On her eponymous Monday show, MS NOW host Chris Jansing presided over a discussion of GOP efforts to redraw South Carolina's congressional districts in which her Democrat guests claimed that blacks are being "disenfranchised" in South Carolina and that white Americans refuse to vote for black candidates because of "racism." It was not mentioned at all in the 11-minute segment that one of the state's two U.S. Senators -- Tim Scott -- is black and had even previously been elected in one of the state's white-majority congressional districts. But he's a Republican. Jansing gave a melodramatic introduction: MS NOW Panel Claims SC Blacks to Be 'Disenfranchised' by GOP pic.twitter.com/OxvhflsYw8 — Brad Wilmouth (@bradwilmouth) May 19, 2026 JANSING: Today a dramatic warning about voting rights from one North Carolina state senator who told Politico the entire South is on fire. The latest example, South Carolina, where lawmakers today are launching into what is expected to be a long and heated discussion about new congressional maps. Republicans are looking to erase the state's lone Democratic seat that's held by civil rights icon James Clyburn. After bringing aboard her guests -- strategist Julie Rosinsky and State Rep. Kambrell Garvin (D-SC) -- she turned to Garvin and posed: "Jim Clyburn accuses Republicans of creating Jim Crow 2.0. Is he right?" The South Carolina state legislator declared, "Absolutely," and went on to claim that it feels like it's 1966 again.  When Roginsky got to speak, she complained that Chief Justice John Roberts has long wanted to "gut the Civil Rights Act," declared that black voters are being "disenfranchised," and asserted that the U.S. is no longer a democracy: "And to have that state be so disenfranchised and those black voters be so disenfranchised is just -- it is astonishing that we are living in what is called a democracy, but clearly is not anymore." Garvin further went over the top by claiming that his children will have fewer rights than their great-grandparents and that blacks may go 100 years without having a "voice."  GARVIN: So you're talking about an over 100-year period where black folks in South Carolina did not get a chance to have a voice, did not get a chance to have a seat at the table. And now we are facing a situation where it might be another 100 years where African Americans will not be able to have a voice. And the sad thing about it, Chris, is that my generation, as a 35-year-old, my kids are going to have less rights than their parents as well as their grandparents and their great grandparents. As no one acknowledged Senator Scott or other blacks who have been elected in majority white parts of the country, Roginsky cried racism: ROGINSKY: And for anybody who says, "Well, you know, white voters can still vote for black representatives," come on. Come on. There's a reason why the Civil Rights Act existed -- there is a reason why you are now about to see a complete eradication of black power in Congress. It is precisely because of these kinds of places. White voters will not vote for black representatives. You could call it racism. You could call it whatever you want. I call it racism. Chris Jansing was not "fact checking in real time."  Transcript follows: MS NOW's Chris Jansing Reports May 18, 2026 1:34 p.m. Eastern CHRIS JANSING: Today a dramatic warning about voting rights from one North Carolina state senator who told Politico the entire South is on fire. The latest example, South Carolina, where lawmakers today are launching into what is expected to be a long and heated discussion about new congressional maps. Republicans are looking to erase the state's lone Democratic seat that's held by civil rights icon James Clyburn. (...) JANSING: Jim Clyburn accuses Republicans of creating Jim Crow 2.0. Is he right? STATE REP. KAMBRELL GARVIN (D-SC): Absolutely, Chris, and thank you for having me. We in South Carolina and the South Carolina House of Representatives are fighting regressive policies. And we've been doing that for, Chris, for the last couple of days, and we will continue to do that as well throughout the day and well into the night, Chris. What we see today and what we've been seeing throughout the South is an attempt to take us backwards. I have a quote that I often like to say, and that is that it's starting to feel more like 19 -- 1966 and not 2026. (...) JULIE ROGINSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: You also have a Supreme Court where the chief justice has been working since the Reagan administration to gut the Civil Rights Act, and he's done it. And the reality of that means that black voters in the South who have been disenfranchised for the history -- the entire history of this country, who were given an opportunity to have equal representation back in the 1960s, now are going back to a time, as the representative said, that I certainly have never lived through, and I think most people in this country have never lived through. It is a -- it is just astonishing what's happening. We're about to have no black people represented -- no black representatives, excuse me -- in South Carolina, where the black constituency is tremendous. I mean, Jim Clyburn is about to potentially lose his seat. And, as a Democrat, I will say South Carolina delivers the Democratic nomination every single time for every single Democratic candidate. They did it for Barack Obama -- they did it for Joe Biden. They will do it again for the next Democratic President. It is much more important than Iowa and New Hampshire. And to have that state be so disenfranchised and those black voters be so disenfranchised is just -- it is astonishing that we are living in what is called a democracy but clearly is not anymore. (...) GARVIN: So you're talking about an over 100-year period where black folks in South Carolina did not get a chance to have a voice, did not get a chance to have a seat at the table. And now we are facing a situation where it might be another 100 years where African Americans will not be able to have a voice. And the sad thing about it, Chris, is that my generation, as a 35-year-old, my kids are going to have less rights than their parents as well as their grandparents and their great grandparents. (...) ROGINSKY: It is deeply concerning. And for anybody who says, "Well, you know, white voters can still vote for black representatives," come on. Come on. There's a reason why the Civil Rights Act existed -- there is a reason why you are now about to see a complete eradication of black power in Congress. It is precisely because of these kinds of places. White voters will not vote for black representatives. You could call it racism. You could call it whatever you want. I call it racism. But the reality is the reality, which is that we are going to have many, many, many fewer representatives of color. We are not a white country. We're about to be a majority minority country. And yet our Congress, because of the design of the Republican party and, most importantly, the Supreme Court, which is obviously predominantly white, is making this a minority rule country that is about to rule the majority of the people who are no longer white. That is a massive problem. Look at your history. This is how empires collapse because democracy no longer exists.

Following the final episode of CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Thursday night, MS NOW’s Morning Joe lavished praise upon the disgraced host Stephen Colbert. Despite the cancellation announcement going out in July of 2025, The Late Show was permitted to run for almost another year before finally keeling over on May 21, and afterwards, its only mourners were the legacy media. After playing a cringe-worthy portion of the final Late Show episode, Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski, Jonathan Lemire, and Willie Geist, who were filling in for Joe Scarborough, welcomed author and historian Jon Meacham, columnist and former Washington Post associate editor Eugene Robinson, and Puck News journalist and podcaster Matthew Belloni on air to simp over Stephen Colbert. “Stephen is an architect of the culture,” Meacham began the Colbert worship service that Morning Joe and many other mainstream outlets had devolved into after The Late Show officially ended. He compared Colbert to musician Paul McCartney, the special guest on the series finale, suggesting the show was “a hinge in the cultural life of the country and of the West,” because Colbert happened to tape from the same Ed Sullivan Theater that The Beatles played at in 1964. Moreover, Meacham claimed that Colbert had an "enormous audience,” despite the fact that The Late Show was losing tens of millions of dollars every year and not getting enough views to justify the massive cost, which he ignored. Despite the utter failure of Stephen Colbert and his show, Meacham still lamented his loss from the airwaves: And here Colbert was as the capstone and one of the few things that could bring a lot of people together in this media climate, and I think we're going to miss him, miss his insight. And for those who say, 'Oh, he was too political, too partisan,' you know, always worry when they come for the comedians.      The liberal elitist media loves to harp on Colbert’s cancellation as an issue of politics and free speech. Immediately following Meacham’s remarks, Brzezinski suggested exactly that: I mean, there is - this is amidst a backdrop that is a little bit depressing for members of the media and people who believe in free speech. Robinson then touted Colbert as “such an amazing” and “talented man,” and The Late Show as “a touchstone in our cultural life,” before Lemire brought it back to politics: Yeah, pretty - pretty ideal closer last night. And, yeah, Colbert didn't mention Trump by name, but of course, the Trump and the pressure on CBS and Paramount, you know, was noted throughout the week.   Of course, President Trump, though he criticized Colbert and other media figures, held no real power over CBS’s hosts, and the decision to terminate The Late Show was much more financial than political. Belloni acknowledged this point, but then continued to speculate about Trump’s involvement: And yet, there is this kind of stink of politics that has been around this cancellation … Trump has gone after late night and Colbert in general. So the speculation is that, well, maybe there was some, the financial motivations were real. The politics of the situation had to at least play into the minds of the decision makers.  According to the panelists of Morning Joe, everything must be Trump’s fault, no matter the external circumstances. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read. MS NOW's Morning Joe May 22, 2026 6:06:20 (...) JONATHAN LEMIRE: You know, Jon Meacham, I know you know Stephen Colbert very well over the years. And there had been speculation, of course, that the Pope might be there, Colbert having fun with that. But the real hope, I think, from a lot of people was that maybe, just maybe, Paul McCartney would show up and bookend the Beatles 1964 Ed Sullivan Theater performances by closing things out for Stephen last night. And there he was, just extraordinary. JON MEACHAM: Yeah, you know, it's - Stephen is an architect of the culture.  And it - and on reflection, of course, the theater itself is that. The '64 arrival at Ed Sullivan changed global culture in 1964. In some ways, it's a hinge in the cultural life of the country and of the West.  And what Colbert has done, beginning with his character, Stephen Colbert, and his attack on truthiness, and really kind of the prescient ability he had to see where so much of our public life was going back in his Comedy Central days. And then he brought that to this enormous audience - what passes, certainly, for an enormous audience in this atomized world. That's another thing to think about, is think of how many people had to tune in to Ed Sullivan in 1964, because there weren't that many other options. And here Colbert was as the capstone and one of the few things that could bring a lot of people together in this media climate, and I think we're going to miss him, miss his insight. And for those who say, 'Oh, he was too political, too partisan,' you know, always worry when they come for the comedians. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, yeah, that's for sure. Eugene Robinson - EUGENE ROBINSON: Yeah - BRZEZINSKI: Your thoughts? I mean, there is - this is amidst a backdrop that is - ROBINSON: Yeah - BRZEZINSKI: - a little bit depressing for members of the media and people who believe in free speech. ROBINSON: You know, yeah. It's, you know, I mean, nothing lasts forever. But Stephen Colbert was such an amazing, and such - he is such a talented man. I was on his Comedy Central show once, and we had a lovely conversation in the green room before. And at the end he said, 'Now when we go out there, I'm not me. I'm that character.' And we got on the show and he was just perfect as the - BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. ROBINSON: - you know, with all his truthiness.  And - now what a bookend, though, to have McCartney, anyone my age or older remembers that night in 1964 on that very stage when indeed the Beatles and, you know, Paul McCartney right there did change the culture. And it's a - it's a very different world, now. There's something comforting about that to me, actually. It's a touchstone in our cultural life and - LEMIRE: Yeah, pretty - pretty ideal closer last night. And, yeah, Colbert didn't mention Trump by name, but of course, the Trump and the pressure on CBS and Paramount, you know, was noted throughout the week. Springsteen explicitly so a few days prior.  But as Colbert, it's not - he's extraordinarily talented, extraordinarily smart, a very decent man with a big heart. And that - that heart really filled last night, but the entire run of The Late Show, and I also think it is a safe bet; though this chapter closed, this is not the last we have seen of Stephen Colbert.  BRZEZINSKI: Yes, it'll be interesting - LEMIRE: He will do many brilliant things going forward, mhm. BRZEZINSKI: - It'll be interesting to see what he does with this. Our next guest says Stephen Colbert's final show marks 'The beginning of the end for late night TV.' Let's bring in founding partner of Puck, Matthew Belloni. He's the author of Puck's flagship newsletter, 'What I'm Hearing,' and the host of the podcast The Town. He's also the former editor of The Hollywood Reporter.  So, let's exercise our free speech and talk about what really is going on here: why he's leaving, what this is the backdrop of, what's coming in its place, and what this does mean for late night television? Matthew. MATTHEW BELLONI: Well, that's a lot there. And the fact of the matter is - is that The Late Show was losing money. I mean, according to my reporting, it was tens of millions of dollars that the show was losing each year. And yet, there is this kind of stink of politics that has been around this cancellation.  The move was made by the former owner of CBS. However, it was right as the sale to the Ellison family was going on, and obviously the Trump administration was very involved in that. They had been saying that they don't like the content on CBS, particularly, Trump has gone after late night and Colbert in general. So the speculation is that, well, maybe there was some, the financial motivations were real. The politics of the situation had to at least play into the minds of the decision makers.  And yet they gave him a year, they gave him an entire season of the show to go out on this run, and to have people like Springsteen on the show, to essentially bash the ownership on their own network. And I think that says something about the owners that they, yes, maybe they were doing this to appease Trump, but at least they kind of let him go out saying what he wanted to say. WILLIE GEIST: And we're - remind people of the timeline. They announced in July that Stephen's show had been canceled, and one week later to the day, that deal was approved for Paramount Skydance.  So, Matthew, your piece, you say this is the beginning of the end of late night TV. Obviously, Jimmy Kimmel has come under withering fire almost weekly, it seems, from President Trump. He's been suspended and come back to his job, there were calls a couple of weeks ago after the Correspondents' Dinner for him to be fired. He has not been.  So where do you see late night comedy going from here? It's been an institution going back to, you know, Jack Paar in this country. BELLONI: Yeah, I think that these current hosts, both Kimmel and Fallon and Meyers at CBS or at NBC, I think they will be the last to host these shows.  The economics of late night TV are just not there. The audience is not tuning in. They are on streaming platforms. They are on their phones. The habit of watching these late night shows after the local news is not there.  And, at least at CBS, they had not figured out the model to make money on the clips and the YouTube shows. They were making some, and Kimmel and Fallon make a lot more money on the digital application of those shows than CBS did. So I think that saves them for a little bit longer, especially now with Kimmel, that Trump has gone after him explicitly. Disney, which owns ABC, has now decided to fight the FCC on this. And this is a big deal, because they could have just bowed to Trump and said, 'okay, we'll take Kimmel off the air.' And they're not doing that. They suspended him in the fall for a couple nights around that Charlie Kirk joke that he made. But ultimately, the backlash was so swift, they brought him back and they figured out a way to deal with the station groups that air the show. But I do think that given the economics of late night, these hosts will be the last late night hosts. BRZEZINSKI: Founding partner of Puck, Matthew Belloni, thank you. We know it is an extremely early morning for you out on the West Coast, thank you so much for waking up for us.

Ever feel like you’re watching a completely different movie than the mainstream media? You aren't alone. This morning on The Eric Metaxas Show, host Eric Metaxas sat down with Media Research Center (MRC) President David Bozell to dive deep into the cultural echo chambers ruining late-night television. From Saturday Night Live to The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, comedy has traded universal laughs for predictable partisan lectures. The numbers are staggering. Bozell highlighted a recent MRC study on Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update, revealing that an egregious 91% of their political jokes targeted Donald Trump and conservatives. But the issue goes far deeper than punchlines; late-night hosts have completely abandoned their duty to entertain the whole country. As Bozell puts it: "When you're tuning into late night, you're looking for a reprieve from politics. You're looking for a reprieve from the news. They just won't allow themselves to go outside of that bubble." With network affiliates pushing back and ratings cratering, is the classic late-night format dead for good? Can Hollywood ever recover its sense of humor, or are we stuck in the "Trump Derangement" loop forever? Even after assassination attempts, SNL's anti-conservative jokes reached 91%.@DavidBozell breaks down how late-night has gone too far with @ericmetaxas. pic.twitter.com/Vl44oRTaOe — Media Research Center (@theMRC) May 22, 2026 Want to hear more about the cultural bubble dividing our country and why everyday Americans are turning off mainstream TV? Watch the full video interview here!  

As law enforcement closed in to arrest him, Minnesota healthcare fraud suspect Muhammad Omar chose to take a 50-50 risk of jumping off a fourth-story balcony in order to flee authorities on Thursday during a citywide joint FBI-Justice Department enforcement operation. At a press conference announcing 15 public healthcare fraud indictments in Minnesota, FBI Co-Deputy Director Christopher Raia asked the public for help identifying a fugitive who's a target in a Minnesota fraud investigation. "If you recognize this individual... If you can provide any information related to this individual, I would encourage you to call 1-800-CALL-FBI,” Raia said, showing video of a man limping away in flight after landing from his four-story jump. Whether he knew it or not at the time, Omar was taking a dangerous leap, since he had only a one-in-two chance of survival from a jump from four stories up, as Cambridge University’s Trauma Anesthesia 2nd Edition explains: “The median lethal distance for falls (LD50) is four stories or 48 feet (15 meters). This means that 50% of patients who fall four stories will die.” Despite hurting himself from the fall, Omar succeeded in avoiding capture by limiting away barefoot, likely aided by the benefit of adrenaline, which, as Biology Insights notes, helps people who are trying to “escape a dangerous situation”: “One significant effect is the temporary suppression of pain perception, allowing an injured individual to continue functioning and escape a dangerous situation despite discomfort. This analgesic effect enables focus on immediate action rather than the sensation of injury.”  

Even by the low standards of MS NOW, senior Washington correspondent Eugene Daniels’s Thursday appearance on Chris Jansing Reports was a stellar example of how not to do journalism. Daniels’s title suggests that the network views him as a reporter, but he decided to go full activist.  According to him, Democrats need “to be more comfortable with power” and that the party needs to focus more on “kitchen table issues," which he somehow defined as abortion and gender transitioning children. Reacting to the DNC’s autopsy, Jansing read a portion aloud that suggested Democrats’ problem is that they are just too smart for the electorate, “They claim Republicans are just better at politics. Quote, ‘At times it seems Democrats are trying to win arguments while Republicans are focused on winning elections. Democrats operate in an ecosystem defined by reason, even in cycles when the electorate is defined by rage.’ What should Democrats do with that?”   Yesterday, Eugene Daniels, whom MS NOW technically considers a reporter, reacts to the Democrats' autopsy by saying the party "should be more comfortable with the idea of power" and urges them to talk more about abortion and transing kids "When you talk about whether or not… pic.twitter.com/vXcr4RZbdT — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 22, 2026   Daniels began his response by declaring, “They should be more comfortable with the idea of power. And this is something that Democrats have been saying. I've talked to Chuck about this in the past, the idea that at the end of the day, if you are not in office, you can't do anything. And when you talk about winning hearts and minds, that is very important.” Before anyone could wonder where the evidence for the idea that Democrats aren’t power-hungry enough is, Daniels continued: When you talk about issues that matter to marginalized people, that is very important. But you can do those things and still win elections so that you can actually change laws and not just worry about hearts and minds. When, you know, the question about whether or not you should focus on ‘identity politics,’ like Donald Trump only focuses on identity politics, right? It is. It is the heart of the MAGA movement, right? That white people are being replaced. This conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact that, you know, brown—black and brown people are taking the jobs of folks. That is identity politics. Daniels also claimed, “The difference is that Republicans also use—they use that with the rage, and they point it somewhere. Democrats don't do the same thing. There are some who are trying. They have been trying. But you can use ‘identity politics,’ quote unquote, as a kitchen table issue, right?” Usually, kitchen table issues mean things like the jobs or the cost of living, but Daniels took an extremely broad definition: When you talk about whether or not people can have access to healthy abortions—safe abortions, that is a kitchen table issue, right? Whether or not a trans kid can get the services they need, that is a kitchen table issue for families. So, it's about crafting the message in a way that actually gets to the point that Chuck and a lot of other folks say, which is people look at the money leaving their pockets, they look at the party in power, they want some change, and they're willing to flirt with candidates and with parties they haven't been before. Daniels wrapped up by asserting that “Democrats have an opportunity and are trying to figure out how to take that opportunity but have an opportunity to actually be an answer for folks.” If Democrats take Daniels’s advice and define “kitchen table issues” as “progressive culture war issues," they should be prepared to write even more autopsies. Here is a transcript for the May 21 show: MS NOW Chris Jansing Reports 5/21/2026 12:35 PM ET CHRIS JANSING: There is another takeaway, Eugene. They claim Republicans are just better at politics. Quote, “At times it seems Democrats are trying to win arguments while Republicans are focused on winning elections. Democrats operate in an ecosystem defined by reason, even in cycles when the electorate is defined by rage.” What should Democrats do with that? EUGENE DANIELS: They should be more comfortable with the idea of power. And this is something that Democrats have been saying. I've talked to Chuck about this in the past, the idea that at the end of the day, if you are not in office, you can't do anything. And when you talk about winning hearts and minds, that is very important. When you talk about issues that matter to marginalized people, that is very important. But you can do those things and still win elections so that you can actually change laws and not just worry about hearts and minds. When, you know, the question about whether or not you should focus on “identity politics,” like Donald Trump only focuses on identity politics, right? It is. It is the heart of the MAGA movement, right? That white people are being replaced. This conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact that, you know, brown—black and brown people are taking the jobs of folks. That is identity politics. The difference is that Republicans also use—they use that with the rage, and they point it somewhere. Democrats don't do the same thing. There are some who are trying. They have been trying. But you can use “identity politics,” quote unquote, as a kitchen table issue, right? When you talk about whether or not people can have access to healthy abortions—safe abortions, that is a kitchen table issue, right? Whether or not a trans kid can get the services they need, that is a kitchen table issue for families. So, it's about crafting the message in a way that actually gets to the point that Chuck and a lot of other folks say, which is people look at the money leaving their pockets, they look at the party in power, they want some change, and they're willing to flirt with candidates and with parties they haven't been before. And Democrats have an opportunity and are trying to figure out how to take that opportunity but have an opportunity to actually be an answer for folks.