For those with a historical memory, what grew to be massive dissent from America’s participation in the Vietnam War arguably began when then-CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, returned from a trip to Vietnam as war raged during the Lyndon Johnson administration, took to the televised airwaves to say:  “To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.” LBJ was said to be so disturbed by Cronkite’s reporting that he is supposed to have said that “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” The reason this moment at the relative dawn of TV news is important to look back on is that it signaled a change in the role of the media. It was no longer reporting the news, it was seen by many in the day as seriously shaping policy. With Walter Cronkite wielding raw media power to affect that policy. Time has moved on. It isn’t 1968 anymore. An era when there were three TV network newscasts plus a few major newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times is long gone. Then came CNN, and MSNBC, and Fox, and the internet. In today’s 21st century media the media is all over the place. It even has a different name - that would be “Social Media.”  Wikipedia defines Social Media as follows:  Social media are new media technologies that facilitate the creation, sharing and aggregation of content (such as ideas, interests, and other forms of expression) amongst virtual communities and networks. Common features include: Online platforms enable users to create and share content and participate in social networking. User-generated content such as text posts or comments, digital photos or videos, and data generated through online interactions. Service specific profiles that are designed and maintained by the social media organization. Social media helps the development of online social networks by connecting a user's profile with those of other individuals or groups. In other words? In other words “Social Media” is not about simply reporting the news. It is now all about power. Raw political power to shape the news according to the likes and dislikes of those who run various Social Media outlets. On one hand, that's allowed conservatives to go around the media and highlight stories and narratives that the Left would like to smother. On the other hand -- and this is what our traditional media can't stand -- the "professionals" can be outweighed by the "influencers." Remember that the so-called “Cronkite Moment” of 1968 made such an impact because it was seen not as one of America’s most famous anchorman simply reporting the news. It was quickly seen as one of the most popular, trusted television anchors going out of his way to exert power to influence and shape policy. In this case President Johnson’s Vietnam War policy. All of this history comes to mind as President Trump is out there, ala LBJ, trying to run a war policy. In this case a war in Iran and the larger Middle East. Only to find today’s Social Media trying, in effect, to run the war and related goings-on in Iran and the rest of the Middle East themselves. The Internet is flooded with videos, columns and more that are designed to not only oppose President Trump’s Iran War policy but to shape it as we go down the road. And there’s another complication that simply did not exist in the Johnson era. Videos from who knows where are flooding the Internet purporting to show horrific scenes from the war are, it is being said, fake - AI generated. Or simply taken out of context. But the similarity is nonetheless clear. The media of the Johnson era - as witnessed by the fabled “Cronkite moment” - is seen in history as the media of the day trying to use raw power to change the American policy on Vietnam. In today’s world, any media-savvy teenager sitting in his mother’s basement can construct videos for the Internet that purport to be from Iran or elsewhere on the current battlefield, post it on You Tube and ….presto! All manner of gullible people out there around the world can believe what they see, think it is genuine, and join a growing chorus to change the Iran war policy. Is there an answer for how to deal with all of this Social Media war “reporting”. To deal with what Trump himself famously calls “fake news”? If there is an answer, no one has yet found it. So the 21st century equivalent of the “Cronkite Moment” goes on.  With no end in sight.

On Saturday, MS NOW host Ali Velshi welcomed Prof. Timothy Snyder to his show to discuss President Trump’s Truth Social post from earlier in the week that warned “a whole civilization will die” if Iran did not agree to a ceasefire. According to Snyder, the post could be enough to drag American service members in front of a Nuremburg-like trial on charges of genocide. Both Velshi and Snyder admitted that they were operating on the assumption that the post itself is what mattered, not whether Trump actually meant it or was just being his usual hyperbolic self, which allowed them to dumb down the definition of genocide to the point that they rendered the word meaningless.   Prof. Timothy Snyder suggests U.S. troops that bomb a bridge could be charged with genocide because of Trump's social media posts "It's also the case that if they don't, they are now under the shadow of genocide. Because Mr. Trump has made clear that an intention, a determinable… pic.twitter.com/rndATBYa8L — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 11, 2026   Velshi argued that the fact that Iran agreed to the ceasefire also means nothing: You've built this model on the fact that you have studied atrocities unfolding in Nazi Germany and the collapse of democracies across Eastern Europe, and the struggles that they've had. What do you recognize and what has happened in the past when dictators and authoritarians say these types of things, and what is the thing that people miss? In other words, what's the thing that Americans shouldn't miss based on what happened on Tuesday, regardless of the fact that it didn't come to pass on Tuesday night? That's almost beside the point. Snyder began by focusing on Trump, “Yeah. I mean, number one is, is that the words—and this is a point you made very well—the words change us. If we just let them fall into us. We are changed. We normalize. We will passively normalize unless we challenge the words.” However, Snyder then moved on to the men and women in uniform, “And the second is the notion of orders. It was after the Second World War at Nuremberg it was specifically decided that just following orders wasn't a defense. In other words, there are norms, there are laws. There are other things out there besides the vertical chain of command. And this is something else to note. It's not just that soldiers and officers are right to reject illegal orders.” Snyder continued, “It's also the case that if they don't, they are now under the shadow of genocide. Because Mr. Trump has made clear that an intention, a determinable intention, of this conflict was to destroy a civilization, which means that if you destroy a bridge, if you destroy a dam, if you destroy a school, it's not just a war crime in itself. It could be construed as being part of a much larger war crime, or, as you say, the crime of crimes, genocide itself.” If Trump really wanted to commit genocide, there would be more than one school that was hit due to outdated intelligence and that used to be part of a naval base that Snyder could point to. The fact that Snyder considers destroying a bridge a war crime that could be proof of genocide should disqualify him from ever being taken seriously again. It is one thing for Velshi and Snyder to dislike Trump’s hyperbole, but anyone with any historical knowledge of previous American wars and any critical thinking skills knows Trump was not going to literally destroy a civilization even if Iran refused to accept the ceasefire offer. Those who wear the uniform deserve better than an American who ran away to Canada smearing them on TV. Here is a transcript for the April 10 show: MS NOW Velshi 4/11/2026 11:14 AM ET ALI VELSHI: You've built this model on the fact that you have studied atrocities unfolding in Nazi Germany and the collapse of democracies across Eastern Europe, and the struggles that they've had. What do you recognize and what has happened in the past when dictators and authoritarians say these types of things, and the thing that people miss? In other words, what's the thing that Americans shouldn't miss based on what happened on Tuesday, regardless of the fact that it didn't come to pass on Tuesday night? That's almost beside the point. TIMOTHY SNYDER: Yeah. I mean, number one is, is that the words—and this is a point you made very well—the words change us. If we just let them fall into us. We are changed. We normalize. We will passively normalize unless we challenge the words. And the second is the notion of orders. It was after the Second World War at Nuremberg it was specifically decided that just following orders wasn't a defense. In other words, there are norms, there are laws. There are other things out there besides the vertical chain of command. And this is something else to note. It's not just that soldiers and officers are right to reject illegal orders. It's also the case that if they don't, they are now under the shadow of genocide. Because Mr. Trump has made clear that an intention, a determinable intention, of this conflict was to destroy a civilization, which means that if you destroy a bridge, if you destroy a dam, if you destroy a school, it's not just a war crime in itself. It could be construed as being part of a much larger war crime, or, as you say, the crime of crimes, genocide itself.

HBO’s Bill Maher decided he would be the one to ruin the whole country’s fun on Friday’s episode of Real Time by trashing NASA’s Artemis moon mission that concluded about an hour after he started taping. Maher reached the rather sad conclusion that the moon is just a pile of rocks and that the money used on the program should be spent elsewhere. During his monologue, Maher admitted to not seeing what the big deal was, “At a time when there's a lot of tension going on here on Earth, this is the feel-good story that has everybody excited. Everybody, wherever I go, ‘Bill, did you see the photos?’ Yeah, I saw them. Earth as I have always seen it. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be the wet blanket on the moon. I just don't get it. I mean, everybody's like, ‘You know, if we are on the moon, we can get to Mars.’ I didn't want to go there either. Okay, there's nothing out there except other rocks.”   Bill Maher decides to be a fun-killer, "At a time where there's a lot of tension going on that Earth, this is the feel-good story that has everybody excited. Everybody, wherever I go, 'Bill, did you see the photos?' Yeah, I saw them. Earth as I have always seen it. I'm sorry. I… pic.twitter.com/XrVN7uLtM2 — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 11, 2026   He then worked in a shot at President Trump’s management of the war in Iran, “Let's fix the shit show here on Earth, but I will tell you this: when the astronauts get back, the world will look so differently than when they left a week ago, when we had won the war in Iran.” Later, during the panel discussion, Maher broke up a contentious argument between Independent Veterans of America CEO Paul Rieckhoff and New York Post columnist Douglas Murray over whether or not Hungary could be considered a democracy, “How about that moon?” Trying to be positive, Murray replied, “We can agree on the moon,” but Maher wasn’t so sure as he claimed, “Well, I don't know if we can agree on the moon.” Maher tried to explain, “I'm not a fan of going to the moon. Same question I've been asking as a kid. Why? Why is it worth the money? What are we doing there? It's just another big fucking rock. We could spend a lot—the money more wisely, I think.”   Later, Maher continues raining on everyone's fun ". I'm not a fan of going to the moon. Same question I've been asking as a kid. Why? Why is it worth the money? What are we doing there? It's another big fucking rock. We could spend a lot—the money more wisely, I think. If we were… pic.twitter.com/fdz8mnHF52 — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 11, 2026   Nobody would argue that the Artemis program has been run perfectly, but presumably, Maher means that the money should be spent on some collection of welfare programs or other government initiative that would not be made suddenly better with $93 billion. Meanwhile, people are being reminded that their country is capable of great things. As it was, Maher continued in his rantings that the cosmos is just not that interesting: We live in the Milky Way Galaxy. It has 100 billion stars. Kids who didn't go to school, that's like our sun. That’s a star. The sun. That’s our star. There’s 100-200 billion of those just in our galaxy. There are 30,000 million, million, million stars. No, galaxies. 350 billion large galaxies. Each one with 100-200 billion stars in it. What the fuck? You really think we’re going to figure this out at any time period that matters? We cannot get to the next planet and we would not want to, in our own solar system. It’s just something for rich people to do that is fun. It is fun, it's fun to look at. We are not getting anything from it. Rieckhoff disagreed and, when asked to explain what the country was getting out of it, replied, “What we’re getting right now is some of the only hope that we have in this country.” Maher retorted, “Oh, I could sell it cheaper.” As Rieckhoff and Maher went back and forth, Rieckhoff would hail scientific research, but Maher still wasn’t convinced. Eventually, Rieckhoff would say that hope is priceless and that the people involved in Artemis are people that others can look up to, which is similar to what he said last Friday on MS NOW when he alleged Trump “crapped on” the unity Artemis brought with his Iran speech. Here is a transcript for the April 10 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 4/10/2026 10:02 PM ET BILL MAHER: No, I mean at a time when there's a lot of tension going on here on Earth, this is the feel-good story that has everybody excited. Everybody, wherever I go, “Bill, did you see the photos?” Yeah, I saw them. Earth as I have always seen it. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be the wet blanket on the moon. I just don't get it. I mean, everybody's like, “You know, if we are on the moon, we can get to Mars.” I didn't want to go there either. Okay, there's nothing out there except other rocks. Let's fix the shit show here on Earth, but I will tell you this: when the astronauts get back, the world will look so differently than when they left a week ago, when we had won the war in Iran. … 10:44 PM BILL MAHER: How about that moon? DOUGLAS MURRAY: We can agree on the moon. MAHER: Well, I don't know if we can agree on the moon. PAUL RIECKHOFF: I like the moon. MAHER: I like—who doesn't like the moon. RIECKHOFF: Big fan. MAHER: To look at it from here. Fan of the moon. Okay. I'm not a fan of going to the moon. Same question I've been asking as a kid. Why? Why is it worth the money? What are we doing there? It's just another big fucking rock. We could spend a lot—the money more wisely, I think. If we were closer to actually having some goal that we could reach out there in outer space, and by the way, it's not outer space. It’s right next door. It is nothing. I looked this up. Listen, here's the universe. We're on the moon. 250 miles away. I have more miles on Delta by the way. We live in the Milky Way Galaxy. It has 100 billion stars. Kids who didn't go to school, that's like our sun. That’s a star. The sun. That’s our star. There’s 100-200 billion of those just in our galaxy. There are 30,000 million, million, million stars. No, galaxies. 350 billion large galaxies. Each one with 100-200 billion stars in it. What the fuck? You really think we’re going to figure this out at any time period that matters? We cannot get to the next planet and we would not want to, in our own solar system. It’s just something for rich people to do that is fun. It is fun, it's fun to look at. We are not getting anything from it. REICKHOFF: I disagree, Bill. MAHER: Tell me what we are getting. RIECKHOFF: What we’re getting right now is some of the only hope that we have in this country. MAHER: Hope? RIECKHOFF: The Artemis team and NASA is giving people hope in America. MAHER: Oh, I could sell it cheaper. RIECKHOFF: Maybe, but let's talk about the money. Artemis is— MAHER: Paul, that's so vague. I asked you for a concrete thing we’re getting out of it and you said hope.

Even with the midterm elections just seven months away, the left wing media has been spending more and more time focusing on who might make up the field for the 2028 presidential race, mostly on the Democrat side. On Friday they were handed a gift by Al Sharpton, who welcomed several of those names to a stage at his National Action Network confab in New York City. Among those in attendance was Kamala Harris, who indicated that she may well run again, despite some doubters on the left, doubters who apparently do not include CNN's John King, who hosted Friday's edition of The Lead. King began a segment on this with a clip from Harris's appearance at Al Sharpton's event.  SHARPTON FROM CLIP: Are you going to run again in '28. HARRIS FROM CLIP: Listen, I might I might I'm thinking about it. Then it was King's turn, and he seemed to be excited by Harris's response, like that's surprising news. KING: That's the former Vice President Kamala Harris confirming right there. You saw it, that she may she might, she's thinking about it, might run again for president in 2028. Her comments today at the National Action Network Convention and against mounting speculation about what she might do next with her political career. Before heading to his CNN contributors, liberal Karen Finney, and conservative Shermichael Singleton, King seemed to be auditioning to be on that '28 campaign staff. KING: So for all the people I encounter who say, oh my God, please don't, she shouldn't run again because she lost, I say to them, well, who can beat her in the current field? As someone who's raised $1 billion? Yes. Made some mistakes in the campaign, without a doubt, but also was trying to do something near impossible in 110 days. Should she run? It was actually 107 Days, which was the name of Harris's book on her failed campaign, and unlike King, some on the left like Bill Maher spoke out against what they saw as Harris using that number as an excuse, along with her claim that Joe Biden had sabotaged her debate performance against Donald Trump, and more. Finney didn't seem to be as excited about the prospect as King, giving a very safe response. FINNEY: I think everybody and anybody who wants to run should say they might be running right now. And that is the advice that I give to all the candidates when they come through....Because as you know, John, until we get to the point where we see who actually makes it onto the primary debate stage, anybody is a viable candidate for the most part. King then introduced another very short clip from Harris, and strangely gave his own positive take on it, prior to playing it for the panel and the viewers. KING: So my biggest question for her would be, has she learned. You lose a race have you learned? What you did right, emphasize that, double down on it, What you did wrong, maybe learn from it. Listen to this, Shermichael, she says she understands the job, she knows what it takes, and she seems to sound like she is learning. HARRIS CLIP: The status quo is not working and hasn't been working for a lot of people for a long time. And part of the the issue is the need to get rid of some of the bureaucracy in government. Sounds like she is learning? If King had extended that clip for a few seconds, we would have heard Harris resort to what will probably be a slogan in her campaign should she run, "They don't want process, they want progress." Sounds like more of the same from 2024. SINGLETON: Look, you never underestimate a candidate. The Vice President did get more votes than what, any other Democrat in history. I wouldn't discount her ability. It's a matter of what does the operations look like? She clearly can raise the money. So I'm not going to discount that.  And before the segment ended, King seemed to be making one final excuse for Harris's 2024 failure.  KING: We were talking about this before we came on camera, what's the climate out there? Sometimes even the best candidates sometimes get whooshed by a climate, and sometimes weak candidates get carried along by a climate. I guess King will be banking on his belief in a climate change, should Harris decide to run.

The trio of PBS News Hour anchor Geoff Bennett, The Atlantic staff writer David Brooks, and MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart assembled on Friday for one of their more wild weekly news recaps. During their discussion Bennett would ask if there is “no line left” for President Trump to cross and if Trump is benefiting from a media double standard compared to President Biden. Making matters worse was that trio left out key information that would have shed light on both what Trump was actually doing and their own double standards. Bennett began with Brooks, “Last night, President Trump shared this graphic video of a woman being beaten to death. We're not going to show that video, but you can see the screenshot of the social media message there on the screen.” It was a lengthy Truth Social post, so unless the viewer was standing right in front of their TV in order to read the small text, they probably would not have known the man beating the woman to death with a hammer was an illegal immigrant who was given Temporary Protective Status by Biden.   PBS anchor Geoff Bennett asks David Brooks about Trump posting video of an illegal immigrant killing a woman (although he didn't mention the illegal immigrant part), "He used this video to attack former President Biden, Democrats, federal judges. A sitting president posting… pic.twitter.com/0hgcashKeh — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 11, 2026   Nevertheless, Bennett asked, “And he used this video to attack former President Biden, Democrats, federal judges. A sitting president posting footage of a murder as political content, is there no line left?” Brooks agreed, “Apparently not. Apparently not. You know, I think he is spiraling out of control. And I say that in part, and a little psychologically, narcissists tend to disinhibit as they age. And so they get—they just get more of themselves, which is not a good thing.” Turning into a history teacher, Brooks continued, “Last January, as we watched this spiral psychologically, I did—because I'm me, I read Roman histories. And so you get Tacitus and Sallust and those old guys, because they had a front-row seat to tyranny. And they watched authoritarians, one after another, Caligula, all these guys. And the one thing they all said was that they deteriorate.” Brooks also claimed that “They create a situation around them, when the sycophants have to get more sycophant. Anybody who's reasonable is either dead or gone. And then the urge to dominate, the lust for power becomes drunk. They become drunk on that. And they get more and more daring, more and more out of control, and then you get this spiral.” Finally, Brooks asserted, “And our founding fathers, they understood this so well. They read Tacitus. They loved these guys. And John Adams said, if we get a leader like that, he will run through our Congress—our Constitution the way a whale goes through a net. And so they completely understood. And their worst nightmare is now happening.” Bennett then moved on to Capehart, who also has a history of using graphic videos to make political points, “And, Jonathan, 61 percent of Americans, including 30 percent of Republicans, now say that President Trump has become erratic with age. That's according to a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll.”  He then wondered, “The press corps—I guess we should hold up a mirror to ourselves. The press corps spent two years making President Biden's mental fitness, his acuity the story. Why isn't that same scrutiny now being applied to President Trump broadly?”   Next, Bennett asks Jonathan Capehart "The press corps—I guess we should hold up a mirror to ourselves. The press corps spent two years making President Biden's mental fitness, his acuity the story. Why isn't that same scrutiny now being applied to President Trump broadly?"… pic.twitter.com/MlXSO9B28x — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 11, 2026   Capehart—who has been doing his best to memory hole the fact he called people concerned about Biden’s acuity, even after the debate, “scaredy-cats”—excitedly agreed, “Yes. Yes, exactly. That has been my question since—excuse me—since January 20 of last year. We, the press, spent a lot of time talking about President Biden and his age because he looked old. He moved slowly. He wasn't as vigorous and agile, supposedly, as the guy he pushed out of office and then the guy who was running against him.” For Capehart, Trump is much worse, “How does that compare to what we're going through right now? I wish people who have written books—people who have gone on air talking about President Biden nonstop, where are they now? Where are those books now that we have a president who has given ample evidence, ample evidence that something is not right?” Moving on to Brooks’s point about the founders, Capehart claimed, “What they weren't prepared for were people from the president's own party willing to either turn a blind eye or enable him to run roughshod over the Constitution… At some point, Republicans writ large and those on Capitol Hill have to start standing up for the Article I prerogatives, but also start standing up for the country. I don't know how much longer we as a nation can withstand this. And I know the world is beyond done with us, but I think they're also frightened of us.” Brooks at least followed up by pointing out that the media is not exactly pro-Trump, which is true, and this segment was Exhibit A. Here is a transcript for the April 10 show: PBS News Hour 4/10/2026 7:47 PM ET GEOFF BENNETT: Let's talk more about that, because, last night, President Trump shared this graphic video of a woman being beaten to death. We're not going to show that video, but you can see the screenshot of the social media message there on the screen. And he used this video to attack former President Biden, Democrats, federal judges. A sitting president posting footage of a murder as political content, is there no line left? DAVID BROOKS: Apparently not. Apparently not. You know, I think he is spiraling out of control. And I say that in part, and a little psychologically, narcissists tend to disinhibit as they age. And so they get—they just get more of themselves, which is not a good thing. But, you know, last January, as we watched this spiral psychologically, I did—because I'm me, I read Roman histories. And so you get Tacitus and Sallust and those old guys, because they had a front-row seat to tyranny. And they watched authoritarians, one after another, Caligula, all these guys. And the one thing they all said was that they deteriorate. They create a situation around them, when the sycophants have to get more sycophant. Anybody who's reasonable is either dead or gone. And then the urge to dominate, the lust for power becomes drunk. They become drunk on that. And they get more and more daring, more and more out of control, and then you get this spiral. And our founding fathers, they understood this so well. They read Tacitus. They loved these guys. And John Adams said, if we get a leader like that, he will run through our Congress—our Constitution the way a whale goes through a net. And so they completely understood. And their worst nightmare is now happening. BENNETT: And, Jonathan, 61 percent of Americans, including 30 percent of Republicans, now say that President Trump has become erratic with age. That's according to a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll. The press corps—I guess we should hold up a mirror to ourselves. The press corps spent two years making President Biden's mental fitness, his acuity the story. Why isn't that same scrutiny now being applied to President Trump broadly? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes. Yes, exactly. That has been my question since—excuse me—since January 20 of last year. We, the press, spent a lot of time talking about President Biden and his age because he looked old. He moved slowly. He wasn't as vigorous and agile, supposedly, as the guy he pushed out of office and then the guy who was running against him. And even little slips of the tongue were used to show, “See, aha, he's not all there. He's losing his mind.” How does that compare to what we're going through right now? I wish people who have written books—people who have gone on air talking about President Biden nonstop, where are they now? Where are those books now that we have a president who has given ample evidence, ample evidence that something is not right? Where are the people who are standing up and saying, you know what, something needs to be done? And that goes back to some—you were talking about the founders. They were prepared for something like this. What they weren't prepared for was the Article I branch just ceding all authority. What they weren't prepared for were people from the president's own party willing to either turn a blind eye or enable him to run roughshod over the Constitution. Even when you have got him out there threatening annihilation of a civilization, even when he's started a war for no reason and “the enemy” is in a stronger position now than it was before he started this war of his own choosing? At some point, Republicans writ large and those on Capitol Hill have to start standing up for the Article I prerogatives, but also start standing up for the country. I don't know how much longer we as a nation can withstand this. And I know the world is beyond done with us, but I think they're also frightened of us.