With military operations kicking back up in Iran, ABC chief international correspondent James Longman joined Friday’s World News Tonight to play up the possibility that U.S. has committed, or is about to commit, war crimes.Longman began by recapping recent days’ events, “CENTCOM has tonight released this footage of a strike on a surveillance tower at an Iranian port, which they say the regime used to track and target commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. Although the White House says the strait is open to shipping, maritime tracking shows the reality is that only a handful have been able to pass through under the threat of Iranian attack. And after President Trump's threat to strike at civilian infrastructure next week, Iranian state media reports two bridges being hit by U.S. airstrikes, as well as a train station and an airport.” ABC's chief international correspondent James Longman tries to bring back war crime accusations, "President Trump's threat to strike at civilian infrastructure next week, Iranian state media reports two bridges being hit by U.S. airstrikes, as well as a train station and an… pic.twitter.com/dKKSNmLQTq— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) July 18, 2026 He then added, “Legal experts say striking civilian targets could be a war crime. CENTCOM says they never target civilians.”Bridges, train stations, and airports can all be used for military purposes.In Trump’s “threat to strike at civilian infrastructure,” Trump threatened “next week comes the power plants” and “next week comes the bridges.” As Longman noted, the U.S. has already started hitting bridges. Power plants can also be considered military targets, and the U.S. has historically hit them with graphite bombs, which are designed to disable electrical grids but are considered non-lethal.What is not up for debate is that Iran actually is hitting civilian infrastructure in non-belligerent countries, but Longman didn’t throw the phrase “war crime” around for that. Instead, he simply reported, “Iran is still firing back with alerts in Qatar, Jordan, and Bahrain and major damage to a power and water desalination plant in Kuwait today that forced the government there to advise citizens to conserve energy while they stabilize the grid.”War crimes are real things, and Iran has spent this war committing scores of them. From attacks on neutral shipping to attacks on civilians. The American media should focus more on that than launching into unfounded allegations against the U.S. military.Here is a transcript for the July 17 show:ABC World News Tonight7/17/20266:41 PM ETJAMES LONGMAN: Mary, CENTCOM has tonight released this footage of a strike on a surveillance tower at an Iranian port, which they say the regime used to track and target commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. Although the White House says the strait is open to shipping, maritime tracking shows the reality is that only a handful have been able to pass through under the threat of Iranian attack. And after President Trump's threat to strike at civilian infrastructure next week, Iranian state media reports two bridges being hit by U.S. airstrikes, as well as a train station, and an airport.Legal experts say striking civilian targets could be a war crime. CENTCOM says they never target civilians.And Iran is still firing back with alerts in Qatar, Jordan, and Bahrain and major damage to a power and water desalination plant in Kuwait today that forced the government there to advise citizens to conserve energy while they stabilize the grid. Mary.

MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart joined PBS News Hour on Friday for his weekly participation in recapping the week’s news, which focused heavily on President Trump’s Thursday speech about election integrity. As Capehart spread wild conspiracy theories about Trump seizing ballot boxes, Capehart insisted that such conspiracy theorizing is really just proof that he has “a healthy imagination.”Earlier in the discussion, host Geoff Bennett asked The Atlantic staff writer David Brooks, “We spoke on this program last night with Ty Cobb, who was the special counsel during the first Trump administration, and he offered an extraordinary warning. He said that he believes that President Trump is laying the predicate for an emergency declaration around the elections. Do you see the guardrails holding if President Trump tries to use the apparatus of the federal government to intervene more directly in how elections are administered? Reacting to Trump's Thursday speech, Jonathan Capehart tells PBS that "I am a little concerned about what happens on Election Day. Congressman Jim Himes was on with my colleague Lawrence O'Donnell last night, and he warned that, yes, what the president is doing is laying the… pic.twitter.com/0KuLqk20y2— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) July 18, 2026 Brooks answered that he does, which led Bennett to ask the same question of Capehart, “How do you see it, Jonathan?”Capehart began by offering up a theory on how everything could go wrong, “Although I am a little concerned about what happens on Election Day. Congressman Jim Himes was on with my colleague Lawrence O'Donnell last night, and he warned that, yes, what the president is doing is laying the predicate for stealing the election, and he said, for instance, what happens if they seize the ballot boxes from particular jurisdictions? What happens to the chain of custody? That is when democracy will be at its most tenuous.”He was also less optimistic than Brooks, “And, sure, you can race to court and try to get them back, but the action's already done. And so I hope you're right that we are going to have a free and fair election this November.”When conservatives offer up various “what if” scenarios to justify being concerned about elections, the media likes to say in response that they are “without evidence,” but when Capehart offered up his, he insisted that he merely has “a healthy imagination, and I hope that folks who care about free and fair elections also have a healthy imagination and are prepared for any and every scenario that could happen.”If Trump stated that he simply has “a healthy imagination” of what could go wrong in November, nobody at PBS would say that was sufficient evidence for anything, but Capehart can muse about baseless suggestions about seizing ballot boxes unchallenged.Here is a transcript for the July 17 show:PBS News Hour7/17/20267:40 PM ETGEOFF BENNETT: How do you see it, Jonathan?JONATHAN CAPEHART: Although I am a little concerned about what happens on Election Day. Congressman Jim Himes was on with my colleague Lawrence O'Donnell last night, and he warned that, yes, what the president is doing is laying the predicate for stealing the election, and he said, for instance, what happens if they seize the ballot boxes from particular jurisdictions? What happens to the chain of custody? That is when democracy will be at its most tenuous.And, sure, you can race to court and try to get them back, but the action's already done. And so I hope you're right that we are going to have a free and fair election this November. But I have a healthy imagination, and I hope that folks who care about free and fair elections also have a healthy imagination and are prepared for any and every scenario that could happen.

Viewers of left-wing cable news shows have come to expect that for the most part, those on the left are treated one way, and those on the right are treated with less respect, less tolerance, and awarded less legitimacy for their points of view. That's exactly what happened to New York Post writer Lydia Moynihan Wednesday on CNN's NewsNight with Abby Phillip, where she was lectured to and called a "child" in one segment, and accused of lying in another, by two different panelists.Phillip began the first segment with a clip from Wednesday's Senate hearing with Jay Clayton, Trump's DNI nominee, where he did not answer the question, who won the 2020 election. She then turned to Moynihan. PHILLIP: Lydia, that's kind of embarrassing and maybe a little concerning if, intelligence is what he wants to have the job of doing. If he can't just state a fact, how can he do that other job?MOYNIHAN: I would've liked him just to say yes and put an end to the discussion....I do have to say it's funny.... I kind of thought maybe people would be glad to have Jay Clayton and Todd Blanche, people who are eminently qualified for these jobs. As CNN's Sabrina Singh, the former Biden Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary, started to respond to Moynihan, she was interrupted several times by former New York Times columnist Charles Blow, who turned to address Moynihan,.SINGH:  I actually think that the two --BLOW:: Do you acknowledge that Joe Biden won the election?SINGH: The two people that were on the Hill today --BLOW: No. Did you -- so you can do it just now but he couldn't do it?SINGH: The two people that were on the Hill today are legitimately unqualified.MOYNIHAN: I know you're trying to get a social media clip, Charles, but --BLOW: Do you know --MOYNIHAN: I think Sabrina was trying to talk. I know you're trying to get your social media clip or the gotcha. I answered your question already, but I'm also not here to answer to you. So --That set Blow off.BLOW: I'm happy that you told me that because I really appreciate. I'm sorry. I really appreciate you lecturing me about what I'm here to do, because I'm here because Abby's show invited me here, and I have been in journalism for a very long time. In fact, I came to The New York Times when you -- the year that you were born.So, I would choose, I suggest that you choose a lane that is your own and stay in it, and don't lecture me, because I won't be lectured by a child. Thank you.All Phillip could muster was, "All right, look. Go ahead." This, from the woman who shamed Shermichael Singleton for saying "boys" in girls' sports.This may have opened the door for how Moynihan was treated, in a later segment on recent ICE shootings, by Ana Navarro.It began with a discussion on Trump ending a pause in vehicle stops by ICE. One of the shootings took place in Maine, and after Phillip played a clip of Maine Senate candidate Nirav Shah, who hopes to replace Graham Platner as the Democrat nominee, it was Moynihan's turn. MOYNIHAN: I think the knee-jerk reaction we're seeing from him and some of the other candidates to basically call ICE a rogue agency....And people do want ICE. They don't want to see ICE abolished. And so I think the left is going further and further in a way that actually will alienate voters....And I think it's important when we talk about this issue to provide the context because they see every day that passes if we aren't deporting potentially unvetted illegal criminals that there's an opportunity cost to that.That was Navarro's cue.NAVARRO: They're not criminals.MOYNIHAN: There's an opportunity cost to that. Every single day --NAVARRO: These people were vetted. He had a legal --MOYNIHAN: Last week, there was somebody --NAVARRO: He had a legal permit to be in the country and he was not a criminal. And over 70 percent of the people that are getting deported and detained do not have criminal records. So, be careful with your words and be accurate on national TV.MOYNIHAN: My point is that --NAVARRO: You're lying.MOYNIHAN: I'm not lying.NAVARRO: You're lying.The segment continued with both Phillip and Singh backing points made by Navarro. Even though both Blow and Navarro crossed the line of decency and civility in a big way, Phillip didn't seem to have a problem with it. After all, the target was a Republican. This is CNN!

Sometimes, you can read a transcript of National “Public” Radio with a Democrat, and just laugh at how much it sounds like questions a press aide would toss to make their boss tap on all his talking points. On Friday’s Morning Edition, the supine PR helper was NPR anchor A Martinez. NPR and MS NOW sound the same. Get a load of these questions.One:A MARTINEZ: Congressman, you wrote an op-ed for The New York Times before the speech titled "Trump's Election Denial Has Never Been More Dangerous." So did he deliver the speech you expected?JIM HIMES: His delivery was actually a great deal more brazen than I thought....Two:MARTÍNEZ: Congressman, you said more brazen than you thought. What was the most brazen part?HIMES: Well, probably the most - well, again, you know, our elections are not corrupt. They are fair and free, and that is sort of an undebatable fact based on the evidence that is out there....NPR doesn’t blink for a second on the “undebatable fact.” Your wish is my command, Jim.Three, changing to midterm gossip:MARTÍNEZ: Now, we just heard from our reporter Tamara Keith, who mentioned that Trump is possibly setting up a reaction if Republicans lose in November, that the election was not fair. Do Democrats have a plan to make sure that people can trust the results in November?HIMES: Yeah. Look, all we can do is point people to the facts, and the facts are there for all to see, including, by the way, on the documents that the president touted last night. But I will also tell you that we are participating in much broader efforts to make sure that at the most local level, which is where elections are administered, that those administrators know the law....And four, what do you say to the dumber voters, who don’t believe everything Democrats say?MARTÍNEZ: Congressman, what do you say to voters who, no matter what is presented in terms of evidence, are dug in, are dug in with the belief that elections are somehow rigged or not on the up and up?This guy deserves at least a 20 percent gratuity for all of this service. Tell us, oh champion of the Undebatable Facts, how do we deal with idiots who vote Republican?HIMES: Well, you ask a question that has been exceedingly painful in both of Trump's presidencies. He has supporters who, if he tells them that the moon is made of green cheese, there is no fact, there is no evidence that will cause them to disbelieve whatever it is that the president says. The good news is that's a relatively small percentage of people. But I'm trying to remind everybody, you know, again, just look at the evidence and consider what I said before. Apparently, the two elections that he won were fine, but the one that everybody knows he lost was not fine. It's just sort of absurd.Now, here's the key point. America will get the democracy that its citizenry deserves. And if we have become a citizenry that is so obsessed with social media and willing to make conclusions based on no evidence, we'll lose our democracy. And quite frankly, that's what Donald Trump is counting on.Trump is counting on losing our democracy? It doesn't matter who wildly conspiratorial Democrats sound. NPR will just use its more than 800 stations spreading this diseased word. 

MS NOW/SnapStream After President Trump’s address on Thursday, MS NOW’s Morning Joe showed disdain for the speech and praised the decision from some broadcast networks, ABC and NBC, not to take the speech live. While CBS did air the speech, co-host Mika Brzezinski commended their fact-checking-heavy coverage, which she said was the result of anchor Tony Dokoupil being “kicked around a bit.”At the lead of the show, fellow co-host Joe Scarborough made his speech commentary about Russia, as Scarborough sarcastically read through newly released unclassified intelligence about possible election interference.Co-host Willie Geist had his own Russia-related commentary from the speech: “To hear the president of the United States deliver Vladimir Putin's talking points from the East Room of the White House in prime time was shocking.” After President Trump's address, Morning Joe praised the broadcast networks' coverage of the speech, including decisions by ABC and NBC not to broadcast the speech live and CBS's fact-checking, which Brzezinski said was the result of Tony Dokoupil "being kicked around a bit." pic.twitter.com/fJppW6gTKW— Nick (@nspin310) July 17, 2026 Near the end of the opening conversation on the address, Brzezinski stated, “And then a lot of networks chose not to cover it. And, if I understand correctly, CBS, because Tony Dokoupil has been kicked around a bit, they did an extensive fact check on the speech, pointing out disinformation.”If Brzezinski were to actually watch CBS News, she would know it was not pro-Trump TV all of a sudden, as claimed by many liberals.She concluded, “I think the media in some ways did its job here.”Geist, also the host of NBC’s Sunday Today, praised and defended the broadcast networks' decisions: “I mean, there's not an obligation on the part of the press to platform just bald-faced lies and amplify them to tens and millions of people in this country.”Geist continued and said, “There was a decision made at several networks not to show this stuff because we heard it all before. We know it's lies.”Later, he praised his other employer, Versant’s MS NOW, for their coverage and its cut away from the speech: “So, and you know, MS NOW and others, they dipped into it and then came out as soon as the lies started and debunked all of it.”After his media commentary, Geist turned to the SAVE Act, and said the speech “is a predicate for what he wants to do.”He continued and said without passage of the SAVE Act, he fearmongered, “he may find other ways to influence the outcome of the 2026 election on the platform, on the foundation of these lies he told last night.”As the midterms approach, Morning Joe’s election fearmongering seemed poised to be the lead until November.The transcript is below. Click "expand":MS NOW’s Morning JoeJuly 17, 20266:01:11 AM Eastern(...)JOE SCARBOROUGH: You know, Willie, here's the thing: he didn't prove what he wanted to prove, right? He didn't prove anything about China. He didn't prove anything about that we didn't already know before. He spread a lot of disinformation. But the president – I am grateful, and I think America should be grateful for the president getting some of these documents out. If you don't mind. I'm just going to read from a couple of them right now. "The Russian government has advanced such narratives with U.S. officials and other persons as well, online. These figures are conspiring. These Russian government figures are conspiring to intensify their efforts as the election approaches to orchestrate a high-profile corruption scandal implicating Joe Biden and the Democratic Party at the peak of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Their aim is to defeat the former vice president and ensure the president's victory.”And here's the crazy thing, Willie, and I guess this is a very, very Russian thing to do. And the Russians have done it. And so, if you're one of these influencers that have been infected by sort of these Russian conspiracy theories, you're going to do it too. Are you ready for this? Russian actors – this is shocking that anybody would do this. And I guess it's just East versus West. We don't think the way they do. It's shocking they would do this. Russian actors have circulated narratives. I almost can't read this.MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It’s shocking.SCARBOROUGH: I almost can't - BRZEZINSKI: Well, you can do it! SCARBOROUGH: - Because it's so foreign!BRZEZINSKI: Come on. You can do it.SCARBOROUGH: And they were doing this in the United States, honey!BRZEZINSKI: Oh. Don’t - SCARBOROUGH: Going to spit out my Wheat Chex! Let me try it again, Willie. BRZEZINSKI: [Inaudible]SCARBOROUGH: Russian actors have circulated narratives about voter fraud resulting from mail-in balloting and called some U.S. primary voting processes, quote, rigged by the Democratic Party. So, this Russian idea of talking about rigged elections. It infected the 2020 campaign. Willie, the one that Donald Trump was running. It's crazy, isn't it, that anybody would use that Russian sort of talking point, that propaganda point about, quote, “rigged elections.”WILLIE GEIST: To hear the president of the United States deliver Vladimir Putin's talking points from the East Room of the White House in prime time was shocking.SCARBOROUGH: Yes!(...)6:18:55 AM EasternBRZEZINSKI: And then a lot of networks chose not to cover it. And if I understand correctly, CBS, because Tony Dokoupil has been kicked around a bit, they did an extensive fact check on the speech, pointing out disinformation. I think the media in some ways did its job here.GEIST: Yeah, I think that's right. Mika. I mean, there's not an obligation on the part of the press to platform just bald-faced lies and amplify them to tens and millions of people in this country. NBC did not take it live. ABC did not take it live. And before Trump supporters throw their outrage, there were speeches, primetime speeches by President Biden and President Obama that the networks decided they didn't need to take live either. There's a precedent for this.But there was a decision made at several networks not to show this stuff, because we heard it all before. We know it's lies. The other approach was the one you touched on, which was CBS before and after gave long, kind of takedowns of what the president said. Even I will say Fox News came out of it, and Sean Hannity was hosting. He was not thrilled by the speech. I think low energy and let's move along was kind of the theme of the night, a quick wrap-up of it -BREZEZINSKI: Yes. Avoid, avoid. GEIST: Not sort of fanning the flames of the claims. Let's turn the corner and get to some other stories. So, and you know, our MS NOW and others, they dipped into it and then came out as soon as the lies started and debunked all of it. And even streaming platforms at NBC News did, did kind of the same thing there. So, yeah, I think that there was a decision made that we're not going to stand by or we're not going to participate in this further campaign by the president to lead up to something else, Sam Stein, which he kind of gave away at the end of the speech, which is here are all these claims that, by the way, are not true, but I'm going to put them out there anyway. And why am I giving this speech in prime time? Because of what I just said: Now we must pass the SAVE Act. So, this is pretext. This is a predicate for what he wants to do. He's been stymied a bit in the Senate.They say they're not going to pass the SAVE Act. So he may find other ways to influence the outcome of the 2026 election on the platform, on the foundation of these lies he told last night.(...)