Newsbusters

On the most recent edition of NBC’s Meet the Depressed, host Kristen Welker tried to guilt-trip Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) over his vote for the Laken Riley Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law. Welker quickly found that Kelly wasn’t going to take the bait:

Watch as Welker gets shut down after trying to cite fellow Democrat Sen. Adam Schiff (CA) in an appeal to authority:

KRISTEN WELKER: President Trump obviously signed the Laken Riley Act into law this week. Just so folks understand, that will allow law enforcement to detain and deport undocumented immigrants who’ve been charged with theft-related crimes. You voted in support of this bill. I had an opportunity to interview your colleague, Senator Adam Schiff, who opposed it. He told me last week that this bill is so broad the U.S., quote, “would be able to deport DREAMers for taking a tube of toothpaste”. Can you guarantee this law won’t be applied in a way that’s overly broad?

MARK KELLY: Well, this law is about public safety. Representing a border state, this affects Arizona, I think, more than other states, just because of, you know, numbers. And it’s, you know, where folks cross. Kristen, if you come across the border and you don’t have documentation, you’ve already committed a crime. This is for somebody who then decides to commit a second crime. And they’re taken into custody, there’ll be due process involved so they can eventually, if they can prove that these are not valid charges where they go through the court system, they could then be released. I’m not concerned about, you know, what Adam is talking about. I think, you know, very highly of DREAMers. DREAMers are as American as my own two kids. I think we should be working towards a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers. I know some of my Republican colleagues feel the same way. And we’re going to solve these border issues by working together, Democrats and Republicans, to come up with policy changes on border security and reform. 

Won’t someone think of the poor DREAMers busted for shoplifting hypothetical toothpaste, wails Welker, as she lobbies against an “overly broad” imagined enforcement of the law. And, ultimately, that is the problem that undergirded the need for passage of the Laken Riley Act in the first place. The concern over application of the law now is directly proportional to the media’s lack of concern over the preceding administration’s noncompliance with federal immigration law. In scheme after scheme, not only did the media go along with the Biden administration’s nonenforcement of the law, but they aided and abetted efforts to minimize the impact of Biden’s broken border within our communities.

Kelly wasn’t having any of Welker’s appeal to authority and citation of Schiff. It bears noting that Kelly does not enjoy the luxury of living in a one-party state as does Schiff, and so he dispensed with Schiff’s absurd “what if” scenario. 

This isn’t to say that Kelly went total enforcement hawk. He still came out against the current border enforcement raids, against “mass deportations”, and against the use of military aircraft for deportations. Kelly also spoke out in favor of bipartisan “changes on border policy and reform”- code for a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill. 

Times, they-have-a changed. Kelly knows it, even if Welker would continue to pretend otherwise.

 

For years, Spanish-language news media have been dominated by networks fully immersed in the immigration-industrial complex and acting as de facto clients of the Democratic Party. And for years, we called for an alternative. A recent interview on Fox Noticias demonstrates the importance of such an alternative.

Consider this fragment from Rachel Campos-Duffy’s interview of Kelvin Alverenga (Jocelyn Nungaray’s grandfather), wherein they discuss actress Selena Gomez’ reaction to the passage of the Laken Riley Act and other enforcement actions taken by President Donald Trump (click “expand” to view transcript): 

FOX NOTICIAS EN FOX DEPORTES

1/30/25

4:35 PM

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY: Donald Trump has begun mass deportations. You’ve seen it- it’s all over the news. This week we saw an actress- singer, Selena Gomez, tearfully denounce Donald Trump’s policies on social media. I think it’s… I think it’s certain that this kind of thing, this- this emotional response in the media from politicians, from celebrities, from the media- this is going to continue. So my question to you is: what is your message to (those) who think like Selena Gomez, or who have that reaction to the deportations of illegals? 

KELVIN ALVARENGA: Well, first of all… right? Selena Gómez is an entertainer. She is- she is a person who entertains people so… it may be that many of these, perhaps, are seeking more attention. Because, first of all, they would have to educate themselves a little bit because we, as Americans, are not animals that would just do these deportations randomly, because the deportations that are being seen today are (of) people who already have a (criminal) background, who were already on a list. The only thing that is changing is that today, action is being taken on that list. But every- every human being in this country, the beauty of this country is that we have rights. Even immigrants have their rights. It’s not that they’re going to get picked up today and tomorrow they’re in their country of origin. So all of these deportations we’re seeing are because these people have already committed a crime in some case, or already had a deportation. People who came back in. So let’s reflect a bit on what the President is trying to do, and not change the subject (by saying) that separating families is inhumane. As long as people come to this country with good deeds, then they can be kept together. 

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Kelvin…

ALVARENGA: I think they should try to stop using their platforms for personal gain through attention. 

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yeah. Selena Gomez also has private security, which is interesting as well. 

Corporate Spanish-language media’s coverage of murders committed by illegal aliens is limited and by-the-numbers. You will see within their coverage some acknowledgement of the immigration status of the accused criminals, so as to avoid accusations of bias by omission. 

In the case of the horrendous murder of Jocelyn Nungaray at the hands of two alleged Tren de Aragua thugs, the networks had no choice but to report on the illegal alien status of the perpetrators. They also interviewed relatives of Nungaray, specifically her grandfather, but never went beyond the mourning phase and into discussions of related policy. This is a stark contrast from what these networks did with the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting, where they until very recently made the parents of one of the victims into regular guests any time they wanted to run a gun control segment, which is quite often.

Contrast that with the interview depicted above, and you will see why the left remains terrified of the emergence of alternatives to corporate Spanish-language media. Until Campos-Duffy had Alverenga on, no one had talked immigration policy with him. No one on corporate Spanish-language media will EVER talk immigration policy with Alverenga in the way they would gun control if sweet Jocelyn were the victim of a school shooting. 

The differences in coverage go far beyond immigration. Because corporate Spanish-language media is an immigration client of the Democratic Party, they go along with other issues within the left-wing policy pupu platter. This is why these networks have been reliably far-left not just on immigration but on abortion, gun control, transgenderism and everything else. 

For one hour a day, Fox Noticias provides Spanish-speaking viewers with that much-needed alternative, with coverage and analysis kept hidden from viewers on Univision and Telemundo. This one interview demonstrated exactly why Fox Noticias was needed. Here’s hoping the daily newscast soon expands to a full grid.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on Fox Noticias en Fox Deportes on Thursday, January 31st, 2025:

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY: I’m joined now by Jocelyn Nungaray’s grandfather, Kelvin Alvarenga. Kelvin, first thing: I want to give you my deepest condolences for the death of your granddaughter. My question for you is, what will the Laken Riley Act do to prevent these crimes? What else can… can happen? 

ALVARENGA: Well, first of all, I think we’re trying to- instead of ceasing to be reactive, to be a little proactive…. 

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yes.

ALVARENGA: …with the migration system. The Laken Riley Act is only going to help us to … now to weave out- to be able to remove those immigrants who come into this country with bad- with bad intentions. Because everything has a start. Everything has a beginning. A small shoplifting can turn into a murder later on, or a small domestic violence can end in a murder later on. So I think this Act is going to help the agents of… for police officers to be able to slow these tragedies down a little- that keep happening because we don’t have control over the people we’re letting into this country. 

CAMPOS-DUFFY: What does it mean to you that President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act less than ten days after taking office? 

ALVARENGA: Perfect. I feel like… President Donald Trump is fulfilling everything that he said he was going to do. And I have a lot of faith that the (over) next four years of this country, of this great nation, we will be able to become a great nation under his term, because he is starting with a cleaning. It all starts with cleaning. 

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yes. Donald Trump has begun mass deportations. You’ve seen it all over the news. This week we saw an actress- singer, Selena Gomez, tearfully denounce Donald Trump’s policies on social media. I think it’s… I think it’s certain that this kind of thing, this- this emotional response in the media from politicians, from celebrities, from the media- this is going to continue. So my question to you is: what is your message to (those) who think like Selena Gomez, or who have that reaction to the deportations of illegals? 

ALVARENGA: Well, first of all… right? Selena Gómez is an entertainer. She is- she is a person who entertains people so… many of these, perhaps, may be seeking more attention. Because, first of all, they would have to educate themselves a little bit, because, as Americans, we are not animals that would just do these deportations randomly, because the deportations that are being seen today are (of) people who already have a (criminal) background, who were already on a list. The only thing that is changing is that today, action is being taken on that list. But every- every human being in this country, the beauty of this country is that we have rights. Even immigrants have their rights. It’s not that they’re going to get picked up today and tomorrow they’re in their country of origin. So all of these deportations we’re seeing are because these people have already committed a crime in some case, or already had a deportation. People who came back in. So let’s reflect a bit on what the President is trying to do, and not change the subject (by saying) that separating families is inhumane. As long as people come to this country with good deeds, then they can be kept together. 

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Kelvin…

ALVARENGA: I think they should try to stop using their platforms for personal gain through attention. 

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yeah. Selena Gomez also has private security, which is interesting as well. Kelvin, very quickly: I have to tell you that I am so impressed with the way your family has behaved, the calm, the dignity, how they have maintained that throughout this tragedy? Because I really don’t understand. 

ALVARENGA: When you do these interviews. You kind of focus more on the mission and the mission is that, just as Laken Riley’s death isn’t in vain, we want the death of my granddaughter, Jocelyn, not to be in vain either. And of course, in front of the cameras we try to give some specific answers, uh… with a great deal of emotions, but we try to keep those inside. 

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Kelvin. Thank you very much for joining us. Really. It’s moving. 

ALVARENGA: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Thanks to you.

 

NPR doesn’t exist to promote books by Fox News hosts, but they’re an easy mark for MSNBC personalities. Rachel Maddow has counted on it. On January 27, Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep awarded seven minutes to All In host Chris Hayes to promote his new book The Sirens’ Call, mourning “the assault of attention capitalism.”

The favorable New York Times book review called it “An ambitious analysis of how the trivial amusements offered by online life have degraded not only ourselves but also our politics.” Degraded by Donald Trump, that is.

Hayes, they asserted, argues “this particular stage of capitalism is fueled by a fracking of our minds. It’s not as if Trump is keen to regulate any extraction industry, let alone the one that helped bring him to the White House.”

INSKEEP: I’m thinking about Trump’s media and political strategy and how it fits with some of the things that you write. You point out that it is easier to get someone’s attention for a moment than it is to hold someone’s attention, and Trump doesn’t necessarily try to hold your attention. He gets it [Hayes laughs] over and over again. Just since the election, let’s take over Greenland. How about the Panama Canal? Canada. Let’s rename Mount McKinley. We’ve gone on and on. Always there’s a new thing to get our attention again.

HAYES: This is exactly right. In fact, when he tries to hold attention – famously, when he goes for 90 minutes at a rally — people leave.

INSKEEP: Yep.

HAYES: He’s actually not good at holding attention. And this is a central dynamic of the attention age. It’s replicated in the slot-machine design of the algorithmic feed, where you just grab, grab, grab, grab, grab. You never hold attention. Everything’s short. You go to the next one. Trump has the exact same — you’re totally right — has the exact same approach to this. And that’s because interruption and compelled attention are the circuitry that is easiest to fire in us.

Inskeep only “balanced” this by noting MSNBC’s ratings. “The impression from the outside is that MSNBC is struggling to hold people’s attention. Do you see it that way?”

Hayes sounded optimistic that the Resistance would soon spring back into action:  I feel like there is a kind of pressing down of a spring happening in our politics amongst what I would call the almost 50% of the country that voted against Donald Trump, or the smaller percentage that deeply, deeply dislikes him and think he’s bad for the country. And I can feel that spring being pushed down and pushed down and pushed down. And it’s now out of view, but I don’t think it’s going to stay out of view.”

The tragic plane crash in the Potomac River understandably sidelined coverage of Thursday’s congressional confirmation hearings on the major networks, but that evening’s PBS News Hour ran full stories on the hearings for Kash Patel to head the FBI, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Democrat congresswoman from Hawaii turned Republican) for Director of National Intelligence, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services.

All suffered bruising and sometimes bipartisan criticism, and the coverage was deeply unfavorable to all three nominees. Reporter Laura Barron-Lopez mocked Patel’s supposed conspiracy theory about a “deep state” in Washington out to get Donald Trump. Imagine that!

But Gabbard perhaps got the worst of it, with tough questioning about past comments on Syrian dictator Assad and especially her support of classified document leaker Edward Snowden, now in exile in Putin’s Russia, as a government “whistleblower.” PBS reporter Nick Schifrin eagerly emphasized senators calling Snowden a “traitor” during Gabbard’s confirmation hearing, painting Snowden as a thorn in a Trump nominee’s side.

Nick Schifrin: Edward Snowden was a National Security Agency contractor who leaked more than a million classified documents. In 2020, Tulsi Gabbard wanted him pardoned.

Archive clip, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI): I have introduced legislation to stand up for and to protect brave whistle-blowers.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): Do you still think Edward Snowden is brave?

Schifrin: Today, Gabbard’s past comments drew bipartisan concern, beginning with Vice Chairman Virginia Democrat Mark Warner.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford was shown calling Snowden a traitor for releasing American secrets and fleeing to China and finally Russia, as did Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennett.

Schifrin concluded of Gabbard, “her supporters proudly call her unconventional, while, to her critics, she’s dangerous.”

After Schifrin’s segment, co-anchor Amna Nawaz asked Jamil Jaffer, executive director of National Security Institute at George Mason University, if “the comments about Snowden…sound alarm bells within the intelligence community?”

Which makes PBS News Hour’s previous swaddling of Snowden as a liberal whistleblower against the American surveillance state all the more odd. Was PBS “dangerous” when they were more supportive of this man?

In February 2015, then-co-anchor Judy Woodruff teased “an intimate look at Edward Snowden with the journalists behind the Oscar-nominated documentary Citizenfour, which takes viewers inside the first days of one of the biggest intelligence leaks in U.S. history.”

News Hour contributor Jeffrey Brown certainly didn’t make Snowden sound like a confirmed traitor:

Jeffrey Brown: “The documentary Citizenfour brings us into a Hong Kong hotel room as former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden reveals secrets that would make for blockbuster headlines beginning in June 2013: the large-scale collection of phone and Internet data by the U.S. government….For some, Snowden was a free speech hero. In the film, he explains his decision to eventually make his identity known.….But others, including President Obama, called on Snowden to come back to the U.S. and face charges for espionage.

Neither did then-News Hour co-anchor Gwen Ifill. In June 2013, Ifill teased a segment: “So, is Edward Snowden himself a hero or a turncoat? We will debate that later in the broadcast.” Later she used the same formulation: “So, [journalist] James Bamford, is Edward Snowden a leaker or a whistleblower?”

In August 2014, Snowden was embraced no less eagerly by Ifill, again accompanied by sympathetic journalist Bamford.

Ifill: Edward Snowden has more secrets to tell and shares them with “Wired” magazine. We talk to the journalist who spent three days with the NSA leaker in Moscow….James Bamford, you say in your piece that you feel like you have a kinship with Edward Snowden. Why did he talk to you?

These hypocritical Snowden-related stories were brought to you in part by Cunard.

A transcript is available, click “Expand.”

PBS News Hour

1/30/25

Nick Schifrin: Today, in the Senate Intelligence Committee, the name used more than any other was not the woman nominated to lead the intelligence community, but the man responsible for its largest breach.

Edward Snowden was a National Security Agency contractor who leaked more than a million classified documents. In 2020, Tulsi Gabbard wanted him pardoned.

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI): I have introduced legislation to stand up for and to protect brave whistle-blowers.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): Do you still think Edward Snowden is brave?

Nick Schifrin: Today, Gabbard’s past comments drew bipartisan concern, beginning with Vice Chairman Virginia Democrat Mark Warner.

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Edward Snowden broke the law. I do not agree with or support with all of the information and intelligence that he released, nor the way in which he did it.

Nick Schifrin: Oklahoma Republican James Lankford:

 

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK): Was he a traitor at the time when he took America’s secrets, released them in public, and then ran to China and became a Russian citizen?

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Senator, I’m focused on the future and how we can prevent something like this from happening again.

Nick Schifrin: Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet:

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO): Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America? That is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high.

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Senator, as someone who has served in uniform…

Sen. Michael Bennet: Is your answer yes or no, is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America? I go on to my questions.

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: As someone who has worn our uniform in combat. I understand how critical our national security is.

Sen. Michael Bennet: Apparently, you don’t.

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: This is about regime change in Russia.

Nick Schifrin: Senators also questioned Gabbard’s judgment on Russia and the war in Ukraine.

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: The United States and some of these European NATO countries are fueling this war.

Nick Schifrin: Which she’s blamed in part on the U.S.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM): who’s responsible for the war in Ukraine?

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Putin started the war in Ukraine.

Nick Schifrin: That conversion doubted by Kansas Republican Jerry Moran.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS): I want to make certain that in no way does Russia get a pass in either your mind or your heart or in any policy recommendation you would make or not make.

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Senator, I’m offended by the question, because my sole focus, commitment and responsibility is about our own nation, our own security and the interests of the American people.

Nick Schifrin: Senators also expressed skepticism in her conversion to supporter of warrantless surveillance, which she used to oppose.

Sen. Mark Warner: I don’t find your change of heart credible.

Nick Schifrin: And on Syria.

 

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: The fact is that the United States has been waging this war, this regime change war now.

Nick Schifrin: Gabbard visited in 2017 and dismissed U.S. and U.N. conclusions that Assad launched a chemical weapons attack in April 2017.

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: And that evidence was never presented, and it’s very clear now as time has gone on that there was a cover-up.

Nick Schifrin: Today, for the first time, Gabbard said she pushed Assad on chemical weapons.

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: I asked him tough questions about his own regime’s actions, the use of chemical weapons and the brutal tactics that were being used against his own people.

Nick Schifrin: But Democrats fear Gabbard’s prior positions could prevent allies from sharing intelligence.

Sen. Mark Warner: I just don’t believe on your judgment and credibility issues that this is the appropriate role that you should take going forward.

Nick Schifrin: Gabbard was elected to Hawaii’s legislature in 2002 at the age of 21 as a Democrat. She served in Congress for eight years, deployed twice to the Middle East, and is a serving lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.

But she became a Republican and endorsed Donald Trump over their shared questioning of the intelligence community.

Fmr. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: The American people elected Donald Trump as their president not once, but twice. And yet the FBI and intelligence agencies were politicized by his opponents to undermine his presidency and falsely portray him as a puppet of Putin.

Nick Schifrin: With that charge, her supporters proudly call her unconventional, while, to her critics, she’s dangerous.

Poor Nicolle Wallace, perhaps the liberal media’s saddest sourpuss.

It was only 10 days ago, but on her MSNBC show on Thursday afternoon, Nicolle pitiably needed to ask an NBC reporter to remind her of when Donald Trump was inaugurated.

Sad!

Let’s give Nicolle the benefit of the doubt. Instead of suffering from early onset, Wallace feigned ignorance of the date of Trump’s inauguration for the purpose of trying to pin the tragic DC plane crash on him.

After an aviation expert said that there was only one air traffic controller involved, whereas normally there would have been two—one monitoring the landing American Airlines flight, and the other monitoring the Army helicopter—a seemingly dazed and confused Wallace asked NBC correspondent Vaughn Hillyard:

NICOLLE WALLACE: Just remind me, Trump’s inauguration was on which date?

VAUGHN HILLYARD: It was January 20th. 

Nice try, Nicolle. But your aviation expert told you that the air traffic controller shortage dates back to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

So Biden had four years to fix it but didn’t. Yet you want to blame Trump for not cleaning up Biden’s mess in 10 days!

Here’s the transcript.

MSNBC
Deadline White House
1/30/25
4:12 pm ET

NICOLLE WALLACE: What are the possible scenarios for what could have gone wrong? What is the investigation? What are the investigators asking in terms of questions? 

ANTHONY ROMAN: Well, the question is whether a mechanical failure between any of the two aircraft that led to their position changing somewhat and leading to the collision. 

More likely, a shortage of air traffic controllers since the pandemic. And as a result, they are driven very, very hard during these episodes. Normally, they [sic] would be two controllers in an incident like this, one for the military helicopter and one for the civilian aircraft. In this case, there was only one controller managing both. 

. . . 

WALLACE: And just remind me, Trump’s inaugurated on which date? 

VAUGHN HILLYARD: It was January 20th. 

WALLACE: So our timeline of Trump’s aviation actions is, the President of the United States goes like this. On January 20th, the FAA director leaves the office under pressure. On January 21st, the air traffic controller hiring is frozen, so no more can be hired. And on January 22nd, the Aviation Safety Advisory Committee is disbanded. 

Does the White House have any comment about any of those actions? 

HILLYARD: No, we’re still waiting for this point in time. 

On Thursday night’s episode of MSNBC’s The 11th Hour, Stephanie Ruhle hosted a panel including Tim Miller of The Bulwark podcast, NBC senior national politics reporter Jonathan Allen, and New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker. Ostensibly the topic of discussion was Wednesday night’s mid-air crash at Reagan National Airport, in which all 67 people on both aircraft perished, but in reality they just used the discussion as an opportunity to run rampant on President Trump, not even pretending to conceal their contempt or keeping up the flimsiest facade of civility.

Ruhle cut straight to the chase, raising the subject of the president’s remarks the day after the crash, “Investigations have barely begun, and this is what our president had to say. What do you think?” 

“Yeah, he’s such a POS,” Miller responded:

Steph, I don’t even know what else to say about it, I- you know? I mean, going after diversity hires … the president goes up to talk and spends, what, 35 minutes- whatever it was today rambling about how it’s minorities and- people that have- you know, different mental health issues or whatever that are responsible for this, without knowing anything, and it’s not hard to try to figure out what people know … that’s what responsible people do. You know, children that like to create fights and make people mad for kicks, do what the president did today. But that’s- that’s what folks voted for…

 

 

Ruhle then quoted a social media post from former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, calling the president’s word’s “Despicable,” and accusing him of “lying.”

She then turned it over to Allen, who declared, “Look, it’s not necessary to- to call the president names, but rather to simply watch what happened today, what’s happened over the last number of hours and make a determination about whether it’s helpful or unhelpful,” but he went on to suggest that the president “turned a tragedy into a political moment?”

Ruhle then referenced a video where Trump was asked if he will visit the site, and, pointing out that the exact location is in the water, he wondered, “What am I going to do? Swim?”

“That would be like George Bush saying he wasn’t heading down to 9/11 because there would be nowhere left to eat, it was a bunch of rubble,” Ruhle fumed in response.

Baker picked up where the others left off, claiming he has “never seen a president like this,” and accusing Trump of having an “empathy gap,” being “much more comfortable being the blamer-in-chief than the consoler-in-chief,” and lacking “empathy,” “compassion,” and “concern for human suffering.”

When the conversation gets back around to Miller, he clarified, “I will just say — I disagree with Jon, I do think it’s necessary to call the president names because that’s all he does is call people names … He attacks everybody.”

At least, as these four rail against the sitting president on national television, call him ugly names, and viciously attack him personally, they are pretty transparent.

The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:

MSNBC’s The 11th Hour
01/30/2025
11:39:PM

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: TRUMP FACES BACKLASH FOR COMMENTS ON PLANE DISASTER]

STEPHANIE RUHLE: (Sigh) The gentlemen are still with us. Tim, I- I was really conflicted whether I even wanted to talk about this tonight. But the reason I want to is because Donald Trump made these remarks 14 hours right after the crash. Families had only known for a few hours. Investigations have barely begun, and this is what our president had to say. What do you think?

TIM MILLER (BULWARK PODCAST HOST): Yeah, he’s such a POS. Steph, I don’t even know what else to say about it, I- you know? I mean, going after diversity hires, I just imagine- I saw this interview with a guy who was waiting to see if his wife had survived- and- was not a white guy, and- and obviously she didn’t. Nobody survived on that plane.

And I certainly imagine him waking up today and having to deal with all this. And then the president goes up to talk and spends, what, 35 minutes- whatever it was today rambling about how it’s minorities and- people that have- you know, different mental health issues or whatever that are responsible for this, without knowing anything, and it’s not hard to try to figure out what people know. And, you know- I was watching the segment you had right before we came on- you can bring on actual experts, you can figure out what the actual problem was. Who- I mean- who knows? Like- that’s what responsible people do.

You know, children that like to create fights and make people mad for kicks, do what the president did today. But that’s- that’s what folks voted for.

One- just one other quick thing, if you don’t mind, on that other story that you that you led with the FBI firings, I do-

RUHLE: We’re going to get to that. We’re going to get to the FBI firings-.

MILLER: Okay. All right. Yeah. Good.

RUHLE: I want- I want to stay here. John, let’s talk about this DEI thing, because- former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg responded almost immediately. And he said on Twitter, “Despicable. As families grieve, Trump should be leading, not lying. Time for the President to show actual leadership and explain what he will do to prevent this from happening again.” What is your thought here? I mean, those were strong words from Pete Buttigieg.

JONATHAN ALLEN (SR. NATL. POLITICS REPORTER, NBC NEWS): Yeah. Look, it’s not necessary to- to call the president names, but rather to simply watch what happened today, what’s happened over the last number of hours and make a determination about whether it’s helpful or unhelpful. In terms of the questions that I think that people like Buttigieg have raised, like, is he making the airways any safer? Is he actually getting to the bottom of this, or has he a turned a tragedy into a political moment?

I think what seems obvious is that the President and- in sort of reminiscent of what happened during COVID, him taking to the microphone at the briefing room, you know, during a crisis and talking about a lot of things that had- have no apparent tie to the crisis. You know- the President at one point said he didn’t know what had happened and then blamed- you know, various things, for instance, DEI hiring for this. You know, it was sort of rambling and all over the place. And- you know, I think to- former Secretary Buttigieg’s point, like- I’m not sure how that was helpful to anybody in terms of- in terms of making the country any safer. It certainly made the country more divided.

RUHLE: Peter, I want to share what Donald Trump said when he was asked if he would be visiting the site. Watch this.

[Cuts to video]

REPORTER: Do you have a plan go visit the site or meet with any of the first responders?

DONALD TRUMP: I have a plan to visit- not the site. Because- what did- you tell me- What’s the site? The water.

REPORTER: Or to meet with responders?

TRUMP: What am I going to do? Swim?

[Cuts back to live]

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: TRUMP ON WHETHER HE’LL VISIT THE CRASH SITE- “YOU WANT ME TO GO SWIMMING?”]

RUHLE: What am I going to do, swim? That would be like George Bush saying he wasn’t heading down to 9/11 because there would be nowhere left to eat. It was a bunch of rubble. You have covered many presidents. What is your reaction to what we heard today?

PETER BAKER (NEW YORK TIMES CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT): Yeah, you’re right, I have. I’ve been covering presidents basically since 1996, and we’ve never heard a president like this. After a major disaster, turning instantly into a political partisan ideological contest, rather than- focusing on the healing, and focusing on the unity, and focusing on the mourning.

You know, we have a president here who- we’ve often talked about his empathy gap, we saw it repeatedly through the COVID pandemic, we’ve seen it through other natural disasters. His first instinct is to find somebody else to blame, he is much more comfortable being the blamer-in-chief than the consoler-in-chief. We just saw earlier this month when there were wildfires through Los Angeles. His first instinct was to sit there and trash Governor Gavin Newsom. We saw that, you know, after the hurricanes in Puerto Rico, when he got into a war of words with the Mayor of San Juan.

This is just his instinct, he has never- demonstrated the kind of- you know, empathy or compassion or, you know- concern for human suffering that other presidents have in moments like this. And it goes to the nature of his presidency. It’s not about unifying. It’s about finding dividing points. And this one, he was- to directly after his predecessors, President Biden, President Obama, Pete Buttigieg, the Transportation Secretary, in order to, you know- score points or what have you, reading aloud, hiring criteria that he objected to, that was actually that hiring criteria that existed also during his own administration.

RUHLE: Okay. And maybe I’m naive, right? His big complaint, though, about DEI is that it gives unqualified people important jobs. That is not true. But what is true, is that this administration is putting some absolutely unqualified, but well-connected people that Donald Trump likes personally in very important jobs. Tim, what do you think about that?

MILLER: It’s notable, isn’t it, Steph? And I do, actually. I will just say- I disagree with John, I do think it’s necessary to call the President names because that’s all he does is call people names, and we deal with this imbalance in our politics right now where the President gets to use his bully pulpit to attack Pete Buttigieg and call him names and make jokes about him being gay and attack everybody. He attacks everybody – Gavin Newscum. And then he deals with high minded – He gets high minded, rebukes back. I don’t I don’t really think that’s gotten us anywhere.

The 2024 election sent serious shock waves through the badly named “mainstream media.” The American mainstream has rejected the Democrat media establishment, finding them untrustworthy to “save democracy.” It’s more like arrogantly manipulating democracy. They through every rock and every kitchen sink at Donald Trump, and they lost. Is it time to say goodbye?

Here’s a collection of recent media headlines:.

Hollywood Reporter: 

MSNBC, CNN Halt Post-Election Swoons, But Fox News Stays Way Out in Front in January 

The Independent: 

CNN lays off hundreds of employees and replaces Jim Acosta as it restructures network amid falling ratings 

Yahoo Finance: 

CNN And MSNBC Ratings Plunge By Half, Reaching 30-Year Lows – And Billionaires Are Paying Attention  

The Yahoo Finance story opens by reporting: 

CNN And MSNBC Ratings Slashed In Half, Collapse To Their Lowest Levels In Nearly 30 Years With Billionaires Circling

The political media landscape is undergoing a dramatic shake-up. CNN and MSNBC, two of the biggest cable news networks, are facing historic ratings declines, with their viewership slashed nearly in half since the recent presidential election. Both networks struggle to retain their audiences, collapsing to levels not seen in nearly 30 years. Meanwhile, Fox News has held steady, dominating the cable news space.

Viewership in Freefall

MSNBC’s prime-time audience has taken a staggering 53% hit, dropping from 1.34 million viewers before the election to just 632,000. CNN hasn’t fared much better, losing 47% of its prime-time viewers, down to 398,000. On some nights, these networks aren’t just losing to Fox News – they’re losing to lifestyle channels like the Food Network, where more viewers are tuning into shows like Chopped than CNN’s Anderson Cooper or MSNBC’s Jen Psaki.

Then there was this on Newsmax from August of 2024:( And full disclosure, I am a Newsmax contributor.):

Newsmax Broke Ratings Records in July

Now.

Pull up to the proverbial 30,000 mile marker and take a good hard look at what is happening to the so-called “Mainstream Media” in America. And with that done there is an increasingly inescapable conclusion.

Namely: The Mainstream Media – aka the liberal media in America – is in the middle of a slow-motion collapse. Ratings are sinking. Staff are being let go. Over there at CNN one of the network’s star anchors – Jim Acosta – is out the door. Gone.

Meanwhile, as indicated above, straight-news or conservative networks are on the rise. Even more interesting is the advent of modern technology and the surge of what we have come to call the “podcast.” 

Were one to have access to the proverbial time travel machine and could shoot forward a dozen years, one can honestly wonder whether the likes of CNN, MSNBC and the three “mainstream network” nightly news broadcasts – not to mention the flagship lefty newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post and others will even still exist. Or at least exist in their current form.

And speaking of hopping in the time travel machine, put the machine in reverse and go backwards in time. Back…back…back to, a year not at random, 1955.

Why 1955, you ask?

It was in 1955 that a rising conservative named William F. Buckley Jr. created a not-in-the-progressive-mainstream magazine known as National Review. Unrealized at the time was that Buckley’s magazine was the opening shot in what would, over time, become a conservative media revolution. 

Over time as the future opened up the door, what was opened with a trickle became a flood of conservative media outlets, whether in print form or, with the rise of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others, talk radio. Then came Fox News. Next came Newsmax. News Nation. 

Now come the new technology of podcasts.

To show just how far podcasts – and conservative podcasts specifically – have multiplied, swimming along in the flood of information on the topic is this website titled 100 Best Conservative Podcasts.

That’s right-100 of them. With even more out there. On that list of 100, among others, can be found listings for conservative podcast stars with names like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Daniel Horowitz, Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson, Charlie Kirk, Steve Deace and more. Many more.

Connect the dots from the conservative podcasts and the online conservative sites (such as NewsBusters right here) and one can see in, as it were, black and white, just why the ratings for those once seemingly immutable “mainstream” liberal media are sinking, shedding staff and, one suspects, advertisers as well.

Once done it is reasonable to ask how much longer these once mainstream liberal media juggernauts can survive in their current form or power positions. Or, alternatively, are they destined to simply shrink over time, never again to regain the status they once had as liberal media giants ruling the American (and global!) media universe.

Which brings us back to those opening headlines. Headlines that, unrecognized at this moment, may well in the future be seen as harbingers of a decidedly major shift in the American media environment. 

With more headlines like this one here:

CNN anchor Jim Acosta will exit network after turning down midnight shift 

So there goes Jim Acosta. The question is: what else -and who else – in the liberal media is headed out the door right behind him. And is the Acosta departure yet another signal of the collapse of the “mainstream” liberal media?

Stay tuned.

 

World War Z author Max Brooks went off on a nonsensical hypothetical tangent on HBO’s Friday episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. In the context of a larger conversation about the need to keep Chinese fingerprints off of critical infrastructure, Brooks mused that Chinese dictator Xi Jinping could blackmail President Donald Trump over Taiwan in order to avoid more plane crashes like the nation witnessed earlier this week at Reagan National Airport.

Brooks, who is also a fellow at West Point’s Modern War Institute, began by making the more reasonable argument that the U.S. learned the wrong lesson from Operation Desert Storm, “This goes back to a point in history called Desert Storm. In 1991 we fought a war and annihilated the world’s fifth largest army in 100 hours… we wiped them out on CNN, and that was on purpose that we let the press embed because we thought we were teaching deterrence. We thought we were teaching the world, if you mess with America on the battlefield, we will annihilate you. What we were teaching our enemies was asymmetry, right?”

 

 

Tying the lesson to China and today, Brooks moved to shakier ground as he blamed Ronald Reagan, although not by name, for opening the door to the Chinese threat, “The idea that okay, if you’re going to mess with America, don’t use bullets and bombs because they are way ahead of us. Use alternative means. Cyber is one of them, and they are ahead. You can see a scenario right now because they weaponized the private sector in a way the Soviets never could because they were communist, and in the 1980s we deregulated the private sector.”

China hacks the public sector all the time as well, so that makes no sense, but Brooks was just getting started. He continued, “So, we talk about this plane crash right now. It’s a perfect scenario. Xi Jinping calls Donald Trump and says hey, ‘we’d like to invest a trillion dollars in your meme coins if you privatize the FAA.’”

Brooks then brought out his Trump impression, “The next day Trump makes a speech and says, ‘Government is inefficient. We are not going to do it. My good friend Elon. He’s got AirX, AirX’s going to take over all the air traffic control.’”

Privatized air traffic control, which Trump mused about in his first term, is not some radical idea. For example, Canada instituted it in 1996, and the world is still spinning.  Still, Brooks imagined a world where, “a year from now, once Chinese spyware and worms are planted and all their chips are implanted in our aircraft, China is going to invade Taiwan. Then they call Donald Trump again like a Mafia don and say ‘remember that plane crash? It would be a shame if another thousand planes all fell out of the sky, so back the hell off Taiwan.’ And he will. That’s how asymmetry works.”

First of all, the odds China attempts to invade Taiwan in 2026 are basically zero. Second, what is Brooks talking about when he goes on about worms and chips being “implanted in our aircraft”? Is it just part of a partisan desire to attack Trump and Musk? Because the airline companies are already part of the private sector.

Here is a transcript for the January 31 show:

HBO Real Time with Bill Maher

1/31/2025

10:27 PM ET

MAX BROOKS: This goes back to a point in history called Desert Storm. In 1991 we fought a war and annihilated the world’s fifth largest army in 100 hours.

BILL MAHER: You’re talking about Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

BROOKS: Iraq, yeah, we wiped them out on CNN, and that was on purpose that we let the press embed because we thought we were teaching deterrence. We thought we were teaching the world, if you mess with America on the battlefield, we will annihilate you. What we were teaching our enemies was asymmetry, right?

The idea that okay, if you’re going to mess with America, don’t use bullets and bombs because they are way ahead of us. Use alternative means. Cyber is one of them, and they are ahead. You can see a scenario right now because they weaponized the private sector in a way the Soviets never could because they were communist and in the 1980s, we deregulated the private sector. 

So, we talk about this plane crash right now. It’s a perfect scenario. Xi Jinping calls Donald Trump and says hey, “we’d like to invest a trillion dollars in your meme coins if you privatize the FAA.” 

The next day Trump makes a speech and says, [TRUMP VOICE] “Government is inefficient. We are not going to do it. My good friend Elon. He’s got AirX, AirX’s going to take over all the air traffic control.” 

[NORMAL VOICE] Flash forward a year from now, once Chinese spyware and worms are planted and all their chips are implanted in our aircraft, China is going to invade Taiwan. 

Then they call Donald Trump again like a Mafia don and say “remember that plane crash? It would be a shame if another thousand planes all fell out of the sky so back the hell off Taiwan.” And he will. That’s how asymmetry works.

Fool Michael Rapaport once, shame on you. Fool him twice, shame on the “Atypical” alum.

Last year, Rapaport apologized for believing one of the Left’s biggest lies about President Donald Trump. Both legacy media reporters and former presidents alike said Trump called White Supremacists “fine people” following a “Unite the Right” rally in 2017.

 

 

Disgraced former President Joe Biden started his 2020 campaign with the bald lie. President Barack Obama repeated it in the 2024 campaign’s stretch run.

Rapaport believed it for far too long before his heartfelt mea culpa. He almost fell for another lie this week.

The actor/podcaster said he posted an image of tech mogul Elon Musk allegedly making the “Heil Hitler” salute on President Trump’s Inauguration Day. He quickly took the post down after social media followers said he was missing the larger context.

 

 

“I felt like I had been duped again,” Rapaport said on the latest episode of his podcast.

“The guy’s a spaz,” he said simply, and it’s not out of any fealty  to the X owner. “I have no allegiance for Elon Musk… I got blocked by Elon Musk years ago for taking about his space rockets and that he’s a wannabe space man.

“I’m an independent contractor. I don’t get paid by nobody … I have no allegiance to anybody but myself and my heart … Nobody is off limits. No-bo-dy,” he added.

“I’ll tell you one thing, if he’s an N-word [Nazi] I want my N-words like Elon Musk. I want my N-words giving money to Israel. I want my N-words meeting [Israeli president Benjamin] Netanyahu … going to to Israel post-Oct. 7 and bearing witness … if that’s an N-word in this day and age that’s how I want my N-words.”

Earlier in the monologue, the “Beautiful Girls” star shared how he got fooled so badly on the “Very Fine People” hoax.

“One of my hardest rants ever on Trump was after Charlottesville after they pieced together [Trump’s] response,” he said, referring to the media hoax. “It wasn’t true, and I felt like a sucker.”

He also addressed those who have criticized him for “changing” over the years. He’s not denying it. He’s proud to change. Everyone should be changing all the time.

“You wanna stay the same your entire life? ‘Yo, you changed.’ Yes, I have changed. I’m gonna continue to change … I pray for knowledge. I pray for the ability to stay open, to gain knowledge, to listen.”

“If I’m the same person I was yesterday, I ain’t working hard enough,” he added.

Rapaport was one of President Trump’s most vocal critics for years. He softened his stance in 2024 as he realized some of the media narratives surrounding Trump weren’t accurate.