While the so-called media reporting class insist CBS News is MAGA TV, reality continues to prove otherwise with Friday’s CBS Mornings delivering another example as they brought on liberal author and historian Chris Whipple to assert “we should cut Jill Biden some slack” and “take her at her word” that, as she told CBS Sunday Morning, she has never seen Joe Biden in cognitive decline before or since the infamous June 2024 debate. Whipple was asked by co-host Gayle King for her “reaction right away to what you’re hearing Jill Biden say about her husband’s health” and the former seemed to channel MS NOW’s Joe Scarborough with his “best Biden ever” shtick. Whipple tried to have his cake and eat it too with the farcical assertion that “I really think that we should cut Jill Biden some slack on this” and “there is no compelling evidence that Joe Biden was unable to perform the duties of the presidency behind closed doors.” INSANE: ‘CBS Mornings’ guest and liberal author Chris Whipple says “we should cut Jill Biden some slack” and “there is no compelling evidence that Joe Biden was unable to perform the duties of the presidency behind closed doors.” “I take Jill Biden at her word that she never saw… pic.twitter.com/F2IssCcVGT — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 29, 2026 At the same time, though, he said “[i]t’s a fact that Joe Biden never should have run for reelection” as “[h]e was too old or would have been too old” by the end of a second term and thus Jill was “complicit in that decision, which was a tragedy for the Bidens and the Democratic Party, arguably the country.” “I take Jill Biden at her word that she never saw a moment like that disastrous moment in the debate before or after…[N]obody around Biden ever saw an episode like that moment in the debate,” he added. King seemed shell-shocked: You take her word even after the debate, when she said you did so well, you answered all the questions, when clearly that did not appear to be the case with all of us who had been watching, and that she had never seen that – that after? You take her word at that? Whipple doubled down on his muddied mess. He insisted he wasn’t “giving her a pass, Gayle, on everything,” and Jill “was completely wrong” to tell crowds he did well, but then excused her fibs as “a First Lady trying to be supportive in the moment.” He also painted the decision to run Joe for a second term as “a historically tragic decision” for the country and blasted as “nonsense” the narrative “that Joe Biden was Woodrow Wilson incapacitated in a corner while a cabal of aides was [sic] running the country by autopen.” So, is Whipple one of those people who argued in 2024 that Biden lacked the fitness to run for office, but was perfectly capable of being President? Having criticized Jill and White House aides as having had Joe run, he also praised his sources while swiping at CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’s Alex Thompson for their book about Biden’s decline: I like Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. I think they’re great reporters, but I think they were wrong on this. I talked to so many aides who were in the room with Biden to the very end. And literally on the morning that he abdicated when he negotiated a complex multi-nation prisoner swap from his beach house in Rebo – Rehoboth. So, I just think that the, you know, this is sort of a myth that Biden was incapacitated. To be clear, Whipple also released a book on the 2024 election last year and thus was a direct competitor to Tapper and Thompson. Featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers made his own run at Whipple with the reality that “a lot of people will say” Jill’s comments to CBS’s Rit Braver “that she hasn’t seen a moment like that since that debate, may strain credibility.” Whipple responded with one last contortion. Having touted Biden aides as having never seen the then-President sundowning, he said “a lot of them were trapped in this fog of delusion and denial” about Joe’s faculties to be president from 2025 to 2028. He concluded by firing off another howling Notable Quotable-worthy bit that “historians have to deal with the fact that this moment in that debate is still a mystery” (click “expand”): They thought he could run for reelection, and he thought he could win. He couldn’t. He was incapable of – of an effective campaign or being President for another four years. That’s a different issue from whether anything like this had happened before or after the debate. I watched that debate, and I thought he was having a stroke. It’s perfectly plausible to me that Jill Biden put so too, because she hadn’t seen a moment like that before or after. And everybody I’ve talked to, including as close as aides, say, long after this debate, they were in endless meetings on policy presided over by Biden – meetings in which Donald Trump would have certainly fallen asleep, but he was functioning. So, historians have to deal with the fact that this moment in that debate is still a mystery. We don’t know what happened. To see the relevant CBS transcript from May 29, click here.

After the deadly shooting at a San Diego mosque, National Public Radio’s “extremism correspondent” Odette Yousef was back on her beat with a new angle against the sole class that she actually considers extremists: The “far right.” She examined the teenager killers’ “manifesto” and found a new victim class: “For far-right extremists, the rise of a new enemy: Women.” Evidence tied to last week's deadly attack on a California mosque illustrates a violent ideology and playbook that is all too familiar to counterterrorism and extremism experts. A 75-page typewritten document, attributed to the teenage suspects, and a livestreamed video showing the attack show extensive grounding in far-right, neo-Nazi thinking. Yousef, whose beat reporting is notorious for only finding extremism on the right while denying or ignoring its clear presence among left-wing killers, believed she found a new angle. But one facet of the ideology behind this attack has, so far, been left out of much mainstream coverage. "He just flat out says he hates women and that they're the devil and they're destroying everything. And this is an important thing, because that kind of misogyny did not exist in white supremacist circles, say, 10, 15 years ago," said Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. Beirich was referring to the first part of the written document, authored by one of the two suspects. Yousef’s source grasped around for examples “of misogynistic conspiracism," including the old "Gamergate" controversy. Yousef herself glided easily from the mosque shooting to attacks on “inclusive agenda,” including the current rage of alphabet identity: This panic over the "feminization" of society also plays a role in the extreme hostility toward LGBTQ+ people, and to inclusive agendas, said DiBranco. "What's basically at stake at the core is they feel like they had a system in which cisgender white men were supreme and had unshaken dominance. And now these other forces, what they call 'cultural degeneracy,' are undermining that control that they felt … they had and that they felt … they had a right to," she said. While the primacy of anti-women, or anti-feminist, conspiracism stands out to extremism experts, the attack at the mosque in San Diego has otherwise followed a predictable pattern. In fact, even as some conservative voices on social media falsely claimed that it was "staged," evidence so far suggests that the attack is one of the most ideologically clear-cut to have taken place in recent years. A shame Yousef can find no examples of "ideologically clear-cut" left-wing terror. Has she run a story fretting over the many Democratic voters who claim the multiple attempts on President Trump’s life, including the last one that ended the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, were staged? NPR archives suggest no. Under the subhead “Turning a blind eye to far-right violence,” she suggested Trump was unfairly targeting left-wing and Islamic ideologies. This month, the White House released the 2025 United States Counterterrorism Strategy document, outlining its priorities and approach to protecting the homeland. It highlights three major terrorist threats to the U.S.: narcoterrorists, Islamist terrorists and violent left-wing extremists. Nowhere does the document mention far-right, neo-Nazi or white supremacist threats. Give the attempts by leftists on Trump’s life, the murder of conservative spokesman Charlie Kirk, multiple examples of shootings by transgenders, and the constant threats against Jews in America by Islamists and others, it seems like attention to those threats is overdue. In addition to the omission of far-right terrorism, the document's mention of "violent secular political groups" that are "radically pro-transgender" and of political movements like the Muslim Brotherhood have raised eyebrows. "I'm not sure … why gender should factor into a counterterrorism strategy, but there it is," Clarke said. Why not "gender"? The Nashville school shooter that killed six people, including three children, identified as transgender, for one, as have others recent killers. And the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood is not a benign “political movement” but whose branches supports terrorists like Hamas. Amidst the violence, NPR took time to whine about Republican partisanship, citing Biden's name appearing seven times in a Trump anti-terror strategy document.

Watching an arrogant lefty newspaper scatter around like a bug trying to salvage its climate doom mongering after scientists pull the proverbial rug out from underneath it is one of the most satisfying things to see. New York Times reporters Brad Plumer and Eric Niiler tried to temper the political firestorm that erupted after an international team of climate researchers “abandoned” the ridiculous RCP8.5, one of the most dire climate change scenarios that’s been passed around through the academic ether over the years like a virus. Their May 26 item, “Why Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade,” tried to double down on the global warming boondoggle while giving a perfunctory nod to the fact that the climate apocalypse may have been exaggerated, “While global warming is still a threat, the decision to back away from a worst-case outlook raises questions about whether some risks have been overstated.” No kidding, Sherlock! The Times itself is guilty of pushing the same kind of unhinged scare porn based on RCP8.5, as American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Roger Pielke Jr. concluded based on a Times article published October 15, 2025 headlined, “New York Is Going to Flood. Here’s What the City Can Do to Survive.” How about this “interactive” beauty from New York Times Magazine legitimizing the RCP8.5 scenario from October 26, 2022, “Beyond Catastrophe: A New Climate Reality Is Coming Into View?” That piece, authored by Times columnist David Wallace-Wells, bookended both the hopeful and catastrophic climate scenarios based on mere projections of future global emissions output: For decades, visions of possible climate futures have been anchored by, on the one hand, Pollyanna-like faith that normality would endure, and on the other, millenarian intuitions of an ecological end of days, during which perhaps billions of lives would be devastated or destroyed. Reading Plumer and Niiler’s soft-pedaled walk-back in retrospect is enough to evoke a few chuckles: The majority of climate scientists still say global warming is a serious problem, and that even more plausible, medium-emissions scenarios can carry grave dangers. But the new paper has raised questions about whether some of the risks of climate change have been poorly communicated or overstated in years past and how best to think about those risks going forward. Worthy of note is that “majority of climate scientists” is quite the step backward from “overwhelming scientific consensus,” eh boys?  Perhaps The Times should look itself in the mirror, but since when has the Old Gray Lady shown any capability of self-awareness? Plumer and Niiler downplayed how RCP8.5 “wasn’t meant to be a prediction, but more of a ‘worst case,’ said Detlef van Vuuren, a climate scientist at Utrecht University and a leading figure in scenario development.” Then why was the newspaper acting as if it was only a matter of time before New York City would start treading water? Despite the RCP8.5 scenario being tossed out, both Plumer and Niiler tried to salvage the utility of pushing climate apocalypse narratives, even if they’re implausible in nature: Many scientists find it useful to probe such hypotheticals. Climate models often struggle to capture dynamics like whether ice sheets might collapse with moderate warming, even though this is an extraordinarily important question for the real world. It’s also “useful” if you’re trying to scare readers silly to push a ludicrous agenda that has hamstrung the U.S. economy for years. 

Microsoft’s MSN displayed a surprising streak of neutrality over Memorial Day weekend, achieving almost perfect balance on MRC’s Digital News Tracker. But before you pat MSN on the back, or trust it to curate your news feed, a closer look reveals an uglier story.   For the first time since November 2025, when MRC began charting the Big Four News Apps, one of the news aggregators managed to maintain a four-day running average that did not lean left, utilizing AllSides media bias ratings. MSN played the center line between May 23 and May 26, balancing its feed between articles from left-leaning sources such as HuffPost, MS Now, The Independent, and Time, and right-leaning outlets. MSN achieved a 5.02 average rating on a scale of 0-10 (a “5” rating reflects ideological equilibrium).  While the news aggregator normally follows its competitors’ trend of publishing mostly left-leaning articles with a couple of token right-leaning articles, for a short stint, MSN rose above the others. MSN’s scores on the Digital News Tracker hovered near the center, even leaning right with a score of 6.39 on May 25.  “I wish we could say that MSN gets a gold medal today,” said MRC Free Speech America VP Dan Schneider. “We are happy that it has demonstrated that right-leaning outlets deserve inclusion, but half measures don't merit a standing ovation. We will not be satisfied until MSN and the other news apps stop discriminating against quality journalism.” But the numbers don’t tell everything, and the content of the articles published revealed that MSN did not abandon its bias. Among the 15 articles from right-leaning outlets, only three covered political topics. By contrast, nearly 43% of the 23 stories from left-leaning outlets covered hot-button political issues ranging from Trump administration policies to the war in Iran.  Microsoft’s MSN chose to showcase non-political headlines from right-leaning sources that covered lifestyle news and small-scale celebrity gossip. The headlines included: “Elizabeth II put cream before jam on scones, Prince William reveals,” by The Telegraph promoted May 25.  “Scarlett Johansson, who earned $43 million in 2025, says life is a constant ‘deficit’ at home,” by Fox News promoted May 24 and 26. “Dutton Ranch star Cole Hauser reveals rattlesnake discovery that shut down production during Texas shoot,” by Fox News promoted May 21, 22, and 24. “Cruise cabin door decorations spark fierce reaction after one company issues new crackdown at sea,” by Fox News promoted May 25 and 26.  Standing opposite to the articles from right-leaning media were headlines from the left-leaning media that covered political topics: “Did Republicans Call 1-800-Dial-a-Spine? Nicolle reacts to GOP Revolt Against Trump Slush Fund,” by MS Now promoted May 23. “Trump got asked about Black voters losing representation and what he said was so unguarded it felt like a confession and the statehouses proved it,” by the Atlanta Black Star promoted May 23. “This omission in Todd Blanche’s testimony says so much about the Trump Justice Department,” by MS Now promoted May 24. “Trump breaks silence after GOP revolt over his $1.8B ‘slush fund’,” by The Independent promoted May 23. “Trump’s green card changes could force hundreds of thousands to leave the US Here’s what to know,” by Time promoted May 24. “The Trump administration wants you to drink whole milk–here’s what actual health experts want you to know,” by HuffPost promoted May 26. And while the Digital News Tracker score for MSN did have a balanced four-day average, it fell back to earth with a score of 3.08 the very next day, a day in which it failed to publish a single article from a right-leaning source. Microsoft’s MSN proved that a neutral news feed is possible, but there is much room for improvement.  Methodology: During the time period May 23-27, 2026, MRC researchers examined the top 20 stories featured on Microsoft’s MSN each day at approximately 8:30 AM ET. MRC researchers used the AllSides media bias ratings, which categorize an outlet as “left,” “lean left,” “center,” “lean right” or “right” to determine the overall bias presented by MSN and analyzed the results.  

The “And Company” part of Thursday’s Amanpour and Company on PBS presumed to speak on behalf of the whole country when offering up some gloomy predictions about the upcoming America 250 celebrations. Walter Isaacson claimed that “we” are not looking forward to the celebrations, while author and The New Yorker staff writer Jill Lepore claimed the “epic moment will elude us” partly due to President Trump. Isaacson asked Lepore, “In a month, we're going to be celebrating our 250th. But boy, we seem like we're in no mood for a celebration. How difficult is it to celebrate at a time like this politically?”   PBS goes full Debbie Downer ahead of America 250 with Walter Isaacson asking "In a month, we're going to be celebrating our 250th. But boy, we seem like we're in no mood for a celebration. How difficult is it to celebrate at a time like this politically?" The New Yorker's Jill… pic.twitter.com/TXRfNcgyJX — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 29, 2026   Before anyone could ask, "Who is we?” Lepore echoed the sentiment while adding Trump has a lot to do with it, “It really is a kind of perfect storm. There's just so much going on in the country, really, from town to town, city neighborhood to city neighborhood, where people are asking basic questions about the nature of the American experiment, the meaning of our heritage, the direction of the nation's future. I mean, between the 250th, the kind of ongoing, rolling, intense debates that the Trump administration spurs.” Lepore continued by suggesting that concerns about AI will somehow affect the celebrations, “And we're also in the midst of this, you know, AI backlash moment, this techlash moment. So, I think there's going to be a lot of hot dogs and parades and baseball games and bicycle races and basketball games and a lot of regular old standard 4th of July celebration, but I think the larger kind of epic moment will elude us.” By “we” and “us” Isaacson and Lepore mean themselves and other liberals. For the rest of “us,” “we’re” going to be just fine because there have been “intense debates” about “the nation’s future” for the last 250 years—some much more intense than the ones about Trump—and there will be for the next 250 years, and PBS isn’t going to be able to ruin it by making America’s 250th birthday about their opposition to Trump. Here is a transcript for the May 28 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 5/28/2026 WALTER ISAACSON: In a month, we're going to be celebrating our 250th. But boy, we seem like we're in no mood for a celebration. How difficult is it to celebrate at a time like this politically? JILL LEPORE: It really is a kind of perfect storm. There's just so much going on in the country, really, from town to town, city neighborhood to city neighborhood, where people are asking basic questions about the nature of the American experiment, the meaning of our heritage, the direction of the nation's future. I mean, between the 250th, the kind of ongoing, rolling, intense debates that the Trump administration spurs. And we're also in the midst of this, you know, AI backlash moment, this techlash moment. So, I think there's going to be a lot of hot dogs and parades and baseball games and bicycle races and basketball games and a lot of regular old standard 4th of July celebration, but I think the larger kind of epic moment will elude us.