Senator Bernie Sanders criticized President Trump’s thin-skinned response to a critical “60 Minutes” broadcast, highlighting Trump’s repeated calls for CBS to lose its license. Sanders mocked Trump’s demand, emphasizing the president’s inability to accept criticism despite readily dishing it out through lawsuits against various media outlets. This reaction, Sanders argued, demonstrates an intolerance for dissent unbefitting a political leader. Trump’s actions underscore his pattern of attacking critical media outlets, labeling any negative coverage as “fake news.”
Read More
In response to Sunday’s “60 Minutes” broadcast featuring segments on Ukraine and Greenland, President Trump launched a scathing attack on the program, demanding the FCC impose significant penalties for what he deemed unlawful and defamatory coverage. This follows Trump’s ongoing $20 billion lawsuit against the network, which alleges biased editing of a Kamala Harris interview, a claim CBS denies. The FCC has already initiated an investigation into this matter, alongside several other probes into various news organizations. Despite the legal battles, “60 Minutes” continues its critical coverage of the Trump administration.
Read More
The White House must now allow the Associated Press full access, a judge has ruled, solidifying the principle of equal access for journalists within the government’s purview. This ruling correctly emphasizes that if the government chooses to open its doors to some members of the press, it cannot selectively shut those doors to others based on their perceived viewpoints. This is a fundamental aspect of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and the press, ensuring an even playing field for disseminating information to the public.
However, the practical implications of this ruling are far from straightforward. The question arises: what are the exact requirements for inclusion in the White House press corps?… Continue reading
Senator Markwayne Mullin, in a since-clarified X video, joked about the historical shooting of a Congressman by a reporter, suggesting violence could deter “fake news.” He later claimed his comments were a joke, despite the video’s apparent seriousness. This incident follows a 2023 near-physical altercation with a union president during a Senate hearing, highlighting Mullin’s history of confrontational behavior. The historical context referenced involves a reporter acquitted of murder on self-defense grounds.
Read More
Radio Free Europe’s assertion that the Washington administration shut down its Russian broadcast despite a court order is deeply unsettling. The very idea that a government would disregard a legal injunction to silence a news outlet raises serious questions about the rule of law and freedom of the press. This action smacks of authoritarianism, a blatant disregard for due process, and a chilling suppression of information.
The implications of this action extend far beyond the immediate impact on Radio Free Europe’s broadcasting capabilities in Russia. It suggests a pattern of behavior where the government feels emboldened to ignore legal constraints when it suits its agenda.… Continue reading
The suggestion that an Atlantic editor might publicly release the full text messages of Hegseth’s purported war plans is a fascinating development, fraught with potential consequences. The core issue hinges on the starkly contrasting statements from the White House and Hegseth himself. The White House insists no classified information was shared, a claim seemingly contradicted by Hegseth’s denial of even participating in the relevant group chat. This discrepancy creates a significant opportunity for the editor.
If the White House’s assertion of no classified information holds true, then releasing the texts would appear to present minimal legal risk. The act itself would become a powerful demonstration of transparency, forcing a direct confrontation with the administration’s narrative.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court’s rejection of another challenge to the “actual malice” standard upholds the precedent set in *Times v. Sullivan*, protecting public figures from libel suits unless actual malice is proven. This standard prevents wealthy individuals and powerful entities from silencing criticism through litigation. Conversely, private individuals suing for defamation need only demonstrate the falsity of the information and resulting reputational harm. Justice Thomas’s dissent, however, suggests ongoing debate surrounding the “actual malice” standard’s application.
Read More
This article details the unique approach Melania Trump took to the role of First Lady. Rather than actively engaging in traditional first lady duties, she prioritized a more independent, less public-facing role. This unconventional approach sparked considerable debate and analysis regarding her responsibilities and public image. Her focus remained largely on personal initiatives and a limited set of public appearances. Consequently, her time as First Lady was characterized by a notable departure from the typical expectations of the role.
Read More
The Associated Press filed a lawsuit against three Trump administration officials, alleging unconstitutional suppression of speech after the White House restricted AP journalists’ access to presidential events. The restrictions, directly linked to the AP’s refusal to adopt Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico, are viewed as a retaliatory measure against the news agency’s editorial independence. The lawsuit, citing the First Amendment, seeks to immediately restore the AP’s access and prevent future government interference with press freedom. The White House, however, maintains its position and anticipates a court battle.
Read More
Newsmax and Fox News’s unexpected support for the Associated Press (AP) in its standoff with Donald Trump over the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico highlights a fascinating dynamic within the media landscape. Their backing of the AP, a typically neutral news source, reveals a surprising level of pragmatism, even from outlets often criticized for partisan bias.
This unusual alliance stems from a shared concern: the potential for future administrations to suppress news organizations deemed unfavorable. The fear isn’t hypothetical; Newsmax and Fox News are acutely aware of the precarious position they occupy in the current political climate, recognizing that their own editorial stances could become targets for censorship under a different administration.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood