Commentary Culture Investigations

Kevin Schaul, Washington Post

Media Research Center President David Bozell joined The Wilkow Majority Monday afternoon to address the Left’s hypocritical overreaction to Trump’s decision to exclude CNN, MSNOW, and Politico from the White House.Bozell emphasized:”You want to talk about censorship, look at what Mark Zuckerberg attested to… the Biden admin was all over Silicon Valley censoring those who questioned the Power Five narrative.””You want to talk about censorship, look at what Mark Zuckerberg attested to… the Biden admin was all over Silicon Valley censoring those who questioned the Power Five narrative.”MRC’s @DavidBozell pushes back on the left attacking Trump for “censorship” on @WilkowMajority pic.twitter.com/ceUY1CmYu0— Media Research Center (@theMRC) September 21, 2026Trump’s decision was well-reasoned, unlike the response from the Left. Bozell explained that just as President Trump is not stripping away the Left’s right to report, he retains the right not to invite “fake news” into his inner circle. As CNN’s own Brian Stelter once admitted, “Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom of reach,” Bozell noted. The media’s double standard is glaring, and their hyperventilation over this executive decision is equally dramatic. Bozell remarked:“The idea that the president is banning the press and taking away freedom of speech, that is such an overreaction. It’s such a hyperbolic, silly overreaction.”Bozell suggested that Trump’s decision may have also been rooted in national security concerns. When the Washington Post accused Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon of underreporting casualties during the Iran conflict, and Hegseth called the claim a disgusting lie, the public was forced to choose whom to believe. While this left-wing major newspaper continues to carry dangerous clout, public trust in the media overall has “sunk like a stone,” Bozell noted. “For Republicans, it’s 8% according to Gallup… If you add in every other voter demographic, it gets up to a sky-high 24%. You’re not going to get much lower than that.” He added, “CNN has lost 50% of its audience in the last 5 years.” Considering the media’s current trajectory, Bozell clarified:”If you follow the media landscape to its logical conclusion, you’re going to have two distinct pools, one on the left and one on the right.””If you follow the media landscape to its logical conclusion, you’re going to have two distinct pools, one on the left and one on the right.”MRC’s @DavidBozell on the @WilkowMajority pic.twitter.com/HMD73rb5p6— Media Research Center (@theMRC) September 21, 2026Left-wing media outlets do not appear concerned by this growing divide. Bozell called them out directly: “You’ve got this group of left-wing operations that just don’t want to play ball, don’t want anybody in their sandbox.”While these major outlets whimper when the President calls out their reporting, they have no problem taking cheap shots at the Right. Bozell highlighted additional examples of this double standard:“We had a quote from Oliver Darcy, who works for CNN. He didn’t just want to ban Fox News from the pool. He wanted to ban Fox News from the cable spectrum. Brian Stelter said it wasn’t censorship to try to crush Fox News. It was harm reduction.”These hypocritical outlets should take the Right’s reaction in stride and acknowledge that “the media environment is changing faster than they can contend with,” Bozell argued. “There are going to be new players, and when the White House brings new players into the building, they should be welcomed.”Bozell concluded by exposing the legacy media’s duplicitous conduct and calling out their deeply entrenched, elitist attitude.Watch the full interview here:

A socialist city councilwoman running for mayor of Denver is sponsoring a measure that would restrict the city’s collection of its residents’ “actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression data,” a move she says is necessary to prevent the “targeting” of “trans folks.”
The ordinance, which was sponsored by Shontel Lewis, the Denver Democratic Socialists of America’s pick for mayor, would cover every city-run program and office, including the court system and law enforcement. It prevents those programs and offices from collecting “personal information” regarding an individual’s gender unless that information is required by federal, state, or city law. It also bars agencies from sharing such information with government agencies outside of Denver.
The proposal is similar to restrictions the city put on collecting and sharing immigration and citizenship information. Lewis and her cosponsor, Councilwoman Stacie Gilmore, said it’s necessary to “prevent city resources from being weaponized against trans and gender-expansive people.” They crafted the measure alongside the director of the prison abolition group Bread and Roses Legal Center, who goes by Z Williams. The Health and Safety Committee voted 5-0 on Wednesday to advance the legislation to the full city council.
“There were a number of concerns from that data being available to use in terms of people’s employment, that data being available to share among different counties and also being able to be shared with the federal government that has already been targeting trans folks,” Lewis said.
It’s unclear how the measure would work in effect, as it includes a litany of vague exemptions. Agencies must still compile and share “gender expression data,” for example, if it’s “necessary to effectuate an important city interest” like human services and criminal justice.
Several people voiced their support for the measure during a Wednesday city council hearing, though two individuals were opposed, Denver’s ABC News affiliate reported Monday.
“This is the most ridiculous thing I think I’ve ever seen this council bring forward, and I’ve been attending these meetings for over 10 years,” one opponent said. “You want us to engage in gender dysphoria.”
Lewis unveiled the legislation one month after announcing her longshot bid for mayor. She is best known for being convicted of stealing thousands of dollars’ worth of food stamps while working for the Colorado Department of Human Services East Food Stamp Office in 2008. Asked recently whether the conviction “is disqualifying for somebody who wants to serve as mayor,” Lewis said it “actually qualifies” her to lead Denver.
“I actually think that experience is what actually qualifies me,” Lewis said. “Twenty years ago, I was young, I was a young mom, I was grieving, I did something really silly, and I paid my restitution, I did my time, and I took care of what I needed to do while also navigating all the ills of poverty.”
The post Socialist Denver Mayoral Candidate Sponsors Bill Restricting City’s Collection of ‘Gender Expression Data’ appeared first on .

The internet probably needs a refresher on the meaning of the word “surviving.” The Washington Post is suggesting that Iran is “surviving” President Trump’s economic vice grip because the demagogic, death-worshipping regime leadership couched in luxury outside of the plight of the citizenry won’t budge.

YouTube

Post reporters Susannah George and Asal Abasian propped up the illusion that Iran proper is somehow weathering the economic firestorm brought on by the heavy U.S. naval blockade in the Persian Gulf and crushing sanctions. “Iran is suffering yet surviving under Trump’s economic warfare,” read the grossly misleading headline. Despite the ensuing shortages and economic erosion in the national currency, “Tehran appears to remain uncowed” as “there is little sign that the financial pain is translating into pressure on Iran’s leadership sufficient to force a return to talks and end the war.” Oh, really? Is that why Al Jazeera just reported the same day that the regime’s leadership has had to invent “creative solutions to energy shortfalls?” Does that somehow signal that Operation Economic Outcast has just been paper-tiger-ish?George and Abasian must have missed the Euronews exclusive published September 10 headlined, “‘The country is falling apart’: Iranians tell Euronews how war emptied their wallets.” In fact, Euronews stipulated that “While ordinary citizens previously weathered decades of international sanctions, the combination of ongoing war and a reinstated US naval blockade has paralysed everyday life, plunging the national currency into a historic tailspin and forcing families into drastic household austerity.” Since when has “The country is falling apart” and “surviving” become synonymous with one another just because Mojtaba Khamenei may have inherited the $100-$200 billion private fortune his father amassed before the war broke out while his citizens can’t even buy food?Using commentary from lefty Bourse & Bazaar Foundation CEO Esfandyar Batmanghelidj as a springboard, George and Abasian argued that “after withstanding U.S. sanctions for decades, Iran’s leaders have made structural changes to the country’s economy to insulate themselves from outside economic pressure.” Of course, George and Abasian didn’t bother disclosing that Batmanghelidj is the same schlub who argued in January that the reason the Islamic Republic failed as a political experiment is because it wasn’t redistributionist enough:The reason the political project of the Islamic Republic has failed is because of the failure to redistribute wealth successfully and sustainably, especially as sanctions stymied growth … We all know a democratic system will be better for Iran, but what economic system will break this cycle that pits the weakened poor against the strengthened rich? Not exactly the most neutral source, eh George and Abasian? Funnily enough, The Post buried 23 paragraphs down how “[w]ithout oil revenue, Iran’s ability to pay for imports and fund state functions, like salaries for its security forces, is steadily diminishing.” Again, “steadily diminishing” has literally nothing to do with the term “surviving,” especially since payment to “security forces” is no longer a guarantee. This is like saying an MMA fighter still has a shot at going the distance in a bout even after getting five of his teeth knocked out and breaking both of his arms. Apparently, for George and Abasian, the Islamic elitists’ insulated personal finances somehow screams proof Trump’s strategy is failing. Talk about a major logical overreach.

Paramount has secured a settlement with the coalition of 12 state attorneys general who had sued to block its merger with Warner Brothers, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Monday.The settlement, if approved by the court, resolves the lawsuit alleging that the merger of Paramount Skydance Corp. and Warner Brothers Discovery, Inc. would harm competition by lowering output and raising prices, hurting both workers and consumers in the process.The settlement “resolves antitrust concerns, protects the livelihoods of Hollywood workers, and guarantees massive investments in domestic film production,” Bonta’s office said in a press release detailing key terms agreed to by Paramount, including:A five-year court enforceable commitment to increase film output.A minimum of an additional $1.5 billion commitment to bolster domestic film production.A $47.5 million fund for workers who are impacted by the merger.Restrictions on how the company handles cable negotiations to help keep prices competitive.Formation of a News Editorial Independence Board “to establish guiding editorial and journalism principles for the combined entity’s news channels.”During the five-year term, Paramount commits the merged company to release:30 films a year, including 20 wide releases, in the first two years.32 films a year, with 21 wide releases, in years three, four, and five.At least four independent films in each year of the commitment period.If Paramount fails to meet this film output requirement in any year, the it will be required to divest Miramax Studios and pay $30 million per missed film toward the healthcare and retirement trust funds associated with entertainment industry unions and the National Association of Attorneys General.Additionally, Paramount will have to increase its domestic spending by far more than the $1.5 billion minimum, if film tax credits are signed into law.Currently, about five percent of Paramount’s film production is in the U.S. But, if a federal film tax credit of at least 20% is passed, Paramount would be required to increase U.S. production to 30% of its total – and 40%, if either California or New York pass similar tax credits.“Let me be clear: This settlement is not a vote of support for this merger,” AG Bonta clarified in his press release. Instead, he said, it merely resolves major concerns raised by the merger.Nonetheless, leaders of several major unions, such as SAG-AFTRA and those for writers and directors, praised the settlement in the press release.Thanks to Monday’s settlement, it appears that the merger will take place, since a separate lawsuit filed by the Writers of America is now likely to be dropped and the Justice Department previously determined that the merger would not result in antitrust violations.

Audie Cornish Brian Stelter CNN This Morning 9-21-26

If ever there were a propagandist of the left, it’s Brian Stelter, as NewsBusters has amply documented over the years. And yet Stelter had the chutzpah, on today’s CNN This Morning, to lecture the country about who counts as a real reporter.This is a routine CNN complaint — that the Briefing Room is “ruined” by “MAGA Media” correspondents who don’t hate Trump with a passionate intensity making it harder for people to ask their “accountability questions.” You know, in the past 18 months or so, the Trump White House has welcomed in figures from relatively small, relatively obscure streaming sites, blogs, online networks. These are figures oftentimes not coming from journalism backgrounds, but from political advocacy backgrounds. And I, I tend to have a view, you know, the more voices, the merrier. The more points of view, the merrier. The problem, though, in these Q&A settings, is that you get a few figures who are propagandists right next to real veteran reporters who want to get answers for the American people. So you might have a reporter saying, something derogatory about Democrats to make the president laugh, when you have reporters from CNN and the New York Times who actually want to ask accountability questions.So: the more the merrier — unless they sit next to CNN. Then they are “propagandists.” The “real veteran reporters” are, conveniently, the ones from CNN, MS NOW, the New York Times, and their ilk.In addition to Stelter himself, the CNN and MS NOW White House benches have included Jim Acosta, John Harwood, Abby Phillip, and others who were open Trump antagonists — anything but dispassionate “reporters” trying to get answers for the American people.It would be fun to ask Stelter if that would have been his take when Kaitlin Collins was the White House reporter for the Daily Caller. She wasn’t a real reporter then, apparently, but when CNN hired her, she apparently transformed like Pinocchio — from wooden puppet to real human reporter.

Brian Stelter Bleats About ‘Propagandists’ At WH Beside ‘Real Veteran Reporters’ pic.twitter.com/V0InxeULYu— Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) September 21, 2026

Stelter approvingly cited former White House Correspondents’ Association president Weijia Jiang: “America does not have state TV. There shouldn’t be state TV in America.” Host Audie Cornish agreed: “Yeah.”The irony sailed past both of them. Cornish spent years as a face of National Public Radio — the network that lived for decades on the federal public-broadcasting dime, until Congress finally cut it off. The “public” radio that routinely aired anchor Steve Inskeep polishing President Obama’s apple. CNN hired Jeff Zeleny after he asked Obama what “enchanted” him about his first 100 days in office. The three banned outlets — CNN, MS NOW, and Politico — announced a joint lawsuit this morning. That’s their right. But they shouldn’t be trying to pass off their anti-Trump antagonists as neutral public servants.Here’s the transcript. CNN This Morning 9/21/26 6:04 am EDT BRIAN STELTER: We should be clear, there will be other reporters traveling with Trump to New York today. There will be other reporters that can ask him questions. In some cases, it’s very pro-Trump, MAGA media figures who have been welcomed in by the White House. Those are the ones that shout, shout, softballs to the president, that tend to make him real, feel really good, but don’t actually get us any information as a country. So there will be some of those reporters. But locking out the TV pool has serious implications because, you know, I thought Weijia Jiang said it well over the weekend, former Correspondents Association president. She said, America does not have state TV. There shouldn’t be state TV in America, right? AUDIE CORNISH: Yeah. But just so people understand what you’re saying, you essentially have, there’s some alternatives here, which is they start putting out their own video, edited any way that they want. But this is different from the first term, right? Where basically they had the typical, and maybe atypically more adversarial relationship with the press, to actually filling the room with organizations they deem more fair to them. How has that looked? Has that meant other networks? Has that meant blogs? What do we mean when we say they’ve sort of altered the sort of pool of people that they’re talking to? STELTER: And it has made a big difference in the past 18 months or so. You know, in the past 18 months or so, the Trump White House has welcomed in figures from relatively small, relatively obscure streaming sites, blogs, online networks. These are figures oftentimes not coming from journalism backgrounds, but from political advocacy backgrounds. And I, I tend to have a view, you know, the more voices, the merrier. The more points of view, the merrier. The problem, though, in these Q&A settings, is that you get a few figures who are propagandists right next to real veteran reporters who want to get answers for the American people. So you might have a reporter saying, something derogatory about Democrats to make the president laugh, when you have reporters from CNN and the New York Times who actually want to ask accountability questions. So that has made a big difference in the past 18 months. And one of my concerns today, Audie, is that as Trump tries to ban news outlets, he’s going to reshape the reporters around him so that they’re mostly just propagandists, and there aren’t real reporters at all. That’s the real danger, I think, that’s broader than CNN today as this goes on.

MS NOW/SnapStream

After the news of the bans of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from White House grounds, MS NOW hosted breaking news coverage over the weekend as new host Peter Alexander held a special edition of his weekday State of Play program on Saturday night. Alexander went on a long monologue to start the show, where he called the moment an “attack on press freedom. Then, Rachel Maddow joined Alexander to invoke “No Kings,” as she said, “he wants this to be a country like Russia,” before subsequently saying, “he wants this to be a country in which he is king.”Alexander first stated White House press passes had been revoked for employees of MS NOW, and said, “This marks an unprecedented, an escalatory assault on journalism.”Alexander continued, “The media is not perfect. There’s a debate to be had about who you trust, where you should get your news.” But he later shifted to say, “This is something bigger, though. Among the privileges, the duties of a free press are to hold power to account, to ask the difficult questions, to document history as it happens.”He added, “The president says fake news is reporting that is untrue. In fact, it’s reporting that he finds unflattering.”Then, Alexander recalled when he covered Trump at campaign rallies, and cried about the treatment of reporters:Once elected, he would insult reporters to their face – I’ve been there – and he would call journalists the enemy of the people. As one of my former colleagues described it, Trump is trying to discredit the messenger to create a vacuum where his version of reality fills that void. But the answer from journalists is simple: to report more with more sources, more digging, more facts.Alexander was then joined by Maddow, the person whose show only airs once a week on Mondays, who further hit on the bans. He, laughably, asked, “What does the president not appreciate about the First Amendment?”Maddow responded, “I think he gets the First Amendment,” before she followed on Alexander’s point of Trump hitting the press at rallies, which she labeled a “sort of Orwellian two minutes hate.”Alexander then connected the monet ot the visit of Chinese dictator Xi Jinping to America for a state visit, as asked Maddow, “You’ve studied authoritarian leaders. Is this what the president is sort of trying to replicate?”Of course, Maddow agreed but then added more and complained about changes to the Oval Office before she concluded:He wants this to be a country like Russia. He wants this to be a country in which he is a king. But it’s not his say-so. It’s our say-so. And the ‘No Kings’ thing is not just a slogan, it’s a truth.An MS NOW host proclaiming that “No Kings” is a “truth” is exactly why MS NOW is not a news reporting network anymore, especially after it split from NBC in the Versant divorce, as all the “journalists” who signed with MS NOW have succumbed to becoming pro-DNC, progressive talk hosts.The transcript is below. Click “expand”:MS NOW’s State of PlaySeptember 19, 20266:00:29 PM EasternPETER ALEXANDER: Good evening, I’m Peter Alexander. This is a special edition of State of Play: Attack on press freedom. This morning, President Trump followed up on his threats to ban journalists from three major outlets, including this one, MS NOW, with reporters, producers, and cameramen from those organizations having their credentials confiscated when they tried to enter the White House grounds. This marks an unprecedented, an escalatory assault on journalism. The president in the Oval Office yesterday even describing his decision as a ban on the free press. His words, he’s not hiding it. He’s trying to ban reporters because of the content of their reporting.Notably, he did not identify a single story, a report, any inaccuracy that triggered his outrage. Instead, he blamed negative coverage and demanded favorable reporting. To be clear, this is not normal. This is not business as usual. What’s happening right now is different. The latest threat against our cherished freedoms, protected by the U.S. Constitution. The media is not perfect. There’s a debate to be had about who you trust, where you should get your news. This is something bigger, though. Among the privileges, the duties of a free press are to hold power to account, to ask the difficult questions, to document history as it happens. The president says fake news is reporting that is untrue. In fact, it’s reporting that he finds unflattering. And here’s the reality: a little more than seven weeks until the midterms. Many of the facts are unflattering. Where to begin? Gas prices now 4.48 a gallon on average, a $1.50 more than where they were before the war with Iran began. Ask farmers about the price of diesel, now at a record high nearly 6.50 a gallon.All of it due to a war the president started. A war he vowed would be done within weeks, but is now in its seventh month. 18 American service members dead, if not more. And that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface. A trade war with Canada, an obsession with the Kennedy Center. If it’s not demolished like the East Wing. Then there’s the grift, the self-dealing. A Russian oligarch paying for Trump’s son’s wedding party. Billions of dollars made by the Trump Family. Those are the facts. They may be unflattering, but they are not fake. I’ve been there since the beginning. Trump’s frustration, this fury, it didn’t happen overnight. On the campaign trail. I remember before he even took office, he would yell at us in the bullpen, in the back of those large rallies, riling up the MAGA crowd. Once elected, he would insult reporters to their face – I’ve been there – and he would call journalists the enemy of the people. As one of my former colleagues described it, Trump is trying to discredit the messenger to create a vacuum where his version of reality fills that void. But the answer from journalists is simple: to report more with more sources, more digging, more facts. MS NOW released a statement today that reads, in part, quote, “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy and will continue to report on the president, the administration, and the issues that impact the American people.”President Trump can’t stop reporters from reporting, and he cannot ban the facts. Joining me now is our very own Rachel Maddow, host, of course, of The Rachel Maddow Show here on MS NOW. Rachel, I appreciate you spending part of your Saturday afternoon with us. What does the president not appreciate about the First Amendment?RACHEL MADDOW: I think he gets the First Amendment, and I think he knows what he can and cannot do as president. I just think he likes doing this anyway, because I think he likes the way it plays. And I just feel like sometimes the simplest explanation is the one that’s most likely right. And what you were just describing, Peter, about covering those rallies and being at Trump events where it would become an inevitability at every single one of them. He would direct the attention of the crowd to the press, and we would have the sort of Orwellian two minutes hate where everybody got to scream at the press while he insulted them, sometimes choosing individual reporters, sometimes choosing you to direct the crowd’s fury. I think the reason he did that – Not the reason that he’s dissatisfied with the press. All politicians, certainly all presidents, are dissatisfied with the press. But I think the reason that he set on that and then kept doing it is because of what would happen right after he made those calls out to the crowd. There would be a huge response, right? I mean, you’ve been there. We’ve all seen it. The whole crowd turns around and starts flipping off the press and screaming at them and baying for blood. And he loves that. That’s exactly the kind of reaction he wants from the crowd. And right now he’s in a place where he can’t count on moving his base in the ways that he used to. The same, you know, I think sort of lines, the same sort of tricks, the same sort of crowd manipulation tactics, sort of, you know, authoritarian personality ticks that he’s relied on all these years. They don’t always work. And he’s in a really low place politically. And so I think this is him playing the hits. I think this is him going back to something that he knows his base will enjoy, and he wants that feeling again. And I think it’s as simple as that.ALEXANDER: So, let me ask you another question, which is in the next several days, the president is going to host China’s President XI Jinping at the White House. China, of course, the president of China, Xi Jinping, who President Trump has shared openly his admiration for China, a country that has a long history of repressing independent thinkers. The press, broadly, it just does not exist. So, it’s notable that as the president welcomes XI here, he’s sort of taking a page from Xi Jinping and from China here.You’ve studied authoritarian leaders. Is this what the president is, is sort of trying to replicate?MADDOW: I mean, it’s one of the things that he’s said he admires, right, about authoritarian leaders in China and elsewhere is the fact that they rule with an iron fist. And one of the practical things that is meant by that kind of a phrase and by that type of authoritarian leadership is that you don’t allow criticism. You don’t allow dissent. You don’t allow people to disagree with the official line. And you certainly don’t allow reporters access to free information about the behavior of their leaders and their government. So, that’s something that he’s professed openly and that he admires about China, even about places like North Korea. So, I, you know, I take him at his word. I think he likes that idea. I think he wishes he could do more. But the fact remains that he is a temporary officeholder, that presidents don’t determine what rights the American people have. Our Constitution determines that. And what he’s doing is just blatantly, plainly, on its face, illegal. It’ll be struck down by the courts, and then we’ll have to have a big fight about him obeying the court order that inevitably tells him to let our reporters back in.(…)6:09:08 PM EasternMADDOW: I mean, if you were the tenant in any sort of living situation. If you were a tenant in an apartment or in a duplex or whatever, not only would you not start, you know, gluing, supergluing gold things to the walls and doors, you also wouldn’t hire an excavator to come in and rip down one wing of the building, but he wants to behave as if this is his palace rather than the White House. He wants this to be a country like Russia. He wants this to be a country in which he is a king. But it’s not his say-so. It’s our say-so. And the No-Kings thing is not just a slogan, it’s a truth. And I mean his. I just feel like his character and his inclinations have been utterly consistent from the very beginning. But I also think the American public’s reflexes against these things are pretty strong. And so much as he’s like kind of hoping for people to be – for blood and, ‘Yeah, the enemy of the people,’ and ‘Yeah, kick those reporters out.’ I think outside of what is a very vanishingly narrow slice of his base, the American people know instinctually and by habit for generations of sacrifice and centuries of living it, that this is not an American way to conduct yourself in leadership.And his anti-American tendencies are something that ought to disqualify him from future leadership.(…)