At the Capitol grilling of the PBS and NPR CEOs on March 26, Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) asked PBS boss Paula Kerger: “Would you believe that PBS is fair and objective and nonpartisan?” She said “yes.” Fallon then noted that on Washington Week with The Atlantic in 2023, host and Atlantic magazine editor Jeffrey Goldberg pronounced President Biden as “mentally quite acute.” Fallon asked Kerger if there were “any dissenting opinions” on that episode. Kerger professed ignorance. He assured her there was not. So when Biden failed on the debate stage in 2024, Fallon said the world found out who was lying: “The Democrats, Jeffrey Goldberg and PBS.” Hours after this hearing, PBS News Hour put on Jeffrey Goldberg for almost seven unchallenged minutes to toot his own horn for having the fortune of Team Trump messing up and including him in a chat on the private encrypted app Signal as officials discussed bombing the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. But that segment was nothing compared to two nights later, when Goldberg hosted a very special self-glorifying 30-minute episode of Washington Week With The Atlantic. As usual, his supporting cast was unanimously left-wing Democrat journalists: the husband-and-wife team of New York Times reporter Peter Baker and New Yorker writer Susan Glasser, the very biased PBS White House reporter Laura Barron-Lopez, and Shane Harris of….The Atlantic. No dissenting opinions on Goldberg's heroic journalistic stance. Super cozy.  Goldberg could mock the Trump team’s “enthusiastic efforts to deflect…mainly by calling me unpleasant names.” You poor thing! The crew then echoed each other that this Signalgate scandal was enormous and unprecedented, and of course, as Goldberg said, “a dumb mistake.” Yes, don’t include an editor whose magazine endorsed Trump’s opponents in the last three election cycles. That’s profoundly dumb. You could tell you were observing a liberal bubble when the name “Biden” never came up, so no mention of Team Biden using Signal on their phones before Trump did. No one would confuse a successful strike on the Houthis with Biden’s deadly Afghan withdrawal fiasco. After the energetic claim that the details of this conversation must be considered “classified information” – to dissent from this is “farcical” – they turned to lashing the Trump team for pushing back on the press. They were supposed to apologize sheepishly, and the story would vanish within 48 hours. Assuming there would be a brief episode in anti-Trump bias is “farcical.” An apology to Trump supporters would be in order. But it should be recognized that PBS and Team Goldberg are out to destroy Trump and empower the Democrats. They are not going to go gently away after an “oops” message. Hosting his PBS show, Jeffrey Goldberg summarized his Signalgate journo heroism against bullying Trump: “I don’t want to be self-righteous or anything [!], but if you have the truth and you’re aligned with the truth…ultimately, the voters, the citizens will recognize reality.” pic.twitter.com/Vpx3cnjcII — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) April 2, 2025 PBS’s Barron-Lopez proclaimed Trump’s people base their actions on lies, and attempt to discredit stories attacking them. She cued up Goldberg: “Do you think there’s a lesson for the press?” Goldberg broke out the old “just continue to do your job” line, when we know he feels his job is to destroy Trump. “You have to be willing to be intimidated in order to have an effective bully, right?” Then he said “I don’t want to be self-righteous or anything [heaven forbid!], but if you have the truth and you’re aligned with the truth…ultimately, the voters, the citizens will recognize reality.” This leaves the impression: “And vote for Democrats next time.” This is the reality of what PBS is  – an arrogant, unanimous left-wing channel. For Paula Kerger to lie to Pat Fallon and say they’re objective and nonpartisan oozes contempt for the public who funds their partisan propaganda. 

CNN went into overdrive for its coverage of the two special congressional elections in Florida, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, pre-empting their normal prime time schedule in favor of full Election Night Coverage. Coverage proved to be little more than an exercise in Elon Musk Derangement therapy, with some elections happening in-between.  Prime time started haplessly enough, with former Florida Democratic Congresswoman Val Demings starting to compare Senator Cory Booker’s speech with civil rights gains: C'MON, CHIEF: Former Rep. Val Demings begins to compare a Dem win in FL-6 to historic civil rights legislation before Erin Burnett prompts her to walk it back pic.twitter.com/GNE0rUKh0f — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 1, 2025 VAL DEMINGS: You know, America has done some pretty impossible things against the most impossible odds. I think back to women's rights, civil rights, voting rights, rights of equality, all those pieces of legislation that no one ever thought we'd ever get ‘cross the finish line. ERIN BURNETT: And you feel that you can get this…. (CROSSSTALK) DEMINGS: Well, I'm not saying that, but what I am saying for Democrats, we are fighting on behalf of the people. You know, the economy. Do you think most people in District 6 think they're better off now than they were before January 20th? The president said that he was going to lower the cost of goods and services on day one. Things have gotten worse. So we have to continue to fight the good fight. And regardless of what the outcome is tonight, tomorrow- I don’t know if Senator Booker will still be at the microphone- but tomorrow we will still be fighting for the people. There was some degree of attention paid to the non-filibuster filibuster, but the primary focus was on Musk. In that sense, the elections were secondary. The main focus tonight was on driving a narrative of Musk as toxic to President Donald Trump and his agenda. Abby Phillip exemplifies the Musk-deranged tone of CNN’s coverage: Early narrative bait: CNN's Abby Phillip sets Elon Musk up to be the villain of tonight's special elections. Expect more going forward pic.twitter.com/RvvvxGKWpb — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 2, 2025 ABBY PHILLIP: That also explains why Elon Musk put all of his energy in Wisconsin, because these two (Florida) races, Republicans should have won them. They were pretty much expected to have been won, but they they really want to blunt this narrative that there is a problem. And to do that, they need to win everything. And Wisconsin then becomes a keystone to that. So it is possible tonight that in Wisconsin, $20 million in for Elon Musk, you could see Republicans perhaps eking out a victory or getting a clean win there. And that changes the narrative. But- but I do think where we are right now for this administration is that this is as good as it gets. Okay. There are a couple of months in. Trump is relatively popular compared to Trump from the last time around. It’s not going to get any better. The economy is not going to get any better. And so they really need to sort of keep the boat afloat for this moment.  Talking down the economy to own Trump and Elon is a look, perhaps on-brand for CNN- certainly on-brand for Phillip. This is what Elon derangement does.  Next, CNN brings on Kara Swisher, who has turned Elon-deranged hatred into its own self-sustaining cottage industry: CNN carefully planned to make Elon Musk the scapegoat of the special elections, going so far as to book Elon hater Kara Swisher pic.twitter.com/9UkwY3CASU — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 2, 2025 JAKE TAPPER: Kara Swisher joins our panel. Kara, something of an expert on Elon Musk. (CROSSTALK) KARA SWISHER: I’m saying, I'm so tired of looking at him? I just…. TAPPER: Well, let's talk about him. You don't have to look at him. But we do want to talk about him. SWISHER: The voters of Wisconsin are too. TAPPER: So we'll bring up the picture of him with the cheesehead hat on to fill you with thrills and delight.  SWISHER: Thank you.  TAPPER: Tell me how you see the role of Elon. There it is. He's jumping up and down. How do you see the role of Elon Musk in this race? It seems to cut both ways. SWISHER: Yeah, it cuts both ways. And we'll see what happens here. I mean- He's- he's not his- his- his negatives are quite high. And so it depends on who's motivated more, the people who really like him or the people who really dislike him. And I think the people who really dislike him are increasing over time. And especially in a state like Wisconsin, which I suspect if anyone came to a state of mine who wasn't from there and started meddling, I think a lot of people in Wisconsin wouldn't like that. They want to just vote on their own, and they may like Donald Trump, by the way, a lot of these voters. KASIE HUNT: Kara, how does Elon Musk take in his- the political polling about him? SWISHER: I don’t think he cares.  HUNT: You don't think he cares at all? SWISHER:  No, no. Do you think he does…?  HUNT: Even if it means that Tesla, the place where he gets all of his money, ends up suffering because of it? SWISHER: I don't think he cares. I think, you know, you've heard him say that, you know, he's moved on to the next thing, and his next thing is this country- is doing this because, you know, even though he was doing that dramatic thing about, you know, humanity will die if this if this election, he's done that many times before to me. He one time said if Tesla didn't survive, humanity was doomed, which I thought was a little much. DANA BASH: I mean, we'll see what happens. And it is still possible that his money and the attention on Wisconsin will help Republicans. But if he loses, I mean, how about that? SWISHER: He'll go on to the next thing. That's the thing. BASH: He’s just like, “oh, well.” SWISHER: He’s like very dogged in a lot of ways. And I think it certainly will be a referendum on him. BASH: It's like putting up a rocket that doesn't work, you go… SWISHER: Right, he'll do the next, he'll blow up the next one, he'll blow up the next one. And, you know, people don't realize this, but a lot of his flights don't work like a lot of them don't. And maybe one does. And I think that’s how he operates. BASH: How’s that self-driving car going? SWISHER: Ehhhh, we'll see. I was just in a Waymo, though, from Google. So. ABBY PHILLIP: He has raised the stakes for this so significantly that I think that in a way, it actually might help on both ends of the spectrum. He's called it the- the race that will determine the rest of civilization, survival of Western Civilization. And, you know, state supreme court cases, like a lot of these sort of off year things, most people are not paying attention to them. They're not leaving their houses for them. But he has basically told people that he thinks this is the most important thing happening in the world. And for that reason, I think a lot of people that normally are like, “I don't know what this is about” are going to pay attention. And there are some other things, I think, for Democrats, we talked about abortion and other issues that are on the table that might get people out the door. SWISHER: Absolutely. But I think, you know, he talks about a big game, about the humanity and this stuff. Very overdramatic. And it's just nonsense what he's doing there. But he does have a case in front of this state supreme court. And I always look to the money with this guy. I always think about what is his business interests, including with DOGE cuts. A lot of the DOGE cuts were agencies that were investigating him. Those were the first. And so he’s always thinking about his own interests. TAPPER: Kara Swisher. Thanks so much for the insights. Appreciate it. As one astute X observer noted, Swisher is just SOOO TIRED of talking about her meal ticket. And here she is again. Once the race got called, the panels in D.C. and in New York went into post-mortem mode. Phillip got more than she bargained for when she tried to insist to former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker that Musk absolutely said he’s cut Social Security and Medicaid: WATCH: @ScottWalker calmly SCHOOLS CNN's Abby Phillip on fake Medicare/Medicaid cuts narrative pic.twitter.com/c5p0AKB9F8 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 2, 2025 PHILLIP: I want to go back to Elon Musk for a second because, I mean, it is true that he spent $20 million on affiliated groups that were involved in this race. Was it a risk for Republicans to put all their eggs in that basket? Not only did he spend the money, he came to the state. He came to the state. He talked about cutting Medicaid, Social Security through DOGE, bringing those issues up... SCOTT WALKER: Actually, he never talked- he explicitly said in Green Bay that he would not cut Social Security.  PHILLIP: Well, he talked… WALKER: That's exactly what he sai PHILLIP: He talked at his rally. WALKER: No, no other people said about that. But I was there, I watched him. He did not say he was gonna cut Medicaid.  PHILLIP: Okay. Well, other people at his rallies who work for DOGE, who work for Elon Musk's organization, talked about those issues. WALKER: No, I was at the rally, not a one of them said that.  PHILLIP: Do you- do you think that there are risks? WALKER: That's what the protesters said, but nobody there actually said that. PHILLIP: Do you think that there are risks here…? WALKER: There are if people believe the lies that people are saying about that- PHILLIP: for Republicans and those issues being associated with Elon Musk. WALKER: But that's not at all what they said. If people believe that Medicaid and Medicare is going to be touched, that's just a flat, outright lie. What he talked about are people who are over 120 years old, who clearly are not alive... PHILLIP: Well- well, the reason I brought up is, OK.. WALKER: getting Social Security or Medicaid benefits. PHILLIP Okay. Well. WALKER: That's totally wrong. Even Democrats believe that… PHILLIP: Just to sort this out, the reason I brought this up is because the claim here is that there's massive, widespread fraud and that that's all they're addressing. That's obviously a disputed claim because it's not true that 120 year old people are getting Social Security checks. The checks stop at a certain point automatically, because those checks are- those checks and balances are already in place. WALKER: Those Social Security numbers get counted for various parts of the federal government. So they count. They don't get a benefit directly to those people, but they count for money that gets allocated to different departments in their budget, and they shouldn't be. If somebody is no longer alive, they shouldn’t be able to count that as an allocation. PHILLIP: I guess my fundamental question was, what are the risks here of Elon dabbling in elections for Republicans going forward? WALKER: Well, again, I think in the end, he's going to have to continue to make the case. Part of the reason why, when we talked about our recall, what flipped things for us early down- early on in that recall process, Time magazine called me “Dead Man Walker.” And the reason was because all the narratives coming out from the press, coming out from the left, were about all these horrible, egregious things. Once we started to give examples of the things we were actually doing, not the things the press said, not the things that our opponent said, but the things that we were actually doing when we ended up going before the voters in the final election, in the recall, we actually won by more votes than we did. So I think what's paramount for him or anyone else in line with him is: keep giving actual examples of what they're doing, set aside things like Social Security, and make it abundantly clear that that’s not being touched, but if there’s waste, fraud and abuse, spell it out, make the case, and bring it to the voters. Gov. Walker very calmly pushed back on Phillips’ false narrative and ultimately forced her to remove “Elon wants to cut Medicare and Social Security” from her question. IIt was a sight to behold.  Hammering the point home before turning over to the B-team, Tapper and Kara Swisher pick it up again and devote a whole segment to indulging their Elon Derangement. Here’s Tapper, discussing the difference between Musk and, say, George Soros, JB Pritzker or Reid Hoffmann: ELON DERANGEMENT: CNN's Jake Tapper suggests Soros, Pritzker, (Hoffman) are more virtuous than Elon because they only donate money, whereas Elon...addresses the people himself pic.twitter.com/iJ6DkZwpqX — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 2, 2025 TAPPER: What's interesting about it is you heard anytime anybody brings this up, a Republican will say, well, what about JB Pritzker? And what about George Soros? And what about this? What about that? And I guess the answer is, you don't see George- first of all, George Soros… SWISHER: I didn’t see George Soros wearing a cheesehead. TAPPER: You don't see them out there talking.  SWISHER: No.  TAPPER: Right? I mean, they might be giving money to organizations this and that, and people can criticize that all they all want. SWISHER: They all do. They all do. TAPPER: BUT. But- the idea that like, oh no, I am going to tell these voters- forget, like, hiring Scott Walker to do it or somebody on the Mikwaukee Bucks. I’m going to tell them. SWISHER: Right. The table was set early, and the panels hit the theme often. Anything less than a total Republican sweep in Florida and Wisconsin was going to be cast by the Resistance Media as a failure by Elon Musk. The Musk-Deranged Media worked to craft, hone, and then propagate their narrative of Musk as villain. Going forward, they will continue to do so.  

On Monday night, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) Doug Collins shellacked longtime CNN correspondent Brian Todd over a report late last week claiming VA call centers were being automated, noting he ran the story despite Collins and his team offering facts countering this predictable spin from the Trump-hating network. Collins’s takedown came in the form of a thread on X, starting with a simple statement that surely got everyone’s attention: He then explained Todd reaches out “[e]very few days...asking for the department’s response to whatever fake controversy VA’s critics are pushing” and his current hobbyhorse “seems to be regurgitating pre-packaged opposition research VA critics prepare for him.” Collins then got to the heart of his claim about VA call centers, which veterans use for any number of reasons, including help understanding their benefits, tapping into the GI Bill, or to speak with someone at their local VA clinic: Late last week, Brian struck again, claiming to have a scoop about a proposal to “automate VA call centers.” In reality, no such plans exist. Brian’s scoop was based on false, deliberately leaked “information” from people who aren’t involved in our planning process. In other words, Brian was the target of a disinformation operation designed to generate fake news. The Secretary said his team “warned Brian that his allegations were not credible, but he ignored us & ran his false story anyway, while other outlets smartly steered clear of it.” Since this was CNN, their publication drew swift responses from the VA and outreach to Todd with requests to speak to his editor. Of course, Collins said Todd “refused to put us in touch with his editor” and “[w]e only got through to an editor after calling everyone we know at CNN to complain about Brian’s story.” That didn’t result in any changes as the “editor and another CNN senior executive refused to retract the fake story” and instead asked for another “statement responding to the story’s fake allegations.” Collins then went nuclear over the next two X posts: “What happened to the journalistic principle of verifying something is true before publication? With standards like these, it’s easy to see why a jury recently found CNN liable for defamation and ordered the network to pay $5 million in damages.” As of this blog’s publication, Todd has yet to respond to requests for comment from NewsBusters on reporting and the allegations from Collins. As many NewsBusters readers are likely aware, the case he referred to the CNN defamation case against Navy veteran Zachary Young that our Nick Fondacaro literally chronicled from start to finish. Collins ended the thread with another jab: “[Wolf Blitzer] – Please hold your employee, [Brian Todd], to a higher standard. Thank you.” Collins in particular has taken an aggressive stance against biased reporting. Along with his throwdown with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins last week, he tangled with a Military.com reporter on March 11 and even The Wall Street Journal three days later.

ABC News’s The View had become a home for far-left extremist politics. That fact was obvious during Tuesday’s episode where they invited far-left extremist writer Elie Mystal to promote his unhinged book designed to tear at American’s elevation of the rule of law. The liberal ladies gleefully welcomed his ridiculous pontifications about how all laws pre-1965 shouldn’t be considered legitimate and how there shouldn’t be voter registration laws. There to promote his book Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America, co-host Sunny Hostin heaped praise on Mystal. “I love this book! You are dead on and it is a fantastic book! One of the laws you write about is playing out right now, the Immigration and Nationality Act,” she touted. “One of my premises for the book is that every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively unconstitutional,” Mystal explained. “Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act we were functionally an apartheid country!” Adding: “Not everybody who lived here could vote here. So, why should I give a [self-censors] about some law that some old white man passed in the 1920s, like the Immigration and Nationality Act.” The idea that “every law passed before 1965” was “unconstitutional” was the absolutist thinking of an extremist. A dragnet that large would have massive unintended consequences far behind Mystal’s ignorant understanding. Laws passed prior to 1965 that Mystal, and the cast of The View, would presumably support included most laws against murder, the First Amendment (freedom of speech, 1791), the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizures, 1791), the 13th Amendment (the abolition of slavery, 1865), the 19th Amendment (women’s right to vote, 1920), and the National Firearms Act (1934); just to name a few.     Mystal then had a mental breakdown about America’s immigration laws, falsely suggesting people were being deported “because they didn’t fill out the paperwork correctly,” and were being put in jail “for existing”: Now, I personally do not think I can convince people to open their hearts and minds to immigration. I understand that in our failing country treating people with respect and decency and humanity is a controversial position! And I cannot change their minds. But we can dang sure make sure we're not putting people in jail for the crime of existing! That we’re not putting people in jail for not filling out the form in triplicate in the right time and submitting it to the right agent. Immigration status offenses should not be criminal offenses, they should be civil offenses. We shouldn't be ripping people away from their families because they didn't fill out the paperwork correctly. No, Elie. They were being deported for not filling out any paperwork at all and not following the law. Also, it’s hypocritical to talk about how you want to treat people with “humanity” on The View. The day prior, The View cast defended suggestions that President Trump and his supporters were not human beings. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg had also made it clear that she doesn’t see Trump as human. Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin was as useless as ever. Instead of having a spine and pushing back on Mystal’s extremism, she noted there were things they disagreed on (didn’t say what those were), and asked: “So, what do you see as sort of the marginal changes that are actually really tangible and realistic that could be put in place the next few years?” And what was that “tangible and realistic” idea that Mystal had? “I argue that we should eliminate all voter registration laws,” he demanded. He asserted it was “realistic” because “we already have voter eligibility requirements” like age. He then started shouting about how voter fraud supposedly didn’t exist and equated such laws to banning fishing because of the Loch Ness Monster: MYSTAL: Having the second step of voter registration needlessly suppresses the votes for no real benefit. Some people might say, ‘oh, it prevents voter fraud.’ First of all, no, it doesn't! And second of all, voter fraud doesn't exist! HOSTIN: Doesn’t exist! Right. MYSTAL: If I say I want to go fishing somewhere and you say ‘you can't go fishing there.’ And I say, ‘why?’ ‘Because the Loch Ness Monster might getcha,’ “Shut up!” he shouted at the naysayers. “That's not a good reason to have a law.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 1, 2025 11:48:35 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: I love this book! You are dead on and it is a fantastic book! One of the laws you write about is playing out right now, the Immigration and Nationality Act. Now, this administration is using this statute to justify the detentions and possible deportations actually of visa and green card holders who they seem to deem a threat to U.S. foreign policy. What do you make of the administration's use of the act and more broadly, is Trump really setting up a First Amendment showdown, which is what Whoopi has been talking about? ELIE MYSTAL: Yes, absolutely! One of my premises for the book is that every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively unconstitutional. Right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act we were functionally an apartheid country! Not everybody who lived here could vote here. So, why should I give a [self-censors] about some law that some old white man passed in the 1920s, like the Immigration and Nationality Act. When they passed our fundamental immigration law, Congress said in real-time that they needed a law to prevent the, quote, “mongrelization” of the white race by the inferior races. Now, I look at that law and say, ‘I don't think that's so good.’ I don't think we should still be using it. But we are still using it today. That is the authority that Trump is using to criminalize people and pull people's visa cards, Marco Rubio, that comes from the 1956 update to the 1921 act. Now, I personally do not think I can convince people to open their hearts and minds to immigration. I understand that in our failing country treating people with respect and decency and humanity is a controversial position! [Applause] And I cannot change their minds. But we can dang sure make sure we're not putting people in jail for the crime of existing! HOSTIN: Right! MYSTAL: That we’re not putting people in jail for not filling out the form in triplicate in the right time and submitting it to the right agent. Immigration status offenses should not be criminal offenses, they should be civil offenses. We shouldn't be ripping people away from their families because they didn't fill out the paperwork correctly. (…) 11:50:58 a.m. Eastern ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: So, what do you see as sort of the marginal changes that are actually really tangible and realistic that could be put in place the next few years? MYSTAL: I argue that we should eliminate all voter registration laws. Now, that might not sound realistic to you but I promise you that it is. Because we already have voter eligibility requirements, right? An eligibility requirement would be like an age limit, right? 18 to vote, I might say you should be 16 but I’m not going to say eight! I have an 8-year-old who does knock but I've got an 8-year-old, right. We don't want them voting. But once you meet the eligibility requirement, why can't you automatically be registered to vote? Having the second step of voter registration needlessly suppresses the votes for no real benefit. Some people might say, ‘oh, it prevents voter fraud.’ First of all, no, it doesn't! And second of all, voter fraud doesn't exist! HOSTIN: Doesn’t exist! Right. MYSTAL: If I say I want to go fishing somewhere and you say ‘you can't go fishing there.’ And I say, ‘why?’ ‘Because the Loch Ness Monster might getcha,’ like, that's -- shut up! That's not a good reason to have a law. (…)

CNN’s Dana Bash spread some fake news on Tuesday’s edition of Inside Politics and not of the fun April Fool’s variety. Bash, together with Africana Studies Prof. Clarissa Myric-Harris White, burned multiple straw men on President Donald Trump’s executive order on the Smithsonian. At the beginning of the segment, Bash reported, “In the order, the president says, quote, ‘museums in our nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.’” Later, she welcomed White and asked, “this executive order says, that the goal of this tie between Smithsonian funding and the policy that they want to promote, and it is, quote, ‘prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values or divide Americans based on race.’ What is your understanding of what that means for these museums?     Why ask White what she thinks it means when you could quote portions of the executive order that are actually relevant, such as, “Under this historical revision, our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”  Still, White falsely replied, “It essentially describes restoring the great man theory of history. It's a narrative that emphasizes the contributions of prominent, primarily white men, political leaders, military commanders, pioneers, rather than the collective actions and experiences of ordinary people… And so eliminating the stories of everyday people. And then when you talk about eliminating the stories of a whole race of people, a whole sector of society, it gets to be pretty scary.” White further freaked, “And so if fully enacted, this executive order would cause the death of museums, libraries, and other entities that strive to provide accurate narratives about the history of this country and the principles on which the country was founded are good ones. All men are created equal, but this country is still really in the midst of trying to live up to that promise of, to fulfill that promise of freedom, equity, and equality.” Bash, again, tried to appear to be the responsible reporter who was quoting from the order, but she cherry-picked:  Let me just kind of put some meat on the bone here of the arguments that the administration has been making through this executive order and elsewhere. And they argue that how Americans frame history has changed in recent years. You just gave an example of how it's changed. You know, in a more fulsome way. What they cite is, I'll just give one example, an ongoing exhibition at the American Art Museum called The Shape of Power: Stories of Race in American Sculpture. They take issue with noting that the U.S. ‘has used race to establish and maintain systems of power, privilege, and disenfranchisement.’ So there has been a shift.     The sentence immediately preceding Bash’s quote talks about that change, and it has nothing to do with great man theory or ignoring the history of racism, “This revisionist movement seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light.” According to Trump’s order, the statue exhibit isn’t just teaching about the history of racism in the U.S.; it is teaching that the U.S. was founded to perpetuate it. Nevertheless, White declared, “But it's a shift to tell the complete story of this country. And as horrible and as regrettable as it is, as it is, we cannot deny the truth. We cannot deny that this country was, in large measure, established through exploitation of the people, the indigenous people who were here and then the millions of people, African people, who were brought to this country to literally build the country.” White further reached for a simply not credible conclusion, “So, eliminating that aspect of the story of this country, the history of this country serves no positive purpose. It encourages the denial that the institution of slavery ever even existed. That racism, Jim Crow laws and segregation, and racial violence against black communities and other communities ever occurred.  Bash wrapped things up by adding, “It just, it's it doesn't seem like an either or proposition. It's a yes and. There were great men who started this country, with a lot of women helping them quietly, and there was a lot of and there was a lot of very terrible parts of history that obviously are taught to our children and should still be.” And despite CNN’s collective freak-out, it still will be. What you can’t do is say America and its constitutional system are “inherently” and “irredeemably” racist. Here is a transcript for the April 1 show: CNN Inside Politics with Dana Bash 4/1/2025 12:41 PM ET DANA BASH: As tourists and school field trips descend here in Washington for spring break, a lot of them will visit the Smithsonian Museums, the same institution President Trump targeted in an executive order he signed last week, accusing the Smithsonian of promoting a, quote, “divisive and improper race centered ideology.” In the order, the president says, quote, “museums in our nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.” … I want you to react to what this executive order says, that the goal of this tie between Smithsonian funding and the policy that they want to promote, and it is, quote, “prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values or divide Americans based on race.” What is your understanding of what that means for these museums? CLARISSA MYRIC-HARRIS WHITE: Yes. Well. Dana, first of all, thank you for inviting me to speak on this issue. But to answer your question, the executive order titled Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, really a law that would do just the opposite. It essentially describes restoring the great man theory of history. It's a narrative that emphasizes the contributions of prominent, primarily white men, political leaders, military commanders, pioneers, rather than the collective actions and experiences of ordinary people.  Examples of great men: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, or even Daniel Boone. And so eliminating the stories of everyday people. And then when you talk about eliminating the stories of a whole race of people, a whole sector of society, it gets to be pretty scary. And so if fully enacted, this executive order would cause the death of museums, libraries, and other entities that strive to provide accurate narratives about the history of this country and the principles on which the country was founded are good ones. All men are created equal, but this country is still really in the midst of trying to live up to that promise of, to fulfill that promise of freedom, equity, and equality. BASH: Let me just kind of put some meat on the bone here of the arguments that the administration has been making through this executive order and elsewhere. And they argue that how Americans frame history has changed in recent years. You just gave an example of how it's changed. You know, in a more fulsome way. What they cite is, I'll just give one example, an ongoing exhibition at the American Art Museum called The Shape of Power: Stories of Race in American Sculpture. They take issue with noting that the U.S. “has used race to establish and maintain systems of power, privilege, and disenfranchisement.” So there has been a shift. WHITE: Yes, indeed. But it's a shift to tell the complete story of this country. And as horrible and as regrettable as it is, as it is, we cannot deny the truth. We cannot deny that this country was, in large measure, established through exploitation of the people, the indigenous people who were here and then the millions of people, African people, who were brought to this country to literally build the country. So, eliminating that aspect of the story of this country, the history of this country serves no positive purpose. It encourages the denial that the institution of slavery ever even existed. That racism, Jim Crow laws and segregation, and racial violence against black communities and other communities ever occurred.  And how do you eliminate that history, that story of this country? Okay. And then, you know, the other part of that is that in spite of all of this, despite of the discrimination and racism that underserved, marginalized populations have nonetheless made great contributions, again, helped to literally build this country and this country, the fact that this country has, when pushed, made concessions and corrected self-corrected, to rectify— BASH: Yeah. WHITE: —  Over time, when the Civil Rights Movement and so on, that's important history to know— BASH: Yeah. WHITE: —  as we continue this journey to make sure this country is one that is—  provides liberty and justice for all. BASH: It just it's it doesn't seem like an either or proposition. It's a yes and. There were great men who started this country— WHITE:  Yes. BASH: —  with a lot of women helping them quietly. WHITE: That’s right. BASH: And there was a lot of and there was a lot of very terrible parts of history that obviously are taught to our children and should still be.