Newsbusters

Conservative leaders rallied Thursday against a smear campaign brought on last weekend by The Salt Lake Tribune against data guru, X influencer, and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) ally DataRepublican, having eagerly made public the identity and occupation of her husband — a private citizen.

The Tribune’s smear came on the heels of a larger targeting concocted by Rolling Stone aimed at revealing her real name — Jennica Pounds — along with her background and home as a proud Utahan and former tech worker. 

In the letter, over two dozen conservative leaders blasted The Tribune’s work as a “gratuitous and outrageous attack” on Pounds and her husband, “portray[ing] her as the real mastermind behind DOGE’s cuts.”

The signatories went onto demand the paper and all other smear merchants “ease their act of personal destruction” and return to “journalistic standards or be investigated for various IRS and consumer protection violations.” 

You can read the full letter below:

The difference between journalism and politics used to be one was about informing the public and the other was about persuading the public. Legacy media abandoned this distinction long ago. The latest example was the Salt Lake Tribune’s gratuitous and outrageous attack against one of the finest residents of that city: Jennica Pounds.

Pounds became the focal point for The Tribune’s ire because of her crucial work for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Being an average American lacking the clout and means of Elon Musk, Pounds found herself on the receiving end of a targeted campaign which resulted in the doxxing of her husband and his small local distillery.

Since The Tribune portrayed her as the real mastermind behind DOGE’s cuts, the paper might as well have put up a big flashing sign outside the distillery that read: “Send your hate here.”

The Tribune’s so-called “reporting” was disgusting, violative of basic journalistic integrity and designed to punish those who do not cling to the leftist narrative that paper spews on a daily basis to its readers. It came at a time when President Trump, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and other Republican candidates have had attempts on their lives. But unlike most, they have protective details.

Leftists have adopted a “whole of society approach” to their radical agenda. The sharp end of their weapon is the legacy media that wield their power with ferocity, targeting enemies like a guided missile.

We, the undersigned, condemn The Salt Lake Tribune. We call on it and other print outlets to cease their act of personal destruction. They can either voluntarily come back into compliance with journalistic standards or be investigated for various IRS and consumer protection violations.

Ed Molchany
Publisher
NewsBusters

The Honorable George K Rasley Jr
Managing Editor
ConservativeHQ.com

Mark J. Fitzgibbons
President of Corporate Affairs

Robert Romano
Executive Director
American Target Advertising, Inc. 
American for Limitied Governmen

Christie-Lee McNally
President
Raven Strategies

Rick Manning
President
Americans for Limited Government

Gavin Wax
President
New York Young Republicans Club

Curtis Houck
Managing Editor
Newsbusters

John Pierce
Chairman
National Constitutional Law Union

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman
60 Plus Association

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President
American Association of Senior Citizens

Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West (US Army, Retired)
Executive Director, American Constitutional Rights Union
Chairman, Dallas County Republican Party
Member, 112th US Congress

Kevin D. Freeman
Founder
NSIC Institute

James Taylor
President and CEO 
The Heartland Institute 
 
Thomas Lifson
Founder and Editor Emeritus
American Thinker

Kristen A. Ullman 
President
Eagle Forum

David Kupelian
Editor in Chief
WND News Center

Deborah Weiss
Attorney

Floyd Brown
Author
Western Journalism

Rod D. Martin, J.D.
Founder and CEO
Martin Capital, Inc.

Marci Troutman
Sr. Director Digital Technology
American Target Advertising, Inc.

Terry Schilling
President
American Principles Project

Eunie Smith 
President
Eagle Forum of Alabama

Jim Lakely
Vice President
& Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute

Dan Schnieder
Vice President
Media Research Center

In desperate need of air cover, ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today (to a lesser extent) rush to the side of Democrats as they remain strongly opposed to a Republican-crafted continuing resolution to keep the government open.

Before Senate Democrats caved to a cloture vote, they looked to pin a possible government shutdown Friday night on the GOP for refusing to write a bill that meets Democratic demands to tell Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to go pound sand.

“We’re going to turn now to the looming government shutdown. Congress facing a deadline tomorrow to pass a spending bill to keep the government running, but Republicans don’t have the votes to overcome Democrats’ objections to Elon Musk’s efforts to evade congressional spending,” GMA co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos proclaimed.

 

 

Senior political correspondent Rachel Scott whined “[t]he House is already out on recess and this has now turned into a standoff between Democrats and Republican…unable to strike a deal.”

After a clip of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) complaining “Republicans chose a partisan path” to fund the government “without any input” from Dems, Scott had a case of the sads:

Senate Democrats making it clear they won’t be supporting a bill passed by House Republicans to avert a shutdown. Some arguing it allows President Trump and Elon Musk to continue to gut agencies and slash the federal government without approval from lawmakers, evading congressional spending guidelines, which gives Congress the power to control government spending.

Scott threw out another partisan Democrat soundbite from Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) amid more bitterness (click “expand”):

SENATOR VAN HOLLEN: There’s nothing in this legislation coming from the House that provides any constraints with respect to allowing Elon Musk to continue his illegal rampage throughout the federal government.

SCOTT: Republicans need the support of at least seven Democrats to pass the bill, but showing no signs of agreeing to their demand for a one-month extension.

SENATOR PETE RICKETTS (R-NE): Not right now. Well, it’s all up to the Democrats whether or not they want to close down the government or not.

SCOTT: The standoff putting millions of federal workers at risk of losing a paycheck as Americans are already bracing for higher prices after weeks of tariff whiplash.

Over on NBC, co-host Craig Melvin wondered in a tease: “On the brink. A government shutdown on the table. Senate Democrats set to reject the Republicans’ stopgap bill. With the deadline looming, can lawmakers get on the same page?”
 

 

Later, senior White House correspondent Garrett Haake told viewers “Democrats say they don’t want to give a blank check to Donald Trump and Elon Musk to keep slashing the federal government and they don’t want to pass a spending bill they fear the President will simply ignore, but the Republican-controlled House has already passed the GOP spending plan and left town leading to this shutdown standoff today in the Senate.”

He went onto report Trump was “facing a major battle” as “Senate Democrats..will not back a government funding bill written by Republicans and passed in the House on Tuesday…pushing instead both parties to pass a short extension and keep working.”

Haake at least somewhat hinted at the theatrics: “The new defiance from Democrats marking one of their most high-profile showdowns yet with Trump — coming amid deep distress within the party over th e massive cuts his administration and top ally Elon Musk have made in their efforts to reshape the government.”

CBS Mornings wasn’t anywhere near as concerned. Senior White House and campaign correspondent Ed O’Keefe tacked it onto a story about tariffs:

With Congress facing a Friday midnight deadline to fund the government or risk a government shutdown. The Senate is expected to vote on a stopgap six month spending plan on Friday, but Democrats are warning Republicans don’t have the 60 votes necessary to break a potential filibuster and get it passed.

To see the relevant transcripts from March 13, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC).

On Monday’s Morning Joe, MSNBC gave author Steve Oney a forum to promote his book, On Air: The Triumph and Tumult of NPR, and to lament the possibility that the “down the middle” NPR will be defunded by Republicans.

After co-host Mika Brzezinski recalled moves by the Trump administration to try to eliminate funding for public broadcasting, Oney compared Republicans to cicadas who keep showing up with attempts to defund:

But they’re (NPR) going to face a rocky road in the future, and, every 17 years — it’s like the cicadas returning — generally, when there’s a Republican uptick in power, someone comes after NPR’s finances. The last time was in 2011 after the Juan Williams firing by NPR. Before that, Newt Gingrich in 1995 said he would zero out the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

And, prior to that, Ronald Reagan came after them in the mid-80’s. So each time NPR survived, but the world has changed greatly, and we don’t have the kind of stability in the media landscape that was there even in 2011. So we’ll find out. Sorry to be so equivocal, but we’ll find out.

He soon painted NPR as unbiased unlike so much of the media that offers audiences confirmation bias:

I think what’s changed is we no longer have this idea of — our information is stove-piped, and we don’t live in a world where Walter Cronkite could come on the evening news and say, “That’s the way it is.” We don’t agree on how it is anymore, and people get news that tends to confirm their predispositions and their biases. So NPR is still trying to play it down the middle — still doing it the old-fashioned way, and we’ll see if there’s an audience for it. I think there is, but that’s what they’re going to come up against.

Even Oney doesn’t really believe that. His book acknowledges NPR is liberal: “Young, brainy, upper-middle-class, politically liberal, artistically adventurous and typically white, the NPR archetype was taking shape.” 

After co-host Joe Scarborough asked his guest what he thought would happen in the latest fight over funding, he advised NPR to push its case more aggressively than last time. NPR “needs to bring a knife to the fight”! 

You know, the last fight — the Juan Williams fight — Jon Stewart said a very funny thing on his Comedy Central show. He said, “NPR, you got in a fight with Fox News and the Republicans, and you brought a tote bag full of David Sedaris books to a knife fight.” And it was very funny, and he got a lot of laughs. And I think this time, NPR needs to bring a knife to the fight. NPR needs to stand up, declare its purposes, declare its value, and not assume anything, and it’s going to be a public relations test as much as anything else.

Oney claimed NPR “ties the country together,” as if Americans of all political stripes enjoy it. He claimed NPR was “a great American project” like….the Panama Canal. 

Transcript follows:

MSNBC’s Morning Joe

March 10, 2025

9:48 a.m. Eastern

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: But now the future of the organization is in doubt with the Trump administration eyeing cuts to federal spending. In January, Trump’s FCC chair, Brendan Carr, launched an investigation into NPR urging Congress to cut the public broadcaster’s funding altogether. Last year, The New York Times obtained internal documents showing NPR drawing a weekly audience of about 42 million listeners. Joining us now, journalist Steve Oney. He’s the author of the new book entitled, On Air: The Triumph and Tumult of NPR. It chronicles the public broadcaster’s complicated 55-year history while looking toward its uncertain future. And, Steve, why don’t we start there? What is the — how does the future look for NPR?

STEVE ONEY, AUTHOR: Well, if I could tell you that, I would be a seer, and I’m not a seer. I’m a mere mortal. But they’re going to face a rocky road in the future, and, every 17 years — it’s like the cicadas returning — generally, when there’s a Republican uptick in power, someone comes after NPR’s finances. The last time was in 2011 after the Juan Williams firing by NPR. Before that, Newt Gingrich in 1995 said he would zero out the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And, prior to that, Ronald Reagan came after them in the mid-80’s. So each time NPR survived, but the world has changed greatly, and we don’t have the kind of stability in the media landscape that was there even in 2011. So we’ll find out. Sorry to be so equivocal, but we’ll find out.

(…)

I think what’s changed is we no longer have this idea of — our information is stove-piped, and we don’t live in a world where Walter Cronkite could come on the evening news and say, “That’s the way it is.” We don’t agree on how it is anymore, and people get news that tends to confirm their predispositions and their biases. So NPR is still trying to play it down the middle — still doing it the old-fashioned way, and we’ll see if there’s an audience for it. I think there is, but that’s what they’re going to come up against.

(…)

SCARBOROUGH: What do you expect to happen next in this battle between the administration and NPR?

ONEY: You know, the last fight — the Juan Williams fight — Jon Stewart said a very funny thing on his Comedy Central show. He said, “NPR, you got in a fight with Fox News and the Republicans, and you brought a tote bag full of David Sedaris books to a knife fight.” And it was very funny, and he got a lot of laughs. And I think this time, NPR needs to bring a knife to the fight. NPR needs to stand up, declare its purposes, declare its value, and not assume anything, and it’s going to be a public relations test as much as anything else.

And I think the administration, if they go after NPR, will find — as you say, Joe — that there are a lot of people out there in every town America who turn on Morning Edition and All Things Considered every day because it’s what they have. It ties the country together. It’s a — the book — the inspiration for the book is really David McCullough’s great books about American projects like The Path Between the Seas — his book about the building of the Panama Canal. And I think of NPR as being a great American project, and I set out to write a history of it — where it came from, who are these people, how does it work?

The liberal ladies of The View were over joyed during their conversation with tech journalist and Elon Musk hater, Kara Swisher during their Thursday interview with her. What had them so excited was the notion that Swisher could buy The Washington Post “out from under” under billionaire owner Jeff Bezos. But there was only one teensy tiny problem with the whole scheme: the paper wasn’t for sale.

Leading into the conversation about trying to buy the paper, co-host Joy Behar whined that Bezos was “overhauling everything,” such as “he wouldn’t endorse Kamala Harris” for president. She falsely claimed: “He’s eliminating the whole opinion section, unless you agree with him.”

“A lot of people are canceling their subscriptions. I’m one of them, and I like that paper,” Behar commended herself.

 

 

Behar went on to boast about Swisher’s apparent scheme to acquire the paper, with the cast and the audience celebrating:

BEHAR: Now, I understand that you are trying to buy the paper out from under him!

SWISHER: I am. I am.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Yes! Yes! Yes!

“Show me the money,” Behar quipped. Apparently not realizing it was a joke, Swisher felt compelled to try and convince them, “I can get the money.”

Her source for the money? Her wealthy millionaire and billionaire friends would apparently give it to her:

SWISHER: There are good billionaires, you know. And there are a lot of hundred millionaires. I know –

BEHAR: I never hear. Where are they?! What aren’t they?!

SWISHER: There are –

[Crosstalk]

GOLDBERG: They’re doing stuff under –

[Crosstalk]

BEHAR: I’d like to hear them speak out a little more.

SWISHER: Well, Mark Cuban does. I had dinner with him.

Unfortunately, there was a bigger issue than scrapping together the change from between the cushions of Mark Cuban’s couch.

Swisher broke the bad news that the paper just wasn’t for sale. “The money is not the issue. The issue is Jeff Bezos doesn’t want to sell it because he see it as a tool now. You know, Musk has X, and he has this,” she chided.

“Now, what’s happening, though, is all the really good people are leaving,” she lamented. “And it’s due to Jeff’s things. He likes to blame the reporters, they don’t like to change. And I would have agreed ten years ago. But the reporters do understand.”

As moderator Whoopi Goldberg was floating the idea of obtaining the funds through crowdsourcing, Swisher teased: “Do you want in, Whoopi? Down for a million?”

Goldberg went on to suggest that Swisher should think about starting her own paper through crowdsourcing; Swisher seemed open to the idea:

GOLDBERG: I think lots of people would love to be part of a newspaper that had something to say that was – that was – told us a story. I’ve watched crowdfunding do amazing things. Maybe this is part of it, or maybe it’s time for a new newspaper.

SWISHER: Well, that’s what I’m thinking now. I have to say. Because he doesn’t want to sell.

“[Bezos] doesn’t want to sell to me,” she huffed. She then suggested that Bezos was too embarrassed to sell the paper to her: “But I think he doesn’t want to sell. There’s lots of reasons why not to, including embarrassment, right? Like that things aren’t working out.”

That was might strong hit of copium to get over the fact that there was no way she could buy the paper “out from under” Bezos.

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

ABC’s The View
March 13, 2024
11:31:25 a.m. Eastern

(…)

JOY BEHAR: And it’s [The Washington Post] under scrutiny now because of changes under Jeff Bezos which is very disturbing. He’s eliminating the whole opinion section, unless you agree with him.

KARA SWISHER: Right.

BEHAR: He also — remember he wouldn’t endorse Kamala Harris, took the whole –

[Crosstalk]

SWISHER: They had the endorsement ready.

BEHAR: But they didn’t do it. So, he’s overhauling everything. A lot of people are canceling their subscriptions. I’m one of them, and I like that paper.

SWISHER: 375,000.

BEHAR: Now, I understand that you are trying to buy the paper out from under him!

SWISHER: I am. I am.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Yes!

[Applause]

GOLDBERG: Yes! Yes!

BEHAR: Show me the money.

SWISHER: Right. I can get the money. There are good billionaires, you know. And there are a lot of hundred millionaires. I know –

BEHAR: I never hear. Where are they?! What aren’t they?!

SWISHER: There are –

[Crosstalk]

GOLDBERG: They’re doing stuff under –

[Crosstalk]

BEHAR: I’d like to hear them speak out a little more.

SWISHER: Well, Mark Cuban does. I had dinner with him.

[Crosstalk]

GOLDBERG: This I —

SWISHER: The money’s not the issue.

GOLDBERG: What is the issue?

SWISHER: The money is not the issue. The issue is Jeff Bezos doesn’t want to sell it because he see it as a tool now. You know, Musk has X, and he has this.

Now, what’s happening, though, is all the really good people are leaving. Ruth Marcus just left. Terrific columnist. The head of PR just left, the head of communications just left yesterday. And they’re just losing subscriptions. And it’s due to Jeff’s things. He likes to blame the reporters, they don’t like to change. And I would have agreed ten years ago. But the reporters do understand.

GOLDBERG: Yeah.

SWISHER: That they need to change.

GOLDBERG: So maybe –

SWISHER: Do you want in, Whoopi?

GOLDBERG: I do. I do. And maybe the idea –

SWISHER: Down for a million? Like Trump.

GOLDBERG: Yeah. But maybe the idea is to — What do you call it when you’re self-funded?

SUNNY HOSTIN: Crowd uh –

GOLDBERG: Crowdfunding. Because I think lots of people would love to be part of a newspaper that had something to say that was – that was – told us a story. I’ve watched crowdfunding do amazing things. Maybe this is part of it, or maybe it’s time for a new newspaper.

SWISHER: Well, that’s what I’m thinking now. I have to say. Because he doesn’t want to sell. He doesn’t want to sell to me. We had a lot of testy relations when I was covering. But I think he doesn’t want to sell. There’s lots of reasons why not to, including embarrassment, right? Like that things aren’t working out. And if he can use it, he can use it.

BEHAR: What’s that slogan –

GOLDBERG: Wait Joy. Before you do it because we have to go but we’ll be back with more Kara Swisher.

The liberal ladies of ABC’s The View love and are paid to criticize and pass judgement of others, but they bristle at the notion of being at the receiving of what they dish out. They proved that again on Thursday when the oldest members of the cast, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, took to whining about people threatening to sue them and the critics who think they know what they believe.

“And by the way, they’re such snowflakes on the right, if you say anything about them they’re going up to the lawyers in two seconds, you know. But he can call people any names he wants,” Behar bellyached.

While the “he” she was talking about was likely President Trump, Behar (and Goldberg) recently came under fire on social media recently for bullying and mocking Elon Musk’s four-year-old son over his name. Late last month, Behar begged Musk not to sue her after she baselessly and angrily accused him of being “pro-apartheid,” an illegal immigrant, a “foreign agent,” and an “enemy of the United States.”

Later on Thursday’s show, Goldberg took issue with critics who “believe that they know everything I think and believe.” “They don’t,” she declared. “They don’t. No. Of course, not,” Behar agreed.

Goldberg then added: “One of the ways that you learn what people believe is to hear them talk.”

Yes, Whoopi. That’s how critics know what you believe, because you talk about what you believe. It’s the whole premise of the show. That’s why it’s a TALK show.

 

 

She went on to falsely claim “we don’t tell you what to think” and “it’s not personal.” She added that it’s “an awful thing when people become personal about you or your family.”

How does that square with you mocking Musk’s son, Whoopi? What about when you attacked Trump’s grandkids?

“Other people do it to us, and would like to think that’s what we’re doing to them. But we’re not,” she falsely proclaimed. Adding: “You can’t get out there calling names. Name-calling is not okay.” And yet, later in the show, Goldberg teamed up with Musk hater Kara Swisher to name-call Musk:

GOLDBERG: So you’ve known Musky for a while.

SWISHER: That’s what you call him? Okay.

GOLDBERG: That’s what I call. Musky.

SWISHER: Some people call him Elonia.

SUNNY HOSTIN: Muskrat.

SWISHER: Muskrat.

“I just want him to know that I’m aware of him,” she defended her name-calling.

If you don’t want to be called out for being hypocrite, Whoopi, then don’t be a raging hypocrite. Especially not on television where there’s a record of what you say and do.

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

ABC’s The View
March 13, 2024
11:06:09 a.m. Eastern

(…)

JOY BEHAR: And by the way, they’re such snowflakes on the right, if you say anything about them they’re going up to the lawyers in two seconds, you know. But he can call people any names he wants.

(…)

11:09:52 a.m. Eastern

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: People assume that we believe whatever they believe that we believe. But you know what I mean?

BEHAR: No.

GOLDBERG: Well, because—

[Laughter]

BEHAR: Help me out here.

GOLDBERG: People believe that they know everything I think and believe. They don’t.

BEHAR: They don’t. No. Of course, not.

GOLDBERG: One of the ways that you learn what people believe is to hear them talk.

One of the things that people would love to see is people always say you should take The View off television. You know why? Because we give you an opportunity, we don’t tell you what to think, we say, “this is what I think.” You know. Alyssa will say, ‘this is what I think.’ Joy says, ‘this is what I think.’ We all — and when we do that that is how you have the dialogue. It’s not personal.

You know, sometimes we — somebody will say, ‘well, that shirt looks tight on you, Whoopi.’ But that’s not a bad thing, you know. It’s not a bad thing.

[Applause]

But it becomes an awful thing when people become personal about you or your family. See, that’s the difference. We don’t do that here. Other people do it to us, and would like to think that’s what we’re doing to them. But we’re not. We’re just trying to tell you what – who we –

BEHAR: Pocahontas is personal.

GOLDBERG: It is. That’s my point. You can’t get out there calling names. Name-calling is not okay.

(…)

11:25:16 a.m. Eastern

GOLDBERG: So you’ve known musky for a while.

KARA SWISHER: That’s what you call him? Okay.

GOLDBERG: That’s what I call. Musky.

SWISHER: Some people call him Elonia.

SUNNY HOSTIN: Muskrat.

SWISHER: Muskrat.

GOLDBERG: I just want him to know that I’m aware of him.

(…)

Through Thursday morning, CBS has been the only major broadcast network (ABC, CBS, and NBC) to mention on its flagship morning or evening newscasts this week marked five years since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States and the life-altering lockdowns with its ramifications still playing out in American life.

On Tuesday’s CBS Mornings and CBS Mornings Plus, there were even discussions about how so-called experts got things wrong and gave mixed signals plus conceding school closures were a disaster.

Starting with the main show, co-host Gayle King — who was a longtime, dedicated believer in any and all restrictions — recalled “the coronavirus shut down life as we knew it, emptying the city streets and the office buildings, tanking the economy, bringing on social distancing and masking” and “killed more than 1.1 million Americans by the time the WHO said it was no longer a global health emergency.”

Of course, she started the conversation with former Brown University professor and Biden White House Covid-19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha by asking whether “Covid is still an issue today.”

 

 

Once Jha argued it’s only “still a bit of a problem…for elderly people, high risk people, immunocompromised people,” Jha shifted to learning from “mistakes we made” ahead of a future pandemic.

Co-host Tony Dokoupil struck the right chord for Americans whose lives were wrecked and crippled professionally and personally:

[O]ne of the ways COVID is still with us, and I heard this on the campaign trail when I was covering it, a lot of voters are still angry. They’re angry because their businesses were shut down. They’re angry because their kids weren’t in school for years, and still have learning loss. How can you maximize saving lives but also minimize all of these side negative effects?

Jha first defended the lockdowns as having happened because “we were not prepared” and “didn’t have testing” or “good surveillance.”

That cop-out aside, he stated the obvious that “shutting down schools was a disaster, so we should never do that unless we’re at an extreme point, but even all the other disruptions, I think we can avoid them if we have a good system in place.”

Further to Dokoupil’s credit, he invoked the Barrington Declaration and its benefits, but Jha argued it wouldn’t work because the elderly should be allowed to venture out in public (click “expand”):

DOKOUPIL: If we’re keeping schools open, why not go the full so-called Barrington Declaration, right? Where you protect the vulnerable, the elderly, people with underlying conditions —

JHA: Yes.

DOKOUPIL: — you let everyone else go about their lives.

JHA: Yes, look, it sounds good on paper, and I understand why people find that idea attractive. The problem is, the elderly don’t live on some island by themselves, right? We have to interact with them. They get their food, they go to the grocery store, they go to their doctor’s office, so the question is, how do you protect, you know, 30 percent of the population and let the virus run rampant in the other 70 percent? There isn’t a feasible way to do it. No state was able to pull that off. So it sounds good on paper, hard to implement. My view is, you’ve got to work really, really hard on making sure testing is available, but also treatments and vaccines. That’s actually how you get through a pandemic. That’s how we got through this pandemic. Focus on that. That’s the durable solution.

Featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers made sure the conversation turned back to the future and having “tools in place to properly combat” the next pandemic, which Jha naturally suggested was a “worry” of his with “this new administration.”

On CBS Mornings Plus, Dokoupil also set the table for this go-around:

Here’s an unhappy memory for you. Five years ago today, COVID was declared an international pandemic by the World Health Organization. We all remember that moment, the desperation, the lockdowns, the masking, the overwhelmed hospitals, the kids stuck at home, and the long-term effects are still being felt in people’s bodies, in people’s bank accounts, in our politics. What have we learned? What are the takeaways?…In the earlier two hours of this show, we talked a bit about the messaging, public health messaging. And I know that you think the public health community in general was overly certain in its declarations and should have been a little bit more, I don’t know, how would you describe it in terms of the — because clearly it became political very fast.

Jha was contrite, saying “there was a misunderstanding by a lot of people in the public health community that people were nervous, people were scared, and they were looking for certainty” when what they wanted in those early days was “guidance” on “what we knew and what we didn’t know.”

Then came the money quote: “I saw too many public health experts saying masks definitely work or masks definitely don’t work. And I think it confused people, and I think it sowed a lot of the — sort of discord that we saw.”

Dokoupil recounted to Jha, though, that the doctor was “one of those public health officials” and part of the “don’t question the science crowd.”

Jha replied “in the early days was when we really didn’t know a lot” and he wasn’t formally in “government until 2022, but I was out there publicly…trying my best” though “I got some of my own communication wrong…but…I do think there were times when too many public health people from the government to elsewhere conveyed a sense of certainty that we really didn’t have.”

 

 

Co-host Adriana Diaz turned to mistaking (click “expand”):

DIAZ: And you understand why the public likes, I think, certainty, but maybe not. Maybe they just want, you know, openness and honesty about what we don’t know. But now we are five years out, let’s look back. How effective were those masks, the social distancing? We changed our way of life. Did it really have an impact?

JHA: It’s a great question. I think the thing that had the biggest impact in ending this pandemic were the vaccines. There’s no question about it. The data on that is overwhelming here. And by the way, we owe a huge thanks to President Trump for Operation Warp Speed and bringing those vaccines forward and then President Biden for getting them distributed to the American people. So that I think is the thing that really ultimately made the difference. I think in the early days when we — when there was a lot of virus spreading, let’s think about New York, I do think that social distancing, I think high quality masks probably did make a difference, but those were stopgap measures. One thing that I do not think made a difference and actually had mostly harm but not much good was school closures. They, in retrospect, look particularly harmful. And even then it didn’t look like a particularly good idea, but a lot of places did it.

Later on trust in public health, Dokoupil returned to the outrage: “But the trust issue remains, trust in us, trust in members of the public health community. You mentioned the school closures, lockdowns, certain things that we now know didn’t work or were overkill. Does someone need to say, I’m sorry?…[H]ow do you recover the public’s willingness to believe the next time?”

“I do think people have to acknowledge mistakes…I have been public about things that I was overly cautious on. I don’t know any single person who got everything right. So I think it’s absolutely critical to acknowledge those mistakes,” Jha argued.

The one key disappoint with these segments that never came up? The years of declarations the vaccines were all-but ironclad in preventing transmission.

To see the relevant CBS transcripts from March 11, click here (for CBS Mornings) and here (for CBS Mornings Plus).

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel displayed the sense of humor of a 12-year old on his Wednesday show. After hyping a new penis implant designed by American, Chinese, and Japanese scientists, Kimmel suggested that a bunch of MAGA people would benefit from the invention.

Kimmel teed up a video by declaring, “The implant is made of a gel and has been successfully tested on pigs. What a magical time it is to be a pig. Gimme your heart, I need a new valve! I ate too much bacon! Finish up that slop, I got a rubber penis to test out on you! Erections, as many of you know, are not guaranteed. They can be elusive, and that’s why so many men with soft in their pants are celebrating this exciting new development.”

 

 

The video then showed JD Vance, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Hulk Hogan, and Rudy Giuliani in various displays of excitement or doing all sorts of dance moves. Kimmel, speaking of Giuliani, followed up by quipping, “I’m happiest with for him, really.”

Elsewhere on Wednesday night’s late night comedy circuit, Netflix debuted its new show Everybody’s Live with John Mulaney. As one of his first guests, Mulaney had on singer and activists Joan Baez, who brought a somber tone to the festivities, “First, I have to set the context that I’m here in. You said I could say anything I want out here. So, that we’re all here to be silly and have fun and as long as we recognize the fact that our democracy’s going up in flames and we’re about to—we’re being run by a bunch of really incompetent billionaires.”

 

 

Not a great start to a new era of late night comedy on Netflix.

Here is a transcript for the March 12 shows:

ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live!

3/12/2025

11:42 PM ET

JIMMY KIMMEL: The implant is made of a gel and has been successfully tested on pigs. What a magical time it is to be a pig. “Gimme your heart, I need a new valve! I ate too much bacon! Finish up that slop, I got a rubber penis to test out on you.”

Erections, as many of you know, are not guaranteed. They can be elusive, and that’s why so many men with soft in their pants are celebrating this exciting new development.

[Video of JD Vance, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Hulk Hogan, and Rudy Giuliani]

KIMMEL: I’m happiest for him, really. 

***

Netflix Everybody’s Live with John Mulaney

3/12/2025

10:32 PM ET

JOAN BAEZ: First, I have to set the context that I’m here in. You said I could say anything I want out here. So, that we’re all here to be silly and have fun, and as long as we recognize the fact that our democracy’s going up in flames and we’re about to—we’re being run by a bunch of really incompetent billionaires.

President Joe Biden and his administration spent four years continuously attacking the First Amendment and the free speech rights enshrined by the nation’s Founders. 

The Biden administration’s censorship efforts ran the gamut from coercing and colluding with Big Tech platforms to silence his opponents; using taxpayer dollars to fund censorship organizations that pledged to cancel conservative voices; enlisting foreign agents to suppress stories from right-leaning media outlets; and weaponizing federal agencies to target those critical of the administration.

This report details 57 distinct Biden initiatives that targeted Americans’ ability to speak their minds. The degree and extent of this coordination is dizzying, spanning no fewer than 90 different government agencies, entangling hundreds of government officials and including thousands of individual censorship actions. The number of people silenced, or prevented from receiving messages they wanted to hear, is all but incalculable. The harm to the nation’s constitutional framework and the system of limited government is similarly beyond measure. 

This report identifies and describes each of the 57 initiatives. They are separated into the following four distinct categories to help readers better understand the nature of the Biden administration’s raw abuse of power to subvert the First Amendment rights of Americans:

1.  Direct Action

The most blunt method of censorship the Biden administration had was to order someone else — a judge, a Big Tech platform or even a foreign government — to censor an American directly. Examples include:

White House Senior Advisor for the COVID-19 Response Andy Slavitt pressured Amazon to ban books critical of the government’s position on vaccination and the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Department of Justice got an activist judge to ban Big Tech platform X and its owner Elon Musk from notifying users of the government’s surveillance. 
The White House and the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Disease harassed and threatened Meta employees into censoring content critical of Biden’s COVID-19 policies.
2.  Policy or Rulemaking

On the opposite end of the spectrum from “direct action” initiatives are those in the “policy or rulemaking” category. Perhaps the most pernicious form of harm to free speech, this type of initiative is the formal codification of censorship into official government policy, often in ways that make it difficult for future administrations to undo. Among the examples are:

The “Framework” for controlling speech, where the State Department authored and Secretary of State Tony Blinken signed a compact with over 20 foreign nations pledging to pressure Big Tech platforms to censor more.
“Track F” of the National Science Foundation’s Convergence Accelerator, which coordinated (and funded) private research institutions to build artificial intelligence (AI) to target and delete speech the Biden administration viewed as “mis/disinformation.”
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas’s attempt to create a ministry of truth, named the “Disinformation Governance Board” which would police online speech. 
3.  Partnerships

Under its “whole of society approach,” the Biden administration formed partnerships with state, foreign and private actors in order to silence its critics. Some examples include:

The State Department’s AI “Partnership,” where the Big Tech firms Anthropic, Google, IBM, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and OpenAI all pledged to work with the government to restrict online speech.
Throughout the Biden administration, the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) had an ongoing partnership with the leftist censorship outfit The Poynter Institute, which manages one of the key entities that directed censorship across Meta platforms.  
Biden’s National Security Council’s extensive collaboration with a U.K. government censorship agency, the Counter Disinformation Unit, to impose U.K. censorship decrees on American agencies and companies.
4. Grants

To accomplish its deeply unpopular censorship objectives, the Biden administration often conducted its censorship through lavish grants to censorship organizations (which are subject to less scrutiny and less transparency than federal agencies). Examples include: 

A Department of Homeland Security center that is supposed to stop terrorists at the border was reprogrammed to attack Christians, conservatives and the Republican Party, equating them with militant neo-Nazi groups (see the “Pyramid of Far-Right Radicalization”).
Millions of dollars were collectively funneled to censorship outfits such as NewsGuard, Guidehouse and GDI via grants from the U.S. Air Force, Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency and the National Endowment for Democracy, respectively.  
The National Science Foundation gave censorship outfit Meedan over $5.7 million to create “minority led partnerships” which would flag internet speech for censorship.
The censorship initiatives listed in this report were conducted by the Biden administration behind closed doors. They should be viewed, though, in the context of Biden’s very public actions. From his first days in office to his farewell address, Biden used his position to push for ever-increasing amounts of censorship. At one press conference, Biden stated that his opponents were spreading “bad information” and “anyone listening to it is getting hurt.” At another, he claimed that Big Tech platforms declining to contract with censorship outfits were “contrary to everything America’s about” and “really shameful.” At a third, he crudely shouted that Facebook (now Meta) was “killing people” by not censoring enough. 

It should not be surprising, then, that despite the mountains of evidence of pervasive, illegal censorship throughout the government, Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice refused to prosecute any of the perpetrators. In fact, even after a judge concluded that Biden’s government “assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” the Justice Department refused to even launch a single investigation into federal government censorship. 

The new president has issued two executive orders (one on free speech and another on artificial intelligence), providing a launching point for correcting this injustice. But more must be done. Doing so begins by learning the extent of the harm the last four years have inflicted — and understanding how easily and swiftly censorship could come roaring back if the American public does not remain more vigilant.  

Click on the following link to download and read the full report: The Biden Administration Waged War on Free Speech with 57 Censorship Initiatives.

Recommendations

President Donald Trump’s executive order “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship was a fantastic start, but there is much more work to do to dismantle the Biden administration’s censorship initiatives and ensure they are never reconstructed. For example: 

Remove Censors from Government: Government officials behind Biden’s censorship initiatives, such as current National Science Foundation Director Sethuraman Panchanathan among others listed in Initiative #57, should be removed from their posts and replaced with pro-American free speech advocates.
Defund Censorship Groups: Censorship outfits like those named in this report, such as Ad Fontes, Meedan and The Poynter Institute, should be prohibited from receiving future government grants.
Provide Justice for Victims of Censorship: Congress should enact legislation, such as Rep. Harriet Hageman’s “Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act,” that creates new private rights of action for victims of government censorship to seek justice.
Follow the Constitution: Congress should reassert its constitutional authority and rescind its vast, unconstitutional delegation of power to independent agencies like the National Labor Relations Board and Securities & Exchange Commission.
Click on the following link to download and read the full report: The Biden Administration Waged War on Free Speech with 57 Censorship Initiatives.

 

Early Thursday morning, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin noticed that CNN climate correspondent spread fake news the previous evening on The Source with Kaitlan Collins when he accused the administration of being in such a hurry to repeal regulations they incompetently  put out press releases with typos and placeholders in the headlines. In reality, Weir couldn’t tell the difference between zeroes and the letter O.

Collins began by putting the ball on the tee, “And Bill, as we’re looking at these rollbacks that have been put in place by the White House, in just the last two hours alone or so, so far. What can you tell us about just the scope? What does this mean, and how is it going to affect people?”

 

 

Weir began, “It is the chainsaw effect that we’ve been watching all these weeks. Famously, President Trump promised oil executives carte blanche when it came to deregulation. And today’s event, which is actually timed to the biggest energy conference in Houston today. Lee Zeldin put out a video on X, and they were putting out press releases with such a flurry, about 31 different actions and rollbacks that some of them had typos or placeholders at the top. We have one of those there.”

CNN then put up a headline of an EPA press release that read, “Trump EPA Announces OOOO b/c Reconsideration of Biden-Harris Rules Strangling Energy Producers.”

That’s a real regulation, but Weir claimed it was just a typo, “Trump EPA announces 000 — you can see there. It’s sort of shoot first, fill out the press release later.”

As Weir was spreading fake news, Collins muttered, “Oops,” in agreement.

Despite his mistake, Weir portrayed himself and his fellow climate alarmists as victims in a war against expertise:

They’re going after, of course, as you mentioned, vehicle emissions, tailpipe emissions, power plant pollution, mercury pollution that comes out of there, coal, wastewater, oil and gas, coal ash. Reporting CO2, industries just kind of keeping a tally on how much planet-cooking pollution they’re putting into the sea and sky, where they no need to do that anymore. Now, a lot of this is symbolic. It still has to go through the courts. It has to go through Congress. But it just is the latest in an all-out war on science, around public health, around the environment, and, of course, around the climate crisis.

Since The Source, Weir has reappeared on CNN multiple times to repeat his denunciations of Zeldin’s deregulation efforts, and while he has refrained from repeating the typo fake news, he hasn’t apologized either. So much for “facts first.”

Here is a transcript for the March 12 show:

CNN The Source with Kaitlan Collins

3/12/2025

9:57 PM ET

KAITLAN COLLINS: And Bill, as we’re looking at these rollbacks that have been put in place by the White House, in just the last two hours alone or so, so far. What can you tell us about just the scope? What does this mean, and how is it going to affect people?

BILL WEIR: It is the chainsaw effect that we’ve been watching all these weeks. Famously, President Trump promised oil executives carte blanche when it came to deregulation. And today’s event, which is actually timed to the biggest energy conference in Houston today. Lee Zeldin put out a video on X, and they were putting out press releases with such a flurry, about 31 different actions and rollbacks that some of them had typos or placeholders at the top. We have one of those there. Trump EPA announces 000 — you can see there.

COLLINS: Oops.                                               

WEIR: It’s sort of shoot first, fill out the press release later.

They’re going after, of course, as you mentioned, vehicle emissions, tailpipe emissions, power plant pollution, mercury pollution that comes out of there, coal, wastewater, oil and gas, coal ash. Reporting CO2, industries just kind of keeping a tally on how much planet-cooking pollution they’re putting into the sea and sky, where they no need to do that anymore.

Now, a lot of this is symbolic. It still has to go through the courts. It has to go through Congress. But it just is the latest in an all-out war on science, around public health, around the environment, and, of course, around the climate crisis.

Audie Cornish wants Trump’s tariffs cast in the most negative possible light.

On today’s CNN This Morning, host Cornish played a clip of a plain-spoken Iowa soybean farmer: “You know, it’s just a match, you know? And nobody’s going to win.” The p-word was muted but it’s clear what he said.

A bit later, when panelist Kevin Frey [a Spectrum News reporter] launched an earnest, factual description of the effects of tariffs, Cornish eventually cut him off, saying: 

“We just got a deep dive into commodities from you, which, you know, I like it. You’re bringing some good energy this morning. But the farmer gave us a very, like—people understand what tariffs are now, right?”

Note that as Cornish cut him off, the panelist Frey realized he was being dissed, and actually apologized: “sorry.”

 

The panel’s take on tariffs was uniformly negative, emphasizing how they could raise prices, etc. The potential benefits of tariffs were never discussed.  For example, how tariffs could encourage companies with manufacturing facilities abroad to relocate them to the United States. As has been reported:

“Multiple major auto firms — including Honda, Hyundai Motor, Stellantis, Volkswagen and Volvo Cars — are looking to open new US factories or boost their production efforts at existing sites to minimize any pain from the tariffs. Honda became one of the first companies to cave, scrapping plans to produce its new Civic model in Mexico in favor of Indiana, according to a Reuters report last week.”

Tariffs can also boost the sales of American companies whose products will be more competitive with products subject to tariffs coming from abroad. That will increase employment as well as profits.

But for Cornish and the liberal media at large, Trump’s tariffs, just like Orange Man himself, are bad: just a “p——g match” in which everyone loses.

Here’s the transcript.

CNN This Morning
3/13/25
6:04 am ET

AUDIE CORNISH: Here’s a soybean farmer, to your point about farmers, saying nobody’s going to win a tariff war. 

SOYBEAN FARMER DOUG FULLER: You know, they aren’t good for the other countries. They aren’t good for me. And who could blame, who could blame them putting reciprocal tariffs on us? 

You know, it’s just a match, you know? And nobody’s going to win. 

CORNISH: Okay, real talk from Polk County, Iowa. Kevin? 

KEVIN FREY: I was talking to a farmer yesterday as well from upstate New York who’s a dairy farmer. And he, obviously Trump is threatening within the last week, and he’s played with this before, but putting tariffs on Canadian dairy as part of the ongoing feud between the two. 

And this is a longstanding issue that dates back pre-USMCA and so forth. But even if the tariffs go into a place that Trump is kind of toying with, one economist I spoke to said basically, Canada will just put up theirs and then they’ll cut off any market access that they were even hoping to gain through some sort of leverage with Canada. 

But on top of that, in the meantime, in the short term, this farmer was telling me that they could see an up to 10% reduction in their own bottom line because milk prices are down because of the ongoing tit-for-tat. And on top of that, some of the stuff they get from Canada, like their feed, has gone up in price because of the tariff. 

CORNISH: Now, what’s interesting is, you got all that. We just got a deep dive into commodities from you. 

FREY: Sorry. 

CORNISH: Which, you know, I like it. You’re bringing some good energy this morning. 

But the farmer gave us a very, like, people understand what tariffs are now. Yeah. Right? Like, he was giving me the explanation I used to hear from economists.