news. They turn to them for just what is happening in the country. And if what's happening at CBS is bound—could happen at CNN, then our country and our profession will be in worse shape.

After the United States and Israel began combat operations against Iran, NBC’s Peter Alexander and Laura Jarrett welcomed Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to Saturday’s edition of Today to get his perspective. The worst part of the interview was when Jarrett opened up the floor for Araghchi to give his “message to the president," which consisted of an airing of grievances that were not fact-checked. Jarrett simply wondered, “Sir, you heard, likely, the president of the United States talk about regime change in Iran this morning in his recorded statements. What is your message to the president?”   Laura Jarrett invites the Iranian Foreign Minister to answer "What is your message to the president?" who then proceeds to repeat several bits of fake news unchallenged, "This is not the first time that they want to do regime change. They have tried in the past. Look, in the past… pic.twitter.com/ZtHnO2yIYG — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 28, 2026   Araghchi tried to project strength, “Well, I think this is mission impossible. You know, for regime change, you cannot do regime change while millions of people are supporting this so-called regime. Just look at what happened in the 47th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. We had altogether about 30 million people in the streets, in all cities of Iran, in support of the Islamic Republic and in support of the whole system.” Roughly 30 million Iranians voted in the last regime-controlled election, so the idea that 30 million people demonstrated in support of the regime is probably wildly exaggerated. Nevertheless, Araghchi rolled on: This is not the first time that they want to do regime change. They have tried in the past. Look, in the past 47 years, the United States has tried everything from coup, from sanctions, eight years of war by Saddam Hussein, supported by the United States and many others, and then you know, 12 Day War, snap back in the Security Council, and the terrorist operations. They have tried everything. And all of them failed. And I don't know why they don't, you know, understand their failures. So, if they want to repeat a failed experience, they won't get any better result. There is so much to fact-check there. First, the United States did not support “eight years of war by Saddam Hussein.” What happened was Saddam invaded in 1980, but when Iran had successfully evicted all Iraqi forces by 1982, it refused to end the war unless Saddam stepped down, which he was never going to do. So, Iran went on the offensive, and that is when the U.S. started helping Baghdad. Interestingly enough, “many others” did not include Israel, which bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981. Also, the 12 Day War was limited to Iran’s nuclear program, and most of the sanctions are nuclear program-related as well. There is also the fact that by “terrorist operations,” Araghchi just means anti-regime protestors. Earlier, he tried to claim the violent crackdown against protestors was actually a suppression of a Mossad terrorist operation meant to justify a war because Trump had drawn a red line during the crackdown to try to prevent Tehran from murdering its own people. Jarrett and Alexander didn’t really push back against this, only seeking to clarify that he was alleging foreign involvement. Nor did they push back against anything Araghchi said in his message to Trump. Instead, they moved on and asked him to give his message to the Iranian people. Here is a transcript for the February 28 show: NBC Today 2/28/2026 9:14 AM ET LAURA JARRETT: Sir, you heard, likely, the president of the United States talk about regime change in Iran this morning in his recorded statements. What is your message to the president? ABBAS ARAGHCHI: Well, I think this is mission impossible. You know, for regime change, you cannot do regime change while millions of people are supporting this so-called regime. Just look at what happened in the 47th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. We had altogether about 30 million people in the streets, in all cities of Iran, in support of the Islamic Republic and in support of the whole system. So, you cannot change, you know, this regime because it's the—you know, it's supported by the people. Yes, there are also people who are complaining, but there are strong supporters of the regime, of the system at the same time. And then, we have a very well established political structure, and they have tried regime changes. This is not the first time that they want to do regime change. They have tried in the past. Look, in the past 47 years, the United States has tried everything from coup, from sanctions, eight years of war by Saddam Hussein, supported by the United States and many others, and then you know, 12 Day War, snap back in the Security Council, and the terrorist operations. They have tried everything. And all of them failed. And I don't know why they don't, you know, understand their failures. So, if they want to repeat a failed experience, they won't get any better result.

On Wednesday, the PBS News Hour brought on union chief Paul Perez of the National Border Patrol Council (who represents 18,000 Border Patrol agents), and anchor Amna Nawaz pressed him on why 6 in 10 Americans think immigration enforcement has "gone too far." Perez argued "the media's misleading the public," and Nawaz wasn't going to accept that argument! It all starts with the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, which sets the stage for liberal pollsters to ask if it's "gone too far." Ask yourself if these pollsters asked if Biden's open-borders approach had "gone too far." The anchor asked:  NAWAZ: We have had American citizens who've been shot and killed by federal agents, including a Border Patrol agent in one case. And you're also talking at a time that the majority of Americans feel like the immigration enforcement actions have gone too far. This was related to ICE, but some six in 10 Americans say it's gone too far. Why do you think that is? Why did the American public see it that way right now? On the PBS @NewsHour, Amna Nawaz pressed Paul Perez (who represents 18,000 Border Patrol agents) on why 6 in 10 Americans think immigration enforcement has gone too far. Perez blamed media distortion, and Nawaz wasn't going to accept that argument! pic.twitter.com/8sinSqeJiP — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) February 26, 2026 Perez blamed the media for its hostile framing, omitting the context that these aren't always "protesters," they are interfering with arrests:  PEREZ: Well, I think a lot of it is, the media's misleading the public into how things are going. If you look at all these incidents, if you look at these operations, these are targeted enforcement operations that these arrest teams are going and executing. It's American citizens it's people from the public that are going out there, they're interfering, they're impeding, and they're getting in the way of our law enforcement officers without local law enforcement help. And so what that... NAWAZ:  Paul, if I may, American citizens were shot and killed exercising their First Amendment rights. That's not the media misleading people. That happened. But Nawaz is framing this exactly the way Perez criticized. Threatening to run over an ICE agent with your car isn't "exercising First Amendment rights," it's not just protest. It's a threat of violence. Pretti kicking out tail lights isn't protest, it's breaking the law by damaging government property. Perez reiterated his point: "You don't see the full picture. You don't see the actual interference, the impeding. And what's happening with these American citizens that have been killed in both instances that we're referring to, one by an ICE officer and one by a Border Patrol agent, they interfered. The woman in the car, she refused to follow orders." Nawaz said Good's partner disagreed with that, and Perez said it's on video. He noted that the intended arrestee in the Pretti case escaped, which the media didn't exactly highlight. He suggested that the media plays a role in protesters going too far (but pollsters don't ask about leftists going to extremes):  PEREZ: The investigations are ongoing. These agents and officers have utilized their training. In the specific instance with Pretti, that was a target in enforcement in which the subject they were going after got away because of the interference and the impeding. And so, yes, I get it. People have lost their lives. But the way the media spins everything, the way they attack our law enforcement officers, they make it seem as if we're out there doing things that are illegal, we're kidnapping American citizens, we're taking people off the streets. That's not what's happening. And because of that, it leads to the rhetoric. It leads to the interfering. It leads to these people coming out there thinking and believing that we're doing these bad things and causing them to interfere and interject themselves into lawful law enforcement actions. And that's dangerous for everybody.