This sounds like a joke. But the PBS News Hour is far softer in interviewing a spokesman for the terrorist group Hezbollah than they are with Israel, which they treat like a terrorist group. Hezbollah flack Wafiq Sada drew softballs from reporter Simona Foltyn on Tuesday, with the assumption that Israel was a malevolent force. On Thursday's News Hour, anchor Geoff Bennett pulled out rhetorical boxing gloves for Danny Danon, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations. Danon received the old “how many deaths are acceptable” push, like Donald Trump got during the Covid pandemic. PBS anchor Geoff Bennett rips into Israel's UN ambassador: “When Israel targets Hezbollah in dense urban areas, as was the case here, how does it determine what level of civilian casualties is considered acceptable?” And: "We know that Hezbollah does indeed embed itself in… pic.twitter.com/wVmD1SFG1R — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) April 25, 2026 The PBS host asked: “When Israel targets Hezbollah in dense urban areas, as was the case here, how does it determine what level of civilian casualties is considered acceptable?” Danon replied: “So, first, we try to minimize civilian casualties, period, unlike Hezbollah, who did exactly the opposite. They target communities.” They hide behind civilians, he said, like Hamas did in Gaza. Bennett acknowledged that, then repeated himself, but harsher: “To your point, we know that Hezbollah does indeed embed itself in civilian areas. So, how many civilian deaths per Hezbollah target is acceptable? Is it five? Is it 10? Is it 300? Or is there no ceiling at all?” PBS’s Foltyn did not ask her Hezbollah guest these questions, and even let him claim “Let us be clear and honest. Hezbollah's ethics and religion prohibits it from killing civilians.” Then it turned really feisty when Bennett relayed the claim that Israel’s targeting journalists for death in Lebanon:   PBS host Geoff Bennett is a callous JERK as he accuses Israel of targeting journalists for death. "What military objective is served by killing reporters?" Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon calls that not just a lie, but a "blood libel," which triggers Bennett into more snide… pic.twitter.com/IVyD9GyhFN — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) April 25, 2026 BENNETT: The Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil was killed yesterday in an Israeli strike. Lebanon's prime minister responded by saying that Israel's targeting of journalists -- and this is a quote -- "is no longer isolated incidents, but has become an established approach." The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented a pattern of journalists killed by Israeli strikes. What military objective is served by killing reporters? DANON: Well, I beg to differ about your question. It's biased. With all due respect, we are not targeting reporters, period. Unfortunately, if you have reporters who are next to Hezbollah terrorists or Hezbollah bunkers or Hezbollah launchers, those incidents happen, and we regret that. But to accuse Israel that we target reporters, you know, that's a blood libel! You know, what are you actually implying, that we gather intelligence -- BENNETT:  Excuse me, sir. Excuse me -- DANON: -- that we gather intelligence -- BENNETT:  I take issue. I take issue. I take issue with that, sir. DANON:  -- and we actually want to kill reporters, and not to kill terrorists of Hezbollah? BENNETT: You say that Israel does not target journalists. Amal Khalil is dead. CPJ has documented a growing pattern of targeted Israeli attacks in Lebanon, where 15 journalists and media workers have been killed by Israel since the October 7 attacks. Your government continues to state that Israel does not target journalists. But my question is simple. At what number of dead journalists does that answer become one that the international community can no longer accept? At this point, Bennett is berating the guest as part of an immoral conspiracy to murder journalists. How do you remain calm and civil under this kind of assault? And how does PBS think they are some oasis of calm and rational discourse with this kind of junk? PBS president Paula Kerger goes around calling their network "educating and inspiring," and bringing the country together. What baloney.  Danon remains calm, but indignant, and Bennett keeps aggressively pushing:  DANON: Geoff, it's outrageous. When you say we target journalists, you imply that we have the intention to kill journalists, and that's a lie. You should ask the other questions. Where were those journalists during the time of the attack? Where they were spending their time? Maybe they were next to Hezbollah terrorists, and that's why they were in line of fire, unfortunately. BENNETT: Do you know that to be true? Do you know that to be true? DANON:  I will tell you one thing. BENNETT: Do you know that to be true, sir? DANON: We will focus our efforts -- BENNETT:  I’ll take that as a no. DANON:  -- our abilities, our intelligence, targeting Hezbollah terrorists, period. We are not doing it against civilians and for sure not against reporters. Bennett thanked Danon after all that abuse, and Danon returned the thank you. I think I would have had a different farewell message. "I hope you know you sound like you work for Hezbollah."

MS NOW’s Chris Hayes welcomed New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to a special town hall edition of All In on Friday to celebrate his first 100 days in office. According to Hayes, all of the worries about Mamdani have been shown to be hysterical, but it helped that he simply declined to mention some of Mamdani’s more radical moments. Hayes began his introduction by gushing, “This was the front page of The New York Post the day Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor of New York City. ‘The Red Apple,’ they're good at that. The culmination of one of the most improbable political stories of the Trump age, a grassroots, progressive campaign like no one had ever seen before, with more opposition from Republicans, from a Democratic political dynasty, from the president, from the media that we'd ever seen.”   Chris Hayes did a townhall with Zohran Mamdani yesterday and suggested all the concerns about him are overblown, "The city has not fallen into communism just yet." His first question wasn't much better, "What's the biggest thing you've learned? The biggest realization you've had… pic.twitter.com/OjnMFkXBU5 — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 25, 2026   It helped that the Democratic dynasty was running an alleged sexual harasser who previously put elderly COVID patients in nursing homes, but Hayes rolled right along, “And he won with a laser focus on a core message of making it more affordable for the people who live here. It's been a little over 100 days. The city has not fallen into communism just yet, but he does have a job to do.” After Hayes previewed the evening’s format and introduced Mamdani, he began with a softball, “You know, you were an assembly member, just like the last time, maybe the last time I saw you, actually, and just a few months ago. It's a very different job than this job. What's the biggest thing you've learned? The biggest realization you've had actually being in that position?” Mamdani professed that if he wants to be able to enact his agenda, “That trust starts when you fill in those potholes, because you can't tell someone to trust city government and its ability to deliver free childcare for two-year-olds for the first time in its history, if they can look out the window and see the same pothole unfilled as it was the day before, the week before, the month before, the year before. And so at the same time that we've been pursuing this agenda that would transform the lives of New Yorkers delivering a pathway to universal child care on day eight.” Patting himself on the back, he added, “We've also filled in 102,000 potholes in that same 100-day period. We started to repave more than a thousand miles of roadway. And all of this comes back from a belief that there's no problem too big, no task too small. And we call this pothole politics.” New York City’s surge in pothole repair is almost certainly due to an increase in potholes after the city’s nasty winter and not anything Mamdani’s done differently than his predecessors. However, that question set the tone for the evening. One self-identifying Republican asked how he could trust that all the taxes he has to pay will be worth it, while a small grocery store owner asked why he put one of his government-run stores “right around the corner” if they were meant to deal with food deserts, but those were just two questions over the course of an hour. Mamdani never had to answer for his insane death tax proposal, while Hayes’s earlier comment about not falling into communism “yet” is of little comfort considering that so many of his other tax schemes are still in the proposal stage. One of the biggest concerns about Mamdani was his record on anti-Semitism. Since being elected, Mamdani has condemned both sides after an anti-Semitic mob gathered in front of a synagogue that he alleged violated international law by having B’Nefesh promote immigration to Israel, which is both not true and not how the First Amendment works. He also dined with terrorist supporter Mahmoud Khalil. Neither Hayes nor anyone else cared to ask about that. Here is a transcript for the April 24 show: MS NOW All In With Chris Hayes: All In America: Mayor Mamdani 4/24/2026 8:02 PM ET CHRIS HAYES: This was the front page of The New York Post the day Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor of New York City. “The Red Apple,” they're good at that. The culmination of one of the most improbable political stories of the Trump age, a grassroots, progressive campaign like no one had ever seen before, with more opposition from Republicans, from a Democratic political dynasty, from the president, from the media that we'd ever seen. And he won with a laser focus on a core message of making it more affordable for the people who live here. It's been a little over 100 days. The city has not fallen into communism just yet, but he does have a job to do. We've invited an audience of New Yorkers to join us here, some of whom voted for this mayor, some who didn't. Some are supportive of his policies and others are not. But this is New York, so no one is ever going to be shy about sharing an opinion. And the mayor isn't shy about hearing that. Let's welcome now Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Good to see you, Mr. Mayor. ZOHRAN MAMDANI: Thank you for having me. I wore a suit, so I can match your energy. Thank you. HAYES: You know, you were an assembly member, just like the last time, maybe the last time I saw you, actually, and just a few months ago. It's a very different job than this job. What's the biggest thing you've learned? The biggest realization you've had actually being in that position? MAMDANI: You know, I think the biggest thing, first and foremost, is that New Yorkers trust, for all of the big ideas that we have about delivering universal child care, about making the most expensive city in America affordable for working class people who help keep it running. That trust starts when you fill in those potholes, because you can't tell someone to trust city government and its ability to deliver free childcare for two–year-olds for the first time in its history, if they can look out the window and see the same pothole unfilled as it was the day before, the week before, the month before, the year before. And so at the same time that we've been pursuing this agenda that would transform the lives of New Yorkers delivering a pathway to universal child care on day eight. We've also filled in 102,000 potholes in that same 100-day period. We started to repave more than a thousand miles of roadway. And all of this comes back from a belief that there's no problem too big, no task too small. And we call this pothole politics.

How liberal psych ward MS NOW can seriously bet against the U.S. economy in a war with an already decapitated and floundering Iranian regime is a whole new level of brain hurt. MS NOW reporters Julia Jester — talk about an ironic last name — and David Rohde couldn’t help making themselves look utterly foolish with their April 24 headline, “Trump vowed to break Iran. His own economy may break first.” As Jester and Rohde teased, “A race is on to see whose economy breaks first in the war with Iran.” Really, is that why CNBC just reported Thursday that the Iranian economy is currently in “freefall” with inflation projected to hit 68.9 percent on the year? As for the U.S. economy, economist Stephen Slifer praised its “resilience.” This is like watching the 100-meter dash then wondering who’s going to win after Usain Bolt already blazed across the finish line and left his opponents in the dust. The S&P 500 stock index also notched a new record April 24, adding $7.6 trillion in market cap and reflecting a 13.3 percent increase from its low on March 30, according to The Kobeissi Letter. The Nasdaq Composite also hit a fresh all-time high. But if you were reading Jester and Rohde’s anti-Trump drivel, readers would be misled to think that Iran still held all the cards: Who blinks first in the standoff could determine whether the eight-week war ends soon or escalates into something worse. It is a new stage of a conflict that points to prolonged pain for Iranians, Americans and a global economy that is being starved of critical energy supplies. Oppenheimer Asset Management Chief Strategist John Stoltzfus joined CNBC the day Jester and Rohde’s propaganda was published to emphasize the “resilience of the U.S. economy” and how corporate earnings were significantly buoying U.S. markets despite the ongoing Middle East conflict. But in Jester and Rohde’s world, “Iran has the clear advantage when it comes to enduring economic pain, most experts on the global oil trade and Iran’s economy told MS NOW.” Alexa, define “clear advantage.” Foundation for Defense of Democracies Senior Fellow Miad Maleki recently explained to Fox News Digital that Iran may dry up its “oil storage in as little as two to three weeks, forcing production cuts, while gasoline shortages could hit on a similar timeline due to heavy reliance on imports.” Specifically, Fox News reported, “Combined with an estimated $435 million in daily economic losses, the pressure could spill into the financial system, leaving the regime struggling to pay salaries and raising the risk of renewed unrest.” What kind of “clear advantage” is that, Jester and Rohde?  Rohde has already made a name for himself by foolishly propping up the Iranian war effort as being on par with U.S. military strategy. On April 2, Rohde scare mongered in an X post that “If Iran gains long-term control of the Strait of Hormuz, it will be more powerful than it was before the U.S. and Israel attacked it, oil analyst warns.⁦” If Iran gains long-term control of the Strait of Hormuz, it will be more powerful than it was before the U.S. and Israel attacked it, oil analyst warns.⁦ TY @IanJSherwood https://t.co/WzX3gSfsEX — David Rohde (@RohdeD) April 3, 2026 But on the flip side, Rohde himself attempted to dismiss the threat of Iran’s nuclear capabilities as fake news after Special Envoy Steve Witkoff stated that the Islamist regime was boasting that it was capable of making 11 bombs. “People who were present during the negotiations said that never happened, that the Iranians never made that statement,” Rohde snorted during the March 4 edition of MS Now’s Ana Cabrera Reports. Rohde would end up getting embarrassed just two hours after his appearance when the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi ended up confirming key details of Witkoff’s report. MS NOW, whether it's on TV or the internet, is always there to try and rip Trump apart, no matter how much sense it makes. 

As President Reagan might say, “Well, there they go again.” The “they” in this formulation is the laughably self-regarding “in crowd” of media who belong to the White House Correspondents Association - aka the “WHCA.”  The “cool kids” of the media who will be in attendance at the their annual glitzy black-tie dinner this weekend. To make sure their self-regard is noted, an “open letter” signed by over 250 journalists was released that said in part, the following, with bold print supplied for emphasis. “The dinner has long served as a symbol of the vital and irreplaceable role of a free press in American democracy and a celebration of the First Amendment and the journalists who uphold it. President Trump’s systematic, sustained, and unprecedented attacks on the free press (detailed below) render his presence at such an event a profound contradiction of its purpose. The collective weight of the administration’s actions – retaliatory access bans, coercive regulatory investigations, frivolous lawsuits against the press, defunding of public broadcasting, dismantling of international broadcasting, physical restrictions on journalists, personal verbal attacks on reporters, assaults on the media in official White House press releases and social media posts, the arrest of journalists, and the pardoning of those who committed violence against the press represent the most systematic and comprehensive assault on freedom of the press by a sitting American president.” Stop right there. Full stop. Again, notice the letter was condemning “defunding of public broadcasting, dismantling of international broadcasting, physical restrictions on journalists, personal verbal attacks on reporters, assaults on the media in official White House press releases and social media posts….” And right there is a decidedly unconscious show-and-tell of exactly why the American people have such a low regard for today’s media. To begin, there is no provision from the First Amendment in the Constitution that mandates the federal government -- or any state or local government -- fund public broadcasting or support “international broadcasting.” Not to mention there is no provision in the First Amendment that opposes so-called “physical restrictions on journalists” or is restricted from limiting journalistic access to this or that government function.  As someone who has worked at all levels of government -- local, state and federal -- it is completely normal that this or that government body or agency holds various meetings that bar attendance from the press, that are closed to the public. I have personally been in meetings at all three levels of government where there was not a single journalist allowed in the room. Once a specific meeting is completed, it is up to the government body holding the private meeting whether it will or will not issue a press release on the substance of the meeting in question. And it is up to the media to cover or even attack the government meeting closed to the press if they so desire. That kind of thing happens with regularity all the time. These journalists don't mind it when it's their favorite pols -- like Hillary Clinton's secret health-care task force in 1993. And to take umbrage, as the letter from these Washington journalists does, on “personal verbal attacks on reporters” when the media of today is perpetually slinging all kind of personal attacks at President Trump (and yes, on some of his conservative predecessors) is, to put it mildly, hilarious.  Particularly in the Trump era the media has been out there repeatedly attacking the President. But in fact this kind of treatment of a President is decidedly not new. Good heavens, there is a reason President Trump recently said: “Abraham Lincoln and many of our greatest presidents fought with the media.” Indeed they did. In comparison with no less than Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln scholar and historian Harold Holzer long ago noted that “No president ever cracked down on the press more than Abraham Lincoln did,” adding that the media “was completely and openly partisan in Lincoln's day, with Democratic and Republican newspapers," and that "Lincoln followed the Republican press with the same intensity with which Donald Trump watches Fox News and Breitbart." Holzer added that Lincoln was also a master at manipulating the media with leaked stories, courting the favor of certain editors, and releasing private letters to the press. One could go on -- and on and on -- with similar stories and quotes about Trump’s predecessors and how they treated and/or dealt with the press. Joe Biden's team could stiff-arm them for weeks and months at a time. But safe to say, as the White House Correspondents Association gathers for their annual black tie cocktails-and-dinner this weekend hang out, there is nothing new here under the Washington political sun.  And on a personal note? Yes, I have been to this dinner on a couple of occasions. A night of fun. But taking umbrage at the President because he shows up -- or even when he doesn’t show up -- is nothing more than a sign of too much self-regard. A balloon of self-regard this President in particular finds it all too easy to burst.

On CNN International and later on PBS, Tehran-raised Christiane Amanpour demonstrated she was very enamored of Trump-hating Yale history professor Timothy Snyder's phrase "superpower suicide" to explain what Trump is doing in the foreign policy arena. Funny, I thought  giving pallets of cash to a "Death To America" Islamist regime so they could build nuclear weapons looked more like suicide. Here's how Amanpour set it up:  AMANPOUR: And so is such a walloping row between American president and a Pope, in this case, an American Pope, Leo. And this is also very unusual. There have obviously been disagreements between world leaders and the Pope in the past, but this huge disagreement is pretty noticeable. And you have started using afraid -- a phrase, sorry, "superpower suicide," to describe the state of America. You know, it's not decline, it's not collapse. You've also called it "attempted suicide." I'm not sure whether that's, you know, to leave room for a little hope. But tell us what you mean by that. ON CNN International AND on PBS, Christiane Amanpour is every enamored of the phrase "superpower suicide" to explain what Trump is doing in the foreign policy arena. Funny, I thought that was giving pallets of cash to a Death To America regime so they could build nuclear… pic.twitter.com/tgUToepVSI — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) April 23, 2026 Snyder, who wrote the leftist-celebrated books On Tyranny and The Road to Unfreedom to sound the anti-Trump alarm in his first term, obliged:  SNYDER: Well, I think, look, we've been talking about the war in Iran, which is a war for which we didn't have a justification, which we're losing, and, as we've discussed, we're covering in genocidal rhetoric. And I think that's not a coincidence. I think that's a symptom of something deeper. And when I say superpower suicide, I'm trying to emphasize choices that are being made to make the United States much weaker than it has to be. And those choices involve things like governing as a group of oligarchs rather than as a state. They involve not having a coherent ideology about the future of the United States. They involve deliberately missing technological transitions that are very important, especially involving energy. They involve having a completely impossible fiscal policy, where you're spending much more than you're taking in. They involve undoing science and education, which are the pillars of long-term strength. And all of this is a matter of choice, and all of it's happening in the last year. Snyder added "deliberately alienating allies, which is historically very weird, not being able to handle adversaries, losing a trade war to China, assisting Russia, breaking down the international order, which for generations was built up to put America in the center." It's not surprising that a leftist would suggest it's suicide to fail to line up with the Europeans on climate-alarmist "transitions" and do whatever they want on Russia, which keeps the "international order" as the Left likes it. It's weirder to argue about bad fiscal policy and overspending, which is exactly what the left does, constantly suggesting the Republicans are in engaged in heinous cuts in social services.  In sum, this is just two lefties discussing how Trump is an absolute disaster. It's nice that PBS can't make us pay for this bubble any more.