Outgoing CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell is making the most of her remaining time at the Tiffany Network. Tonight’s final story stood as an ode to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and to her cameo performance in a Broadway play. Watch the full report for yourself below, and try not to be overwhelmed with cringe: CBS EVENING NEWS 12/16/24 6:57 PM NORAH O’DONNELL: For many, serving on the Supreme Court is a dream role, it was for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, but she also had another dream. Broadway.  KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, ET AL: Show me the meaning of being lonely ♪ ♪ is this the feeling I need to walk with ♪♪ O’DONNELL: Jackson made history as the first Supreme Court justice in a Broadway production, when she took the stage Saturday in the musical "And Juliet." I spoke with Justice Jackson earlier this year about her theater ambitions, something she wrote about in her Harvard application.  “As I believe it might help me (quote) to fulfill my fantasy of becoming the first black female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage." KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: Yes. Because I love theater. I mean, I did a lot of theater in college, and there was a time when I thought, “should I go into acting as opposed to law?” but, you know, I stuck with law, and so I thought this is a good way to combine the two. O’DONNELL: Well, the verdict in this landmark case was a standing ovation for Jackson. The play "And Juliet" explores what if Juliet hadn’t ended her life for Romeo, and had been given a second chance at love and life on her terms.  We have a little bit of omissive bias at the very end of the report because O’Donnell doesn't really disclose what the play is all about. But The New York Post does: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson briefly ditched the black robes and drama of the Supreme Court and made history with her Saturday night debut on Broadway in the musical “& Juliet,” a queer reimagining of William Shakespeare’s classic “Romeo & Juliet.” Jackson, who told members of the Senate during her 2022 confirmation that she can’t define what is a woman because she’s not a biologist, portrayed Queen Mab — described as a “she/her” character on a production poster — during her brief Broadway stint on Saturday. Justice Jackson is chiefly known for her unwillingness to define a woman at her Senate confirmation hearings. It is only fitting that she’s now performing in a play featuring sexually confused characters. Of course, this isn’t the first time that O’Donnell gushes over Jackson’s utterances. The last time we covered O’Donnell-Jackson was during their summer interview wherein, among other things, O’Donnell attacked the legitimacy of the Court. The rest of that interview was syrupy sycophancy and an emphasis on Jackson’s “first” status. Here, now, is another “historic first” for O’Donnell to gush over. It never ends!  Jackson was cited as having spoken the most words spoken in a session since 1990, which makes absolute sense now that we know she’s a theater kid. Historic.

The Left was enraged that ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit with Donald Trump by agreeing to donate $15 million to a Trump “presidential foundation and museum” over George Stephanopoulos repeatedly claiming in a March interview that Trump was found “liable for rape.” That's not accurate. But cable "news" partisans shrieked about Trump's "authoritarian playbook." Like suing a media outlet is authoritarian? Stephanopoulos didn’t mention the settlement when he hosted This Week on Sunday. But he suggested to Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) that Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence had a problem. “Tulsi Gabbard has a history with Bashar al-Assad and his regime. She met with Assad, she has said supportive things about him, said he wasn't an enemy of the United States.” Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry also politely met with the murderous Syrian dictator, who was just deposed. But it gets more embarrassing for George. ABC’s Diane Sawyer fawned over Assad in a February 2007 interview: "You like video games?...Do you have an iPod? And you're a country music fan. Faith Hill? Shania Twain?" Sawyer also fawned over Mrs. Assad the next day. So ABC should probably go easy on who was a pushover for the Syrian tyrant. We also discuss how MSNBC loves AOC and how Politico is warning everyone that Kash Patel is the second coming of J. Edgar Hoover, sure to commit "egregious abuses of power." The dominant fiction in today's leftist media is that Biden's Justice Department or FBI are nonpartisan, or nonpolitical. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts: 

Since late January of 2012, the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard has once a week featured a “Mainstream Media Scream” selection in his “Washington Secrets” column. For each pick, usually posted online on Monday, I provide an explanation and recommend a “scream” rating (scale of one to five). This post contains the “Liberal Media Screams” starting in January 2023. > For 2021 and 2022, for all of 2020. For all of 2019. For all of  2018. (Re-named “Liberal Media Scream” as of June 11, 2018.) “Mainstream Media Screams” for: > July-December 2017 posts; January through June 2017; July to December 2016; for January to June 2016; for July to December 2015; for January to June 2015. (2012-2014 are featured on MRC.org: For 2014; for June 17, 2013 through the end of 2013. And for January 31, 2012 through June 11, 2013.) Check Bedard’s “Washington Secrets” blog for the latest choice and his other Washington insider posts. Each week, this page will be updated with Bedard’s latest example of the worst bias of the week. (For more of the worst liberal media bias, browse the Media Research Center's Notable Quotables with compilations of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media.)   ■ New on December 16: Liberal Media Scream: Of course MSNBC defends Stephanopoulos lies See the posting on the Washington Examiner's site where you can watch the video and read Baker's assessment. A week later, Bedard's article will be posted here.   ■ December 9: Liberal Media Scream: PBS TDS blames Trump for Hunter Biden’s pardon (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features tax-dollar-supported PBS behind the latest Trump Derangement Syndrome claim that the incoming president caused President Joe Biden to flip-flop and pardon his son Hunter Biden of felony charges. Sounding more like a practiced Democratic Party spokesman than a journalist, commentator Jonathan Capehart said on PBS NewsHour that Joe Biden had no choice but to pardon his son because President-elect Donald Trump wanted to throw the book at Hunter Biden, who has been caught up in gun and tax cases. He also appeared to blame Vice President Kamala Harris for the pardon, suggesting that her loss cleared the way for Trump to target the younger Biden. Winging it as usual without any evidence, the Washington Post columnist and PBS regular said: “I am almost certain, 99% certain, that President Biden was hoping that Vice President Harris would win and that this would not be an issue.” The president’s pardon has been condemned by many Democrats, and it threatens to ruin what’s left of Biden’s presidential legacy. A handful of defenders, however, are making excuses for Biden’s pardon. Capehart, a contributor to PBS as well as the host of a weekend show on MSNBC and an opinion writer for the Washington Post, on Friday’s PBS NewsHour: HOST GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, in your view, was it justified, and what’s the lasting impact? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, one, yes, it was justified. When the president said that he would not pardon his son, wouldn’t grant clemency, the facts on the ground were completely different. It’s the middle of a presidential campaign. He was the candidate for president, didn’t want to be viewed as interfering. He’s no longer the candidate. His vice president is the presidential nominee. I am almost certain, 99% certain, that President Biden was hoping that Vice President Harris would win and that this would not be an issue. But when the person who won the race won the race by vowing, through a campaign of retribution, revenge, naming the Biden family in general and Hunter Biden, in particular, as someone or groups of people, he wanted to go after if he won election, of course, the president looks at the facts, says I cannot allow that to happen to my son. And I understand the criticisms and the brickbats that the president is taking. But for some Democrats to be complaining about how “you’ve ruined norms” and “you’ve given him an avenue,” have they not been paying attention to who Donald Trump is either during the campaign or during his four years as president the first go-round? And these are the same people who would be yelling at Biden had he not done something and then President Trump took action against Hunter Biden: “Why didn’t you save your son? Why didn’t you help your son when you had the opportunity to do so when you were president?” He’s done it. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explains our pick: “The very definition of rationalizing situational ethics and further proof, if any were needed, that Capehart is more a Democratic Party partisan than any kind of impartial analyst. If a Democrat or liberal does it, Capehart will defend it.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE Screams.   ■ December 2: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough back to attacking Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough back to attacking President-elect Donald Trump, showing he learned “nothing” from his trip to Mar-a-Lago to break bread with the incoming president. Siding with those who criticized his trip to Florida with wife and co-host Mika Brzezinski, Scarborough came out Monday with his guns blazing at two Trump top staff picks, Kash Patel for FBI director and Pete Hegseth for defense secretary. “There are two picks right now that, if you talk to people in Washington, D.C., they will, this morning, tell you two of the most dangerous selections they’ve seen,” Scarborough said. Scarborough and Brzezinski traveled to Florida two weeks ago to “mend fences” with Trump after years of bashing the former president. Once they announced their trip, however, their media friends pummelled the duo, and Scarborough’s monologue on Monday showed whose side he was on. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough on Monday’s Morning Joe: We hear what people talk about flooding the zone and a lot of information coming at you all at once and not being able to sort through things. There are two picks right now that if you talk to people in Washington, D.C., they will, this morning, tell you two of the most dangerous selections they’ve seen. No. 1, Pete Hegseth. Simply because he’s unqualified to run the most complicated and most powerful bureaucracy not only in America but in the world. And No. 2 now, Kash Patel. Kash Patel, of course, is a person who infamously said he was going to jail reporters and journalists and news people who did not go along with the 2020 election conspiracy theory. And we’re going to be talking in a little bit to Elaina Plott Calabro, who wrote a story about six months ago on Kash Patel. Let me just read you just a little bit from that: “When Patel was installed as chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense, just after the 2020 election, Mark Milley, who, of course, was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised him to not break the law. Quote: ‘Life looks really s***ty from behind bars,’ Milley reportedly told Patel. When Trump entertained naming Patel for deputy director of the FBI, Attorney General Bill Barr, again, another Trump loyalist, confronted the White House chief of staff and said, quote: ‘Over my dead body.’ “When in the final weeks of the administration, Trump planned to name Patel deputy director of the CIA, Gina Haspel, the head of the CIA, threatened to resign. Trump relented only after an intervention from Vice President Mike Pence. She goes on to ask: Who is this man, and why did so many top officials fear him?” We will go through it. It’s certainly not because he’s an expert in any of these fields. It’s not even because he’s an ideologue. It’s because he seems, according to this piece and everything we’ve seen, singularly focused on exacting revenge on people who did not carry through on Donald Trump’s threats of retribution. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explains our pick: “So much for Joe Scarborough’s trip to Mar-a-Lago to build a new relationship with the incoming president after years of vicious attacks on him. If Scarborough is just going to continue to channel the deep state’s refusal to accept the right of Trump to staff his administration by trying to impugn those picks, he’s learned nothing about why so many have such contempt for the legacy media.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ November 25: Liberal Media Scream: Axios founder rants ‘Elon Musk is bulls**it’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the co-founder of Axios ranting about billionaire Elon Musk and his comments on X about being part of the news media. “Being a reporter’s hard,” said Jim VandeHei. “Elon Musk sits on Twitter every day, or X today, saying, like, ‘we are the media, you are the media.’ My message to Elon Musk is: Bulls**t. You’re not the media. You having a blue check mark, a Twitter handle, and 300 words of cleverness doesn’t make you a reporter.” VandeHei’s comments came after he accepted the National Press Club’s Fourth Estate Award. Musk has been on X from Mar-a-Lago zinging the media as he prepares to head the Trump-created Department of Government Efficiency. The billionaire’s comments irked many in the media, especially since he owns X, and VandeHei showed that he’s one of those miffed with Musk. The comments were shown on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, which dubbed them “very powerful.” Jim Vandehei at the Fourth Estate Award Gala held Thursday at the National Press Club, as played Monday on Morning Joe: JIM VANDEHEI: I hate this damn debate about, oh, “we don’t need the media.” It is not true … There’s something about freedom, capitalism, the animal spirits of democracy, but at the core of that is maybe transparency, maybe a free press, maybe the ability to do your job without worrying to go to jail, maybe the ability to sit in a war zone and tell people what is actually happening so they’re not just looking at distortion, matters. It matters profoundly. It’s why, it’s not like we just love getting up at 3:00, 4:00 in the morning, doing this every single day, we do it because we love it. We do it because it matters. The work that we do matters. Everything we do is under fire. Elon Musk sits on Twitter every day, or X today, saying like, “We are the media, you are the media.” My message to Elon Musk is: Bulls**t. You’re not the media. You having – [applause] you having a blue check mark, a Twitter handle, and 300 words of cleverness doesn’t make you a reporter any more than me looking at your head and seeing that you have a brain and telling you have an awesome set of tools makes me a damn neurosurgeon. Right? Like what we do, what journalists do, what you did in Mississippi, what Al Jazeera does in the Middle East, you don’t proclaim yourself to be a reporter. Like, that’s nonsense. Like being a reporter’s hard. Really hard. You have to care. You have to do the hard work. You have to get up every single day and say I want to get to the closest approximation of the truth without any fear, without any favoritism. You don’t do that by popping off on Twitter. You don’t do that by having an opinion. You do it by doing the hard work. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. Come on, slow clap, everybody. First of all, I got to say, extraordinary content. It needed to be said. It continues to need to be said when all of the garbage that’s flying around on social media, lying about reporters, lying about the hard work they do, lying about the hard work editors do, lying about everything up and down about not only their alternative set of facts but alternative set of facts about what people like you do. And I love how you connected reporters in Mississippi in the 1960s to reporters fighting for their life to get the story out in the Middle East today. Jim, it was very powerful. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Really good. SCARBOROUGH: Very powerful. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Arrogance combined with obliviousness. In the face of record low trust in the media, instead of some introspection about why the media have lost the public’s trust, VandeHei decided to instead lash out at the competition, a platform which wouldn’t have such relevance if the legacy media weren’t so discredited. It’s as if Ford responded to exploding Pintos by denouncing the gas mileage claims made by GM.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE Screams.   ■ November 18: Liberal Media Scream: ABC’s Raddatz shows why it’s time to boycott networks (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features one example of the media lunacy that has followed the sweeping electoral and popular vote for President-elect Donald Trump despite years of warnings and smears from the resistance media. While most in the Democratic Party are licking their wounds and trying to figure out how they did so poorly against Trump and why they picked the worst candidate around in Vice President Kamala Harris, many liberal TV anchors are still suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome.” Sunday showed them all still at work. On 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley opened with a rant against Trump’s Cabinet picks. And he was preceded by the frenzied Sunday public affairs shows trying to convince the nation that the president-elect was unfit for duty. On Monday, two of those with the worst case of TDS, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, all but admitted their preelection anti-Trump hype on their MSNBC show Morning Joe was a lie when they revealed that they traveled to Mar-a-Lago last week to break bread with Trump. The worst example of the ranting rage on network TV came from ABC’s Martha Raddatz, who opened Sunday’s This Week with a charge that Trump’s picks were “retribution” for those who have wronged him. “The retribution begins,” she declared. From the top of Sunday’s This Week on ABC: MARTHA RADDATZ: The retribution begins. DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT: We’re going to clean out the corrupt, broken, and failing bureaucracies. RADDATZ: The president-elect sparking alarm with controversial Cabinet nominees, including a firebrand Fox TV host to lead the Department of Defense. PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY NOMINEE: I’m straight up just saying, we should not have women in combat roles. RADDATZ: Noted vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for health and human services secretary. TRUMP: He wants to make people healthy. It’s driven him pretty wild over the last number of years. RADDATZ: And ardent Trump loyalist, now former congressman, Matt Gaetz, to run the Justice Department. SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): He’s got a really steep hill to climb to get lots of votes, including mine. RADDATZ: Democratic Sen.-elect Elissa Slotkin responds to the nominations. Plus, former CDC Director Richard Besser, former prosecutor Preet Bharara, and analysis from our powerhouse roundtable. Plus: JOE DEL BOSQUE, CALIFORNIA FARMER: We pay some of the highest wages for farm workers in the nation right here in California, and they won’t come out. RADDATZ: We traveled to California farmland to see what Trump’s massive deportation plans could mean for farmers and the nation’s food supply. Texas Republican Tony Gonzales joins us for reaction. ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, it’s This Week. Here now, Martha Raddatz. RADDATZ: Good morning, and welcome to This Week. Donald Trump is wasting no time naming the team he wants around him in a second term. In rapid-fire fashion, he announced a series of nominees this week to fill the White House and lead key Cabinet departments. Many of them were right by Trump’s side last night to attend a UFC fight at Madison Square Garden in New York. Among them, controversial picks like the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who will lead a new Department of Government Efficiency, an amorphous role aimed at slashing federal spending. While that move raised a lot of intrigue, other picks have raised eyebrows to say the least, and some, outright opposition. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explains our pick: “Less than two weeks after the MAGA agenda won an electoral mandate and showed how the legacy media have lost their influence, Raddatz is still living in a preelection world. Instead of explaining to her viewers what the appeal of Trump’s picks could be, or presenting a balanced take with matching praise and criticism for them, she didn’t even try to hide her disdain for them. And Disney wonders why they’re losing viewers.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE Screams.   ■ November 12: Liberal Media Scream: How dare Trump make demands on Senate, CNN whines (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features CNN struggling to find new ways to attack President-elect Donald Trump. This time, it’s Trump’s pressure on the Senate to OK his Cabinet picks, which are coming fast and furious, without the normal confirmation steps. At CNN, they said it’s just Trump “again bucking norms.” From Sunday’s CNN: ALAYNA TREENE: [President-elect Donald Trump] said, quote: “Republican senators seeking the coveted leadership position in the United States Senate must agree to recess appointments in the Senate, without which, we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner.” The post goes on to describe other things. But I want to explain why this is so important. Essentially, Donald Trump is calling for the shattering of norms. Now what this means, a recess appointment, I know this sounds like we’re getting in the weeds a bit with the Hill lingo. But recesses are normally avoided in Congress. Normally, when they actually go on break, they do something called a pro forma session. Part of that is because if you go to a recess, you actually have to have a vote in the House and the Senate, and Democrats, in this case, giving Republicans control of the Senate come next year, would be able to filibuster. But essentially, to get down to it, to really boil down to what this would mean, is that Donald Trump is trying to find a way and use whoever the next Senate leader — Republican leader — is to try and avoid the confirmation process for his top Cabinet officials. And I remind you, a lot of times when different presidential candidates or people are looking to make these hires and to appoint different people to these different Cabinet roles, a key thing that is always at the top of their minds is whether or not this person can get confirmed in the Senate, if they have a controversial background, if they are more conservative, in this case, if they were Democrats, they’d be maybe too liberal. But really, the Senate is kind of the last line of defense of who the president could put into office with him. And so this would be a huge change. And I will also argue that really this process that Congress has now about avoiding recess appointments in their entirety started back with George W. Bush and has continued since then under the different presidents with Obama and Trump and now Biden. And so, this again would be a huge break from the norms that we currently have. Fred. FREDRICKA WHITFIELD: And again, bucking norms. Jorge Bonilla, a news analyst at NewsBusters, explained our weekly pick: “The Biden administration shattered many norms, whether it was the weaponization of state and federal governments against President-elect Donald Trump, the suppression of President Joe Biden’s physical and mental decline, or the government’s cooking of all sorts of data. Any one of these incidents occurring under a Trump administration would’ve garnered wall-to-wall ‘shattered norms’ coverage. On the contrary, the Biden parade of horribles drew nary a peep. Now, the media go nuts about norms the second a just-reelected Trump talks about staffing his administration via recess appointments.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ November 4: Liberal Media Scream: Gaslighting Politico calls Obama, Harris, and Biden ‘centrists’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the claim by Politico that Democratic leaders considered the most liberal in history are “centrists.” In gaslighting voters, the outlet’s White House correspondent Eugene Daniels said President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, and Vice President Kamala Harris aren’t liberals. Ditto for the Democratic Party and the party’s “base” of black voters, he added. “What it reminds us is that the Democratic Party continues to be a more centrist party, right? When you look at Obama, who, despite what people thought, kind of operated as a centrist, Biden, centrist, Kamala Harris, a centrist,” Daniels said on PBS. Daniels from Friday’s Washington Week with the Atlantic: “What it reminds us is that the Democratic Party continues to be a more centrist party, right? When you look at Obama, who, despite what people thought, kind of operated as a centrist, Biden, centrist, Kamala Harris, a centrist. The base of the Democratic Party continues to be black voters. They are still more centrist and more pragmatic as opposed to ideological. And so the takeover of the Democratic Party, as the Republican Party has found out, it hasn’t happened on the Democratic Party, the same with the Left.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “The party of letting high school boys play on girls sports teams and running an open border is ‘centrist’? Daniels needs to bring a little more skepticism to his journalism. Just because a politician spins themselves as ‘centrist’ does not make them one. Kamala Harris has a long record of far-left policy views that haven’t disappeared just because she is not touting them in this year’s campaign.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE Screams.   ■ October 28: Liberal Media Scream: CBS’s Brennan frets Cheney’s safety if Trump wins (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the Face the Nation host raising concerns that a Trump election will lead to violence against former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney for endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris in her yearlong campaign to stop former President Donald Trump’s comeback. Though it’s Trump who has been the target of two assassination attempts, CBS’s Margaret Brennan asked Cheney on her show on Sunday, “Given how outspoken you have been, are you concerned about your personal security if Donald Trump wins this election, as he well may do?” Fed the softball pitch, Cheney hit it hard: “Trump has ushered violence into our politics in a way that we haven’t seen before.” It was just the latest example of the anti-Trump bias network TV has wallowed in this election year. Earlier on Monday, the Media Research Center, which helps with this weekly feature, issued a report that showed a historic level of bias by CBS, ABC, and NBC. From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: Given how outspoken you have been, are you concerned about your personal security if Donald Trump wins this election, as he well may do? LIZ CHENEY: Look, first of all, I am very confident that Vice President Harris is going to win this election. It’s what we’re seeing all across the country, the kind of absolutely unprecedented coalition that’s coming together to support her, you know, we’re going to run through the tape, and nobody is overconfident here, but I do believe she’s going to be the next president of the United States. And I think that Donald Trump has ushered violence into our politics in a way that we haven’t seen before. And any violence is unacceptable. Certainly, the assassination attempt on the former president was completely unacceptable and obviously should never have happened. But when you have a situation where, you know, Donald Trump suggests that people who disagree with him ought to be put before military tribunals, that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be hanged for treason, and his running mate doubles down on it, that tells you that you’re dealing with a man who doesn’t have any conscience, and the people who worked most closely with him know that. So, I’m confident that he’s going to be defeated next week. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “The reality of political violence in this year’s campaign came from the Left and opponents of Trump, not from him. Brennan seemed to have her own political agenda to try to generate an answer which would demonstrate another reason to vote for Harris: that a Trump win would physically endanger his critics. But not even Cheney, a Trump-hater, would go that far to presume Trump’s supporters are a bunch of violent fanatics who must be feared.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ October 21: Liberal Media Scream: ‘Swamp’ journalists admit cluelessness on Trump and MAGA (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features three of Washington’s prominent political correspondents finally admitting just how clueless they are about former President Donald Trump, whom at least half the nation sees as one of the easiest politicians to understand — and like. We feature the puzzlement of Washington Post journalists Max Boot and Jonathan Capehart and the Atlantic’s Mark Leibovich as they mull Trump’s comeback. “How can we have tens of millions of our fellow citizens think it’s OK to elect this delusional maniac as president of the United States? I, you know, I just don’t get it,” Boot told Capehart, who whined, “It is baffling to me as well.” Mark Leibovich on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday: “I think the larger stain on our history that we’re living through right now is Trump obviously and what he has stood for and what he has gotten away with.” “The idea that Donald Trump has operated within a permission structure of one of our two major parties to a point where there is just a consequence-free environment for him to operate in is one of the most appalling, I think, takeaways from this era. Obviously, one that portends very, very ominously in case he wins because there’s not going to be a check and balance from his own party. They’ll operate from a platform where he can do whatever he wants. But, essentially, I mean, these are people who I think will, hopefully, you know, live under a very, very damning verdict of history.” Max Boot during Friday’s “First Look” show for Washington Post Live “To me, what’s dismaying is not that Trump is denying reality, that he is depicting the rioters and insurrectionists of Jan. 6 as people engaged in a day of love. It’s not that Trump is denying the results of the 2020 election, as is his running mate, J.D. Vance. All of that we’ve come to expect by now. “What is dismaying to me, Jonathan, is that despite all of this, Trump is very close to winning the presidency again. It’s basically a coin-flip election. We don’t know how it’s going to go, but simply the fact that it’s as close as it is right now is, to me, a terrible commentary on America and a very dismaying, very dismaying augury of our future, that so many Americans seem to be so OK with this. I mean, how is this? How can we have tens of millions of our fellow citizens think it’s OK to elect this delusional maniac as president of the United States? I, you know, I just don’t get it.” Jonathan Capehart: “Yeah, it is baffling to me as well.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “What’s ‘dismaying,’ ‘appalling,’ and a ‘terrible commentary’ on the state of American journalism is that two veteran journalists with major media institutions have such disdain for half of their fellow citizens. It also portends a dangerous reaction from the media if Trump does indeed win. Instead of dispassionately reporting on how and why he won, they’ll be condemning as a ‘stain’ on the nation those who voted for him.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE Screams.   ■ October 14: Liberal Media Scream: Vance and Johnson hit media TDS nitpickers (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the escalation of media whining and excuse-making for the problems Vice President Kamala Harris is encountering in her wobbly bid to become president. We feature MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who worried on Meet the Press about black and white men and businesses favoring former President Donald Trump, though she expressed no similar concerns about women favoring Harris in the gender gap. In one segment, she advised Harris to do more interviews to win over more men, though the vice president’s recent media blitz has brought mostly negative reviews. And she said Harris needs to push back on businesses’ view of her as a lightweight. “I think there’s misogynation in all of this, black and white men, big problem. But also, the business world, they don’t think she is serious,” Mitchell said. Mitchell’s comments came during a discussion on NBC’s Meet the Press about how Harris needs to do more media interviews to let people know about her economic policies: “They’ve got to double down on doing more interviews and serious interviews because what I’m hearing from Democratic and Republican businesspeople and a lot of men — and she’s got such a big problem with men. I think there’s an undercount of the Trump vote. I think there’s misogynation in all of this, black and white men, big problem. But also, the business world, they don’t think she is serious. They don’t think she’s a heavyweight. And a lot of this is gender, but she’s got to be more specific about her economic plans.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Of course, Andrea Mitchell attributes the worst of motives, misogyny, for why men favor Trump over Harris but expresses no concern for why women back Harris over Trump. Just like a partisan Democrat would see the world. Which is what the NBC News journalist is.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE Screams.   ■ October 7: Liberal Media Scream: Andrea Mitchell whines men and business supporting Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the escalation of media whining and excuse-making for the problems Vice President Kamala Harris is encountering in her wobbly bid to become president. We feature MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who worried on Meet the Press about black and white men and businesses favoring former President Donald Trump, though she expressed no similar concerns about women favoring Harris in the gender gap. In one segment, she advised Harris to do more interviews to win over more men, though the vice president’s recent media blitz has brought mostly negative reviews. And she said Harris needs to push back on businesses’ view of her as a lightweight. “I think there’s misogynation in all of this, black and white men, big problem. But also, the business world, they don’t think she is serious,” Mitchell said. Mitchell’s comments came during a discussion on NBC’s Meet the Press about how Harris needs to do more media interviews to let people know about her economic policies: “They’ve got to double down on doing more interviews and serious interviews because what I’m hearing from Democratic and Republican businesspeople and a lot of men — and she’s got such a big problem with men. I think there’s an undercount of the Trump vote. I think there’s misogynation in all of this, black and white men, big problem. But also, the business world, they don’t think she is serious. They don’t think she’s a heavyweight. And a lot of this is gender, but she’s got to be more specific about her economic plans.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Of course, Andrea Mitchell attributes the worst of motives, misogyny, for why men favor Trump over Harris but expresses no concern for why women back Harris over Trump. Just like a partisan Democrat would see the world. Which is what the NBC News journalist is.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE Screams   ■ September 30: Liberal Media Scream: Latinos like Trump because they ‘want to be white’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a key MSNBC Latina guest who smeared her fellow Latinos with a racist anti-Trump rant on Sunday. On The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart, NPR’s Maria Hinojosa ripped Latinos for abandoning the Democratic Party. Reacting to a new NBC News/Telemundo poll that found Vice President Kamala Harris losing support from Hispanic voters, Hinojosa said, “Latinos want to be white. They want to be with the cool kids.” The 63-year-old Hispanic journalist apparently isn’t up with what’s cool on social media. From The Sunday Show With Jonathan Capehart on Sunday: JONATHAN CAPEHART: So she has a 14-point lead, but it has been shrinking after each consecutive presidential election from 2016. Why is that? Why is the Democratic share of the Latino vote shrinking? MARIA HINOJOSA: And what I said to you when we asked the question was, Latinos want to be white. They want to be with the cool kids. They want to be — I’m asking Latinos all the time, and they just say, ‘Well … he’s such a good businessman.’ It’s, like, no, he’s not. He had bankruptcies. But they don’t want to be identified with all of those other immigrants that Donald Trump speaks so badly of, including me, as a Mexican immigrant. So they’re, like, ‘We’d rather, let’s be with him.’ But those numbers? They could cost Kamala Harris the election. Everything that I’ve been saying that Latinos could push her over the top, these are the numbers that could also take her down. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Hinojosa reflects the very worst of identity politics. Vote only for liberal Democrats — or you are a race traitor. The fact a solid majority of Hispanics support Kamala Harris isn’t good enough for Hinojosa. Every Latino who dares stray from the party line must be shunned because such betrayal could cost the Democrat the election.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE Screams   ■ September 23: Liberal Media Scream: PBS says Harris a ‘happy warrior’ ready to ‘slap’ Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the latest PBS effort to portray Vice President Kamala Harris as a joyful and happy warrior taking on evil in challenging former President Donald Trump for the presidency. On PBS NewsHour, MSNBC and Washington Post lefty pundit Jonathan Capehart declared Harris as a part of the “culture” willing to fight Trump. “She’s part of what’s driving this culture that I think you said will slap Donald Trump in the face. It’s slapping him in the face now,” Capehart said, adding, “She, in her entire career, has been the happy warrior about helping people and leaving aside the negativity. It just happens to hit at the right person at the right time.” From Friday’s PBS NewsHour, picking up after anchor Geoff Bennett cited David Brooks’s column, “How a Cultural Shift Favors Harris.” GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, that word joy, Kamala Harris, Vice President Harris, when she sat down with the three reporters from the National Association of Black Journalists today [actually on Tuesday], one of them asked her about how she views attacks on her joyful warrior approach. And she defended it. And she said people will try to sometimes use your best asset against you. What do you make of that and this notion that she’s benefitting from a cultural wave? JONATHAN CAPEHART: I don’t think she’s benefitting from a cultural — yes, she is, and I read your column, David. It’s not so much that she’s riding — she’s — like see this wave coming and she’s riding. No, she is part of the culture. And that’s why I think when she became the top of the ticket, everyone marveled at how quickly the light switch flipped. That can — and it happened so organically in a very dramatic fashion. That, to me, says you can’t manufacture that. And she was able to do that because she is the culture. She is part of the culture. She’s part of what’s driving this culture that I think you said will slap Donald Trump in the face. It’s slapping him in the face now, which is why I think he’s so discombobulated. He doesn’t know how to deal with her. I think it’s why the polls are — the momentum is moving in her direction. And to your point about happy warrior, and David is right, this is the way the vice president has always been, which sort of reinforces what you’re saying. It’s not that she has met up with the culture. She, in her entire career, has been the happy warrior about helping people and leaving aside the negativity. It just happens to hit at the right person, at the right time. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “What a joke. Harris ‘is the culture’ and has been the embodiment of ‘the happy warrior about helping people’ for her ‘entire career’? She changes her culture and accent with every crowd she addresses. It must be nice to be a liberal Democrat, where supposed journalists not only endorse the glowingly upbeat imagery you want but celebrate it without any critical thinking over whether it is phony and then promote it as a genuine compelling life story.” Rating: Five out of FIVE screams   ■ September 15: No Liberal Media Scream this week   ■ September 9: Liberal Media Scream: Team Harris calls US ‘incredibly backwards’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a key Team Harris supporter decrying America as “incredibly backwards” for electing only men as president. Trump traitor Alyssa Farah Griffin, the “conservative” on The View, was discussing the debate between her ex-boss, former President Donald Trump, and Vice President Kamala Harris on CNN’s State of the Union when she blasted America. “We’re incredibly backwards as a country that we’ve never had a female president,” she said. The comment clashed with one of the key themes of the Harris campaign: criticizing Trump for claiming that America is in a shambles and spinning backward under the leadership of Harris and President Joe Biden. From Sunday’s State of the Union: ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: And the reality is, you shouldn’t underestimate Donald Trump. He has now done more presidential race — debates, I should say — than anyone in history, and he’s somebody who came up on television. He’s a communicator. He’s somebody who is used to speaking to a mass audience. If he can stay focused and he stays to the core issues: economy, border, it’s a good night for him. But we’ve also seen the world in which he shouts out the Proud Boys, or he talks about Hannibal Lecter, or he gets into name calling. That could go against him. To Kamala Harris, she needs to look presidential. We’re incredibly backwards as a country that we’ve never had a female president. So, for a lot of people seeing somebody up there who’s a woman who might be our first female president, she needs to seem commanding. She cannot get too in the weeds on policy. She needs to talk about it but can’t get sidetracked. Big picture. How will you demonstrably make people’s lives better? How will you turn the economy around? If she can do that and not get rattled by Donald Trump, it’ll be a good night for her. Jorge Bonilla, a news analyst with the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “One can very easily imagine Griffin uttering this same nonsensical hot take on ABC’s The View, with great care so as not to get yelled at by Sunny Hostin and before whatever box-wine-fueled nonsense sputtered by Ana Navarro. Given when a major party first nominated a woman to the top of the ballot, Griffin is calling America ‘backwards’ for committing the sin of electing Donald Trump to the presidency — a presidency that she served. This Trump-deranged nonsense is what passes for ‘analysis’ at CNN.” Rating: Four out of Five SCREAMS.   ■ September 2: No Liberal Media Scream this week   ■ August 26: Liberal Media Scream: ‘CNN’ has become a laugh line (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features talker Bill Maher mocking CNN and its hosts for viewing the lefty cable network as politically centrist, citing unending “gushing” over Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential nomination acceptance speech the night before. “I watched from 8:09 to 8:23. There was just gushing about how great a speech it was,” the talk show host and comedian told CNN host Kaitlan Collins. He said it wasn’t for 15 minutes until “Lonely Scott” Jennings, one of the few conservatives paid by CNN, got a word in. “It was like 5-to-1. It always looks like 5-to-1,” Maher said of how CNN stacks liberals against conservatives. Collins, who a week ago faced laughter from Stephen Colbert’s audience when he called CNN fair, tried to defend the network, but Maher wasn’t hearing it. “It’s, kind of, like, the same as The View. It’s like, it’s almost better to have nobody there like MSNBC,” he dissed. From Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO on Friday: BILL MAHER: You made press because you were on Stephen Colbert’s show, and he said something like you guys at CNN just report the news straight, and the crowd burst into laughter. That tells you a lot, doesn’t it? How do you guys think you are doing in that arena of, like, this is a terribly divided country. We are not only politicized, a lot of people hate the other side. And CNN, in my view, should be the place where both sides can watch. How do you think you’re doing with that? COLLINS: CNN is the place where both sides can watch. And I think, you know, my show is evidence of that. We have lawmakers on from both parties. MAHER: I’m talking about the people on CNN, and I know what the conservative side of America thinks, and I don’t blame them. I watched Kamala’s speech last night. It ended at 8:09, or, I guess, 11:09 in the East. It wasn’t until 11:23 ‘till the one conservative guy, what’s his name? COLLINS: Scott Jennings. MAHER: ‘Lonely Scott,’ I call him. COLLINS: David Urban was there too. MAHER: Wait a second. Wait a second. I watched from 8:09 to 8:23. There was just gushing about how great a speech it was — and I think she did fine. I didn’t think it was as good as they were making it out to be, but if I’m a conservative in America, and I’m watching CNN, just for the straight middle-of-the-road, that’s what I hear for 15 minutes is “it’s great” and then Lonely Scott. When you see — it does look like tokenism. It’s, kind of, like, the same as The View, it’s like, it’s almost better to have nobody there like MSNBC. COLLINS: I think it was a Democratic convention. They turned to Democrats, people like David Axelrod, who ran successful presidential Democratic campaigns first, for their analysis of this, and I don’t think that you can say that CNN is anything but fair. I mean, look at, we covered President Biden’s exit from the race very closely, the pressure on him to get out, and I feel like I could speak with authority on this — I’m from Alabama. I’m from a very red state. I have very conservative family, a lot of them are Trump voters. They watch my show every night, and I think they know that they can trust me, that we call bulls*** on every side, not just whatever leaning our audience may be, and I think that’s something that people want more of is to hear from that. I think Scott’s voice is really important, but I think other voices are important to hear from, and everyone who was speaking last night, it’s not like they were all Democrats. I mean, Dana Bash, Jake Tapper, Abby Philip, all my amazing colleagues giving analysis. MAHER: They come across that way. They came across that way in a moment like that. It was like 5-to-1. It always looks like 5-to-1. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “It’s hard to believe Kaitlan Collins is really that clueless about the ingrained left-wing, anti-conservative agenda of CNN. That a traditionally left-of-center comedian recognizes that reality, to say nothing of an audience in Manhattan laughing at calling CNN objective, should give Collins pause. The fact that it doesn’t shows just how ideologically blind are Collins and her CNN colleagues are. To them, nothing is more important than keeping Donald Trump out of the White House.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE Screams   ■ August 19: Liberal Media Scream: Media now correcting MAGA, not just Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the media’s latest line of attack on former President Donald Trump, MAGA, and anybody who voices support for the GOP presidential nominee. It comes from the weekend public affairs show hosts who apparently feel compelled to have the last word when featuring Trump or a Trump supporter. One offensive pick came from Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan, who is also co-moderating the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate. She gratuitously hit Trump after he called Vice President Kamala Harris’s plan for price controls “communist.” Brennan promised: “We’ll tell you why that is wrong.” But after a break, she never told her viewers what was false or wrong about the Trump quote or even prompted any guest to correct Trump. Then there was Martha Raddatz, hosting ABC’s This Week. Not only did she open the show with a cheer for Harris, but in reporting shown later, she featured a black woman who said she was leaning toward voting for Trump. “Trump’s rhetoric has clearly had an effect on her in an astonishing way,” said Raddatz, whose fact-checking about race didn’t sit well with the black woman. “There was no convincing her otherwise,” she said. From the top of Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m Margaret Brennan in Washington, and this week on Face the Nation, Democrats head to their convention in Chicago as inflation cools and the political back-and-forth over economic policies intensifies. With the presidential contest lineup set to be formally locked in this week, both sides turn their attention to issue No. 1 on the minds of the voters: the economy and inflation. KAMALA HARRIS: I will go after the bad actors, and I will work to pass the first-ever federal ban on price-gauging [sic] on food. DONALD TRUMP: A lot of people are very devastated by what’s happened with inflation and all of the other things. But they say it’s the most important subject. I’m not sure it is. But they say it’s the most important — inflation is the most important, but that’s part of economy. BRENNAN: The former president’s prescription is twofold. TRUMP: Vote Trump and your incomes will soar. BRENNAN: And a new line of false attack on Vice President Harris. TRUMP: Kamala went full communist. You heard that? She went full communist. She wants to destroy our country after causing catastrophic inflation. BRENNAN: We’ll tell you why that’s wrong and how the voters see the candidates’ handling of the economy in our new CBS News poll. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Welcome to the world of establishment media playing speech police, deciding whose rhetoric is so over the line that their delicate viewers must be warned that it is ‘false’ and/or ‘wrong’ without any subsequent justification offered for the effort to discredit the candidate. I await her equal vigilance with Kamala Harris or Tim Walz claims about how the ‘fascist’ Trump will ‘end democracy,’ ‘destroy NATO’ or ‘cut’ Social Security.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE Screams   ■ August 12: Liberal Media Scream: PBS anchor falsely claims ‘no evidence’ of Walz’s stolen valor (Washington Examiner post) Imagine if a Republican military hero, say, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), lied about the high points of his career in the U.S. Marine Corps while running for vice president. The media would be looking at every word he spoke on his career and displaying his misstatements and lies on the front pages of every newspaper. But with Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN), the Democratic vice presidential pick, the media have decided to look past his long list of fake claims about serving in “war” and Afghanistan while in the National Guard. What’s more, some even claim that there is no evidence of his fabrications. This week’s Liberal Media Scream features PBS New Hour anchor Amna Nawaz in the no-evidence camp. On Friday, for example, she said Vance has “no evidence” of his claims against Walz despite nonstop postings by amateur fact-checkers on social media. She said, “This is so reminiscent of that swiftboating attack on John Kerry back in 2004,” noting that former President Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Chris LaCivita, was behind the swiftboat attacks. She asked, “Why run with these attacks when there’s no evidence for what they’re saying right now?” Guest Eliana Johnson, editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon, countered, “There’s no question Tim Walz has padded and inflated his resume.” To which Nawaz demanded: “In what way specifically?” From Friday’s PBS News Hour, in which Johnson was joined by Jonathan Capehart, associate editor of the Washington Post: AMNA NAWAZ: While we’ve seen Mr. Trump continue with personal attacks and kind of veering way off message, we’ve also seen from Sen. Vance focusing now on Tim Walz’s military career. This is a new line of attack we’ve seen open up from Republicans. We know Mr. Walz served in the Army National Guard for 24 years before retiring. And we’ve heard Vance attack him in this way from time to time. SEN. J.D. VANCE: I did it honorably, and I’m very proud of my service. When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him. AMNA NAWAZ: Eliana, this is so reminiscent of that swiftboating attack on John Kerry back in 2004. We know the same man is behind it. He’s running the Trump campaign now, Chris LaCivita. Why run with these attacks when there’s no evidence for what they’re saying right now? ELIANA JOHNSON: Well, I do think there’s some evidence for what they’re saying, but let’s look at it in two parts. One is the issue on the merits, where I think there’s no question Tim Walz has padded and inflated his resume. And the second is his military resume. NAWAZ: In what way specifically? JOHNSON: Well, J.D. Vance mentioned that the timing of his retirement is suspect, and I think it would take a little bit longer to talk about the timeline of that. But the — NAWAZ: He’s alleging that he retired because his unit was being deployed. JOHNSON: Right. He knew that they were going to be called up. He had gotten a warning that they were going to be called up, and he said in a press release for his campaign, if called up, I have a duty to serve. He didn’t do that. It’s clear he has — he’s inflated this, and he’s made it a part of his biography. By the way, this has been an issue in every single one of Walz’s campaigns. But, separately, I think there’s a question of how significant is this going to be down the road? You mentioned the swiftboat veterans. Those attacks were effective, but they were levied against the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, John Kerry, back in 2004 — NAWAZ: They were also discredited. JOHNSON: — which is, which is different. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Nawaz illustrates what is so wrong with the modern media in how they reflexively take sides at the very moment they think they are acting as tough journalists getting at the truth. Instead of pursuing those in the Harris-Walz camp to determine the truth about Walz’s military record, she presumes the Republicans are in the wrong and so their supposedly false claims must be discredited. It proves which side of the political divide she sits.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE Screams   ■ August 5: Liberal Media Scream: ABC’s Rachel Scott doubles down on Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features ABC’s Rachel Scott, fresh from zinging former President Donald Trump at a black media convention, whacking him again while discussing campaign debates on the network’s Sunday public affairs show, This Week. Participating in a panel discussion, Scott praised Vice President Kamala Harris’s “nuance” on her mixed-race heritage. “It has been really notable for us reporters who have picked up on the nuance about how she has responded to some of these attacks questioning her racial identity,” she said. Scott was criticized by Trump when she opened a Q&A at the National Association of Black Journalists convention by questioning his past comments on black people and why they should support him. An irked Trump shot back, “I think it’s a very nasty question.” On This Week, she channeled a Harris campaign talking point as she fancied a Harris-Trump debate: “And imagine that on the debate stage where you have a prosecutor possibly facing off against someone who has just been convicted.” From Sunday’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I was struck, Rachel, in the vice president’s response to what happened at your interview. She seemed to be aware of what Jonathan Martin is talking about. Don’t make this back about her after he gives those comments. RACHEL SCOTT: And it has been really notable for us reporters who have picked up on the nuance about how she has responded to some of these attacks questioning her racial identity. She is not going there, and Democrats say, “Look, she knows who she is.” She identifies as a black and Asian woman. Why does she have to go out there and respond in that sort of way? What she is doing is putting it back on Donald Trump and Republicans, saying they’re dividing, and then pivoting back to the issues. …. SUSAN PAGE, USA TODAY: I moderated the last debate she did in 2020, the vice presidential debate. She is a good debater. She is confident. She uses a little humor. She made Mike Pence be quiet, which is something I struggled to do, and she came across as a prosecutor, and that is a good message for her. STEPHANOPOULOS: That seems to be her sweet spot. SCOTT: And imagine that on the debate stage where you have a prosecutor possibly facing off against someone who has just been convicted, right? And that’s the sort of image that, of course, Democrats are hoping that they can actually have on the debate stage. But yes, and thinking back to her taking on President Biden when they were running against each other in the Democratic primary, Democrats see her as someone who can thrive potentially on the debate stage. The question is, does it actually happen? Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Scott seems near-giddy over Harris, acting more as a Kamala Whisperer than as any kind of independent journalist. She may couch her ‘reporting’ by citing ‘what Democrats are hoping,’ but it’s clear she’s hoping for the same thing: eagerly anticipating ‘the prosecutor versus the felon’ debate followed by a Harris election victory.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS   ■ July 29: Liberal Media Scream: CNN spins Biden as martyr for stopping Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the latest spin from CNN that President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of his reelection race guarantees the end of President Donald Trump too. Fareed Zakaria offered this Sunday on his “My Take” commentary: “The final legacy of Biden is that he has returned the presidency to an office of sanity, decency, and dignity, ushering out the dangerous demagoguery and anti-democratic rhetoric and behavior that preceded him. But for that legacy to endure, and for Biden’s term not to simply be a moment in time, he needed to ensure that the United States actually closes the chapter on Donald Trump.” Perspective didn’t matter. In fact, Biden’s “friends” pushed him out because of his poor polling, and while Vice President Kamala Harris has seen a jump in interest in her, she is leading Trump in only two of eight national polls taken after Biden’s July 21 announcement, and those leads are of 1% and 2%. Zakaria on Sunday’s Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN: “The final legacy of Biden is that he has returned the presidency to an office of sanity, decency, and dignity, ushering out the dangerous demagoguery and anti-democratic rhetoric and behavior that preceded him. But for that legacy to endure, and for Biden’s term not to simply be a moment in time, he needed to ensure that the United States actually closes the chapter on Donald Trump. “And to help make this more likely, he made the painful decision not to run for the presidency, which will also earn him a special place in the history books. Joe Biden has felt that he has been underestimated all his life. Judging by his tenure in the White House, he’s right.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “So much for jaded journalists holding to account those in power. When it comes to keeping Trump from returning to the White House, much of the media eagerly buy into advancing the party line on how Biden made a ‘painful decision’ to put the nation ahead of himself when, in fact, a skeptical journalist would realize it was nothing more than Biden applying grandiose spin, which Zakaria ate up, to cover for an impending humiliating defeat.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ July 22: Liberal Media Scream: NBC insider says Biden as ‘great’ as Washington (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the race among Washington journalists to erase their coverage of President Joe Biden as a senile loser and raise him to sainthood status. The best example came from a former Newsweek reporter and NBC News contributor who not only compared Biden to former President George Washington but also to the Roman statesman Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, considered the figure of virtue for leaving his position of power to return to farming. “I also was thinking of Joe Biden’s legacy,” Jonathan Alter said. “He will be remembered as a great president. He will be mentioned in the same sentence as George Washington. Why? Because selflessly leaving power, and the circumstances of him clinging to it in the last three weeks will be forgotten, the basic decision to leave power, which started with Cincinnatus in 439 B.C.,” he added. From Monday’s Morning News NOW on the NBC News NOW streaming channel: CO-ANCHOR JOE FRYER: You love history so much. What was going through your mind yesterday when this decision came down? How do you rank this in the 21st century as far as important stories? JONATHAN ALTER: Extremely important, extremely unusual in American politics. The last time it happened was in 1968 when incumbent President Lyndon Johnson stepped away. I also was thinking of Joe Biden’s legacy. He will be remembered as a great president. He will be mentioned in the same sentence as George Washington. Why? Because selflessly leaving power, and the circumstances of him clinging to it in the last three weeks will be forgotten, the basic decision to leave power, which started with Cincinnatus in 439 B.C. And then George Washington picks up from Cincinnatus. The city, of course, is named for this. Why Cincinnatus? Why is he still so well known? Because this selfless act — of leaving power, which in human history is an extremely rare thing to do — elevates you. And in combination with a record of genuine achievement, it will put Joe Biden in very, very good stead in terms of history.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “What’s next? Comparing Biden to Jesus? Only a matter of time, I suspect, at least in the world of MSNBC and NBC News. Apparently, Alter is so enthralled with Biden that he can’t see a difference between the widely admired George Washington, who rejected the public groundswell urging him to become the king, and the unpopular Biden who only stepped away when faced with the near certainty of an embarrassing defeat bringing down him and much of his party.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ July 15: Liberal Media Scream: Anger over blood-splattered ‘fight, fight, fight’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the immediately iconic photos of a blood-splattered former President Donald Trump urging supporters to “fight, fight, fight” to restore him to the White House and the media’s queasiness with and misinterpretation of his message. For the president and his supporters, the message was clear: Stand up to the attacks and build a unified base to win. But to many in the media, they saw it as a disturbing, angry message of revenge. At CNN, for example, Jamie Gangel took offense to Trump, who survived the assassination attempt by millimeters. “I think what we’re hearing from people is that’s not the message that we want to be sending right now. We want to tamp it down,” she said. This is what Gangel said on CNN Saturday night, about four hours after the shooting: “I do want to say there was one thing that, when I watched the tape, I found odd because of all of the heated rhetoric. And that is that after he was hit, former President Trump got up and said, ‘Fight, fight, fight.’ I think what we’re hearing from people is that’s not the message that we want to be sending right now. We want to tamp it down.” Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “I’m sorry, not, that Trump didn’t display the correct decorum to satisfy Gangel a minute after getting shot and barely escaping alive in an assassination attempt. That Gangel’s first instinct was to attack the words of the victim shows the distorted worldview of CNN, where Trump and MAGA are the threats to democracy which must be suppressed.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ July 8: Liberal Media Scream: Welker pushes Meet the Press even further left (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the latest demonstration that NBC Meet the Press host Kristen Welker, in the anchor seat for less than a year, has pushed the show further left than Chuck Todd left it. This Sunday, it was Welker using her trademark practice of beating her point into the ground in demanding another Republican to “accept the election results,” which she obviously believes will show President Joe Biden reelected. Her target was Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), on former President Donald Trump’s short list of running mates. “Can you say unequivocally, unequivocally here and now, that you will accept the results of the 2024 election no matter what they are?” she asked, ignoring warnings from the FBI about election hanky panky and some of the problems found in the

With Bashar al-Assad ousted from Syria and the Syrian military in shambles, Israel took the opportunity to set back any possible hostile threat from any new government that could rise up to fill the void by striking air defense sites and weapon/equipment caches. But according to the tone of foreign correspondent Imtiaz Tyab on Monday’s CBS Mornings, Israel might as well be blowing up residential buildings and minivans. He even mourned for a Russian-made Hind attack helicopter because it could be on a target list and destroyed soon (pictured above). The pearl clutching nature of the report was obvious with co-anchor Nate Burleson’s opening spiel for the segment: The Israeli military is continuing its barrage of Syrian military targets after the country's long-time dictator was ousted. Israel has carried out hundreds of strikes on weapons stockpiles, it says, to keep them out of the hands of extremists. Israeli troops are occupying territory across the border in Syria. As if he was walking through a residential neighborhood, Tyab showed video of him exploring “a Syrian military air base on the outskirts of the capital Damascus” and looking on in horror at “the devastation caused by Israeli air strikes.” He balked at Israel’s state mission and the idea that the Islamist rebels who toppled Assad were “extremists” in any way. “All part of efforts, Israel says, to destroy weapons and hardware before it can fall in the hands of, quote, ‘extremists,’” he scoffed.     Seemingly upset that the Syrian military wasn’t in a position to fight back, Tyab huffed: “Years of corruption hollowed out the war-scared nation’s the armed forces contributing to his regime's collapse.” That was immediately followed up with Tyab’s mourning for the possible destruction of the Hind attack helicopter. He might as well have been Sarah McLauchlan singing “In the arms of the angel” in an ACPCA commercial as he spoke about how much potential the aircraft still had despite its “neglected” state: Now this is a Syrian military attack helicopter. It may be old, it may be a bit neglected, but it is still operational. In fact, it also still has ammunition, making it a prime target for Israel strikes. How much to adopt it into a new forever home? Throughout his report, Tyab also falsely referred to a region of northern Israel as “the occupied Golan Heights;” a term used by anti-Semitic terrorists: The lightning-fast takeover of Syria one week ago by Hayat Tahir al Sham rebels has also seen Israeli forces carry out a land incursion that stretches past the occupied Golan heights into a previously demilitarized buffer zone. (…) And Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has also approved a plan to effectively double the Israeli population of the occupied Golan heights, a territory taken from Syria over 50 years ago. But in a statement, Netanyahu insisted that he did not want a conflict with Syria. The Golan Heights became a part of Israel after Syria chose to join a multi-nation coalition in 1967 with the goal of wiping out the Jewish state. That coalition lost the Six-Day War and Israel took over that territory. But the facts didn’t matter to Tyab. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Mornings December 16, 2024 7:08:35 a.m. Eastern NATE BURLESON: The Israeli military is continuing its barrage of Syrian military targets after the country's long-time dictator was ousted. Israel has carried out hundreds of strikes on weapons stockpiles, it says, to keep them out of the hands of extremists. Israeli troops are occupying territory across the border in Syria. Imtiaz Tyab reports from a Syrian military base hit by Israeli attacks. [Cuts to video] IMTIAZ TYAB: As we drove through a Syrian military air base on the outskirts of the capital Damascus, the devastation caused by Israeli air strikes was clear. All part of efforts, Israel says, to destroy weapons and hardware before it can fall in the hands of, quote, “extremists.” What the Israeli military has been targeting, Syrian military infrastructure like this, recent relentlessly, and the damage is just breathtaking. Like this massive strike overnight in the coastal city of Tartus. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Israeli war planes destroyed Syrian air defense units and other naval and military assets. The lightning-fast takeover of Syria one week ago by Hayat Tahir al Sham rebels has also seen Israeli forces carry out a land incursion that stretches past the occupied Golan heights into a previously demilitarized buffer zone. Ahmad al-Sharaa, Syria's de facto new leader has criticized what he described as Israel's, quote, “uncalculated military adventures.” And said he was more interested in state building than opening another conflict. The targeting of Syria's military sites has also revealed the deep neglect by Bashar al Assad. Years of corruption hollowed out the war-scared nation’s the armed forces contributing to his regime's collapse. Now this is a Syrian military attack helicopter. It may be old, it may be a bit neglected, but it is still operational. In fact, it also still has ammunition, making it a prime target for Israel strikes. Strikes which show no sign of slowing down. [Cuts back to live] And Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has also approved a plan to effectively double the Israeli population of the occupied Golan heights, a territory taken from Syria over 50 years ago. But in a statement, Netanyahu insisted that he did not want a conflict with Syria. Nate. BURLESON: Imtiaz Tyab in Syria, thank you.

On Monday afternoon’s CNN News Central, former deputy FBI director, far-left CNN senior law enforcement analyst Andrew McCabe declared “the context of gun ownership” has to undergo substantial changes, regardless of whether it’s “relevant” to the circumstances of a shooting at Madison, Wisconsin Christian school. McCabe opened the door in response to a question from co-host Boris Sanchez about whether he agreed with Madison’s police chief insisting security measures like metal detectors shouldn’t exist: CNN’s Andrew McCabe on the Madison Christian school shooting: “Do we want our kids to have to go to school in lockdown compounds that look more like jails...No security measure is perfect...I think we need to be realistic about what we can expect from those security measures, but… pic.twitter.com/W1SbmK3KVh — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 16, 2024 Keilar followed up with an emotional plea to McCabe on the heels of his declaration that “we need to be doing something differently,” asking if there’s “anything” that could be done to “tackl[e] this problem” of guns and the complacency of the American people. McCabe declared the country’s going “nowhere because it keeps happening” and “[w]e know it's going to happen again...in the near future” and he “can guarantee you that and every time it happens, we do just about nothing.” As for what, the anti-Trump and Deep State character said Americans should “support and enact legislation that changes the — the — the context of gun ownership in this country and emphasizes gun safety and responsibility with the firearms that you own and keeping them out of the hands of children and doing — and really vigorous, consistent background checks across the country.” That sounds pretty serious! Care to elaborate, Andy?     Unfortunately, it was little more than boilerplate liberal talking points, arguing Congress should “stop selling people — stop — you — eliminate the ability to purchase guns without a background check.” He then admitted “we don't know if any of those factors were relevant in this shooting, but” it doesn’t particularly matter since “we're talking about a big problem here” and such changes he referenced “impact the level of gun violence in our country.” McCabe went on about the need for “greater gun safety” and even seemed to accuse too many Americans of finding school shooting palatable:  [W]e do not have the political will to improve this situation. We don't have that and so, as — as citizens, it can be frustrating because you like, what can I do? Well, what you can do is start supporting people who think the same way that you do about a need for greater gun safety, a need for greater safety in our schools, and are — are committed to the idea of reducing gun violence, but until we do that, as long as we keep sending the same sort of political calculations to Congress every year, we can't really — we're not — we're not really ever going to change the fundamentals around this and those are those are the only things that we can do in a free, democratic society. We can enact laws and try to make things better for everyone or we can just keep shaking our heads, turning off the television and waiting for the next mass shooting. To see the relevant CNN transcript from December 16, click “expand.” CNN News Central December 16, 2024 2:37 p.m. Eastern BORIS SANCHEZ: Andy, what do you make of — of that perspective? You know, the idea that metal detectors don't belong in schools, irrespective of how effective they might be at preventing something like this from being carried out. ANDREW MCCABE: You know, Boris, there's always — communities have vigorous conversations around — adding safety measures to schools. There's really no limit to the number of things you could do. You're limited only by budget and creativity, but increased door locks, greater surveillance, really monitoring the perimeter with 000 with human beings, security specialists, be they law enforcement or private contractors, metal detectors, massive fences. These are all things we can do. But I think what the chief is alluding to there is, is that what we want? Do we want our kids to have to go to school in lockdown compounds that look more like jails than they do elementary schools? And so, I think, obviously, something that Madison will — will struggle with for some time going forward, trying to figure out what the appropriate level of security measures are. No security measure is perfect. Sandy Hook Elementary, 12 years and a few days ago today — had just recently imposed new security restrictions on access to the school. All the doors remained locked during the day. There was video surveillance outside the front entrance to the door, and you had to be, like, recognized by video or have ID or something like that before they would let you in. Adam Lanza simply took out an AR-15 and shot his way through the glass door and entered. So there — you know, I think we need to be realistic about what we can expect from those security measures, but clearly — you know, the profusion of weapons in schools, in places of learning, places that are supposed to be safe spaces kind of screams out at this point that we need to be doing something differently. BRIANNA KEILAR: Yeah. And I wonder what you think about whether we are or not, Andy, because I think of the conversations that I know we're all going to have, people watching this program right now are going to have with their friends. Some of them are going to say, you know what? I had to turn off the TV. I couldn't even watch. I didn't see the point. It just upsets me so much. Some are going to say I couldn't turn away. It upsets me so much. And yet, I feel like almost all of them will say, I don't feel like there's anything I can do about it. And is there ---- is there anything — where are we as a nation at tackling this problem? MCCABE: Well, Brianna, we’re nowhere. We’re nowhere because it keeps happening. We know it's going to happen again. It's happening today. It's going to happen again in the near future. I can guarantee you that and every time it happens, we do just about nothing. That doesn't mean there aren't things we can't do. We could do things. We could — we could support and enact legislation that changes the — the — the context of gun ownership in this country and emphasizes gun safety and responsibility with the firearms that you own and keeping them out of the hands of children and doing — and really vigorous, consistent background checks across the country. We could stop selling people — stop — you — eliminate the ability to purchase guns without a background check. Now, we don't know if any of those factors were relevant in this shooting, but we're talking about a big problem here — right — that these are the things that impact the level of gun violence in our country, but the fact is, we do not have the political will to improve this situation. We don't have that and so, as — as citizens, it can be frustrating because you like, what can I do? Well, what you can do is start supporting people who think the same way that you do about a need for greater gun safety, a need for greater safety in our schools, and are — are committed to the idea of reducing gun violence, but until we do that, as long as we keep sending the same sort of political calculations to Congress every year, we can't really — we're not — we're not really ever going to change the fundamentals around this and those are those are the only things that we can do in a free, democratic society. We can enact laws and try to make things better for everyone or we can just keep shaking our heads, turning off the television and waiting for the next mass shooting. SANCHEZ: Andrew McCabe, appreciate the perspective. As always, thanks so much for being with us again.