Newsbusters

In his Tuesday monologue for his eponymous show, Fox News Channel host Greg Gutfeld took a blowtorch to MSNBC’s Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough as a “bozo” and “grifter” with “dime slot hillbilly eyes” and “more full of [EXPLETIVE] than a cage full of chimps mainlining Metamucil” for recently claiming Joe Biden’s June 2024 debate performance was “shockingly bad” despite having said this was “the best Biden ever” “intellectually” and “analytically.”

“So they say hindsight is 20/20. And if anybody in the media sees out of his hind end, it’s Joe Scarborough. He was once a Republican in Congress, but will be remembered as the worst thing to happen to Florida since Ron Jeremy toured The Villages. I know. But what I like most about Scarborough is his honesty. Well, that and his dime slot hillbilly eyes,” Gutfeld began.

 

 

A clip of Scarborough played from Monday’s show in which he said this to Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes — co-authors of their latest behind-the-scenes campaign book, Fight:

We always look back in retrospect and think things were a certain way, just because it’s the way the media at the time defined it. You know, I remember after Biden’s shockingly bad presidential debate, that’s when, like, the history books were starting — you know, you could just see that was going to be the reason why he was pushed out of the race[.]

An incredulous Gutfeld clapped back: “Oh, you could just see that was going to be the reason because there were no reasons before the debate….Saying the debate was like a shocking reason for Biden’s downfall is like saying, I didn’t know Hunter Biden was a problem until I saw his artwork.”

Noting Scarborough said this all “now that Biden is long gone,” Gutfeld offered arguably the most important point about these tell-all books: “[T]hat’s what you get when the media is interviewing the media without addressing the diseased and dying elephant in the room, the media. Scarborough was talking with the authors of a new book that details just how Biden really was, how bad he was. And Scarborough acts as if he knew it the whole time.”

This served as a segue to a clip of Scarborough from March 6, 2024 in which he gushed over Biden as “far beyond cogent” and “[t]his version of Biden intellectually, analytically is the best Biden ever.” NewsBusters readers will recall this was our 2024 Brian Stelter Memorial Quote of the Year:

 

 

“I think he meant pungent. Keep yacking, you grifter….Of course, it wasn’t the truth, you bozo, which is why you said it. This guy has always been more full of [EXPLETIVE] than a cage full of chimps mainlining Metamucil,” he replied.

Moments later, Gutfeld laid waste to Biden’s actual mental capacity:

Biden didn’t have the mental capability to dissect his own pork chop for dinner, let alone dissect a Joe Scarborough op ed. You couldn’t debate a speak and spell, which is why they told him the speak and spell was the nuclear football and Scarborough actually wanted us to believe Joe was still awake at 08:30 at night? By then, he was already in his cryogenic chamber, dreaming about his uncle getting eaten by cannibals, overcoming oil cancer, corn pop’s love for hairy legs.

Gutfeld and his team had one more clip as, on February 9, 2024, Scarborough lambasted the Hur report predicting Biden would be seen by a jury as an “elderly man with a poor memory” as “random conclusions, irrelevant conclusions” that were “gratuitous” and in “bad fath.”

This went right to Gutfeld’s conclusion about why Scarborough (and the liberal media writ large) refused to be honest:

[If] Scarborough got within 200 feet of a polygraph machine, it would burst into flames. But Scarborough couldn’t afford to be honest with his audience because the Dems had a big bad orange man breathing down their necks…He had to blurt out hostile fidgety [EXPLETIVE] or they wouldn’t give him the pills that keep him from turning into a werewolf…The funny thing is [EXPLETIVE] if you had just told the truth when it mattered, maybe the Dems would have had time to find a candidate who could actually win an election…[H]ey, it could always be worse. Morning Joe could be on a network people watch.

To see the relevant FNC transcript from April 2, click here.

Most people probably do not know who Angie Drobnic Holan is, but they should. Holan is the director of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter, and on April 2, or International Fact-Checking Day, she wrote an op-ed bemoaning the setbacks the industry has taken in 2025 from Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and the Trump Administration.

The entire column displayed a tragic lack of self-awareness on how the industry has failed to learn from its mistakes and the problems stemming from its overinflated view of its importance. Holan writes, “But this year’s fact-checking day also marks a very serious moment for the fact-checking community. We are facing multiple challenges to our ability to do our journalism, and it’s not clear what the next few years will bring. As director of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter, which connects 170 organizations around the world all adhering to high standards in fact-checking, I see a community under intense pressure. Not everyone loves fact-checking, and there are powerful political forces that would simply like it to go away.”

Holan thinks people are opposed to factual accuracy when they’re simply opposed to partisan spin pretending to be fact-checks. Nevertheless, Holan claimed that without them, the world would just dissolve into chaos where relativity replaces truth:

This is indeed a crisis for fact-checkers, but it’s even worse for the general public. Disinformation hurts people. It has real-world consequences. Without fact-checking, more grandparents will fall victim to financial scams. Adults will refuse to vaccinate children against proven killers like measles. Teens will read faked reports of current events with no way to tell them apart from the real thing. 

Does Holan really think that the industry has prevented those things? Conspiracy theories arise because of a lack of trust in “official” sources, and, whether Holan likes it or not, some people are going to say to themselves, “If they lie about how many genders there are, they must also be lying about vaccines.” 

Still, Holan goes on, “Two heavy blows hit fact-checking in 2025. In January, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg announced his decision to end its third-party fact-checking in the United States. The program paid fact-checkers to help Meta identify and flag hoaxes and other false information on its platform; the program’s end means less money for fact-checkers and less distribution via one of the world’s largest social media companies.“

She further lamented, “The other blow came from President Donald Trump’s administration, when billionaire Elon Musk pointed his Department of Government Efficiency at the U.S. Agency for International Development. The abrupt ending of USAID meant an immediate end to funding independent international journalism, which included support for fact-checkers in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia. Some of these fact-checkers have suffered quietly, trying to find other ways to fund their work.”

Later, Holan continued to show no self-awareness, “Fact-checking’s effectiveness, in fact, may be why it is under such harsh attack in 2025. Fact-checking holds the line on reality for history’s sake. It builds evidence-based records that can withstand political pressures. Politicians who want to create their own realities are fighting hard against fact-checking, and they’re strong-arming tech companies and social media platforms into helping them.”

It doesn’t. On everything from naval strategy to vice presidential debates, fact-checkers have said things that are straight-up not true, but the fact-checkers got used to their power to be able to throttle social media posts for things they said were untrue, but Holan was eager to pretend that didn’t happen, “Politicians have led the charge that fact-checking is ‘censorship,’ but that self-serving argument is fundamentally a mischaracterization of what fact-checkers do. We’re more like nutrition labels for online content. Nobody thinks a nutrition label on a bag of potato chips or a gallon of milk is censorship.”

In the real world, when a Republican calls a Democrat a communist, they get such a label, but when a Democrat calls a Republican a Jim Crow throwback, they don’t. Sometimes, fact-checkers don’t even agree with each other. Everyone should agree that a democratic society should operate in factual reality, but people who appoint themselves the final arbiter of what is true should be a little humbler and more consistent in how they adjudicate controversial claims.

The PBS News Hour on Monday ran two stories grounded in liberal alarmism against the Trump administration’s quest to cut wasteful spending and fraud in the federal government, including at USAID — the United States Agency for International Development that provides foreign aid and economic development worldwide.

The online headline showed how public television has suddenly discovered that China might be a rival for global influence: “After devastating earthquake in Myanmar, China filling vacuum left by USAID’s absence.”

The point was reemphasized in the introduction from guest host William Brangham: “On the News Hour tonight, days after a deadly earthquake hit Myanmar and neighboring countries, USAID is largely absent, leaving a vacuum that China is quickly filling.”

Which begs the question — just how much international respect has the United States been getting for its “soft power” via its enormous worldwide work through USAID and related programs? It seems many around the world are primed to hate the United States no matter what it does or doesn’t do.

Reporter Nick Schifrin emphasized that “International aid organizations such as the U.N.’s Children’s Fund and World Food Program are working to deliver relief” and that “One of the most visible rescue teams has been Chinese. This morning, Chinese rescuers pulled a child out of the rubble, the team’s successes broadcast on Chinese TV.”

He relished quoting “a log written by current USAID employees obtained by the News Hour: “The U.S. government no longer has the tools or personnel to respond when our global neighbors request assistance.” Talk about a readymade liberal headline!

Schifrin interviewed a former senior USAID official named Chris Milligan, who lamented the administration’s response as “too little too late.” Schifrin repeated the log, and Milligan of course agreed.

Milligan: I agree with that. We had the capacity. We had the assets. We chose to turn them off, and now people are dying.

Schifrin: Let’s talk about some of the soft power aspects of this. In the report we just showed, Chinese rescue officials are seen pulling bodies out of the rubble. What’s your response when you see and hear that?

Milligan: Yes. We provide humanitarian assistance because we’re a generous country, and we do it based upon needs. However, there is a big dividend back here for America. It shows — it’s a showcase of American values. It creates goodwill. It strengthens our partnerships in the world, and it supports our global leadership. By walking away from humanitarian assistance, we are creating a political void that others, such as China, can fill for their own advantage.

Are we now? History note: Foreign countries haven’t always been enamored with USAID, accusing it of being a CIA front and of “meddling in domestic politics.”

After years of mocking and insulting conservatives for blaming China for COVID, the press suddenly cares about national security regarding China. After Schifrin set Milligan up with this leading question: “And does that hurt national security?” Milligan obliged with the now-acceptable China-is-our-enemy angle.

Milligan: What would a world look like without USAID? It means more pandemics, pandemics coming to America….It’s a less stable world, more conflict, more demands on American soldiers. It’s a less free world, and it’s a world where China becomes the global leader.

Later, Brangham interviewed Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University on the Trump administration under the online headline “Scientists sound alarm on Trump administration’s dismantling of research funding.” (Woolf also serves as a senior fellow at the left-wing Center for American Progress, which wasn’t mentioned on PBS.)

These segments were brought to you in part by BDO.

A transcript is available, click “Expand.”

PBS News Hour

3/31/25

William Brangham: The true impact of Friday’s massive earthquake, which was centered in Myanmar, is now starting to reveal itself. Myanmar’s military government says the official death toll is more than 2,000 people, with hundreds still missing. Thousands are injured and now homeless, as local and international efforts turn from rescuing survivors to recovering remains.

Nick Schifrin begins our coverage.

Nick Schifrin: Three days after the earthquake shook this monastery to the ground, the victims are finally being recovered. Nearly 300 monks lived here. Fifty are confirmed dead, the fate of 150 more unclear.

In Mandalay, the powerful earthquake pulled buildings to the ground, collapsed hotels and destroyed an entire apartment complex. A shop owner who wanted to stay anonymous shows the scars from the building that collapsed on top of him. He was rescued after being trapped for hours.

Man (through interpreter): I have been removing the debris from my shop on my own. No one has helped me.

Nick Schifrin: In neighboring Thailand, Friday’s terrifying collapse of a high-rise under construction sent people running for their lives. Today, at the site, they recovered one of the 18 who were killed. Authorities are investigating why the tower fell, when the damage to the rest of Bangkok was minimal.

The epicenter was near Mandalay, Myanmar’s second largest city, but the impact of the 7.7-magnitude quake spread to rural areas that today have little communications and are still stranded. Years of civil war following the 2021 military coup has left more than three million people displaced, and local media report fighting continued even this weekend between resistance groups and the military.

International aid organizations such as the U.N.’s Children’s Fund and World Food Program are working to deliver relief.

Sai Han Lynn Aung, Chief, UNICEF Field Office in Mandalay: We know this is an absolute catastrophe for children and family across Mandalay. Many homes have been destroyed, road and bridge damaged. Many children and family are still missing and traumatized.

Nick Schifrin: One of the most visible rescue teams has been Chinese. This morning, Chinese rescuers pulled a child out of the rubble, the team’s successes broadcast on Chinese TV.

Woman (through interpreter): The Chinese rescue teams came to help us. Thank you very much. I hope I can express my gratitude to the Chinese rescue teams on behalf of all the people in the affected areas.

Nick Schifrin: In Washington, the State Department announced a humanitarian aid team would soon arrive and deny that USAID cuts prevented a U.S. response.

Tammy Bruce, State Department Spokesperson: The aid can continue, and it may simply look different, and it may involve more partners. The success in the work and our impact will still be there.

Nick Schifrin: But a log written by current USAID employees and obtained by “PBS News Hour” says that on Friday afternoon disaster response experts working on the earthquake received alerts that they should go home; 45 minutes later, they were told if they had urgent or critical needs, they could continue to work as necessary.

The log goes on to say — quote — “The U.S. government no longer has the tools or personnel to respond when our global neighbors request assistance.”

For a perspective on this, we turn to Chris Milligan, who previously held the most senior career position at USAID during the last Trump administration, and prior to that was the agency’s mission director to Myanmar.

Chris Milligan, thanks very much. Welcome.

Chris Milligan, Former Senior USAID Official: Thank you for having me.

Nick Schifrin: What is your assessment of the U.S. response to the earthquake that happened on Friday so far?

Chris Milligan: There really hasn’t been a response.

Normally, what would happen if there was a natural disaster like this, the U.S. government would deploy a disaster assistance response team within our. And this disaster assistance response team would be composed of technical experts in sectors like search-and-rescue, water, hygiene that would save lives.

For example, when there was the massive earthquake in Turkey in ’23, the U.S. government deployed a disaster assistance response team that grew to about 200 people, and 160 of those were search-and-rescue staff.

Nick Schifrin: And just to give us perspective, the State Department spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, said today that a team from USAID was traveling to Myanmar now to help identify its most pressing needs, and the U.S. pledged $2 million in humanitarian assistance. It sounds like what you’re saying is that that is not how things used to work.

Chris Milligan: Correct. It’s too little and too late.

The three individuals, although I respect that they’re humanitarian assistance advisers, are not specific technical experts across the fields that are required at this time. This does not replace a 200-person DART, or disaster assistance response team. When there is a natural disaster, the U.S. government provides well more than $2 million to help those in need.

Nick Schifrin: And not only that, timing, right? Why are the first 72 hours so critical after an earthquake?

Chris Milligan: They’re called the golden hours. If you can find people and rescue them, then they have a chance of surviving. You have to get in there quickly to save lives. And the next thing you have to do is prevent a secondary wave of loss of life by ensuring that there is adequate clean water, food, and shelter.

Nick Schifrin: And on both of those notes, let’s put them in perspective for the recent USAID cuts overall.

A congressional official tells me that the transport contracts that could have moved the dogs, the search-and-rescue teams, those transport contracts have been terminated and that was notified to Congress. And an employee recently let go from USAID confirmed to me that some of the programs that regional offices could have been using in circumstances like the earthquake in Myanmar, those programs have also been cut.

What is the impact of those cuts, the overall cuts on USAID on a moment like this?

Chris Milligan: The real-world impact is that the agency and the United States government does not have the capacity to help those in need.

Those cuts that you mentioned occurred. But there are other cuts that are also significant. The internal programs inside the country were cut. So our ability or USAID’s ability to pivot those programs to address the immediate needs of Mandalay doesn’t exist anymore either.

The relationships with the local individuals and local leaders don’t exist anymore either.

Nick Schifrin: And I want to read that sentence that I read from the log from current USAID officials…

Chris Milligan: Correct.

Nick Schifrin: … on Friday — quote — “The U.S. government no longer has the tools or personnel to respond when our global neighbors request assistance,” do you agree with that?

Chris Milligan: I agree with that.

We had the capacity. We had the assets. We chose to turn them off, and now people are dying.

Nick Schifrin: Let’s talk about some of the soft power aspects of this. In the report we just showed, Chinese rescue officials are seen pulling bodies out of the rubble. What’s your response when you see and hear that?

Chris Milligan: Yes. We provide humanitarian assistance because we’re a generous country, and we do it based upon needs. However, there is a big dividend back here for America. It shows — it’s a showcase of American values. It creates goodwill. It strengthens our partnerships in the world, and it supports our global leadership.

By walking away from humanitarian assistance, we are creating a political void that others, such as China, can fill for their own advantage.

Nick Schifrin: And does that hurt national security?

Chris Milligan: What would a world look like without USAID? It means more pandemics, pandemics coming to America. It means less jobs for Americans; 11 of the top 15 trading partners we have were recipients of foreign assistance, $2 billion in agricultural products purchased by USAID to go overseas, a billion dollars in pharmaceuticals.

The list goes on and on. It’s a less stable world, more conflict, more demands on American soldiers. It’s a less free world, and it’s a world where China becomes the global leader.

Nick Schifrin: And, finally, you worked, as I said, as the senior career official, the counselor under USAID under the first Trump administration. What was your experience then, and how does it compare to how current USAID employees are being treated?

Chris Milligan: USAID had a very positive experience under the first Trump administration. Together, we instituted reforms that made USAID more fit for purpose to address global challenges.

So it was a very positive experience. We are not — the agency, as you know, being decimated and abolished, this is not the same experience.

Nick Schifrin: And, to that point, USAID employees would have been willing to work with this Trump administration?

Chris Milligan: Of course.

I have worked across six different presidential administrations. I was one of the first civilians in Iraq for the Iraq War under a Republican administration. We don’t do politics. We do national security.

Nick Schifrin: Chris Milligan, thank you very much.

Chris Milligan: Thank you. A pleasure. Thank you.

The story of the “Maryland father” deported to El Salvador’s infamous CECOT supermax prison continues to garner “victim porn” coverage on Spanish-language media. But in order for the story to stick, there need to be significant omissions and distortions when discussing the “victim” in this case. 

Consider the many omissions and deflections during Telemundo’s very brief coverage of the story for its midday newscast:

NOTICIAS TELEMUNDO MEDIODÍA

4/2/25

12:38 PM

OCTAVIO PULIDO: Today a Salvadoran family fights for the return to the United States of Kilmar Abrego who was arrested while taking his son, who has autism, to school. Abrego was deported to the CECOT mega prison in his country of origin despite having valid asylum, work permit and driver’s license. According to ICE, a member of MS-13. In 2019, a judge had already dismissed that accusation. After his expulsion, the immigration service stated in a court document that his deportation was due to an administrative error.

The 27-second brief accomplishes its purpose: it casts the “Maryland father” as a victim of President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement, casts the deportation as cruel and imperiling a family, and tries to establish that he is completely innocent of any allegations. But this is false.

The amount of omissions required to make this case to the viewing public is simply astounding. There are no mentions of the individual’s suspected gang affiliations, or of the details of his 2019 arrest. There is no mention of the fact that multiple immigration courts found that there was credible evidence linking the deportee to MS-13 including, per a confidential informant: confirmed affiliation, gang name, and gang rank. Per Amber Duke of the Daily Caller:

🚨 Daily Caller Senior Editor @ambermarieduke joins @reason and delivers the FACTS about the “Maryland father” MS-13 gang member👇
DUKE: “I’ll fill in the gaps here…. The other individuals he [deported ‘Maryland father’] was with at the Home Depot–that he was arrested… pic.twitter.com/ECLGrQlH3h
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 2, 2025
As is the custom, especially among Spanish-language media, there is a blatant conceal of relevant data in service of a narrative. In Telemundo’s case, a narrative in furtherance of advocacy against border enforcement.

 

Are NPR and PBS biased? Should they receive taxpayer funding? Don’t ask Google. The company’s AI chatbot showed its bias when it answered by simply pushing the leftist legacy media outlets in question.

Google showed a clear bias when MRC researchers asked “Are NPR and PBS biased?” and “Should NPR and PBS be defunded?” on March 25 and April 1. In its answers to the two prompts, Gemini cited NPR, PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which both NPR and PBS are funded by in part) as sources nearly 59 percent of the time (a combined total of 17 times out of 29 sources listed). Gemini’s responses included only six links that did not favor taxpayer-funded public media like PBS or NPR. This is a continuation of a similar tactic used by Gemini last week, the day before NPR and PBS executives were brought before members of Congress to answer for their networks’ biased reporting. Neither prompt cited a single article by the Media Research Center, which has produced countless reports on the bias at NPR and PBS  over the last 30+ years.

“When it comes to NPR and PBS, Google’s bias could not be more clear here,” said NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham. “Aside from perhaps NPR itself, no media entity has expended more ink over the decades on the question of NPR and PBS’s bias than the Media Research Center, and yet, at no point did Google even deign to mention the MRC as a source for either prompt. But this is just Google’s usual modus operandi, isn’t it?”

When asked on April 1, “Are NPR and PBS biased?” Google’s Gemini simply concluded that whether NPR and PBS are biased “is a subject of ongoing debate” and that “they aim for objectivity” without citing any sources. When prompted to “double check response,” the chatbot proceeded to list sources supporting its points, the majority of which came from PBS itself.

Even Gemini’s source explaining critiques of NPR and PBS bias cited PBS’s own coverage of the hearing about NPR and PBS’s bias. The chatbot proceeded to refer to this article a total of six times in its answers to the April 1 prompts.

MRC researchers decided to follow up by asking whether it would be biased for an AI chatbot to primarily cite the source in question when asked whether that source is biased. Gemini flat out admitted, “Yes, it would.”
The chatbot aptly noted that “Organizations, including media outlets, often have a vested interest in defending their own objectivity.” The chatbot added that “A comprehensive assessment of bias requires considering a range of viewpoints, including those of critics, independent analysts, and academic researchers.”

Google had a similar problem when asked, “Should NPR and PBS be defunded?” Gemini again cited PBS coverage as one of its sources showing that critics of NPR and PBS accuse it of having a liberal bias. However, this time, the chatbot also referred back to a press release for Rep. Strong’s proposed “No More Funding for NPR Act of 2025.” While there have been several other bills introduced with significant support, this is the only one Gemini referred to.  

These results were very reminiscent of Gemini’s responses last week, just one day before the hearing.

On March 25, MRC researchers asked, “Are NPR and PBS biased?” and Google’s Gemini gave a very diplomatic, almost relativist response, explaining both sides of the issue, but downplaying the question as “subjective.”

“What one person considers biased, another may view as objective reporting,” Gemini wrote. The chatbot then added, “Media bias is a broad and multifaceted issue, and it’s essential to consume news from a variety of sources to gain a well-rounded understanding of events.”

Gemini, however, did not offer a “well-rounded” understanding of the issue, just as it failed to do a week later. The AI chatbot instead presented sources that included links to two PBS pages, an NPR article, the Wikipedia page for “Public Broadcasting in the United States” and an article by Free Press defending NPR. 

When MRC researchers asked “Should NPR and PBS be defunded?”on March 25, Google’s Gemini offered six points for each side of the argument, but when it listed its sources, a clear bias shined through. While there was one source that simply analyzed funding and media statistics, two sources were from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — the organization that funnels federal funds to NPR and PBS. One was from an NPR affiliate, and another came from protectmypublicmedia.org in the form of an article headlined “How Federal Funding Cuts Would Devastate Local Public Media.” 

The only right-leaning source  Gemini cited on March 25 was an article by The Heritage Foundation headlined “Taxpayers Shouldn’t Have to Fund Biased, Woke Public Broadcasting.” The chatbot also included an article published by Broadband Breakfast with the headline, “Sen. Lee Proposes Bill to Defund NPR and PBS.” Rep. Strong’s press release also appeared among Gemini’s sources. Not one of MRC’s countless articles on NPR and PBS’s overt bias appeared in Gemini’s source list. 

This clear bias may be by design. Even former Vice President Kamala Harris said the quiet part out loud during a roundtable event at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. “[P]art of the issue here is what information is going into the machine that will then determine, and we can predict… what then will be produced in terms of decisions and opinions that may be made through that process,” she said.

Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Google be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Methodology.

For this study, MRC Free Speech America asked Google’s AI Gemini to answer a series of questions on March 25 and April 1. The questions asked were as follows: “Are NPR and PBS biased?” and “Should NPR and PBS be defunded?” On April 1, researchers additionally asked, “Would it be biased for an AI chatbot to primarily cite the source in question when asked whether that source is biased?” 

MRC researchers examined the listed sources Google’s AI provided on March 25 and asked Gemini to “double check response” on April 1, which generated sources for its answer. Researchers then recorded the sources and content of the links that Gemini directed them to and analyzed whether the source defended or promoted publicly-funded media, including National Public Radio (NPR), Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). 

Thus far, it has been a gloomy 2025 for the late night comedy shows as they have attacked Democrats from the left for not doing anything to stop Republicans, but on Wednesday, a trio of them claimed to have reason for optimism as they reacted to Sen. Cory Booker’s 25-hour talk. Some suggested he get an award, while others claimed he spoke for all of America, while others tried their hand at media criticism, arguing the media hasn’t praised Booker enough.

CBS’s Stephen Colbert teed up a clip on The Late Show of the final moments of Booker’s speech where he compared himself to the Civil Rights Movement, “There were many great moments, but Booker saved, I think, the best for last.”

 

 

After the clip and audience cheers, Colbert declared he was such a fan that he invited Booker on the show, “Yes, sir. That was beautiful. Give that man an award, eventually. First give him a toilet and a bed and a cauliflower steak or whatever he calls food. And I’m happy to say Cory Booker will be my guest on Monday right over there to talk about what is going on in the Senate, what is going on in America, and what can be done.”

Over at NBC and Late Night, host Seth Meyers welcomed MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and recalled, “Cory Booker, last night, did speak for 25 hours and then went straight on your show before declaring, “I did think, you know, as for what it accomplishes, I don’t know, but it did, at least, say, I think, to, you know, his voters ‘Look, I do still have some energy for this fight.’”

Maddow agreed, “Oh yeah, and I think that that initial, like, lethargy and kind of stunned reaction from the Democrats is over now, and I think it’s also interesting when Senator Booker said, sort of explained, he had time to talk, when he explained why he was doing it, he said, ‘Listen, my constituents put me up to it, my constituents are demanding me, are challenging me to do more,’ and we’re seeing that targeted at Democratic politicians all over the country.”

 

 

She further claimed, “Senator Booker said his constituents told him, ‘Take risks, do something you don’t think you can do, you need to show people that this not normal times and it is worth doing everything we can’ and he did.”

After cheers from the audience, Maddow tried to claim that Late Night’s audience and TikTok are representative of the whole country, “I think that kind of reaction and the way you guys saw that, I think the whole country kind of saw that, every single time I tuned in on TikTok or CSPAN or YouTube or anything there were tens if not hundreds of thousands of people watching, it’s like the whole country stood up and gave him a standing ovation.”

Back on Comedy Central, The Daily Show’s host of the week, Michael Kosta, attacked the media for insufficiently gushing over Booker’s speech, “And the amazing thing is that Booker didn’t just get out there and read from Wikipedia, he stayed focused on condemning the Trump Administration’s assault on working people and the rule of law, so you can imagine the media had a lot of questions for him about these serious issues.”

 

 

Following a montage of reporters discussing how Booker was not allowed to take a bathroom break, Kosta returned, ‘“Senator, senator, senator, senator: pee-pee. Senator, a follow up: poo-poo.’ This is why our country is the shape that it’s in. The media won’t talk about the substance of this speech, they’d rather talk about how he held it in for so long. No one cares about that, but just out of curiosity, how did you do it?”

The truth is nobody cares about Booker’s speech either. To return to Maddow’s point, tens of thousands of video views is not exactly history-altering.

Here are transcripts for the April 2-taped shows:

CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

4/2/2025

11:46 PM ET

STEPHEN COLBERT: There were many great moments, but Booker saved, I think, the best for last.

CORY BOOKER: The power of the people is greater than the people in power. It is time to heed the words of the man I began this whole thing with, John Lewis, I beg folks to take his example of his early days where he made himself determined to show his love for his country at a time the country didn’t love him, to love this country so much, to be such a patriot that he endured beatings savagely on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, at lunch counters, on freedom rides. He said he had to do something. [Jump Cut] This is a moral moment. It’s not left or right, it’s right or wrong. It’s getting good trouble. My friend, madam president, I yield the floor.

COLBERT: Yes, sir. That was beautiful. Give that man an award, eventually. First give him a toilet and a bed and a cauliflower steak or whatever he calls food. And I’m happy to say Cory Booker will be my guest on Monday right over there to talk about what is going on in the Senate, what is going on in America, and what can be done.

***

NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers

4/3/2025

SETH MEYERS: Cory Booker, last night, did speak for 25 hours and then went straight on your show.

RACHEL MADDOW: Yes. Yeah.

MEYERS: I did think, you know, as for what it accomplishes, I don’t know, but it did, at least, say, I think, to, you know, his voters “Look, I do still have some energy for this fight.”

MADDOW: Oh yeah, and I think that that initial, like, lethargy and kind of stunned reaction from the Democrats is over now, and I think it’s also interesting when Senator Booker said, sort of explained, he had time to talk, when he explained why he was doing it, he said, “Listen, my constituents put me up to it, my constituents are demanding me, are challenging me to do more,” and we’re seeing that targeted at Democratic politicians all over the country. The Republicans are too afraid to hold town halls, Democrats are holding them everywhere, but every time they do, they get screamed at by their constituents saying “Do more. Do more. This isn’t a normal time. Stand up more strongly, be more radical in your opposition to this guy, do more to stop him from what he’s doing” and Senator Booker said his constituents told him, “Take risks, do something you don’t think you can do, you need to show people that this not normal times and it is worth doing everything we can” and he did and I think that kind of reaction and the way you guys saw that, I think the whole country kind of saw that, every single time I tuned in on TikTok or CSPAN or YouTube or anything there were tens if not hundreds of thousands of people watching, it’s like the whole country stood up and gave him a standing ovation.

***

Comedy Central The Daily Show

4/3/2025

11:03 PM ET

MICHAEL KOSTA: And the amazing thing is that Booker didn’t just get out there and read from Wikipedia, he stayed focused on condemning the Trump Administration’s assault on working people and the rule of law, so you can imagine the media had a lot of questions for him about these serious issues.

…

“Senator, senator, senator, senator: pee-pee. Senator, a follow up: poo-poo.” This is why our country is the shape that it’s in. The media won’t talk about the substance of this speech, they’d rather talk about how he held it in for so long. No one cares about that, but just out of curiosity, how did you do it?

Last week, ABC, CBS, and NBC spent nearly 100 minutes covering leaked messages from a private Signal chat for Trump administration officials, in just the first 96 hours after the messages were published. But those same networks spent only 13 minutes covering the actual military operation that was discussed in those leaked messages.

In mid-March, the United States launched a still-ongoing series of airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen, in retaliation for more than 100 reported attacks on merchant vessels in the Red Sea. The operation, which would ultimately prove successful, initially received moderate coverage from broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC — until two weeks later, when Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg published screenshots showing Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other U.S. officials discussing the strikes in a private Signal chat.

The broadcast networks, which had long since dropped their light coverage of the strikes, immediately flooded the airwaves with the “Signalgate” story. That night, all three networks front-loaded their evening newscasts with lengthy reports about the mishap. In that single evening, the networks devoted more combined air time to the Signal messages than they’d spent on the airstrikes for the entire duration of the military operation two weeks prior.

MRC analysts examined the first 96 hours of coverage on ABC, CBS, and NBC’s flagship morning and evening news shows, for both the air strikes (the evening of March 15 through the morning of March 19) and the Signal messages (the evening of March 24 through the morning of March 28). The “Signalgate” story received a whopping 99 minutes and 40 seconds across all three networks, while the combined total time spent on the Yemen airstrikes totaled just 13 minutes and 47 seconds.

In aggregate, that comes out to 7.2 times more coverage for the leaked chat messages. But that ratio would have been significantly higher without ABC, which spent both the least time on the Signal story (31 minutes and 53 seconds), and the most on the airstrikes (9 minutes, 20 seconds).

CBS, meanwhile, gave a colossal 16 times more coverage to the Signal story (35 minutes, nine seconds, versus two minutes, 12 seconds). Things weren’t much better on NBC, which devoted 14.5 times more coverage to Signal (32 minutes, 38 seconds, versus two minutes, 15 seconds).

The Signal story broke on March 24, when Goldberg revealed he had been added inadvertently to a private group chat by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. As of this piece’s publishing, Waltz continues to maintain that he did not add any journalists to the group, but Goldberg published screenshots proving he did manage to gain entry.

To say the least, it’s newsworthy that a journalist was able to gain access to a private channel in which officials were discussing an ongoing military operation. But fortunately, the operation itself was not affected by Goldberg’s presence in the chat, and it was executed without incident and with no casualties.

If the broadcast networks who relentlessly covered this Signal debacle were seriously interested in the national security angle, one might expect they’d have paid a similar amount of attention to the actual airstrikes that were discussed in the leaked messages. But that’s not what the numbers bear out.

Instead, they ran a deluge of reports about an incompetently-managed group chat, but showed nowhere near the same level of interest in the competently-executed military operation underpinning the whole story.

NewsBusters readers know that Joe Scarborough has the braggadocious habit of mentioning his former congressman status at every possible opportunity.  They’re also aware that Scarborough, whom we’ve dubbed Muy Macho Joe, likes to brag about what a tough a hombre he is.

Scarborough earned that moniker back in 2023 by bragging that if he ever saw a Capitol tourist snapping a photo somewhere Joe didn’t like, he’d say: “Put the camera down or I’m gonna make you eat it. I would slap the camera out of his hand.” Dirty Harry was a wimp in comparison.

On Wednesday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough seized as a two-fer on the result in yesterday’s judicial election in Wisconsin, in which the Democrat won despite Elon Musk campaigning in the state and donating heavily to the Republican candidate.

Scarborough not only dragged his former congressman status into the conversation, he also bragged about how tough he was when Republican leaders threatened to campaign against him when he took votes they didn’t like.

As Scarborough described his display of extreme machismo. There’s only one major problem. Does anyone actually remember the national GOP establishment opposing Scarborough in the 1994 primary, when he ran as a rock-ribbed conservative?

I had the Republicans doing everything they could to beat me in 1994. And I won. 

And so, I get up there, and I start voting in ways they don’t want me to vote, and they threaten me. And at one point, I had a member of leadership say, if you, you know, if you don’t go this way, Scarborough, we’re going to, and I cut him off. 

I go, what, come into my district? Please come into my district. I won by 62% the first time you did. Come in again, and I’ll win by 75%, and I turned around and walked off. 

That is one tough dude. Shades of a brave gunslinger turning his back on his rival! Hollywood might well be tempted to cast Joe as Wyatt Earp in a remake of Gunfight at the OK Corral. Scarborough did win easily in his first two races, after Democrats had long held that seat. But don’t buy he was some courageous Lisa Murkowski wannabe. The New York Times reported “Mr. Scarborough, 31, ran an energetic campaign with extensive support from religious conservatives.”

Beyond boasting about his toughness, Scarborough’s claim was that, just as he was supposedly unafraid of people coming into his congressional district to campaign against him, today’s candidates need not worry about the prospect of Musk campaigning against them.

Note: Democrats like to accuse Republicans of using foul campaign tactics. But Symone Sanders mentioned that in the Wisconsin race, Democrats ran ads calling the Republican candidate, Brad Schimel, “Knee Pads Brad.” That earned a “yikes” from Scarborough.

Here’s the transcript.

MSNBC
Morning Joe
4/2/25
6:04 am EDT

SYMONE SANDERS: So my question becomes, are the Republicans now going to release themselves from the shackles of being scared of Elon Musk jumping into their primary and spending money against them? Because if Susan Crawford can hold on against the onslaught of the money, more than $20 million, $26 million, I believe.

And she leaned into it, she said she’s the one that made this race about versus her versus Elon Musk. They were literally running ads in Wisconsin calling Brad Schimel, who’s a sitting judge in Waukesha County, Knee Pad Brad, right?!

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Let me tell you, the — yikes. I know, right? 

SANDERS: It was bad. 

SCARBOROUGH:It gets rough up there in Oshkosh. 

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: That’s rough. 

SCARBOROUGH: You know, Claire McCaskill, we know how this works, right?

I mean, I had the Republicans doing everything they could to beat me in 1994. And through there — I won. 

And so, I get up there, and I start voting in ways they don’t want me to vote, and they threaten me. And at one point, I had a member of leadership say, if you, you know, if you don’t go this way, Scarborough, we’re going to, and I cut him off. 

I go, what, come into my district? Please come into my district. I won by 62% the first time you did. Come in again, and I’ll win by 75%, and I turned around and walked off. 

Like, it was, talk about Liberation Day. You know, this is Liberation Day for Republicans if they want to take it. They don’t have to be scared of Elon Musk. They can actually do their constituents’ biddings, And when he says, I’m going to come into your district, say, great! I’ll win big, just like that judge up in Wisconsin. 

As predicted, the Resistance Media have scrambled to make Tesla/SpaceX founder Elon Musk the scapegoat for last night’s special election outcomes. As part of that effort and despite clear evidence to the contrary, they have tied Musk’s upcoming exit from the Trump administration to these election results.  

Consider how ABC World News Tonight closed out its report: by insinuating that Musk’s exit is due to the election results:

ELON MUSK: Hey, everybody.

MARY BRUCE: Overnight, voters in Wisconsin delivered Musk a firm rebuke, rejecting his choice for a state Supreme Court seat after the billionaire campaigned aggressively in the state and poured millions into the race. And now, the president himself has been indicating Musk’s time may be up.

DONALD TRUMP: I think he’s been amazing, but I also think he’s got a big company to run, and so at some point, he’s going to be going back. He wants to.

BRUCE: Now, Musk’s term would come to an end around the end of May, and despite those earlier suggestions that the president might want to keep him on longer, The White House tonight insists the president still supports Musk and the work he’s doing. David.

You’ll notice that, for the most part, these reports single Musk out for his spending. However, these same reports never mention liberal billionaires JB Pritzker, George Soros and Reid Hoffmann, who spent big money on the Democrat candidate. But we digress.

The anchors set the tone in their reporting. Here’s ABC’s David Muir:

DAVID MUIR: Next here tonight, how much longer will Elon Musk have his role alongside President Trump? What sources are telling ABC News tonight, and it comes after two election wins in Florida last night, but a major loss in Wisconsin, where Elon Musk spent millions of his own money. 

And NBC’s Lester Holt:

LESTER HOLT: We have new reporting tonight about when Elon Musk may be leaving the Trump administration . It comes after he played a central role in an election last night. 

Both of these reports did their part to contribute to the speculation, and to establish the election as the cause for Musk’s departure. However, none of these reports told you that Musk himself signaled an exit during his Fox interview with Bret Baier five days ago:

Contra the ousting narrative, Elon Musk told Bret Baier 5 days ago that he expected to be done with his @DOGE work within the 130-day special gov’t employee timeframe.@bretbaier: You, technically, are a special government employee. And you’re supposed to be 130 days. Are you… pic.twitter.com/MyVmC3y9bi
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 2, 2025

BRET BAIER: You, technically, are a special government employee. And you’re supposed to be 130 days. Are you going to continue past that or do you think that’s the- what you’re going to do, or…?

ELON MUSK: I think we will have accomplished most of the work required to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars within that time frame.

BAIER: So, in that time frame, 130 days?

MUSK: Yes.

This interview has been a matter of public record for almost a week, and yet no one cites this portion when breathlessly speculating about Musk’s exit. Honest, factual reporting might’ve averted some of the dumb conspiracy theorizing of the last couple of days. Instead, we get fake narrative crafted for purposes of triggering the sense of chaos and discord in the Trump White House- even if Trump and Elon are mostly on the same page. 

As is often the case, viewers get fake narratives and innuendo sold as “news”. This is how trust in the media dies.

Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective newscasts on Wednesday, April 2nd, 2025:”

ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT

4/2/25

6:44 PM

DAVID MUIR: Next here tonight, how much longer will Elon Musk have his role alongside President Trump? What sources are telling ABC News tonight, and it comes after two election wins in Florida last night, but a major loss in Wisconsin, where Elon Musk spent millions of his own money. Here’s our Chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce.

MARY BRUCE: Tonight, sources tell ABC News Elon Musk’s days as President Trump’s right hand in The White House could soon be coming to an end. As a, quote, “special government employee”, Musk’s appointment was only supposed to last 130 days, but there were hints Trump wanted to keep him on longer. The world’s richest man and his DOGE team have dominated the early days of the administration.

ELON MUSK: This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.

BRUCE: But Musk’s chainsaw approach to slashing jobs and government programs sparking anger at town meetings.

CONSTITUENT: Elon was going to be the main topic tonight, and he’s going to continue to be the main topic tonight, because we are all freakin’ pissed off about this. You’re going to hear it and feel it.

BRUCE: And causing frustration among Cabinet secretaries.

MUSK: Hey, everybody.

BRUCE: Overnight, voters in Wisconsin delivered Musk a firm rebuke, rejecting his choice for a state Supreme Court seat after the billionaire campaigned aggressively in the state and poured millions into the race. And now, the president himself has been indicating Musk’s time may be up.

DONALD TRUMP: I think he’s been amazing, but I also think he’s got a big company to run, and so at some point, he’s going to be going back. He wants to.

BRUCE: Now, Musk’s term would come to an end around the end of May, and despite those earlier suggestions that the president might want to keep him on longer, The White House tonight insists the president still supports Musk and the work he’s doing. David.

MUIR: Mary Bruce, who was on the air with us this afternoon as well. Mary, thank you.

NBC NIGHTLY NEWS

4/2/25

6:40 PM

LESTER HOLT: We have new reporting tonight about when Elon Musk may be leaving the Trump administration . It comes after he played a central role in an election last night. Here is Ryan Nobles.

RYAN NOBLES: Tonight, Elon Musk’s role in the Trump administration could soon be coming to an end. A senior White House official tells NBC News President Trump told Cabinet members last week Musk would be leaving his government role in the coming months. Something the president suggested Monday, saying Musk has done a good job slashing government spending.

DONALD TRUMP: Well, I think he’s amazing but I also think he’s got a big company to run. And so at some point he’s going to be going back.

NOBLES: This, as Tesla sales have dropped 13%. And it’s become a target for vandalism and violence.

ELON MUSK: It’s widesp- wide scale domestic terrorism with the purpose of intimidation, and it’s harming innocent people.

NOBLES: Musk is a special government employee, an appointment that lasts 130 days.

MUSK: What do you think of my hat?

NOBLES: Musk just went all-in on the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin, spending millions of dollars backing a conservative judge who lost to a liberal candidate that turned the race into a referendum on Musk.

SUSAN CRAWFORD: I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world, (VIDEO SWIPE) and we won!

NOBLES: Today, mixed reviews from Republicans.

LISA MURKOWSKI: I don’t follow what Elon Musk does, believe it or not.

JOHN KENNEDY: I’m glad he’s on my side.

NOBLES: And in Florida last night, Republicans picking up two double-digit victories in House races, though those margins of victory were smaller than President Trump’s in November. Those two Republicans just sworn into office, expanding the slim GOP majority in the House to 7 seats. Lester.

HOLT: Okay. Ryan Nobles, thanks.

 

PBS and NPR are shamelessly demonstrating their leftist broadcasting powers in the wake of going to Capitol Hill and lying about how they’re interested in “delivering unbiased, nonpartisan fact-based reporting.” (So said NPR CEO Katherine Maher.) 

Both networks are now promoting leftist Yale professor and self-anointed fascism expert Jason Stanley to explain why he’s leaving for Canada because America is sinking into fascism under Trump. 

On Tuesday night, the PBS NewsHour awarded nearly seven minutes to Stanley’s rantings. There was no opposing view from conservatives, which would begin with welcoming Stanley’s departure as making America a saner place.

Stanley is not “fact checked in real time” for claiming America is devolving into a fascist regime. Here’s how PBS anchor Amna Nawaz began: 

NAWAZ: Yale University philosophy professor Jason Stanley announced he’s leaving not only his school, but the country, to teach at the University of Toronto in Canada. Stanley said he’s making the move so he can — quote — “raise his kids in a country that’s not tilting towards a fascist dictatorship.” For more on his decision, Jason Stanley joins me now.

Nawaz displayed the covers of Stanley’s two books on American fascism, and all the questions were softballs. It began like this: 

NAWAZ: So you have authored two books on fascism. It’s a topic you spend a lot of time studying. Your decision to leave has been framed as you fleeing the U.S. That’s the word people are using. Is that how you see it?

STANLEY: No, but that has resonance with Jewish intellectuals fleeing Nazi Germany in the 1930s, so it’s kind of interesting to see the use of that word.

Stanley’s claim is that democracy ends when the government doesn’t fund Ivy League universities where campuses are occupied by nasty pro-Hamas rallies, as if favoring Hamas is favoring democracy.

STANLEY: When Columbia folded, that’s when I thought, OK, I’m just going to look at the probabilities of our institutions folding, of our democratic institutions folding. And by that, I mean not just the universities, but the media and our legal system. And I thought, well, maybe they can hold the line, but this is an opportunity. It’s a great opportunity. And I think the probabilities are not in the favor of U.S. democracy.

On Tuesday’s Morning Edition, co-host A Martinez tossed the softballs for 7.5 minutes as Stanley dropped the F-bombs. The F-word came out seven times, or about once a minute.

MARTÍNEZ: Wouldn’t it be more helpful in that fight, Professor, for you to stay at Yale to fight that fight, as opposed to being in Canada?

STANLEY: I have Black Jewish children, and the attacks on DEI are an attacks — are attacks on Black people. They’re attacking Black history. They’re targeting Black people in positions of power, and they’re creating mass popular anger against Jewish people by taking Jewish people, by setting us up and saying, you know, we’re the excuse for taking down democracy. And, you know, personally, I’m not going to risk my kids’ safety for a political point. And finally, by leaving, I’m making a political point. I’m making the political point that I’m repeating history of Jewish intellectuals leaving a country in the face of a fascist regime.

MARTÍNEZ: Now, you’ve written two books on fascism, seeing that history as a cautionary tale. So how much did that play into your decision to leave?

STANLEY: Well, it’s – it played into my decision because my work over the last decade has been calling attention to the rise of fascism in the United States. And you can only write so much. At some point, you have to do something.

The only question that suggested Team Trump’s opinion to Stanley, that it’s fighting campus anti-Semitism, drew Stanley’s bizarre analogy that Team Trump harping on Islamist anti-Semitism is making Jews unsafe: “What’s happening is like what Stalin did in Eastern – in the Soviet Union – setting up large groups of people for popular rage.”

Trump can be both Hitler and Stalin.  And PBS and NPR are fine with that — in their “fact-based” and “nonpartisan” way.

PS: PBS also featured this radical professor on Amanpour & Co, as Clay Waters wrote here. That lasted 19 minutes. Stanley claimed “The history of this era will say that Jewish people were the sledgehammer for fascism.”

Sign the petition to help us defund another MSNBC in PBS and NPR at defundpbsnpr.org.