The CNN Presidential Debate: A Trump Trap?

The inevitable quadrennial debate announcement has been made. There will be two presidential debates, and Donald Trump let Joe Biden set the rules. This time around CNN will host the first, and ABC the second. And the CNN selection -- with the announcement of moderators as CNN’s own Jake Tapper and Dana Bash -- raises a curious question. That would be: Is the selection of CNN a “Trump Trap”? A trap set by the former President himself? To start, consider the lay of the political land right now. As this is written, the former president is on trial in New York, the trial in the hands of decided Trump haters. The judge is on record as having contributed to President Biden’s re-election campaign. The judge’s daughter Loren Merchan is a left-wing activist actively involved with a digital marketing and fundraising agency that caters to Democrats. The Manhattan District Attorney who brought this case is an elected Democrat. So too the New York State Attorney General, the latter openly campaigning on a promise to get Trump. This is all before we get to the Fulton County Democrat DA Fani Willis and the soap opera that is her prosecution of Trump. And not to be left out is the Biden Justice Department’s Special Counsel Jack Smith, prosecuting Trump over the storage of classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate discovered in a raid on the former President’s home. Notably, President Biden has been revealed to similarly have boxes of classified documents stored, haphazardly, in his Wilmington garage -- with, curiously, no surprise raid. He had time to er, "adjust." Whatever the legal results are to be, without doubt all of this taken together has backfired, and backfired big time. Look no further than the crowd said to be 100,000 strong that turned out for Trump’s recent appearance in, of all places, the very blue state of New Jersey.  Then there’s the lineup of Republican members of Congress showing up at the New York courthouse where Trump’s trial is taking place. Suffice to say, any given Member of Congress is a highly political being, and they would never in a blink show up to so obviously support Trump if they thought they would be losing votes by doing so. All of which is to say, the former President has become the very symbol of a President being targeted by the American political and legal Establishment. And the attacks on him have backfired and backfired big time, politically speaking. Along with the attacks from the political and legal establishments, so too, famously, has the liberal “mainstream” media targeted Trump. That would decidedly include CNN. And, safe to say, the American people get it and have reacted with a decidedly negative view. CNN’s ratings have not been good. Leading, among other things, to this barb from the Tonight Show’s Jimmy Fallon, "Biden and Trump will meet on June 27 on CNN, and one of Biden's debate conditions was not having an audience, so that explains why it's on CNN." Which brings us round to the “Trump Trap” that may be the CNN debate. Full disclosure: CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, the debate moderators, are former colleagues. I like and respect both. But the point here is what is certainly obvious. There is one video clip after another here at NewsBusters of Jake deriding Trump, calling his presidency a “nightmare” and worse. Dana, plainly, is no Trump fan either. God Bless America -- I believe in free speech for Jake, Dana and every other American. Yet the fact here is that this debate will quickly be seen by millions of Americans as Trump versus not just President Biden, but against two left-leaning, Trump-despising members of the Trump despising “mainstream” liberal media as well.  In other words, this debate can be seen as being set up as a “Trump Trap.” Putting the former President on a debate stage with, as noted, not one opponent, but three. And in the current, decidedly heated political environment where Trump’s antagonists at his New York trial as well as his other trials have ignited a tidal wave of support for the former President. His treatment at the hands of Jake Tapper and Dana Bash in this debate could easily do even more of the same. For Trump, this might be similar to the CNN "town hall" with Kaitlan Collins constantly interrupting -- and you know how much CNN staffers and viewers were inflamed over that "platforming" of Trump. Which means? This debate just may turn out to be a well-planned -- by the former President -- “Trump Trap”.  Snaring CNN’s anti-Trump moderators and letting them, in full view of millions of Americans, just be their anti-Trump selves. Only adding to the backfire of support for Trump that is already on display, as in New Jersey just the other day. So prepare the popcorn. This debate will be a fun and instructive night.

CNN, Media Freak When GOP's Rep. Scott Perry Accurately Ties KKK History To Democrats

Amazing. As my NewsBusters colleague Curtis Houck colleague Curtis Houck headlined:  Election Interference: CNN Uses Audio of Private Briefing to Falsely Smear GOP’s Scott Perry In which Curtis notes CNN’s Annie Grayer has a story based on audio of a private meeting involving, full disclosure, my very own Pennsylvania Congressman, Republican Scott Perry. In which it is alleged that “Perry told colleagues in a closed door briefing that: The KKK in modern times, a lot of young people think somehow it’s a right-wing organization when it is the military wing of the Democratic Party. Decidedly, unabashedly, racist and antisemitic,” Perry said according to the recording. Grayer added that “The KKK is not affiliated in any way with the modern Democratic Party.” Grayer was not alone in flipping out at Perry’s remarks. The Philadelphia Inquirer, the New Republic and The Daily Beast  and others in the liberal media jumped on this as well. The New Republic termed Perry’s remarks “bizarro” while The Daily Beast settled for “bonkers.” In the Inquirer story the reporter quoted "Matt Jordan, director of the Pennsylvania State University News Literacy” who said that after its founding in 1865 by Democrats “it became an extra-legal terror organization that was never the wing of any political party.” Where to start with this wildly ignorant understanding of basic American history? The hard historical fact, per, among many, Columbia University historian Eric Foner is that the KKK was in fact “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease’s description of the Klan was as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.” Indeed, the Klan was so tied to the Democrats that the party’s 1924 Convention in New York City has been dubbed the “Klanbake” because so many of the delegates were Klan members.  The Klan’s favorite for the presidential nomination that year was one William Gibbs McAdoo, who had served Democrat - and Klan supporter  - President Woodrow Wilson as Secretary of the Treasury. Wilson, recall, was such a staunch Klan supporter that he hosted a White House screening of the pro-Klan, decidedly racist Hollywood blockbuster Birth of a Nation. The Klan hosted a massive convention rally for McAdoo across the Hudson River in New Jersey, replete with burning crosses. When one delegate had the temerity to introduce a resolution for the party platform condemning the Klan, it failed.  Historian Linda Gordon, in her book The Second Coming of the KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920’s and the American Political Tradition writes:  The results suggested not only how many supported the Klan but how many feared antagonizing it.   In very recent American history, the late Senator Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, was the longest serving member in the entire history of the Congress. Byrd was also the “Exalted Cyclops” of the Klan. He was elected to lead Senate Democrats as both Senate Majority Leader and, in the minority, as Senate Minority Leader.  In 1944, history records that Byrd wrote in a letter to a fellow segregationist Democratic Senator that:  I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. And who gave the eulogy at Byrd’s funeral? That would be his friend, Delaware Senator Joe Biden. All of which is to say, Congressman Scott Perry was 110% right to mention the tie between the Klan and the Democrats. In fact, segregation, a staunch pillar of the Klan’s platform, was nothing more than what is now quaintly called “identity politics.” Identity politics is, as it were, the son of segregation.

What Word the Media Refuses to Use For the College Riots: Insurrection

No one who's politically aware can be unaware of January 6, 2021. Tens of thousands of Americans descended on Washington to protest the counts and Covid-related conditions of the 2020 election. A riot took place at the US Capitol. The riot resulted in the charging, per ABC News three years later, of over 1,200 and “incarceration for more than 460 people.”  The coverage since then of that day in the mainstream media is typified by headlines like this from the New York Times:  Jan. 6 Panel Accuses Trump of Insurrection and Refers Him to Justice Dept. Or like this from Forbes:  Jan. 6 Insurrection 2 Years Later: How Many Arrested, Convicted And What Price Donald Trump May Still Pay The Washington Post has an ongoing section titled:  THE JAN. 6 INSURRECTION There’s more of this kind of thing out there. And that’s before you get to Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden. Here’s NPR on Pelosi:  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Launches Select Committee To Probe Jan. 6 Insurrection And CNN on Biden:  The big lie being told by the former president, and many Republicans who fear his wrath, is that the insurrection in this country actually took place on Election Day. There’s more like this out there in the media, but you get the drift. When the subject of the riot at the Capitol on January 6th comes up, the “I word” is always nearby. So let’s take a moment to check the definition of “insurrection” and move on to the events of our current day and what is curiously missing in the coverage of these multiple upon multiple anti-Israel, anti-Semitic riots on one college or university campus after another. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “insurrection” as follows:“…an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” As of today, America is awash in multiple upon multiple “acts or instances revolting against civil authority” - the civil authority of one American college or university after another. And the mainstream media coverage is curious indeed.  Here’s a sample headline from the Washington Post:  Riot police and over 2,000 arrests: A look at 2 weeks of campus protests CNN headlined:  What we know about the protests erupting on college campuses across America The CNN story said:   New York CNN  —  College campuses across the United States have erupted with pro-Palestinian protests, and school administrators are trying — and largely failing — to defuse the situation. And on…and on and on…went the media coverage of these riots on multiple college campuses, the resulting arrests and financial damage. Good for them.  But the missing word in all this coverage? The missing word used routinely in the media and by progressive politicians to describe one solitary -- and admittedly decidedly wrong -- riot on January 6, 2021? That would be, of course, “insurrection.” All one has to do is turn on the television or start streaming current network coverage and there is decided violence on display. At Columbia University in New York the insurrectionists smashed windows and occupied the university’s Hamilton Hall. The Los Angeles Times headlined:  Nationwide, police make almost 2,000 arrests at college campuses since protests started All of which is to say that what’s happening collectively on some 70 college campuses across the country - riots, vandalism, violent clashes with police -is decidedly an insurrection against the “civil authority” and “governing” of those colleges and universities.  Yet mysteriously, silence on that fact from the media. Which in turn suggests that because the culprits of January 6 were Trump supporters the media says they were all about insurrection. But when the culprits of infinitely larger riots, replete with violence and attacks on police, involve far-left, anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas students and “outside agitators” - oh well, no big deal. If ever there were a naked example of how liberal media bias operates, there it is. Relentless coverage of “insurrection” for January 6th, (and in fact, no one was ever charged with the actual crime of “insurrection”) shrugging off massive campus unrest as just mere good ole American protests. The good news? Americans are on to the game.  And in the hierarchy of the liberal media’s friends in the Democratic Party, word seeps out about concern on how all of this reflects on President Biden and his re-election chances. As headlined here in the Financial Times:  Campus protests become a political liability for Joe Biden and Democrats Exactly. Which says just why the liberal media is not eager to exacerbate Biden’s problem by describing these events as an “insurrection.” Things are bad enough as they are.

Elon Musk Called Out NPR And PBS As 'State-Affiliated': They Freaked

Uri Berliner's expose of the ideological unanimity at NPR reminds the Republican half of America that they send their taxpayer dollars to Washington to have their viewpoints excluded or ridiculed as "far right" hate.  Back there in the Stone Age of 2023, Elon Musk, he of X that is formerly Twitter, antagonized NPR and PBS because - ready? Musk had made some changes to “state-affiliated” media designations, applying the term to both of those outlets. They're state-funded, but not state-affiliated? While stripping the designation from media outlets tied to governments like those of Russia and Iran, Musk had the nerve - the nerve! - to apply it to, among others, America’s NPR and PBS along with the UK’s BBC and Canada’s CBC. This is in the news a year later after CNN’s Oliver Darcy, now the man behind CNN’s Reliable Sources, talks of life after X, and looks back at his decision to remove his CNN newsletter from X in July of 2023. To recall the start of this media kerfuffle, see these headlines.   First, this one in April of 2023 from NPR:  NPR quits Twitter after being falsely labeled as 'state-affiliated media’ The story reported:  NPR will no longer post fresh content to its 52 official Twitter feeds, becoming the first major news organization to go silent on the social media platform. In explaining its decision, NPR cited Twitter's decision to first label the network "state-affiliated media," the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in Russia, China and other autocratic countries. Then there was this from the UK Guardian in 2023:  PBS quits Twitter after being labeled ‘government-funded media’ Broadcaster leaves platform a day after NPR’s exit over concerns labels undermine credibility as independent news outlets That story reported:  In a statement to USA Today, Jason Phelps of PBS said the broadcaster’s staffers stopped using the organization’s Twitter account after learning that the platform had relabeled them. Phelps said PBS had “no plans to resume at this time” but added that the organization was ‘continuing to monitor the ever-changing situation closely’. Here at NewsBusters, reporter Luis Cornelio lasered in on this squabble in May of 2023.  Uh, Oh! NPR Gets Triggered Over Elon Musk — Again Cornelio’s story reported:  Musk initially slapped NPR’s Twitter account with a “state-affiliated” label, a move that triggered a wave of leftist condemnation, with even Biden White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre vouching for NPR’s reporting. NPR President and CEO John Lansing ridiculously pouted that he was “disturbed” by the label. “We were disturbed to see last night that Twitter has labeled NPR as 'state-affiliated media,' a description that, per Twitter's own guidelines, does not apply to NPR,” Lansing claimed. Musk later changed NPR’s label to “government-funded media.” But NPR was apparently so triggered, it eventually left the platform. Musk mocked NPR’s exit from Twitter in a series of tweets last month, including a short post saying “Defund @NPR." Both PBS and NPR tried to wriggle off Musk’s “state affiliated” description by whining, essentially: “But we don’t take that much money!” Ahhhh. The Western Journal to the clarification rescue. The WJ investigated, headlining:  Fact-Check: How Much of PBS, NPR Revenue Comes from Government Funding? And what did the WJ fact check reveal? This:    So, just how much money does NPR get from government or government-affiliated sources? As noted above, NPR says only 1 percent of its annual budget comes from federal sources. But according to its own numbers, the broadcaster gets a lot more from government sources than it lets on.    For fiscal year 2020, for instance, the broadcaster’s affiliate stations received 8 percent of their revenue from federal appropriations via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They also got 10 percent from colleges and universities — which themselves are publicly funded — and another 5 percent from federal, state and local governments. That is 23 percent, not 1 percent.” As Musk pointed out, WJ says NPR also states on its website that…  federal funding is essential to public radio’s service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR. For its part, PBS gets even more from government or government-affiliated sources. That “even more” amount would be that:…  ….the TV broadcaster says it gets 15 percent of its revenue from the federal government, 13 percent from state governments, 3 percent from local governments, and 8 percent from universities. That’s a total of 39 percent. All of which is to say, Musk has been 100% correct to describe PBS and NPR as “state affiliated” - because they both are. For a fact they receive dollars from the government. According to that Guardian article , a PBS spokesman laughably said that: Twitter’s simplistic label leaves the inaccurate impression that PBS is wholly funded by the federal government. Hello? Needless to say, whether “wholly funded” or “partially funded” or accepting a dollar of government money, PBS is still taking government tax dollars to stay afloat. But, as discussed in this space with the recent, much publicized resignation of longtime NPR editor Uri Berliner, the network exists in a liberal bubble, no dissent allowed.  There was an easy and obvious way for NPR and PBS to answer Musk’s criticism and get out from under his “state-affiliated” designation once and for all. That would be: Stop taking money from the government. Period. Stop taking any money from any government apparatus. Period. Make the “P” in NPR and PBS stand not for “Public” - aka taking government funds - but rather “P” as in “Private.” As in “National Private Radio” and “Private Broadcasting Service.” All of which would make NPR and PBS a genuine private sector competitor with the rest of the American private sector free market in the world of television and radio broadcasting. Would that happen? Of course not. Again, as Uri Berliner documents, the network exists in a liberal bubble. Not even Elon Musk can get through it. They want to challenge Elon Musk - but not like that.  The bottom line? Elon Musk was right. Both PBS and NPR take government funding. They still do. And, one can reasonably suspect, neither has any intention of stopping. 

Thanks to One Dissenter, the Mask Drops at NPR

Without a doubt, many readers here at NewsBusters were mega-dittos fans of the late, great Rush Limbaugh. In today’s media world perhaps you listen to conservative talk radio hosts Sean Hannity or Rush’s successors Clay Travis and Buck Sexton, or Glenn Beck or Jesse Kelly. Or, indeed someone else, perhaps a local conservative host in your area. But whomever you listen to from that list of conservative talkers, they all have one thing in common: their shows have sponsors from the private sector.  And in no instance are those sponsors the American taxpayer. To a show, those sponsors are from the private sector, all busy selling their product (like Optima Tax Relief). This is, of course, not true with National Public Radio. NPR is funded in part, whether you like it or not, by you. The American taxpayer. And it is no coincidence that the government-supported radio has a seriously liberal bent. God bless America and free speech. But the decidedly obvious problem is that you are paying the bill - and the money is lifted right out of your wallet automatically, giving you absolutely zero choice in paying for what has morphed into left-wing propaganda radio. Imagine taxpayer dollars going to subsidize Limbaugh or Levin. You don't have to wonder whether the Left would find that a horrible expenditure of tax dollars to promote one side of the fence. Which makes the saga of longtime NPR editor Uri Berliner considerably interesting. A longtime editor at NPR, Berliner penned a lengthy article which not only startlingly admits to the problem but criticizes his bosses and colleagues for producing news every day from the liberal bubble. Over at a site titled, yes, The Free Press, Berliner titled his piece this way:  I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust. Let’s dip into some of the things this longtime NPR editor says. First of all, Berliner describes himself, saying:  You know the stereotype of the NPR listener: an EV-driving, Wordle-playing, tote bag–carrying coastal elite. It doesn’t precisely describe me, but it’s not far off. I’m Sarah Lawrence–educated, was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother, I drive a Subaru, and Spotify says my listening habits are most similar to people in Berkeley.  I fit the NPR mold. I’ll cop to that. Then he goes on to say:   By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.  An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America. And how did this happen? Berliner goes on - but of course - this way, saying:  Like many unfortunate things, the rise of advocacy took off with Donald Trump. As in many newsrooms, his election in 2016 was greeted at NPR with a mixture of disbelief, anger, and despair. (Just to note, I eagerly voted against Trump twice but felt we were obliged to cover him fairly.) But what began as tough, straightforward coverage of a belligerent, truth-impaired president veered toward efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency. Berliner keeps going, listing notable stories from the last several years and the way they were handled by the decidedly left-wing NPR staff. Trump-Russia collusion hoax? That was “catnip” and NPR took their guidance from the man Sean Hannity calls “the congenital liar (Rep.) Adam Schiff.” The New York Post pre-2020 election scoop about Hunter Biden’s decidedly scandalous laptop? Says Berliner:  The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump. The reality that the Covid pandemic came out of a lab leak in Wuhan, China?  The lab leak theory came in for rough treatment almost immediately, dismissed as racist or a right-wing conspiracy theory. Anthony Fauci and former NIH head Francis Collins, representing the public health establishment, were its most notable critics. And that was enough for NPR. We became fervent members of Team Natural Origin, even declaring that the lab leak had been debunked by scientists.  But that wasn’t the case. Berliner keeps on going to give examples making his devastating case of left-wing bias at NPR.  When George Floyd died, he writes that the message from the top of NPR was that.  America’s infestation with systemic racism was loud and clear: it was a given. Our mission was to change it. NPR, it was made clear, was all about diversity - diversity of skin color and gender. Berliner writes:  But what’s notable is the extent to which people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.  And this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity. Now. Having spoken truth to power, you get one guess as to the newest headline about Mr. Berliner, this one from CBS: “NPR suspends editor who accused the network of liberal bias” And within a matter of hours, that headline was followed by this one at the New York Post. It read:  NPR editor Uri Berliner resigns after bombshell expose reveals network’s pervasive left-wing bias The Post story reported:  NPR correspondent Uri Berliner, who was suspended without pay after calling out the radio broadcaster’s rampant liberal bias, resigned on Wednesday — and took a parting shot at the network’s controversial CEO. 'I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years,' Berliner wrote on his X social media account on Wednesday. 'I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism.' Berliner added that he 'cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay.' The “new CEO” of NPR that Berliner refers to is one Katherine Maher. And it took a bare blink of the eye for Maher to be revealed in past tweets as the personification of the Trump-hating, far-left mindset that consumes NPR. So there you have it. You, the American taxpayer, are paying for NPR and its left-wing bias. And if you are working at NPR and protest that bias, you will be suspended without pay and then made so uncomfortable you are forced to resign. The real problem? This is but one example of a journalistic outlet pretending to “just the facts” reporting. The fact that taxpayers have to pay for it is particularly insulting to Americans. And that is something that Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn is determined to change, sponsoring legislation to defund NPR. While over in the House the same move is being led by Indiana Congressman Jim Banks. But make no mistake, there are plenty of so-called journalism outlets out there that pretend to straight-up reporting when, in fact, just like NPR, their newsrooms are under the iron-fisted control of left-wing activists. And viewpoint diversity, as is true at NPR, is not to be tolerated. At NPR, thanks to Uri Berliner -- at the cost of his job -- the mask of journalistic independence and objectivity has finally dropped. It's about time someone from the inside told the ugly truth about it.