Late night comedy’s regular trashing of conservatives and Republicans is not confined to the hosts. Oftentimes, guests are brought on to parrot the host's beliefs, and with a new Republican president, an outgoing host, and another that was briefly suspended, those guests had lots to talk about this year. Here are the ten worst. 10. October 14: Actress Bette Midler on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Colbert MIDLER: Did you ever know that you're my Frodo? You stand for what's right with wit and class. Thank you. And I hold you high as the great eagles 'cause you never kissed the orange ass. You never kissed the orange ass, never kissed the orange ass. Oh, you, you, you, you never—   AUDIENCE: Kissed the orange ass.     9. January 31: Drag Queens BenDeLaCreme, Peaches Christ, and Jinkx Monsoon on CBS’s After Midnight on Pope Francis and Catholicism TAYLOR TOMLINSON: If there is one thing Catholics hate, it's fun. They hate more than one thing. Case in point: Pope Francis recently warned a committee of journalists that excessive scrolling causes “brain rot.” Oh, okay, well, how did he know about brain rot if he isn't scrolling all night? The Pontiff doth protest too much. Panelists, how chronically online is the Pope? DeLa. BENDELACREME: So much that he has brain rot, or, sorry, Catholicism. I always get these two confused. TOMLINSON: Peaches. PEACHES CHRIST: He is online so much that he calls shirtless pictures of Jesus thirst traps. TOMLINSON: Jinkx. JINKX MONSOON: He lost the Vatican in online poker. And now he has to sell [ITALIAN ACCENT] a the pope rings on the Etsy.  8. January 20: Professor Brooke Harrington on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show on Donald Trump’s Inauguration “This is really different, and in fact, I was reflecting on how different this is, even from Russian oligarchy, because…You know, at least Putin had a very clear red line with his oligarchs. The grand bargain of the early 2000s was he was going to let them get rich on condition that they kept their noses out of his political business…This is not good news because I like democracy… the broligarchs really have an explicit political agenda, and it is essentially anti-democratic and almost monarchical.” 7. January 14: Comedian Bill Burr on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live on Luigi Mangione “CNN and Fox News are not going to bring up the insurance companies that are just going to keep everybody's premiums and still give themselves a bonus. Yes! Free Luigi! I love how they acted surprised. “Why did that happen?” I have no -- he wrote on the bullets is why it happened.” 6. September 22: CNN’s Jake Tapper on NBC’s Late Night with Seth Meyers on Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension “I mean, I thought it was pretty much the most direct infringement by the government on free speech that I've seen in my lifetime.”     5. May 6: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Donald Trump and Elections “He doesn't think there should be elections and they are consolidating power, they're disempowering Congress, ignoring Congress, defunding agencies or closing agencies. That's Congress's job, that's not the president's job. When they are defying court orders, that's them saying the courts don't have authority over the president, that's consolidating all the power in one man, that's authoritarianism, and that's what you do when you don’t ever want to have an election because you want to stay in power for life, and that is what they are trying.” 4. February 10 and September 18: The New Yorker Editor David Remnick on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Donald Trump and Russia. “But now it went the other direction and the oligarchs took over this country in concert with Vladimir Putin and before him, Yeltsin. And to see at an inauguration, a few weeks ago, of the tech titans of this world sitting in the best seats in the house, right behind the president of the United States was the most ominous thing.” *** “There was real journalism on television and in newspapers and radio. It was exciting, it was productive, the world was full of debate. Putin came to power on New Year's night, 1999-2000. And, you know who he went after first? This will sound a little familiar to you: comedians.” 3. July 21: Actress Sandra Oh on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on CBS cancelling Colbert OH: I am so sorry and saddened and properly outraged for the cancellation of late night here. And not only for yourself and for this entire family who are here but for what it means, of what it means where we are in our culture, and what it means for free speech. So, I just want to say sorry, and also if I can have your hand.  COLBERT: Yes. OH: To CBS and Paramount, a plague on both of your houses 2. February 4: Comedian W. Kamau Bell on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Donald Trump BELL: Trump has one of the greatest resumes of racism in the history of racism. Yes. COLBERT: He’s an all-star. BELL: He's a first ballot hall of fame racist. He is the LeBron James of racism     1. March 11: Actor Nathan Lane on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Trump’s takeover of The Kennedy Center “And the new season that he's preparing is very troubling. Like tomorrow night they have a youth choir made up entirely of Elon Musk's children. Because Hamilton canceled its engagement, they are producing Lee Greenwood's all-rap musical tribute to Ronald Reagan starring Kanye West. It's called Trickle Down. That is followed by a new production of The Sound of Music told from the point of view of the Nazis. Trust me, trust me, you don't want to hear the list of their favorite things. And if that wasn't enough, he just canceled an appearance by the gay men's chorus, which upset a lot of people, especially—yes, yes, especially those conservative Republicans on Grindr.” 

The Orlando Sentinel’s lead editorial on Christmas Day, “Regard immigration in the spirit of the season” engages in hypocritical emotional blackmail against Christians by aiming to use their own religious precepts against them – Christians being one group the paper has never held any brief for previously. The soppy, manipulative pro-illegal immigration editorial (which never raised the term "illegal," and was yet another prominent Sentinel piece strangely absent from the paper’s own website) regifted a photo from a previous Sentinel sob story about a Florida immigrant convicted of rape, and bizarrely placing a 120-word mini-editorial within the photo caption, even though the incident wasn’t mentioned in the editorial itself. The caption in full: Sandy Adams with her mom, Gayle Bojerski, on Nov. 12. Bojerski's husband, Paul John Bojerski, 79, was incarcerated at Alligator Alcatraz until recently, when he was transferred to ICE detention in Miami. He's lived in this country since he was 5, after being born in a WWII refugee camp in Germany to Polish parents. They came into this country legally, but he faced deportation as a young man after a couple of arrests in the 1960s and 1970s invalidated his legal status. He thought the case was dismissed after he went to Canada on his honeymoon but immigration officials kept dusting off his case. For decades he simply reported to immigration officials once a year and lived his life as an optician, raising a family and enjoying his grandkids. One of those cases ended up with Bojerski convicted of rape, a useful fact that somehow didn’t make the mini-editorial above. The actual editorial noted with approval that some “traditional Nativity scenes” were being repurposed as political statements in various states: Each display conveys the same message: Had Joseph and Mary been caught in today's America, friendless and alone, they'd be in just as much danger as they were in Bethlehem. As the Gospel of Matthew recounts, the young couple's stay in Bethlehem was cut short by a cruel order from King Herod, who had heard of the miraculous birth and did not intend to spare anyone - even an infant - in his quest to hold on to power. The Holy Family fled to Egypt, and became not just immigrants but refugees. Really? Whatever your religious beliefs or lack thereof (and it’s odd to see a press hostile to religion in politics so quickly become theological experts when it suits their agenda), the Jesus of the Bible was no refugee. This piece dissected left-leaning theologian Russell Moore’s similar argument: “Moore inaccurately reads the UN’s definition of “refugee” back into a Scriptural context with none of the categories of nation-states and international law that inform the UN’s definition. For example, Jesus would likely be considered an internally displaced person (IDP) by UN standards as opposed to a refugee since he fled from one place to another within the Roman Empire.” The Orlando Sentinel recast the Christmas season as a time of repentance about voting for Trump, shamelessly pushing Christian premises in a blunt way it would mock or condemn if done by a conservative organization: ….And if you are celebrating Christmas in the tradition of faith, consider what the Bible and other holy books say: Comfort the stranger. Give aid to those in need. Stand with the cause of justice. Father Jose Rodriguez of the Iglesia Episcopal Jesus de Nazaret in Orlando is another of the many faith leaders in the area who has spoken out against the harsh policies. His wish: For voters who supported Trump, Gov. Ron DeSantis and other officials embracing this cruel and destructive crackdown to re-examine their feelings…."We're going to have to come to terms with what we voted for, and realize that we were wrong," Rodriguez says. …. In a season dedicated to peace on earth and good will toward men, let us open one more gift: The compassion and wisdom to understand injustice is being done, (space) and the courage to admit that things must change. Holy religious hypocrisy! The "separate the church and state" gang suddenly wants everyone to use their religion in their politics. They picked an Episcopal minister who's pals with socialist Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.).

The "public service" Channel 4 in the U.K. knew what it was getting when they asked Jimmy Kimmel to give their annual "Alternative Christmas Message" this year. It wasn't religious or charitable. It was like a monologue on his ABC show, except this time, as he mentioned being tyrannized by Trump's government this year, he made no mention of what it was he said. The name of Charlie Kirk or the motive of his assassin went unmentioned. Instead, Kimmel gave another false impression, like the notion Kirk's killer was MAGA. He suggested Trump took him off the air because he can't stand dissent. This is especially bizarre because the U.K. right now is the real censor of opposing views. "Hate speech" on social media can land you in jail.  Backed by cheery music, Kimmel began by suggesting he didn't know what was going on in England, but "I do know what’s going on over here though, and I can tell you that, from a fascism perspective, this has been a really great year. Tyranny is booming over here." "You may have read in your colorful newspapers that my country’s president would like to shut me up because I don’t adore him in the way he likes to be adored," and "the American government "made a threat against me and the company I work for, and all of a sudden we were off the air." FCC Chairman Brendan Carr uttered some threatening words (with no actions), but the real driver was ABC affiliate groups finding Kimmel's Kirk comments to be dramatically insensitive, if not completely inaccurate.  Jimmy Kimmel whines to anti-free speech UK about President Trump and fascism in America. This loser is telling this to a country that's okay with jailing citizens for their social media posts. Touch grass, Jimmy. pic.twitter.com/XbD7KUoPg0 — Free Speech America (@FreeSpeechAmer) December 26, 2025 Kimmel then elevated the leftist outrage to some sort of religious happening. "A Christmas miracle happened. Well, it was September, it was a September miracle. But the holiday does seem to come earlier and earlier every year, doesn’t it? Millions and millions of people stood up and said: ‘No, this is not acceptable.'" The late-night host claimed that even "people who were on record saying they hate my show" spoke out and marched in support of "the right to a free expression of speech," and because of these efforts, his show was brought back. "Our show came back stronger than ever. We won, the president lost, and now I’m back on the air every night giving the most powerful politician on earth a right and richly deserved bollocking," he asserted. "That’s a word, right? I used it properly?" Kimmel claimed the reason he's telling this story is because they may be thinking: "Oh, a government silencing its critics is something that happens in places like Russia, or North Korea, or L.A., not the U.K. Well, that’s what we thought, and now we’ve got King Donny the Eighth calling for executions. It happens fast." he added. Like everyone else in the leftist media, Kimmel implied that democracy is being dismantled because they lost an election. "Here in the United States, right now, we are both figuratively and literally tearing down the structures of our democracy, from the free press to science, to medicine, to judicial independence, to the actual White House itself. We are a right mess." He concluded by knocking the American people as a pile of morons -- because, you know, Trump was re-elected.  "We are not bright. We’re Americans. No one knows better than you, we’re always just a little bit late to the game, but do we come through in the end? Maybe. Give us about three years. Please. Thank you for your patience, and thank you for Spider-Man [actor Tom Holland]. Merry Christmas, and happy holidays." This message really matches the elitist media in general. It's arrogant. It's dismissive of the rabble. It doesn't care about facts, just feelings. And this is why they say they hate Trump.

How do we navigate a world that is rapidly changing the way commerce is done through the explosion of artificial intelligence? MRC caught up with the former AI lead at global footwear company Nike to get some answers. Elaine Barsoom, former Global Head of Tech and AI Innovation Partnerships at Nike and now an AI strategic advisor, spoke with MRC Business following her appearance on a panel at the 2025 JBiz Expo in Atlantic City, New Jersey organized by the Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce. The informative discussion focused on the rapid acceleration of artificial intelligence across global business — and the growing tension between technological capability and human judgment. As warnings from industry leaders like Elon Musk raise concerns about AI’s long-term risks, Barsoom offered a measured perspective. The challenge, she said, is not whether AI is powerful, but how much decision-making humans are willing to hand over to it. “With any technology — just like social media — we eventually have to put limits and governance in place,” Barsoom explained. “Right now, the real question is humans and AI in the loop. How much reliance should we place on AI for decisions that require human reasoning? AI as an Accelerator — Not a Replacement Barsoom emphasized that AI delivers real benefits when used as an augmenting tool, not as a substitute for human thinking. “You can’t depend on AI completely and assume it’s always accurate,” she told MRC Business. “Whether at an enterprise level or a personal level, people need to validate what’s being created. This is not something to replace people.” Instead, Barsoom framed AI as a force multiplier: It’s a tool — a technology to augment human creativity and judgment. Humans are still responsible for reasoning and decision-making at the end of the day. MRC Business also examined recent trends in AI adoption and human reliance on these tools. A 2025 YouGov survey found that:   56% of U.S. adults now use AI tools, with nearly one-third using them weekly. Among adults under 30, usage jumps to 76%, with half engaging weekly. “That kind of adoption happened almost overnight,” Barsoom noted. “We haven’t historically given ourselves time to think through the long-term cognitive and behavioral effects of relying on a system to do our thinking for us.” Where AI Helps — and Where It Can Harm Barsoom pointed to education and everyday productivity as examples of AI used well. “Before, if I wanted to learn something new, I had to enroll in a class or a university,” she explained. “Now I can say, ‘Teach me how to start a garden,’ and AI can walk me through the steps. That’s incredibly empowering.” She added that automation can return time to people — especially parents and working professionals. “Simple things that used to take hours can now be done in minutes. That gives people back time for their families and the things they love.” But the risk emerges when convenience replaces cognition. “The biggest danger is overreliance,” Barsoom said. “When we substitute our creativity and judgment entirely with AI, we stop thinking. We stop reasoning. That’s when we become reactive instead of intentional.” Data, Security, and the ‘Wild West’ Phase of AI Beyond cognitive dependency, Barsoom flagged data security as one of the most underappreciated risks in AI’s current development cycle. “Any industry that handles personal or sensitive data is at risk — healthcare, financial services, government, consumer businesses,” she told MRC Business. “We’re in the Wild West right now. There is data leakage.” Industry data reinforces that concern.  Multinational technology company IBM reasoned in a blog on AI threats that “lack of security threatens to expose data and AI models to breaches, the global average cost of which is a whopping USD 4.88 million in 2024.” In addition, IBM warned, “the data that helps train [large language models] is usually sourced by web crawlers scraping and collecting information from websites. This data is often obtained without users’ consent and might contain personally identifiable information (PII).” Barsoom confirmed to MRC Business that “any industry that uses PII or your personal identification is at risk.”  Software company Zylo noted in a company blog that its 2025 SaaS Management Index found 77.6 percent of IT leaders increased investment in SaaS tools for their AI capabilities, yet 51 percent of applications in the average enterprise portfolio still carry a ‘Poor’ or ‘Low’ risk score. As Zylo concluded, “These gaps put sensitive data and company operations at risk.” “I can’t say with 100% confidence that we’re in a world where data is fully protected,” Barsoom acknowledged. She encouraged users and organizations to take basic precautions — auditing data, adjusting AI training settings, and limiting exposure — but warned that visibility remains imperfect. “What we don’t know,” she concluded, “is what we don’t know.” The Bottom Line For Barsoom, the future of AI is not about fear — it is about discipline. “AI can elevate human potential,” she said. “But only if we stay accountable for judgment, ethics, and responsibility. Once we give that away, we don’t just risk bad outcomes — we risk losing what makes us human.”

Explore the Media Bias Tracker that fact checks and holds Fake News accountable. False claims debunked, Hall of Shame for serial offenders, Leaderboard of networks ranked by Repeated Lies. Stay inform...

With Erica Hill subbing for Audie Cornish, CNN This Morning continued  to downplay Islamic terrorism against Christians in Nigeria in the context of Trump-ordered US strikes on Islamic terrorists there. And as seen in the screencap, CNN put in quotes the "slaughter" of Christians. Hill suggested that's not reality, but conservatives don't care about reality: HILL: ...the data doesn't necessarily support the president's claim that Christians are being disproportionately targeted. Ashley, this has been, the religious persecution, has been a really animating subject matter, if you will, for many conservatives. Does it matter to them that the data doesn't line up? Writing about CNN doing something similar last month, we countered claims that Christians aren't being targeted with these facts: Global Human-Rights NGOs, almost all left-of-center, have condemned the violence. Amnesty International issued reports titled “Harvest of Death” and “Targeted for Faith” — highlighting Christian villages wiped out. Human Rights Watch: Issued a 42-page brief “They Burned Everything” — documenting Fulani attacks on Christian farming communities. Even the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect--founded by George Soros’ Open Society!--lists Nigeria as an R2P crisis because of “Christian genocide.”  UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion (2022): “Christians are deliberately targeted for killing and kidnapping.” Pope Francis called it “a terrible genocide” in an open letter co-signed by 350 African bishops, many of them liberation-theology progressives. A study by the Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa found that Christians were 6.5 times more likely to be killed in the violence than Muslims. There's much more, as you can read about here. And yet, Saturday's New York Times carried this headline on the front page: "Analysts Question Claim Militants Are Singling Out Christians." For CNN and other media outlets to downplay the way in which Christians in Nigeria are being targeted by Muslims is outrageous. But it's of a piece with the way the liberal media seeks to softpedal Islamic attacks on home soil, as when they pretend not to know the motive of attackers who shout Allahu Akbar while wielding their guns or knives. Hill also took a snide shot at President Trump. She opened the segment by accusing him of hypocrisy, saying in respect of military operations in Nigeria and off the coast of Venezuela, that Trump is "gunning" for a Nobel Peace Prize.   We see what you did there, Erica. Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 12/26/25 6:00 am ET ERICA HILL: President Trump ordering a deadly Christmas Day strike on ISIS fighters in Nigeria. CNN This Morning starts right now.  A move from the president, who of course is gunning for a Nobel Peace Prize.  . . .  CNN's Nada Bashir is following these developments for us and joins us now live from London. So, Nada, what more do we know about these strikes and the targets specifically?  NADA BASHIR: Well, look, Erica, we had heard warnings from the US president in November, calling on his Defense Secretary to prepare for possible action in Nigeria. We frequently heard from the US president discussing what is characterized as the persecution of Nigeria's Christian community by Islamist extremist groups, notably the Islamic State group in Nigeria. And now, of course, we have seen that so-called action being carried out now, an overnight strike.  . . .  HILL: Well, President Trump, of course, casts himself as a peacemaker. He touts ending several wars, has also vowed to limit U.S. military intervention abroad. Yet from Iran to Venezuela, we are seeing an increase in international escalations. And the president warning, of course, there could be more to come in Nigeria, writing on Truth Social to the, quote, dead terrorists, warning there will be, in his words, many more if the slaughter of Christians continues.  . . .  It's important to note, the country itself is about split between Christian and Muslim faith. And the data doesn't necessarily support the president's claim that Christians are being disproportionately targeted.  Ashley, this has been, the religious persecution, has been a really animating subject matter, if you will, for many conservatives. Does it matter to them that the data doesn't line up? Because that is a significant issue.  . . .  ASHLEY DAVIS: But I'm very happy that, that the administration is actually striking in abroad rather than them coming and striking us in our country.  In regards to the Christian and Muslim controversies, I mean, we don't know what we don't know. It's so complicated. There's a lot of national security complications that are overlaid between the two groups, that the ISIS and terrorist groups are hiding behind the Muslim religion. And so I think that we need to be very cautious that this is, including with president, that this is a religious attack.  HILL: Yeah, caution definitely advised. I will just say, just based on our reporting, the data does not support the claims that Christians are being disproportionately targeted.     

This past November President Trump instructed the Pentagon to, "prepare for possible action in Nigeria", saying the U.S. could go in "guns-a-blazing" and halt aid if the government there "continues to allow the killing of Christians." He also refused to rule out the possibility of U.S. troops boots on the ground, and declared Nigeria, "a country of particular concern" for violating religious freedoms, all of which sent the left  into a frenzy, with many questioning if Trump's  warnings were warranted.  Many in the left wing media like MSNBC's Al Sharpton and CNN's Abby Phillip had major issues with Trump shining a light on Christians being killed. And on November 20th, all three major TV Network Newscasts skipped coverage of a House hearing on the very issue of Christians being killed in Nigeria. Fast forward to Christmas Day, and the U.S. bombing of ISIS in Nigeria, and the coverage provided by the three Network Newscasts. The in depth reporting occurred on Friday December 26th. Over on the CBS Evening News, correspondent William James Inman began his report this way. INMAN: The U.S. Military fired more than a dozen tomahawk cruise missiles at ISIS targets in Nigeria, and the timing was deliberate, President Trump told a radio interviewer. TRUMP: I said hit them on Christmas day. It'll be a Christmas present. We hit ISIS, who are terrible, they are butchers. INMAN: People could be seen carrying debris away from one target site. The Pentagon's initial assessment indicated multiple ISIS militants were killed. Trump warned last month the U.S. Would go into Nigeria with guns a-blazing if the government failed to protect Christians from ISIS attacks. TRUMP IN NOVEMBER: They are killing the Christians, and killing them in very large numbers. I'm not going to allow that to happen. INMAN: But Nigeria denied those accusations. So far this year nearly 12,000 people have been killed. Inman never tells us how many of the 12,000 were Christians. It would have been an opportune time to inform his audience that in September, Senator Ted Cruz introduced the 'Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025'. The bill protects Christians and other religious minorities being persecuted in Nigeria. Cruz has pointed out that since 2009, 52,000 Nigerian Christians have been murdered by Jihadists and over 20,000 Christian churches and religious-based institutions have been destroyed. That all went unreported by Inman, who did find time to play a clip from CBS National Security Contributor Samantha Vinograd. VINOGRAD: Violence by insurgent groups, criminals, and others in Nigeria doesn't just target Christians. It also targets Muslims. And where and when these strikes occur will certainly be scrutinized by analysts to see who exactly is hit and whether the violence stops. Again, minimizing the significance of the Christians who have been killed. Over on NBC Nightly News the agenda-driven reporting continued, with reporter Julie Tsirkin who had the help of an official from the Nigerian government, which as always denied that Christians are being targeted. TSIRKIN: ..Nigeria's government now confirming  it worked directly with the United States to carry out the mission. But the Foreign Minister also pushing back against President Trump's claim that Christians alone are being targeted by the Islamic State. YUSUF TUGGAR Foreign Minister Nigeria: This is not about religion. It is about Nigeria's innocent civilians and the wider region as a whole. Tsirkin could have pointed out that this has been the position of the Nigerian government all along, despite numbers to the contrary. She could have easily pointed to Senator Cruz's telling statistics, referenced above, but of course did not.  Friday on ABC's World News Tonight, it was more of the same. Anchor Linsey Davis led into a report on the attack from correspondent Selina Wang this way. DAVIS: President Trump says it was to protect Christians in that country. But Nigerian officials say the strikes were aimed at protecting all religions, not just Christians. WANG: ..President Trump saying he ordered the strikes against terrorists who, quote, have been targeting and viciously killing primarily innocent Christians... U.S. And Nigerian officials confirming they worked together on this operation. Analysts tell ABC news the reality on the ground in Africa's most populous country, home to millions of Christians and Muslims, is complex. DARRELL BLOCKER, Former Chief, CIA Africa Division: Christians are not the sole target of ISIS, in Nigeria, they have been indiscriminate in their violence. WANG:: Nigeria's government responding to the strikes overnight, saying terrorist violence in any form, whether directed at Christians, Muslims, or other communities, remains an affront to Nigeria's values and to international peace and security.  I don't believe that Donald Trump or anyone else would argue with the above statement. The President has acknowledged that not only Christians have been killed, but that doesn't change the facts. None of the three networks made any mention of Trump designating Nigeria as "a country of particular concern", or the "Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act" or the number of Christians who have actually been killed in Nigeria over the last several years. That is not journalism.

It was a rough year for the late night comedy business. One show was cancelled, it was announced another will be cancelled next year, and another was suspended for spouting off about conspiracy theories related to Charlie Kirk’s assassin. Add all that to the regular program of liberal politicking, and you get the top (bottom?) ten moments from late night 2025. 10. Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, Comedy Central, February 24 on Capitalism “Look, capitalism is by definition exploitative. It's how it operates. That's fine. But then government's role should be to ease the negative effects on Americans of that exploitation, not subsidize that treachery with our money. We are getting [bleep] at a Diddy party and they're making us buy the baby oil!”      9. Stephen Colbert, The Late Show, CBS, November 5 on Zohran Mamdani MAMDANI: New York will remain a city of immigrants, a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants, and as of tonight, led by an immigrant! COLBERT: Is this true? Is this true? I'm being told just now that they’ve already changed the poem on the Statue of Liberty: "I'm not crying, you're crying." 8. Bill Maher, Real Time, HBO, August 15 on DOGE Staffer Edward “Big Balls” Coristine Getting Assaulted “So, somebody in the administration got mugged, Big Balls. Remember Big Balls? He was part of DOGE, he's a teenager and he was mugged, carjacked, I think, by two other teenagers. Ironically, when they were kicking the shit out of him, he was curled up in a big ball. Not funny – it’s not funny that—well, you know, it's a little embarrassing to the bro squad out there who think of themselves as such tough guys because he got beat up by two 15—year—olds and one was a girl. They were brutal, they hijacked his car, and then they made fun of his playlist.” 7. Alan Cumming, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, ABC, July 21 on America “America, how are you doing? No, really, how are you doing? I mean, how are you doing aside from being a country that has just reintroduced concentration camps, taken healthcare away from 17 million people to give billionaires a tax cut, and also to finance an armed militia of masked men that commits heinous assorted kidnapping and crimes against humanity on a daily basis? Aside from all that, are you okay? I wouldn’t have thought so.” 6. Stephen Colbert, The Late Show, CBS, June 24 on Operation Midnight Hammer COLBERT: Okay, that's one less problem in the world. Except for one small problem: today we learned that U.S. intelligence has determined Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed, and their centrifuges are largely intact. Oopsa nukey. So, less Operation Midnight Hammer and more Operation MC Hammer. In that Iran's nuclear scientists just sent this message about their centrifuges.  MC HAMMER: Can't touch this COLBERT: [Dances]     5. Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Kimmel Live, ABC, May 22 on The Big Beautiful Bill “Well, it was another wildly destructive day in Washington, D.C. You know they pulled another all-nighter in the House last night where they passed Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill. And man, oh man, if this is the beautiful bill, I'd hate to see the ugly one. I'm not sure which part of the bill is the most beautiful. I don't know if it's the part where we take food from hungry kids or the devastating effect it will have on college education or the trillions of dollars it will add to our national debt or the almost $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid. Either way, say goodbye to grandma because the bill passed with a vote of 215-214, or as Trump called it, a landslide.” 4. Stephen Colbert, The Late Show, CBS, May 15 on The Big Beautiful Bill “There's also gonna be cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or [snaps] Republicans have proposed limiting nutrition aid to only U.S. citizens and green card holders. Or, counterpoint, hear me out. What if we keep giving food to all the hungry children and to make up for that, Republicans can eat a [bleep]. How 'bout that? Will that work? Would that be okay? You know what? You know what? You know what? In fact, let's be generous, they can eat a bag of [bleep].”  3. John Oliver, Last Week Tonight, HBO, March 9 on Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump “And I will admit there are positive things you can say about Reagan, like "He was our only president to make a movie with a chimp," or "He's dead," but his moral clarity might come as a surprise to any gay people who lived through the 1980s. I'm just saying, if you brought Reagan back from the dead and told him all the racist shit Trump's managed to do in less than two months, he'd cum so hard he'd die again.”  2. Taylor Tomlinson, After Midnight, CBS, March 6 on Brian Thompson and Luigi Mangione “It’s been a pretty bad week for the world, so I have a gift for you. My friends, there's a Luigi sex tape. That's right. Luigi Mangione is the accused murderer of a healthcare CEO, whose name was—he's not hot, so I don't remember.” 1. Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, ABC, September 15 on Conservative Reaction to the Charlie Kirk Assassination “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”    

“Crime in the U.S. fell in 2025. Will the trend continue?” ran on the Christmas Eve edition of National Public Radio’s Morning Edition. But after months of coverage bashing President Trump for sending troops into cities to fight crime (i.e. “Do Trump's D.C. moves echo an authoritarian playbook?”) Trump gets no credit in reporter Meg Anderson’s good-news story about an issue he ran and won on -- fighting crime. Anderson’s written story (the broadcast version was briefer and somewhat less slanted) reversed the polarity of reality, pointing to the falling crimes rates as if they somehow discredited Trump’s actions and rhetoric, as opposed to the drops showing Trump’s tough-on-crime policy bearing fruit. Crime fell across much of the U.S. in 2025 — in the Midwest, the South, the Northeast and the West, in big cities and small towns, and in red and blue states. The number of murders saw a huge drop — about 20% fewer than in 2024, according to the Real Time Crime Index, which uses local crime data from nearly 600 jurisdictions around the country. Other violent crimes, including rape, robbery and aggravated assault, also declined, as did property crimes like motor vehicle theft and burglaries. "It's the best year in crime I've seen in 27 years in this business," says John Roman, who directs the Center on Public Safety & Justice at NORC, a research group at the University of Chicago. NPR spoke to researchers who study trends in crime, policing and criminal justice about the numbers. Here are some of their main takeaways this year — and what they expect in 2026. Under the subhead “What caused the drop in murders?” there was no mention of even the possibility that Trump’s acts of sending in the National Guard to crime-ridden Democrat-run cities could have had a positive effect, or mass deportations. Instead they cited Covid. Part of the reason, researchers say, is that the nation is over the hump of the pandemic. During 2020 and 2021, homicide rates surged across the U.S. Now the nation is simply on the other side of that surge. Trump only appeared in the story to have his rhetoric and anti-crime acts discredited under the subhead “Rhetoric vs. reality.” Some researchers pointed to a disconnect between the widespread decrease in crime, and President Trump's depictions of crime this year, particularly in Democrat-led cities. Trump called Chicago the "most dangerous city in the world" and said Washington, D.C., had been "overtaken by violent gangs." The two cities, and others, eventually became the focus of federal law enforcement surges aimed at cracking down on crime and immigration. Chicago and D.C. have historically had higher crime rates compared to many U.S. cities, but they have also both seen crime falling in recent years, like much of the rest of the country. Using the threat of crime to justify crackdowns should make Americans wary, said Tahir Duckett, who directs the Center for Innovations in Community Safety at Georgetown Law. "That's a dark story that we have heard told in history," he said, "justifications for repression of civil rights, justifications for seizing additional authority." Isn't it possible that Trump's acts caused the drop in crime? NPR doesn't even consider the idea. Sending in the Guard is "repression." Anderson’s pessimism spread into the future setting the groundwork to blame Trump’s government for a crime spike in 2026 (after not crediting him for the 2025 drop) via an unlabeled liberal source: Government funding cuts worry experts like Ames Grawert, senior counsel in the justice program at the Brennan Center for Justice. While NPR treated the correlation between the fall in crime and Trump policy as a coincidence not worth noting, the Daily Caller had a different take on the same data: President Donald Trump has made combating violent crime a top priority in his second term. In August, he issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington, .D.C, and ordered the National Guard deployed to help crack down. The city experienced nearly a 28% drop in murders this year, according to the RTCI.

It was a challenging task, but an esteemed panel of NewsBusters editors, led by MRC President David Bozell and MRC’s Vice President for Research and Publications Brent Baker, boiled down all the biased outbursts from lefty hack hosts, anchors, reporters and pundits in 2025 and on December 17 announced The Media Research Center Award for Worst Quote of the Year.   Of course, every year, there is way too much bias for just one category. So we broke down the Worst of 2025 into five additional categories (The Craziest Analysis Award; The Trashing Trump Award; The Damn Those Conservatives Award; The ICE Breakers Award for Hating Trump’s Deportation Policy; and the Celebrity Freak-Outs Award).  Today, we present the WORST OF 2025: The Damn Those Conservatives Award.    WINNER     “I think some people might say Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric was extreme. You know, I think that’s the conversation that happened. People condemned political violence, but they also felt a great deal of discomfort with his language, suggesting that these kinds of words lead to violence. I don’t know, I’m just kind of sharing my observations as I saw the conversations unfold.”— Host Katie Couric to Sen. John Fetterman on her podcast Next Question with Katie Couric, November 13.   RUNNERS-UP   “We tried to forget about him, but Ron DeSantis is still governor of Florida. He took the Comfy Couch hosts on a tour of the concentration camp that he’s building in Florida in order to round up people, brown people, and throw them in a camp because he doesn’t want them in Florida.”— Former MSNBC host Joy Reid on The Joy Reid Show podcast, June 28.   “There’s a reason that there’s so much hate going around. There’s a reason that there’s so much anti-Semitism and so much racism going around….You can place it at the feet of one person [Donald Trump] who didn’t start this but certainly exacerbates it and foments hate and bigotry…. The racism. The bigotry. The anti-Semitism. The transphobia. The homophobia. It certainly does happen on one side more than the other….That’s the thing that makes the MAGA wheel spin. That’s the motor. That’s the axle. Is hatred and bigotry.”— Former CNN anchor Don Lemon discussing the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor’s mansion as aired on his podcast The Don Lemon Show, April 14.   “What the Trump Administration is providing Democrats right now are those cuts. They’re giving them the punchline to, ‘Oh, they’re gonna cut billionaires tax cuts, but guess what they’re gonna do?’ They’re going to take away medical research that saved your daughter or saved somebody in your family. They’re going to take away and fire people in the FAA. So, those plane crashes that you’re seeing, you’re gonna see more of them.”— Co-host Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, February 19.

On the night of Christmas -- as millions of American Christians celebrated the birth of a savior to a troubled mother -- the PBS News Hour thought it was a tremendous occasion for a one-sided discussion on...abortion. The godless tone-deafness was something to behold.  PBS was sharing a piece of their new podcast Settle In, and the guest was pro-abortion activist/journalist Irin Carmon and how she reported on the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. Anchor Amna Nawaz explained her new book Unbearable "tells the stories of five women in New York and Alabama as they navigate a new post-Roe landscape." The opportunity for states to outlaw or limit the killing of babies was, to Carmon, treating women like animals and diminishing their humanity -- and obviously, with that world view, the unborn child doesn't have humanity, killing them isn't diminishing anything. Nawaz helpfully asked Carmon to explain her statement from the book about "how incomplete our story of American reproduction has been and how much has been unexpressed, hidden or taken for granted." IRIN CARMON: I think, for me, when I -- the real inspiration for writing this book, the actual moment, even though in some ways I was leading up to it in my entire career of reporting, was being pregnant. I was six months pregnant for the second time when Roe v. Wade was overturned with the Dobbs decision and I was eight months pregnant when the decision was finalized. And for me, one of the stories that I wanted to tell -- I was covering the decision as a reporter at New York magazine. I was writing about all the implications for policy and for law and the dynamics of the decision and the holding. But I was also feeling in my bones what it would mean for this profound change in American law and life, how it would actually affect people. And I did not need an abortion. I did not seek an abortion. I was really excited to be pregnant. But I also found myself thinking, why hasn't anybody talked about how what an enormous physical and grave undertaking pregnancy can be in the context of even when you want to and what it might mean to force this on someone? I don't think nobody talks about it, but for me it was something that I felt in my bones. I felt it in my blood. I could feel like in the extra heart that was beating inside of me, that there was a profound erasure from that opinion in particular and from the way Alito wrote about it of the seriousness of pregnancy, regardless of the circumstances you find yourself in. So one of the parts that I thought was incomplete and inexpressed is that you might think of yourself -- unexpressed -- is that you might think of yourself as never needing this kind of care, right? And there are women in the book who I write about who never thought they would be in this situation -- AMNA NAWAZ: Right. CARMON: -- and find themselves seeking a kind of care that is stigmatized, that is illegal, that is secret, or that they will be punished for one way or another. And so it felt like the best way to tell that story was to -- I started a little bit by weaving in my own personal story, even though in many ways it's not an extraordinary one, but I think the very fact that for me as a married, white, upper-middle-class, privileged woman who literally reports on this for a living, the feelings that I had of being made to feel smaller or less than a fully adult human in control of my own decisions during my pregnancy were so instructive for me. Because I thought, like, what chance does anybody who doesn't have all this going for them have in this system that says that the moment you become pregnant you have fewer constitutional rights, you have fewer rights of autonomy in medicine, you will be treated like, to quote one of the women in my book, a child animal? And that's not to diminish the fact that my pregnancies and many other people's pregnancies were deeply joyful and I was excited about them, but that's not a reason to diminish the individual pregnant person's humanity. On "public" broadcasting, the usual night for this kind of leftist advocacy is on January 22, the Roe v. Wade anniversary, where they would annually avoid covering tens of thousands of protesters at the "March for Life" in favor of putting all their "compassion" on the abortion advocacy. But to do this on Christmas night is a little astonishing.

This past Tuesday, ten days after the December 13th shooting at Brown University, and on the same day that Brown placed its' Police Chief Rodney Chatman on administrative leave, and the U.S. Department of Education announced an investigation into safety procedures at Brown, Providence Mayor Brett Smiley was interviewed on CNN, and was tossed softballs on the latest developments. Smiley appeared on CNN News Central and could have been hit with legitimate, tough, probing questions and follow-ups on the shootings, and security at Brown, the news on Chief Chatman, as well as Smiley's own performance during the aftermath of the shooting. But Host Erica Hill failed to provide much of what could have and should have been delivered. Even her lead-in into the interview fell short. "School officials say they have placed the campus Police Chief, Rodney Chatman, on administrative leave, effective immediately as the school reviews the response to the attack. Now, according to an announcement a former Providence, Rhode Island Police Chief will now lead a review into what happened..." Hill made no mention of the fact that this was not the first time in his career that Chatman has been placed on leave. It happened to him at University of Utah, shortly before being asked to leave, and winding up at Brown. It should have been her first question for the Mayor. It wasn't.  HILL: When we look at where things stand, understandable there would be this after-action report by the school. We're also learning about the Department of Education investigation into Brown. Do you believe that's appropriate and warranted? SMILEY: ...Brown has been entirely open and would have, without having been asked, conducted this after-action review, and the city of Providence is going to do the same as well. I'm extraordinarily proud of the work of my department through this process, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be willing to look at what we might have done better, what tools and technology we might have wished we had, and Brown's willing to ask all those same questions as well, which is what the campus community deserves, just like it's what my residents deserve. That was it from Hill on the entire subject of the Brown Police Chief and his replacement, although the Mayor would bring it up himself later. Then Hill pitched another softball. HILL: I understand that you've reached out to some other mayors who have unfortunately faced similar circumstances. Have they offered you any guidance you found helpful in terms of what needs to be examined for these after-action reports? SMILEY: I'm very active in the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and through that network, they have been reaching out....The other good advice that I'm getting from my colleagues around the country, because sadly, so many of America's mayors have been through some version of this type of violence, is to make sure that we're staying on the right track in terms of helping, helping our community both heal from what happened and providing resources in terms of trauma and PTSD... HILL: Yes, it will certainly be important to stay on top of that, understandably. Hill's toughest question came on the issue of cameras, or lack thereof, inside and outside of the building on campus where the shooting took place. HILL: If we're thinking about the perimeter, right, of a college campus and where it blends into or sort of becomes the city of Providence, shouldn't those perimeters be a place where there should be, perhaps, added surveillance? SMILEY: I'm sure that's something that Brown will look at. And you mentioned at the outset, the new acting Chief [Hugh Clements] at Brown is our former Police Chief, which is someone that I know well and have a really high degree of confidence in...And so, I know he'll ask those questions. And -- and I have confidence in the administration at Brown that they'll implement recommendations that need to be implemented. Smiley's next statement should have raised a red flag for Hill, but it did not. SMILEY: ..Brown is a campus that is integrated with our community here in Providence. It's one of the things we love about it. Neighbors walk their dog through campus. I live nearby, I jog through campus regularly. I did so this morning. I hope this doesn't turn into a situation where the campus is walled off or gated off. That's not going to help the situation... So, we should be using technology in a smart way that'll help make everyone safer... Sure, just let everyone enter the campus, because that has worked out so well.  And they can waive at any new cameras that appear. We know that the Brown shooter had no trouble coming and going many times. But Hill apparently heard nothing worth following up on, and thanked the Mayor for his time. Or maybe she knew his jogging schedule, and didn't want to keep him from "integrating the community."

"So you're telling me there's a chance." We laughed when the "Dumb and Dumber" character uttered that but that attitude was reflected in real life by a New York magazine writer which makes it even funnier. Yes, the extreme Hopium expressed by that magazine's Intelligencer section senior editor, Margaret Hartmann, over the incredibly slight possibility that Jeffrey Epstein's postcard letter to imprisoned serial sex offender Larry Nassar might be valid is made hilarious by its sheer desperation  despite the much less than million to one chance that it could be true.  You can see Hartmann on Tuesday going full "Dumb and Dumber" in her plea for even slight hint of damning evidence against President Donald Trump, "Did Epstein Really Send Larry Nassar a Suicide Note?" ...the DOJ posted the image of a handwritten letter signed by “J. Epstein,” which was sent to convicted sex offender Larry Nassar in 2019. The letter, which is postmarked three days after Epstein died in prison, seems to allude to Epstein’s plans to end his life, and accuses Trump of sharing their love of “young, nubile girls.” Soooo … did the Justice Department just unceremoniously drop an Epstein suicide note that suggests the president was involved in his crimes? Big if true! But it’s hard to know what to make of the letter, there is significant reason to doubt its legitimacy, and now the DOJ claims it’s “fake.” "Significant reason to doubt its legitimacy?" Try OVERWHELMING reason to doubt it, Margaret. We’ve known about the existence of this purported letter from Epstein to Nassar for years. In 2023, the AP published a report on more than 4,000 pages of Epstein-related documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request to the federal Bureau of Prisons. The letter itself was not included in the documents, but the AP did find correspondence between prison officials debating what to do with it... 2023? And was that not at the time when the Biden administration DOJ was conducting over-the-top lawfare against President Donald Trump? If there was the slightest chance that letter was valid does anybody think there would be any possibility that letter would not be quickly released to a very compliant media? Another document posted on Tuesday reveals that the FBI asked its handwriting analysis laboratory to examine the Epstein note in 2020. ...But the documents released so far do not say if the analysis was ever performed, or what it concluded. Later on Tuesday, the DOJ announced that the letter is “FAKE,” without providing any documentation to back up this claim, or explaining how this forgery ended up in the Epstein files... Perhaps the answer to handwriting question is so obvious that you don't need to to be a handwriting expert to come to a conclusion on this matter as the New York Times Investigation Editor David Enrich reveals:   We have compared Epstein's supposed letter to Larry Nassar with multiple examples of Epstein's actual handwriting (which were provided to @nytimes by a source). I'm no handwriting expert, but.... see for yourself. pic.twitter.com/Vk30fZOwuc — David Enrich (@davidenrich) December 23, 2025   "All we can say for sure: we’ll probably never know if the note is real, so it will just be added to the ever-growing pile of Epstein conspiracy theory fodder." Actually we do know for sure and so do you, Margaret. FAKE. Too bad you think your readers CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so you pretend that there is still some slight doubt as to the validity of the letter.

For politicians, scandal and controversy can be bad. But becoming the object of ridicule can be even more devastating. So if Kamala Harris happens to read these words, we'd advise her NOT to watch CNN's 7 am Christmas Day hour. What she'd find under the tree would be something worse than a lump of coal. It'd be a steaming pile of . . . ridicule.  It's almost 2026, so why not a horse race segment on 2028 presidential contenders? After former Biden aide Meghan Hays and Republican strategist Melik Abdul named their favorites, Abdul observed:  "Notably, who we're not talking about: Kamala Harris." Host John Berman put it to Hays: "Why aren't we talking about her, Meghan?"  Abdul was manifestly amused to see Hays thusly put on the spot, and even Berman couldn't suppress a grin. Hays proceeded to engage in an extended bout of nervous laughter. She questioned whether Harris would run, and was dubious about the existence of a Harris base or her ability to raise money. On second thought, perhaps Kamala should view the segment—and draw the appropriate conclusion from it. There are 23 universities in the California state system. Surely at least one of them must have an opening for a new president!  Note: Abdul said that the potential Dem candidates that Republicans should most fear are Newsom and Shapiro. Abdul praised Newsom as "stately." I'd call him slick. He peremptorily dismissed the chances of Wes Moore and JB Pritzker, saying of the former that "no one cares about the governor of Maryland," and that Pritzker's money "won't matter." Earlier in the segment, Berman called attention to Ron DeSantis' twitter [X] feed in the last six months, pointing out that he's posting about sports, music, and offering "unplugged commentary." Berman suggested that either "this guy has no more Fs to give," or that he wants to show a more relatable side of himself in preparation for a potential '28 run.  Here's the transcript. CNN News Central 12/25/25 7:33 am ET JOHN BERMAN: One curveball here, Meghan.  I'm a little bit obsessed with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his Twitter feed over the last six months. Because, look, he ran for president and did not do well, right? And I think a lot of people saw him as stiff, unapproachable, prickly.  So on social media the last several months, he's tweeting about music. He's tweeting about sports. He's offering sort of unplugged commentary. I don't know if you've had a chance to see it, But it's the kind of stuff that makes you think either this guy has no Fs left to give, or, he thinks I need to show a different side of myself if I'm going to have a future in politics.  . . . Melik, who do you think Republicans fear the most?  MELIK ABDUL: I think that Republicans, well, who they should fear the most, I would argue it's between Shapiro and Gavin Newsom.  You remember the Fox News debate between Gavin Newsom or Ron DeSantis? Gavin Newsom actually performed very well. And even though he's from California, he is very, he looks the part. He's very stately. And those types of things matter from an optics perspective. But also, Shapiro being from a battleground state. I think that that is something that we also have to watch. I don't think that Wes Moore, he's the governor of Maryland. No one cares about the governor of Maryland. I don't think Pritzker, he has a lot of money. It won't matter.  I think that the two standouts will be Gavin Newsom, and Shapiro. And notably, who we're not talking about, Kamala Harris.  BERMAN: Why aren't we talking about her, Meghan? [Abdul chuckles.] MEGHAN HAYS: [Nervous laughter] Uh, [Abdul laughs out loud] you know, it's interesting [more nervous laughter.]  I just am not sure [Abdul having a ball, continues to chuckle] she, I don't know that she's going to run. I know she talks about leaving the door open, but I think running, you have to have a base. You have to be able to raise a lot of money, and I think there's a lot of people in the race, and I'm not sure that that's a path she wants to take again. But, you know, again, there's probably going to be 20, 25 candidates. So, the water is warm. 

When voters are allowed to see the facts that the leftist, legacy media are denying them, their economic outlook brightens significantly, results of a new McLaughlin & Associates study reveals. In a nationally-televised address to the nation last week (Wednesday, Dec. 17), President Donald Trump described the ways in which the U.S. economy has improved under his administration. In response, left-wing media attacked Trump in an effort to dupe their viewers into believing that the economy is worsening. Even during his speech, the media took steps to prevent viewers from seeing the facts Pres. Trump was presenting, as partners John and Jim McLaughlin noted Wednesday in an analysis of the results of their latest study: “During the President's address, several liberal, anti-Trump networks chose to censor or obscure the White House's visual graphs — graphs which clearly documented improvements in wage growth versus inflation, gas prices, manufacturing, and tax refunds. “This was not a subtle editorial decision; it was a deliberate act of information suppression.” “It's illustrative of precisely why moving public opinion remains difficult even when the facts are on the president's side,” they write, providing examples of how destructively influential media bias can be. The graphics documented price increases for various products during the Biden administration, compared to decreases in their costs since Trump entered the White House, and showed how “real” (inflation-adjusted) wages fell during his predecessor’s term and have risen during Trump’s (see graphics below). In their national survey, conducted December 15-19, 56% of U.S. voters surveyed said they believe the economy is getting worse, while just 37% perceived it as improving But, “facts change minds,” they report: “When voters are presented with factual information—that the economy is growing, inflation is declining, wages are rising faster than prices, consumer spending is up, unemployment is low, interest rates are being cut, business investment is rising, and federal taxes are being cut — public opinion shifts dramatically.” Indeed, once voters were informed of the facts, the numbers flipped. The percent who said the economy is improving jumped 25 points, from 37% to 62%, while pessimism plummeted from 56% to 33%. Even a 56% majority of viewers who rely on left-wing media for their news agreed the economy is improving, once they reviewed the facts. “This explains why legacy media outlets chose to censor the President’s graphs,” the pollsters say. Likewise, “Most voters do not yet view President Trump's ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ (OBBBA) as a tax cut,” they note, reporting that about the same share of viewers (four in 10) believe it is a spending bill as think it lowers taxes. The media-driven misperception among voters weakens support for the new tax act even though, as the IRS explains, it: Lowered individual income tax rates. Increased the standard deduction. Extended tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. Eliminated tax on tips and overtime pay. Made interest on car loans deductible. Increased the deduction for seniors. “The conclusion is unavoidable, the pollsters say: “When voters are given accurate information, attitudes shift quickly and decisively.” To overcome the media bias, they write, Trump and his fellow Republicans must find ways to bypass hostile media filters – such as utilizing social media and holding rallies – and constantly counter fake news with documented facts. Graphics from Pres. Trump’s address to the nation are presented below, followed by video of his full speech. Read the complete analysis by John and Jim McLaughlin here.  

Explore the Media Bias Tracker that fact checks and holds Fake News accountable. False claims debunked, Hall of Shame for serial offenders, Leaderboard of networks ranked by Repeated Lies. Stay inform...

The leftists inside CBS News clearly despise new Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss, who threatens to add troublesome balance to their “news.” The war erupted when Weiss delayed the latest 60 Minutes hit piece on Team Trump deporting Venezuelans into a "notorious" Salvadoran prison. Delaying it is a “crisis,” the Trump-haters screamed, a “death knell for democracy.” Reporter Sharyn Alfonsi assembled what we could guess was a typical hit piece on the “notorious” CECOT prison in El Salvador that temporarily held illegal migrant cause celebre Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. When it was delayed at the last minute, The Wall Street Journal reported a combative note from Alfonsi to fellow 60 Minutes staffers that quickly leaked to the media, where she said her segment was being held for political reasons, not editorial ones. Alfonsi said Weiss had "spiked" the story and not given her a chance to discuss it further. It is certainly a serious subject when the Trump administration not merely deported illegal immigrants, but deported them directly into a prison. That can certainly be questioned. We can question why it was that Weiss couldn’t delay this story until the promos had already been sent out. Team Alfonsi not only leaked to the papers, but I think we can guess they got their story posted in Canada through Global TV, which has the rights to air 60 Minutes in Canada. so that all their super-fans could see it. We’ve seen it, and the best we can about it is this: It’s like all the other hatchet jobs that 60 Minutes has launched against Team Trump in 2025. If it had aired, it might not have caused as much of a ripple outside its natural audience. Make no mistake: to use Brian Stelter’s lingo, it "centered" the story on illegal immigrants and their allegations of torture and sexual assault. It was intended to suggest Trump sent innocent men into “Hell,” the term of art CBS used, even though these people aren’t generally religious. If you think 60 Minutes ever wanted to ponder the Hell endured by Laken Riley, by Rachel Morin, by Jocelyn Nungaray, and other people murdered by illegal aliens, think again. They never want to center the negatives about illegal immigration. The illegal immigrant in general, or in specific like Kilmar, have been centered all year long. They are automatically, let’s joke autocratically awarded Sympathetic Victim Status. The Border Patrol and ICE are perpetually the villains of these stories. Alfonso and her crew didn't want to put a Trump aide like Stephen Miller into this story. Why? Because they don’t want an energetic rebuttal, where someone might cast aspersions on illegal aliens or worse yet, on CBS for making Fake News.  Alfonsi could not abide Weiss wanting a Trump official to comment: "If the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a 'kill switch' for any reporting they find inconvenient.... We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state,” Alfonsi wrote. This statement's hilarious, considering Pelley put aside "investigative powerhouse" to "stenographer" in two puffball interviews with President Biden, not to mention Alfonsi's own puddle of goo over student activists like David Hogg at Parkland High School.  If Alfonsi wants to trash Weiss for curtailing her speech, she could review her 60 Minutes piece hailing the Germans for cracking down on free speech on the internet. Enjoy the podcast below, or on Apple or Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.   

How the Bondi Beach tragedy set off a media chain reaction.