In the wake of Iranian Supreme Leader Aylatollah Khamenei coming down with a killer headache after getting a U.S. warhead on his forehead, on Saturday, The Washington Post published one of their infamous glowing remembrances of Islamic terrorists. The paper fondly remembered the brutal Islamic dictator as a “avuncular figure” with an “easy smile” and love for “Persian poetry.” Readers might remember when The Post fluffed up the former leader of ISIS as an “austere religious scholar”; well, they back at it again with Khamenei in their obituary titled: “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, is dead at 86.” The sub-headline brushed over Khamenei’s authoritarian rule: “He played a behind-the-scenes role in Iran’s Islamic revolution, served as president in the 1980s and dominated the country for more than three decades.” “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Shiite Muslim cleric who played a behind-the-scenes role in Iran’s Islamic revolution, served two terms as president in the 1980s and dominated the country for more than three decades as supreme leader, was killed Saturday as Israel and the United States launched a joint attack on Iran. He was 86,” wrote William Branigin. After noting the recent protests and the deadly crackdowns by the regime, The Post aided Khamenei’s framing that Trump was responsible for the death of the protesters: He had previously called on Iranians to rise up and pledged U.S. backing after widespread anti-government demonstrations broke out in December. (…) Security forces responded by launching a bloody crackdown, killing more than 6,800 protesters and detaining tens of thousands. Ayatollah Khamenei blamed the carnage on Trump, denouncing him as a “criminal” who “openly encouraged” the protesters by promising U.S. military support. Branigin waxed poetic about the brutal dictator by complimenting his smile and uncle like appearance and ridiculously pushed a claim that he was a secret moderate: With his bushy white beard and easy smile, Ayatollah Khamenei cut a more avuncular figure in public than his perpetually scowling but much more revered mentor, and he was known to be fond of Persian poetry and classic Western novels, especially Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables.” (…) Some Iranians who knew Ayatollah Khamenei before he became supreme leader described him as a “closet moderate,” Karim Sadjadpour, a leading researcher on Iran with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in a 2008 study. The Post seemed to take Khamenei at his word that he didn’t want nuclear weapons: Ayatollah Khamenei embraced nuclear energy while insisting that Iran would not seek nuclear weapons, which he declared to be forbidden by Islam. But he adamantly refused to give up Iran’s uranium-enrichment program, which he regarded as a hallmark of scientific prowess, independence and national pride. The “democracy dies in darkness” paper also lashed out at Trump for giving Khamenei ammunition to dismiss democracy: After Trump lost the 2020 election, Ayatollah Khamenei said its chaotic aftermath, marked by Trump’s baseless fraud claims, illustrated “the ugly face of liberal democracy” in the United States and made clear the country’s “definite political, civil [and] moral decline.” On the Iran-Iraq War, Branigin touted: “Ayatollah Khamenei helped guide the country through the brutal Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.”  Of course, he omitted all mention of Iran giving children plastic “keys to paradise” and sending them into Saddam Hussein’s minefields and poison gas. As for The New York Times’ obituary for Khamenei, their language was rightly critical of the brutal leader throughout. Although, their headline had caused many to believe otherwise: “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Hard-Line Cleric Who Made Iran a Regional Power, Is Dead at 86.”

After being deprived of its federal funding by Republicans, it's only natural that NPR is going to sound especially bitter about President Trump engaging in what they claim is "media censorship." The ruse here is that Stephen Colbert was somehow unable to put leftist Democrat James Talarico on his Late Show because of Trump. But the Trump administration didn't stop it. CBS's lawyers warned him it could be an "equal time" violation.  We know what happened next -- massive YouTube views for Colbert and Talarico, leading to millions of dollars in donations to Talarico's Senate campaign against Rep. Jasmine Crockett -- who could ask for "equal time." On Wednesday's edition of The NPR Politics Podcast, they turned to NPR media reporter David Folkenflik to warn about FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and his expressed aim to investigate "equal time" on remarkably one-sided shows like Colbert's. The headline for this episode:  Is the FCC 'equal time' rule leading to media censorship — and self-censorship? Get a load of how vaguely Folkenflik defines the issue with Carr and his statement about Jimmy Kimmel:  FOLKENFLIK: Last fall, he essentially, you know, did an impression of a mafioso, as Senator Ted Cruz put it, by saying we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way after Jimmy Kimmel made some remarks that offended the president's supporters in the wake of the killing of Charlie Kirk. And Disney took him off the air for some days after two major owners of local TV stations that have ABC affiliates, you know, said that they were going to pull that show from their airwaves. Some people said something. Jimmy Kimmel's "remarks" were lying about Charlie Kirk's killer being a "MAGA" bro, the opposite of the truth, hence they "offended" Trump fans. Folkenflik channeled the Left, that "some of the critics are saying that they're actually self-censoring" because of Trump and Carr. Naturally, like other liberals, NPR had to talk about conservative talk-radio shows would fail the "equal time" rules: MILES PARKS: But, I mean, it feels worth noting that talk radio, which is also governed by the FCC, routinely, I mean, you hear talk radio show hosts interview candidates without the same level of scrutiny. So what am I missing here? FOLKENFLIK: Well, I think at the moment, it's fair to say what we're all missing is consistency in Chairman Carr's application of where he's interested in going, what he wants to regulate, where he'd like to have a heavy hand, the easy way or the hard way, right? He's shown no interest publicly in wading into refereeing whether or not nationally syndicated shows like Sean Hannity's or local talk radio show hosts, which significantly skew to the right, should equally be scrutinized or regulated or forced to give equal time, given the amount of interviews that they give to favored candidates. Folkenflik said the goal here is that "you would see a tampening down on certain kinds of conversations that are critical of the president, which, of course, in many ways is the desired outcome here." NPR political editor Domenico Montanaro interjected: "Yeah, and it's not really about fairness. It seems to be about Trump and what he wants and what conservatives are looking at here. There certainly is this inconsistency that David's talking about." There's an enormous hole in NPR's logic here. Because NPR is a news/talk network from coast to coast, and do they meet "equal time" rules? Our study of their badly-named All Things Considered evening newscast found liberals were interviewed more often conservatives by 53 to 3.  Our study found NPR's Fresh Air interviewed only liberal journalists, and no conservatives. They're "not really about fairness." Conservative radio hosts would be glad to put some Democrats on their shows for equal time, but how likely is it that the Democrats would accept?! Wishful thinking followed. Parks talked up if they were any way that Trump's and Carr's moves could backfire with the public. MONTANARO: Look, if there's a word that's landed Trump in political hot water in this first year and made him unpopular with independents and persuadable voters, it's overreach. There's a risk here in looking like the very thing that his critics are accusing him of being - you know, the idea of autocracy and backsliding and cracking down on what journalists and artists are able to do. And I think that we're seeing this sort of tension that has risen up. And that's where the backfiring can kind of come in for Trump and Republicans if they're viewed as pushing too hard to suppress speech. When 99 percent of Colbert's political guests are liberals, who looks like an autocracy?

As NewsBusters was first to report last November, Navy veteran Zachary Young filed an appeal for his $453 million defamation suit against the Associated Press. Three months later and both sides have submitted their arguments to Florida’s First District Court of Appeals as they await a date for their oral arguments. In the initial appeal Young stuck to his allegations that the AP defamed him by using the term “smuggle” to describe his operations to rescue people from Afghanistan during the collapse; continuing to point out that AP Style Guide gives a negative definition to the word: AP’s statement that “Young’s business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan” expressly accused Appellants of the crime of human smuggling and is classic defamation per se. AP further defamed Young by implication by creating the false impression that regardless of who funded Young’s rescue operations, Young was engaged in human smuggling. To the extent AP argued a different interpretation, defamatory meaning became an issue of fact for the jury. He also accused the court of “erroneously granting” the motion and denying Young an opportunity for punitive damages, and taking direct aim at Judge Willaim Henry’s language: The court wove a theme throughout the order that this case was a bad “sequel” to the CNN case that “should not have been made,” a “money grab,” and the “smuggling people” charge as innocuous as sneaking “candy” “into a movie theater.” The court’s irreverence and lack of judicial decorum reveal bias. Language like that was why Young was requesting a new judge to be assigned to the on remand. In the AP’s Answer Brief (filed on January 29, 2026), their lead attorney Charles Tobin, one of the same lawyers who represented CNN in Young’s defamation case against them, defended the use of “smuggle” to the court using Young’s testimony from the CNN trial: In so holding, the court highlighted Young’s trial testimony in which, in describing “how evacuation services were performed in Afghanistan,” he emphasized that getting people out of the country required covert activity and furtive measures to avoid detection by the Taliban. The court explained that, “[t]o the average reader,” Young’s descriptions of what getting Afghans out of the country entailed could be fairly “summarized with the eight-word phrase, ‘Young’s business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan,’” especially “when put in the context of the proceeding sentences” from the Article “that describe[d] how Young helped endangered and desperate Afghans escape the Taliban.” The AP’s filing tried to play games with their Stylebook’s negative definition of “smuggle”: …the AP Stylebook Young references is not evidence that The AP intended “smuggle” in this context to convey criminal wrongdoing. The Stylebook does not address the definition of the single word “smuggling” in isolation. Instead, the terms referenced in the Stylebook are “human smuggling” and “people smuggling,” which The AP did not use. Likewise, that The AP has, in other articles, used “smuggle” or “smuggling” with specific reference to criminal offenses is not evidence it meant to do so here. In fact, those other articles prove The AP’s overarching point: they conveyed criminality not solely because they used the word “smuggle” or “smuggling,” but because the broader context of the article made plain that the articles were specifically about the crime of smuggling. As would be expected, the AP touted Judge Henry’s depiction of the case when he threw it out: “The court then explained that, this time, Young’s claims were without legal basis, likening Young’s second lawsuit to one of those ‘sequels, spinoffs, or reboots’ that ‘should not be made.’ The court laid out the basis for that conclusion in detail in its lengthy, well-reasoned, order.” In Young’s Reply Brief (filed February 26, 2026), his appellate counsel Lisa Paige Glass, Esq. countered the AP’s word games with an English lesson: In a failed attempt to distance itself from its own word choice, AP disingenuously claims the Article’s “smuggle people” accusation is not encompassed within the auspices of its Stylebook’s definition of “people/human smuggling.” Clearly, “smuggle people” (the verb) is the act of “people smuggling” (the noun). It means exactly what its Stylebook states: “transporting people across an international border illegally, and with their consent, in exchange for a fee.” And it was used exactly as its Stylebook provides: “Young’s business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan,” i.e., Young’s business helped transport people across Afghanistan’s border illegally, and with their consent, in exchange for a fee. That definition is not theoretical. The articles in Appellants’ proffer show AP consistently uses “people/human smuggling” to describe illegal cross-border movement prosecuted under federal and international law. AP does not use that terminology to describe lawful humanitarian evacuation. When AP reports a business “helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan,” it employs the same terminology it uses in covering indictments and criminal networks. AP’s own usage confirms a criminal interpretation is reasonable and evidences malice. Regarding the request for a new judge on remand, the filing also argued that Young “only learned of the bias once the court entered the final order that is now on appeal.” Adding: AP argues Appellants have not demonstrated a reason to disqualify Judge Henry because he ruled in Appellants’ favor in the CNN case. One has nothing to do with the other. As Judge Henry himself said, after presiding over Appellants’ successful case against CNN, he was put off by this second lawsuit. His characterizations of this action as a “money grab” and a “sequel that should not have been made” go beyond legal analysis and reflect prejudgment of motive. In a statement to NewsBusters, Glass said: “The circuit court reduced a false felony accusation to a candy bar analogy. Human smuggling is a federal and international crime. It is not a joke, and it is not a figure of speech. Florida law requires courts to take those words as they are written, and we are confident the First District will restore that basic principle.” Daniel Lustig, Young’s lead counsel, told NewsBusters: “This case is about accountability. When a major news organization tells the world that someone ‘smuggled people,’ it is making a direct criminal accusation. The law does not allow that to be brushed aside or reinterpreted after the fact. We are confident the First District will correct the error and allow a jury to decide the meaning of those words.” As things stand right now, both sides have also filed motions requesting an oral argument before the appellate court. The hearing has yet to be scheduled.

Appearing as a guest on Thursday's The Last Word on MS NOW, veteran actor Morgan Freeman compared America under Donald Trump to Nazi Germany. As Freeman appeared to promote the series The Gray House about a group of Southern women who spied for the Union during the American Civil War, host Lawrence O'Donnell brought up the time Freeman read the final message of civil rights icon John Lewis for O'Donnell's show, leading the actor to remark, "The world today is not the world he left." The MS NOW host then posed: "With all your life experience, and to say that the world he left is a different world from where we are now, how would you describe where we are now?" After pausing, Freeman commented: "Can I use any profanity? ... Well, we have somebody sitting in the White House who's leading us down a s--t hole." Performing a dramatic reading of history for Lawrence O'Donnell on MS (DNC), actor Morgan Freeman pretends today's America is a constant reminder of "Germany in 1935." Under Trump, "we have somebody sitting in the White House who's leading us down a s--t hole." pic.twitter.com/p4ELocp0fO — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) February 28, 2026 He invoked President Donald Trump's history of being prosecuted for felonies by Democrats, leading O'Donnell to follow up: "Were you, with your life experience, did it feel like we were going backwards? Did it feel like the country was on, as Martin Luther King would say, you know, the arc of history was turning toward progress all the time, and did this feel different?" Freeman then jumped into his Nazi Germany comparison: Very different, very different. I'm constantly reminded of Germany in 1935, what was happening there, the Brownshirts, those people that are marching through particularly Berlin, rounding up people and putting them in box cars and sending them off. Now, this administration wants to build large detention centers and -- for what? Question. The MS NOW host then claimed that, from the point of view of young people, the world has never been worse in their lifetime, leading Freeman to agree: O'DONNELL: What do you tell young people who are living through this, and this, they think, is the worst thing -- certainly the worst -- if you're 20 years old, 25 years old, this is the worst thing that you've seen, is the condition this country is in now. FREEMAN: Absolutely. Absolutely the worst. I don't know what I would say to young people other than, "If you are at all aware of where we're headed -- where we are right now and where we're headed, and if you don't agree with it, then there is one sure way to change the direction of our country. Vote." Transcript follows: MS NOW's The Last Word February 26, 2026 10:49 p.m. Eastern LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: But those words are as important today as they were when he wrote them. They really are eternal words that he wrote. MORGAN FREEMAN, ACTOR: A little bit more. O'DONNELL: Yeah. FREEMAN: A little bit more important, I think. O'DONNELL: Yeah. FREEMAN: The world today is not the world he left. So it's it's an important message that he left. We should -- it should be posted somewhere so we can remind ourselves of it from time to time. O'DONNELL: With all your life experience, and to say that the world he left is a different world from where we are now, how would you describe where we are now? FREEMAN: Ummm. (pauses) Can I use any profanity? O'DONNELL: You can say whatever you want. FREEMAN: Well, we have somebody sitting in the White House who's leading us down a shit hole. I can't personally understand how a convicted felon -- convicted -- 34 felon -- felonious -- is that word -- counts of wrongdoing gets to be President. How do you do that? Well, you say, "Well, he was camp --" I don't care. That ruling went down before he stepped into the Oval Office, so it just doesn't make sense to me. O'DONNELL: Were you, with your life experience, did it feel like we were going backwards? Did it feel like the county was on, as Martin Luther King would say, you know, the arc of history was turning toward progress all the time, and did this feel different?  FREEMAN: Very different, very different. I'm constantly reminded of Germany in 1935, what was happening there, the Brownshirts, those people that are marching through particularly Berlin, rounding up people and putting them in box cars and sending them off. Now, this administration wants to build large detention centers and -- for what? Question. O'DONNELL: What do you tell young people who are living through this, and this, they think, is the worst thing -- certainly the worst -- if you're 20 years old, 25 years old, this is the worst thing that you've seen, is the condition this country is in now. FREEMAN: Absolutely. Absolutely the worst. I don't know what I would say to young people other than, "If you are at all aware of where we're headed -- where we are right now and where we're headed, and if you don't agree with it, then there is one sure way to change the direction of our country. Vote." O'DONNELL: The old message is the new message. FREEMAN: Yes.

ABC chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl joined Saturday’s Good Morning America to discuss any possible political fallout from President Trump’s decision to attack Iran. Despite polling showing Republicans broadly supportive of the idea before Saturday, Karl suggested there is “potential for significant blowback” from the MAGA base. Karl reported how he had “heard from one of Trump's key supporters in his MAGA movement, Tucker Carlson. I had asked him this morning what he made, and several other prominent supporters of the president, what he made of this, and this is what Tucker Carlson told me of the president's decision to attack Iran.”   ABC's Jonathan Karl tries to suggest Trump's political coalition may break now that he's bombing Iran, "Keep in mind, Tucker Carlson is a prominent supporter of Donald Trump, spoke at his convention, was at the White House as recently as last week, and Tucker Carlson told me it… pic.twitter.com/ohvfLnyXmW — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 28, 2026   Trying to build up Carlson’s credentials, Karl continued, “Keep in mind, Tucker Carlson is a prominent supporter of Donald Trump, spoke at his convention, was at the White House as recently as last week, and Tucker Carlson told me it is 'absolutely disgusting and evil.' So, I think that there is the potential for significant blowback from some of the president's strongest supporters for what's just happened.” Carlson’s Middle East beliefs are an outlier among Republicans. Israel joined the U.S. in launching combat operations against Iran and 70 percent of Republicans still hold more sympathy for Israel versus only 13 percent for the Palestinians. Carlson would be in the 13 percent. Carlson has also suggested Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a stabilizing event for the Middle East. Before the strikes, 57 percent of Republicans favored using the military to try to force regime change compared to only 18 percent opposed. Additionally, 71 percent of Republicans labeled Iran an enemy, while an additional 18 percent labeled Tehran “not friendly, but not enemies.” That would suggest that even conservatives who are skeptical or opposed to the bombing are not feeling sorry for the regime and any concerns are purely practical and not the moral “absolutely disgusting and evil” indignation Karl cited Carlson as having. Here is a transcript for the February 28 show: ABC Good Morning America 2/28/2026 7:34 AM ET JONATHAN KARL: Just moments ago I heard from one of Trump's key supporters in his MAGA movement, Tucker Carlson. I had asked him this morning what he made, and several other prominent supporters of the president, what he made of this, and this is what Tucker Carlson told me of the president's decision to attack Iran. Keep in mind, Tucker Carlson is a prominent supporter of Donald Trump, spoke at his convention, was at the White House as recently as last week, and Tucker Carlson told me it is “absolutely disgusting and evil.” So, I think that there is the potential for significant blowback from some of the president's strongest supporters for what's just happened.