Newsbusters

Having seemingly run out of things killed by DOGE to report on, it appears that the CBS Evening News have expanded this favorite doom genre of news reporting. This new subgenre deals with the adverse reactions to tariffs across society, with tonight’s focus on…wedding dresses.

Watch as correspondent Janet Shamlian struggles to cobble together a narrative of China tariffs as an accelerant of bridal gown purchases:

JANET SHAMLIAN: The big day isn’t until September but after she heard tariffs were coming, she’s anxious to say yes to the dress. More than 80% of dresses are made in China. 

When you heard about tariffs coming, how did that impact your thoughts about buying a dress?

JESSICA STONE: I definitely wanted to make sure that I bought a dress immediately.

SHAMLIAN: Try to avoid the tariffs?

STONE: Yes.

SHAMLIAN: We met the 28-year-old as she was shopping with family and friends at Stephenson’s, a small Elkhart, Indiana specialty store doing big business in bridal.

What did you think when you heard the word “tariff” this time around?

DANNY REYNOLDS: Oh no, here we go again, I guess.

SHAMLIAN: Owner Danny Reynolds told us he had to raise prices in 2019 during the first Trump administration, when 25% tariffs were enacted on textiles and apparel.

REYNOLDS: I’m seeing more in the $1800…

SHAMLIAN: This time he doesn’t know what will happen.

REYNOLDS: The difficult original decision is going to be in the hands of the manufacturer. They are going to have to decide how much price increase they can absorb and what they need to pass on to us, which ultimately would get passed on to the bride.

Granted, this story is far less goofier than “DOGE will get you eaten by bears” or “DOGE will ruin your Yosemite vacation”, but it runs in that same lane. The idea is to try to create and showcase a victim of a Trump policy. In this case, the Bridezilla who has to shell out a couple hundred dollars more for her wedding dress.

One thing this report inadvertently did was to demonstrate why President Trump seeks tariff policies in the first place: to trigger the reshoring (or nearshoring) of industries that left the United States over the course of the past decades- including manufacturing. 

By no means is the media’s well dry on victimhood stories related to Trump fiscal policy, but this one kind of scraped the bottom of the barrel.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the CBS Evening News on Tuesday, March 11th, 2025: 

JOHN DICKERSON: American brides are caught in the crossfire of the trade war. Tariffs on imports from China will raise the cost of gowns.

MAURICE DuBOIS: So Janet Shamlian in Indiana reports there is a rush to the bridal store.

JANET SHAMLIAN: Finding the perfect wedding gown is something Jessica Stone told us she’s dreamed of since childhood.

JESSICA STONE: Right here. Right here.

SHAMLIAN: The big day isn’t until September but after she heard tariffs were coming, she’s anxious to say yes to the dress. More than 80% of dresses are made in China. 

When you heard about tariffs coming, how did that impact your thoughts about buying a dress?

STONE: I definitely wanted to make sure that I bought a dress immediately.

SHAMLIAN: Try to avoid the tariffs?

STONE: Yes.

SHAMLIAN: We met the 28-year-old as she was shopping with family and friends at Stephenson’s, a small Elkhart, Indiana specialty store doing big business in bridal.

What did you think when you heard the word “tariff” this time around?

DANNY REYNOLDS: Oh no, here we go again, I guess.

SHAMLIAN: Owner Danny Reynolds told us he had to raise prices in 2019 during the first Trump administration, when 25% tariffs were enacted on textiles and apparel.

REYNOLDS: I’m seeing more in the $1800…

SHAMLIAN: This time he doesn’t know what will happen.

REYNOLDS: The difficult original decision is going to be in the hands of the manufacturer. They are going to have to decide how much price increase they can absorb and what they need to pass on to us, which ultimately would get passed on to the bride.

SHAMLIAN: These dresses are manufactured and imported by companies like Justin Alexander, which sells to 700 bridal stores nationwide.

JUSTIN WARSHAW: We have around 10,000 dresses at a given time…

SHAMLIAN: We met owner Justin Warshaw at his New Jersey warehouse. 

You can’t just shift wedding dress production to the United States?

WARSHAW: No, it’s impossible. The labor force does not exist to make dresses here in America.

SHAMLIAN: Once they arrive from overseas, workers inspect them before they go to the store. The company did move some manufacturing to Vietnam and Myanmar during the last round of tariffs. It wasn’t enough to blunt their impact.

WARSHAW: But a dress like this takes hundreds of hours to hand bead this.

SHAMLIAN: The average dress, Warshaw told us, has increased in price from $1300 to $1800 over the last five years.

REYNOLDS: I love the stretch lace.

SHAMLIAN: That could trickle down to retailers such as Danny Reynolds. And for better or worse, to the nation’s brides.

An extra 10%, 12%, what would that do to your budget?

STONE: It would definitely change the dress that I would pick.

SHAMLIAN: In the bridal boutique: love, lace, and potentially levees. 

CUSTOMER: Are you saying yes to the dress?

CUSTOMER: Yeah, this is it.

SHAMLIAN: And the dressmaker told this flip-flopping on tariff policies is making it really difficult for him to run his business. Meanwhile, that clothing store owner in Elkhart, Indiana, says concerns over the economy has many of his brides running right to the sales rack.

DICKERSON: Janet Shamlian. Thank you.

 

Concluding her eponymous show on Monday afternoon, MSNBC host Katy Tur promoted transgender activist Zooey Zephyr by playing clips of the Montana Democrat state legislator speaking out against a proposed law against drag shows.

Tur set up the speech:

TUR: According to the ACLU, there have been more than 450 laws focused on LGBTQ rights introduced in states across the country in 2025 alone — just this year alone — just the first few months of this year. But not all of those laws trying to curb those rights have been successful. In Montana, State Representative Zooey Zephyr successfully urged her colleagues in the state house to reconsider a law banning drag reading events at public libraries. Listen to what she said.

Then came a clip of the Montana Democrat recalling the role that anti-drag laws had played in the Stonewall riots of 1969:

ZEPHYR: And in some ways, drag does work to challenge those norms. There were three articles of clothing laws 50 years ago that said if you wore three articles of clothing that were indicative of the opposite gender that the police could stop you and arrest you. It was those laws that led to the police raiding an LGBTQ bar in New York and led to the Stonewall riots — one of the most important civil rights moments in my community’s history.

After an editing jump, MSNBC played two more clips of Zephyr’s speech:

It’s important to note that last session’s bill, when it was applied, the first application of this was not on a drag show — it was to prevent a trans woman from giving a history lesson in a library. That’s where this came up. That’s how this is going to be attempted to be applied. (editing jump)

I’m here to stand before the body and say that my life is not a fetish. My existence is not a fetish. I was proud less than a month ago to have my son up in the gallery here. Many of you on the other side met him. When I go to just walk him to school, that is not a lascivious display — that is not a fetish. That is my family. This is what these bills are trying to come after.

One law being considered would have allowed private citizens to sue drag performers, replacing a previous law that was struck down by court ruling.

Before wrapping up the show, Tur encouraged viewers to listen to the entire speech: “Listen to the whole thing. It’s really worth a listen, and she was clearly very convincing because she flipped 13 Republican lawmakers on that bill — stopped it from being passed.”

Transcript follows:

MSNBC’s Katy Tur Reports

March 10, 2025

3:54 p.m. Eastern

KATY TUR: One more thing before we go, though. According to the ACLU, there have been more than 450 laws focused on LGBTQ rights introduced in states across the country in 2025 alone — just this year alone — just the first few months of this year. But not all of those laws trying to curb those rights have been successful. In Montana, State Representative Zooey Zephyr successfully urged her colleagues in the state house to reconsider a law banning drag reading events at public libraries. Listen to what she said.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE ZOOEY ZEPHYR (D-MT): And in some ways, drag does work to challenge those norms. There were three articles of clothing laws 50 years ago that said if you wore three articles of clothing that were indicative of the opposite gender that the police could stop you and arrest you. It was those laws that led to the police raiding an LGBTQ bar in New York and led to the Stonewall riots — one of the most important civil rights moments in my community’s history.

(editing jump)

It’s important to note that last session’s bill, when it was applied, the first application of this was not on a drag show — it was to prevent a trans woman from giving a history lesson in a library. That’s where this came up. That’s how this is going to be attempted to be applied. (editing jump) I’m here to stand before the body and say that my life is not a fetish. My existence is not a fetish. I was proud less than a month ago to have my son up in the gallery here. Many of you on the other side met him. When I go to just walk him to school, that is not a lascivious display — that is not a fetish. That is my family. This is what these bills are trying to come after.

TUR: Listen to the whole thing. It’s really worth a listen, and she was clearly very convincing because she flipped 13 Republican lawmakers on that bill — stopped it from being passed.

From watching the White House wrapup that aired on ABC World News Tonight, reasonable individuals can arrive at the conclusion that ABC is attempting to incite violence or some other adverse action against Tesla/SpaceX founder Elon Musk. An inflammatory intro from anchor David Muir led to an even more inflammatory report from former Chief Biden White House apple polisher Mary Bruce.

Watch this snippet from the broader report, and see for yourselves:

MARY BRUCE: Trump today dismissing the concerns of many Americans deeply unsettled by his new trade war but he expressed support and compassion for Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, whose Tesla stock has tanked 39% so far this year, Musk’s company losing about $700 billion in market value. The president today inviting Musk to pitch his luxury cars on the White House lawn, announcing he’s buying one himself.

DONALD TRUMP: What’s your best of these cars? What do you think?

ELON MUSK: Well the car that I drive is the Model S Plaid.

TRUMP: Which is that one?

MUSK: That red one in the middle.

TRUMP: I like that. Yeah.

MUSK: Yeah.

BRUCE: But while Trump was boosting Musk at The White House, on Main Street many American small businesses now bracing for the next phase in the president’s trade war.

After spending years foisting electric cars upon the American public and gleefully promoting related mandates as enacted by the Biden administration, the media are now referring to them as “luxury cars.” What a difference an Elon derangement makes.

There were a total of three utterances suggesting that President Donald Trump doesn’t care about Americans suffering but cares deeply about the fortunes of Elon Musk. Prior to the clip above, there was David Muir during the introduction:

DAVID MUIR: President Trump breaking his silence on the market chaos, today saying it doesn’t concern him. He expressed concern for Elon Musk at The White House, whose Tesla stock has plunged 39% so far this year. 

And then there was the opening to Mary Bruce’s video package:

MARY BRUCE: Standing next to the world’s richest man and the architect of his plan to lay off thousands of American workers, President Trump tonight dismissing the turmoil of Wall Street that sent stocks plunging nearly 500 points today…

Combine the three quotes and this is what the report boils down to:

ABC World News Tonight doing their level best to incite violence against @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/DpIxc1kOZ8
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 12, 2025
“Trump doesn’t care about you but cares about Elon” might as well have come from a Democrat comms shop and pasted on those weird State of the Union paddles. This wasn’t news reporting so much as it was hyper partisan propaganda. 

At a time when there are already destructive protests at Tesla dealerships and outright vandalism of Teslas on the road, the reporting on display is nothing short of reckless, politically slanted, and stands as a clear incitement of violence against Musk. Never have the underlying reasons for America’s massive distrust of media been so clearly crystalized in a single news story.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Tuesday, March 11th, 2025:

DAVID MUIR: And we begin tonight with the economy. The Dow dropping nearly 500 points today, down 1,300 in two days. President Trump late today in front of cameras pushing forward with his tariffs, dismissing concerns about the plunging markets. And tonight, tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports into the U.S. will face 25% tariffs as of midnight tonight. The Dow closing down 478 points today at 41,433. It comes after the worst one-day loss of the year yesterday and over two days, a loss of more than 1,300 points. President Trump breaking his silence on the market chaos, today saying it doesn’t concern him. He expressed concern for Elon Musk at The White House, whose Tesla stock has plunged 39% so far this year. The president working to try to boost the sales of Teslas, with Teslas right there parked in front of The White House. Across this country tonight, many Americans and many small business owners are growing more concerned over the stock market, tariffs and where this goes from here. ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce leading us off tonight.

MARY BRUCE: Standing next to the world’s richest man and the architect of his plan to lay off thousands of American workers, President Trump tonight dismissing the turmoil of Wall Street that sent stocks plunging nearly 500 points today, a two-day loss of more than 1,300 points.

REPORTER: Mr. President, when you look at the market selling off, that didn’t concern you… 

DONALD TRUMP: Nope.

REPORTER: …and where do you see it going?

TRUMP: Doesn’t concern me. I think some people are going to make great deals on stocks and bonds and all the things they buy.

BRUCE: Trump saying he bears no responsibility for the economic uncertainty, though his own words sparked the selloff when he refused to rule out the possibility of a recession.

MARIA BARTIROMO: Are you expecting a recession this year?

TRUMP: I hate to predict things like that. There is a period of transition because what we’re doing is very big. We’re bringing wealth back to America. That’s a big thing. And there are always periods of — it takes a little time. It takes a little time. But I don’t- I think it should be great for us.

BRUCE: But today when pressed by our Karen Travers, a different answer.

KAREN TRAVERS: Do you think there will be a recession?

TRUMP: I don’t see it at all. I think this country is going to boom. But as I said, I can do it the easy way or the hard way. The hard way to do it is exactly what I’m doing, but the results are going to be 20 times greater.

BRUCE: Trump today dismissing the concerns of many Americans deeply unsettled by his new trade war but he expressed support and compassion for Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, whose Tesla stock has tanked 39% so far this year, Musk’s company losing about $700 billion in market value. The president today inviting Musk to pitch his luxury cars on the White House lawn, announcing he’s buying one himself.

TRUMP: What’s your best of these cars? What do you think?

ELON MUSK: Well the car that I drive is the Model S Plaid.

TRUMP: Which is that one?

MUSK: That red one in the middle.

TRUMP: I like that. Yeah.

MUSK: Yeah.

BRUCE: But while Trump was boosting Musk at The White House, on Main Street many American small businesses now bracing for the next phase in the president’s trade war. Tonight at midnight, new 25% tariffs on aluminum and steel are set to go into effect. Economists say American businesses will pay the costs of those tariffs. Like High Wire Brewery in Asheville, North Carolina, where Adam Charnack says he expects prices to rise on the aluminum cans he needs for his beer.

ADAM CHARNACK: Our costs of goods have gone. Our cans have already gone up in price. Bottom line is, it’s going to eat into a good part of our profits.

BRUCE: The U.S. imports more steel and aluminum from Canada than any other country and for a few hours today Trump escalated the trade war, threatening to raise the tariff to 50% after Ontario said it was going to start taxing electricity coming into the U.S. The two countries were able to negotiate a deal, but the 25% tariffs still set to go into effect at midnight. Earlier, Ontario’s leader not mincing words.

DOUG FORD: Consumer confidence is down, the market’s tumbling. You know, there’s going to be plants closed in the U.S., assembly plants will shut down because they don’t have the aluminum or they’ll be paying twice, three times as much. This is- this is absolute chaos created by one person, and that’s Donald Trump.

BRUCE: Again, David, that 25% tariff on aluminum and steel is set to go into effect at midnight tonight. Meanwhile, another headline tonight on Capitol Hill, the House just passing a bill to avoid a government shutdown, and now heads to the Senate where Republicans will need to get Democrats on board. And another big story breaking tonight, David, the Education Department is now starting massive layoffs, intending to fire half of its workforce. David.

MUIR: That story developing on the air tonight. Mary Bruce leading us off tonight. Mary. thank you.

 

Is the second Trump Administration turning America into Maoist China? That was the New York Times’ assessment in “Many Chinese See a Cultural Revolution in America,” to judge from a piece by Li Yuan that appeared in the paper’s March 10 edition. Yuan made the very serious, if content-free, assertion that the President Donald Trump shares many parallels with China’s Communist revolutionary dictator Mao Zedong, who killed tens of millions of his own people. Apparently, she failed to notice, if that were the case, what a limb she would have been going out on to even write such an article in the regime of such a despot.

Yuan claimed that “As the United States grapples with the upheaval unleashed by the Trump administration, many Chinese people are finding they can relate to what many Americans are going through. They are saying it feels something like the Cultural Revolution, the period known as “the decade of turmoil.” 

She stated that many Chinese had long looked to America as a role model they wished their country would more closely follow, but vaguely claimed “Now for some Chinese, the United States is looking more and more like China.”

She then quoted a cherry-picked selection of Chinese social media comments, accusing Trump of “the pursuit of power,” and being a “president who calls himself a king,” eulogizing America as “beacon of democracy, 1776-2025,” and commenting “you’d think [official Chinese Communist Party Newspaper] People’s Daily had moved into the U.S. Consulate,” as though these random people’s unsubstantiated assertions somehow demonstrated her point. 

She went on to quote a Chinese law professor who accused Trump of trying to spark his own “cultural revolution,” but offered no explanation of how anything Trump did was in any way parallel to Mao’s Cultural Revolution, in which millions perished while Western music, literature, and other art was banned in the name of preserving the purity of Chinese socialism.

She also vaguely stated that many Chinese were alarmed by Trump’s “cult of personality,” as though that, too, was a distinctive parallel. She also made much of another Chinese social media user who commented on Trump receiving a standing ovation from his cabinet, “I think we underestimated the dark side of human nature,” to which someone else had responded, “The rhythm of this applause feels so familiar,” whatever that was supposed to mean.

As though this were the clincher, Yuan then quoted a comment on her own podcast: a parody of Trump laying out his agenda, styled as a Chinese Communist propaganda piece.

Yuan did graciously make a hasty admission that the parallels were not exact, quoting Ian Johnson, an American journalist stationed in China, who had pointed out that “China is a one-party state lacking in three pillars of the American system: liberty, democracy and the rule of law. Millions of Chinese died during the Cultural Revolution, and tens of millions were persecuted. What’s happening in the United States is far from that.”  In fact, more precisely, Mao had killed an estimated total of sixty to eighty million of his own people, which would almost certainly have made him numerically the greatest mass-murderer the world has ever seen.

So, one was arguably the most bloodthirsty tyrant the world had ever seen, while the other had just got a standing ovation from his cabinet and garnered some negative social media comments from people who didn’t like him, So, again, not a 100 percent perfect parallel, But, hey, whatever, close enough for the New York Times.

On Sunday, The Salt Lake Tribune — owned by the same parent company as the other well-known Utah site, Deseret News — chose to attack conservative data guru Data Republican by wading into her personal life and doxxing her husband, a private citizen and co-owner of a Salt Lake City distillery.

Instead of explaining how Data Republican (who’s real name is Jennica Pounds) rose to prominence on social media, had tremendous personal success as a deaf Utahan, and found seemingly endless examples of government waste, The Tribune’s Brock Marchant chose to smear Pounds’s work, dox her husband, and reveal his occupation:

[S]he also co-owns Spirits of the Wasatch Distillery in Salt Lake City with her husband, a former officer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as reported in a Feb. 15 article by Utah Stories that profiles the business. As of Friday, the “Our Story” webpage on the distillery’s website appeared to have been removed.    

(….)

When The Salt Lake Tribune reached out for comment this week, Pounds’ media and security representative said she has had to discontinue all media interviews for the immediate future.

An email sent to Spirits of the Wasatch Distillery was answered by Brent Pounds, who is Jennica’s husband according to the Utah Stories article.

“Jennica’s activities as DataRepublican (small r) have no connection with the distillery or our staff,” he said, referring to DataRepublican’s account by its full display name.

He added that he forwarded other “questions to her and she will hopefully be able to respond soon, but is currently out of town.”

And why was The Tribune even interested in Pounds to begin with? Because Data Republican was recently doxxed by the fraudsters Rolling Stone (yes, these fine people) and seen increased notoriety thanks to having been shared on X by the likes of Elon Musk and The Tribune’s favorite boogeyman, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). Predictably, the rag implied she is the real head of DOGE and true yielder of the chainsaw. Spooky!

As a result of that boom, she left her tech job with Upstart — which they made sure to note has “ties to right-wing billionaire Peter Thiel” as though they were connecting dots with string on a wall — to engage in what our friends at RedState described as “full-time work aligned with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).”

Sadly, Pounds telegraphed this a few weeks ago on X, lambasting the left for “attacking my husband’s small business” when he’s merely “an honest man who works hard.”

After the article went live, she tore them to pieces on X: “Hello Salt Lake Tribune, If your goal was to introduce me to the world, why did you cut the part of my husband’s quote where he said he forwarded your questions to me and that I should be responding soon? You had no interest in following up with him—so why present it otherwise? Thanks, Jennica.”

In another, she called out the paper for choosing to “not” engage in “journalism,” but instead “manufacturing a narrative.” “Trust is built on good faith and fair reporting. You showed neither.”

The rest of The Tribune piece came off like an aggregation of the Rolling Stone screed and the thesis that “some of the information she’s offered has led to false conclusions.”

As a result of this smear campaign, The Tribune has been absolutely torched on social media. Based on the responses to the X post of the article and even subsequent, unrelated X posts (like here, here, and here), they’re having a rough few days.

In contrast, The Tribune and Rolling Stone could have taken the lead by actually hearing what she has to say. Prior to the Rolling Stone smear piece, NewsNation senior national correspondent Brian Entin spoke to her last month for a 30-minute network special (and clips airing on other NewsNation shows) (watch below):

 

RedState’s Brad Essex also gave Pounds her due (click “expand”):

Jennica, a brilliant and tech-savvy conservative voice, has been assisting Elon Musk in ways that evoke the Irregulars from Sherlock Holmes—only with a modern, digital twist. Unfortunately, her efforts to contribute to society have made her a target. Left-leaning detractors recently doxxed her, exposing personal details about her life simply because of her association with Musk. And the harassment hasn’t stopped.

(….)

Despite the pressure, Jennica remains steadfast, using her platform to advocate for causes close to her heart—most notably, accessibility for the deaf and hard-of-hearing community.

A Passion for Accessibility

Jennica, who is deaf, leverages her personal experience to push for practical solutions. Take, for instance, her reaction to President Donald Trump’s recent press conference takedown of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. While she enjoyed the exchange, she noticed a glaring omission: the lack of a sign language interpreter. “An interpreter for a one-hour press conference earns, at most, around $50,” she pointed out on X, underscoring how affordable this accommodation could be. She didn’t stop at this mild critique—she reached out to Trump directly. “Thank you. I did, in fact, call out President Trump on the need for interpreters and have had many debates about it on X,” she wrote. Her proposal? Update federal TV standards to include “a second, toggleable camera stream” for sign language, mirroring the ADA-mandated push that brought closed captions to the mainstream.

(….)

Jennica Pounds is changing that narrative. For the first time, she’s showing the world that people with disabilities can be a positive, transformative force in America—not just as recipients of aid, but as innovators and leaders. 

Former CNN senior media reporter Oliver Darcy was apoplectic Monday night in his newsletter site Status over a leaked White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) meeting showing dissent within the ranks over the White House press office taking control of setting the press pool rotations from WHCA and a refusal to collectively boycott President Trump’s appearances and remarks.

Darcy inserted his feelings from the get-go: “Press Pool Pandemonium; Frustration with the WHCA erupted during an off-the-record meeting Monday, as some members pushed the organization to respond more forcefully to Donald Trump’s assault on the press corps.”

He explained the meetings was held by WHCA President and incoming MSNBC host Eugene Daniels and included what Darcy called “an acknowledgment of the uncomfortable truth: the White House has seized control of the press pool, sidelining the association and leaving it in a precarious position.”

“[M]any members want the organization—which is to a large degree hamstrung by a collective action problem—to respond more aggressively. That frustration boiled over,” he added.

Darcy leaked that “Daniels fielded a barrage of tough questions as members pressed the board on its handling of the crisis and demanded to know what concrete steps it planned to take in response to Trump’s power play” with some accusing the WHCA of not carrying out what only Darcy could dream of as some sort of Les Misérables cry for a revolution…or dare we say an insurrection?

Citing disgust from April Ryan (who’s now apparently with some site called Black Press USA) and The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg, Darcy treated far-left Atlantic reporter and former Washington Post correspondent Ashley Parker as some hero for suggesting the press refuse to show up at and/or cover White House events:

[Parker] asked where the television networks—the most influential players in the pool—stood on the issue. It goes without saying that Trump craves media attention, particularly live coverage, meaning that if major networks backed the AP and HuffPost, it could make a difference. Daniels indicated that the conversations with the networks are ongoing.

Even though the pool has since included longtime anti-Trump outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, NPR, Politico, Time magazine, The Washington Post, and even Feinberg himself to name a few, Darcy painted a picture of doom and a dictatorship in place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

By dictating which outlets have access to the White House press pool—a system designed to ensure fair and broad representation—Trump is effectively punishing independent journalism while rewarding those willing to toe the line. The fact that the press has, so far, largely complied with this arrangement raises uncomfortable questions about how much influence the White House can exert over coverage simply by leveraging access.

Since Trump took control of the pool, news organizations have, in practice, gone along with the new system…The result is that, whether intentionally or not, the press corps has participated in Trump’s power grab by continuing to show up.

Word of the wise to the legacy media: Never get as high on your own supply as this guy.

Darcy closed by sounding like a union boss, demanding there be “collective action” from the WHCA:

If the entire press corps refused to participate in the pool, they could perhaps have a chance at forcing Trump’s hand. It’s hard to imagine he’d tolerate a world in which his Oval Office remarks weren’t carried live or his movements were covered only by sycophantic outlets like OAN—especially if the mainstream networks refused to air footage recorded by Trump’s propaganda arms.

In your dreams.

CNN was in pretty typical form Monday – absorbed with Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and still quite comfortable making up and promoting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about him on the spot. On Inside Politics, Dana Bash interviewed former CFPB director Rohit Chopra, ostensibly on Musk’s plan to cut the agency, and Chopra conjectured wildly about Musk abusing his position for his own illicit profit, to which Bash happily played along.

Bash neglected to mention that Chopra had, in addition to his former post at the Consumer Financial Protection Board, held a long series of positions in the Democratic Party, and was far from a neutral source.

 

 

“What is happening, as Musk and his team… have access to pretty much everything in the federal government- sensitive data about… American citizens?” she asked him.

Chopra responded by suggesting that tech billionaires like Musk wanted to exercise China-like levels of control on the American people:

[B]ig tech companies in the U.S. have…been drooling at what they see in China, where… tech companies can conduct surveillance on all Chinese citizens and what they’re buying every day. So they’re all trying to train their algorithms…And this… could lay the groundwork for the end of the price tag, where we are purchasing goods based… on our web browsing history, rather than a transparent price, cause that is the way these tech companies can make a huge amount of money.

He provided zero evidence for his insinuation that Musk was using his authority to spy on people, but Bash eagerly took the hint, and egged him on, “how can his access to virtually all of our data…advance his… private company?”

Chopra went on with his little theory, suggesting Musk was taking pieces off the board:

[W]hy are they so fixated with… a small agency like the CFPB?… [T]he CFPB is responsible for monitoring all of those tech companies… And if they can… look… at their competitors, that could be a big edge for them…[W]hen we buy… something online, it should… be a fair price… But more and more Americans are noticing that the price may be different, based on who is looking at it and when. And that really raises some real issues about… intrusive pricing(…)

Bash commented, as though it were relevant, that she had had such experiences buying plane tickets, but seemed to not take into account other reasons for the prices to increase; e.g. prices for tickets go up the closer to the departure date, demand from other passengers over time, travel trends. Despite those possibilities, she encouraged Chopra to go on.

Chopra vaguely stated of Musk’s DOGE capacity that “it’s all about volume,” as though it somehow followed that more official power would somehow lead him to come out of the woodwork as some sort of criminal mastermind in some unprecedented way. It was a conjecture which Bash seemed quite satisfied with.

He concluded with a groundless outright accusation that Musk was purging the government of those who might interfere with his schemes:

What’s really suspicious, is that some of the first people they fired were the technologists, those who specialize in overseeing these tech companies… isn’t it something that they were the first to be on the chopping block?

Of course, the words of this career left-wing activist presented as a neutral public servant were serious criminal allegations against Musk, completely ungrounded in evidence, but true to character, CNN didn’t let a little thing like that get in the way of “news” about their number one obsession.

To view the full transcript, click “expand” to read:

CNN’s Inside Politics
03/10/2025
12:41 PM

(…)

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: MUSK PRAISES DISMANTLING OF AGENCY THAT REGULATES X]

DANA BASH: So now, what is happening, as Musk and his team- they have access to pretty much everything in the federal government- sensitive data about, and by, and from American citizens? So, explain in layman’s terms why this is such a big deal.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: X ANNOUNCES PLAN FOR IN0APP PAYMENTS AS DOGE LOOKS TO CLOSE AGENCY REGULATING CASH APPS]

FORMER CFPB DIRECTOR ROHIT CHOPRA: Well, you know, big tech companies in the U.S. have really been drooling at what they see in China, where Chinese tech companies can conduct surveillance on all Chinese citizens and what they’re buying every day. 

So they’re all trying to train their algorithms- artificial intelligence. And that’s why you see Google Pay, Apple Pay, and- and now X Money wants to be able to know everything you’re buying, how much you’re paying for it, and what were you [sic.] thinking about at the time. 

And this really could lay the groundwork for the end of the price tag, where we are purchasing goods based on our behavior and our web browsing history, rather than a transparent price, cause that is the way these tech companies can make a huge amount of money.

BASH: And how can his access to virtually all of our data help advance his goal to do that, in his private company?

CHOPRA: Well, people have been wondering, why are they so fixated with this C- a small agency like the CFPB? 

It’s because the CFPB is responsible for monitoring all of those tech companies for how they’re moving our money, to protect against privacy errors and fraud. And if they can creep in there, and look even at their competitors, that could be a big edge for them. 

You know, I really worry that when we buy an airplane ticket, or something online, it should really be a fair price- that you and I see the same thing. But more and more Americans are noticing that the price may be different, based on who is looking at it and when. 

And that really raises some real issues about how- intrusive pricing in our life.

BASH: Yeah, I mean, I’ve noticed that. Even when I’ve gone back to look for a ticket, the price goes up, because they know I really want it. 

But, let’s stay focused on Elon Musk for a second, because, just to go back to the concern that you’ve expressed about DOGE snooping on loan or mortgage data- why is that something that he can really benefit from, again, in his company, and in his ultimate goal? 

Which, if you know anything about his, sort of, business evolution, from the very beginning, he has been really interested in having a platform that is everything, and that, when he bought X, he wanted it to transform into a financial payment process, just like- sort of- an advanced version of what PayPal was.

CHOPRA: Yeah. I mean, five years ago we saw the same thing from Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, where they tried to create a new global currency, and they were pretty open about it, that if they could have their own currency, they could track people spending across their digital life. And they would be able to charge companies that are using that currency big money. 

And this is, I think, part of a broader effort to create currencies that are outside of oversight when it comes to fraud, privacy, and more. In fact, the Senate right now is thinking about letting those tech companies create their own currencies. 

And that raises just, real questions about power, oversight, and- could it actually lead to a risk to our financial system?

BASH: So, there’s the creating your own currency, which- he’s not the only one who’s wanted to do this- I mean, we’ve see [sic.] this at- other big tech companies and also other big financial companies as well. 

But the argument that he has made about the access that he has now to all of our data, is that he didn’t- he had the same access when he was at PayPal and he didn’t do anything to- you know- to disrupt or to use it in an untoward way. 

But can you just explain whether or not it is- never mind the latter part of what I just said- but explain why having access to data via PayPal and having access to data via the federal government are two different things?

CHOPRA: Well, I mean, it’s all about volume, and all about the types of transactions that you can ingest information about. 

Look, a lot of these companies are taking in huge amounts of data to train artificial intelligence. And those models might be used to determine what prices we pay on things. It might also be used for a whole host of other commercial purposes. 

Part of the reason why we separate off our financial privacy and our health privacy, is because when it falls into the wrong hands- that data- there is a big mismatch and abuse of power. 

And it is why we should not let these big tech companies control our nation’s currency.

BASH: And right now there is no one at your now-former agency- which you were head of- who’s doing the basic job of trying to protect consumers, that they were- enacted- or- sort of- the legislation passed, and the president signed it into law in order to- to do.

CHOPRA: What’s really suspicious, is that some of the first people they fired were the technologists, those who specialize in overseeing these tech companies. I think they were illegally fired, but isn’t it something that they were the first to be on the chopping block?

BASH: Thank you so much for coming in. I hope you come back. Appreciate it.

 

Every Friday, PBS News Hour devotes a segment to recapping the week’s news with New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart. Brooks is supposed to be the conservative half of the duo, but according to a new NewsBusters study, he agrees with Capehart 61 percent of the time. 

NewsBusters analysts examined eight Friday News Hour episodes in January and February and found that Brooks and Capehart agreed on 17 out of 28 topics where they were both asked the same question.

By contrast, the American Enterprise Institute’s Matthew Continetti disagreed with Capehart during his two chances when he pinch-hit for Brooks on February 7.

Sometimes, when Brooks agrees with Capehart, he sounds indistinguishable from his counterpart’s liberal hysteria. For instance, on February 28, Brooks claimed the White House’s changes to the press pool are proof that President Donald Trump “is trying to dismantle the idea of the press.”

 

 

At the same time, there is some nuance in Brooks’s numbers. Conservatives are allowed to disagree with Trump on some things, such as Russia/Ukraine and tariffs, but, on the other hand, just because Brooks disagreed with Capehart does not mean he brought a forceful conservative counterargument. Brooks is the man who voted for Barack Obama over quintessential GOP moderate John McCain while gawking over the crease in Obama’s pants because he didn’t like Sarah Palin.

For example, on February 14, host Geoff Bennett asked, “Is it clear to you where the guardrails are?” Capehart gave the expected liberal answer of no, arguing Congress is too subservient to Trump. Brooks, instead of rejecting the premise that Trump was threatening the constitutional system, predicted the courts will constrain him, thereby still being anti-Trump — he did rail against “Ivy League right-wing nihilism” — but not as apocalyptic about it as Capehart.

Brooks’s 61 percent agreeable number tracks with his previous behavior. An earlier NewsBusters study from Clay Waters found that during the 2024 Republican National Convention, Brooks was 67 percent negative compared to 91 percent for Capehart. By contrast, during the Democratic National Convention, Brooks was only 38 percent negative compared to Capehart’s 2 percent.

Another way to give context to Brooks’s amenable behavior would be to look at the topics News Hour’s various hosts have selected for the duo to discuss. Of the 28 topics given to both men, 23 were Trump or Republican-centric. Of the five about Democrats, only one has happened since Inauguration Day.

That came on January 31 during a conversation about the state of the Democratic Party. Of the other four, two were about President Jimmy Carter’s legacy and funeral, while the other two were about the importance of a ceasefire deal in Gaza for President Joe Biden’s legacy and his farewell address.

Three of Brooks’s disagreements with Capehart came on the non-Carter-related Democratic subjects.

American taxpayers deserve a conservative voice who most conservatives identify with on their public television debates. News Hour never has anyone who could be considered a wild MAGA person when Brooks takes the week off, but his substitutes often prove you can still challenge Capehart’s liberalism and get an actual debate between the two sides. It is time one of those substitutes gets a promotion.

The liberal ladies of ABC’s The View seemed to be having a rough week and were in a pretty sour mood during Tuesday’s episode. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg was so irked by Republicans calling out the Biden administration’s bad economy that she seemed to suggest Republicans weren’t people. The lashing out also came from their Democratic guest Senator Elissa Slotkin (MI), who compared America to “angry” suicidal teenagers without “fully form[ed] brains.”

Noting the stock market’s recent losses, Goldberg decried how “some MAGA folks are blaming on the Biden economy.”

She pushed the long debunked argument that President Biden was responsible for the creation of “16.6 million jobs,” when in reality they were people finally going back to work after government lifted lockdowns. She also boasted that the “gross domestic product grew 12.6;” but never explained 12.6-what. “They are the only administration in history to have created jobs every single month,” she claimed, omitting the Biden recession.

“You came in to a very robust [economy]” she screeched at Trump through the camera. It was then she let slip her mental separation of people and Republicans. The audience and faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin picked up on it and gave it a laugh and weak push back:

GOLDBERG: So, how long do you think people gunna — and not just people but even Republicans. What do I think?

No, I didn’t –

FARAH GRIFFIN: [Laughter] They are people.

 

 

“I didn’t mean it like that,” Goldberg defended herself. “But I didn’t want to not include Republicans because we’re starting to hear Republicans say, ‘wait, what is going on?’”

Several minutes later, and in reaction to an interview question of co-host Sunny Hostin about Democrats needing to be more, freshman Senator Slotkin (who Democrats elevated to deliver their rebuttal to Trump’s address to Congress last week) compared America to an emotional, suicidal teenager with an underdeveloped brain that Democrats were trying to keep alive.

“These are, like, our angry teenage years,” she said. “We are going through this push and pull where we’re happy, we’re sad, we want this, we want that. And what do you do when you have a teenager who’s threatening themselves and others, you just try to get them through this period alive so, that their brain can fully form…”

Behar quipped about Slotkin possibly talking about Trump, but the Senator doubled down on it being America:

BEHAR: Are you talking about Trump?

SLOTKIN: No, I’m talks about our country. We’re a pendulum swinging. We are a pendulum swinging.

Slotkin was who Farah Griffin previously praised as the Democrat with the right message for the party post-address.

It would have been nice if Farah Griffin would have grilled Slotkin on how her underdeveloped-teenage-brain analogy played with the Democratic Party’s support transiting kids and permanently mutilating their bodies with so-called “gender affirming” surgery. But she’s not actually a Republican or conservative; she probably wanted to be seen as a person in Goldberg’s eyes.

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

ABC’s The View
March 11, 2025
11:03:20 a.m. Eastern

(…)

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: This helped send the market into freefall yesterday, which some MAGA folks are blaming on the Biden economy.

JOY BEHAR: Oh boy.

GOLDBERG: So, let me just remind you about the Biden economy, okay? The economy added 16.6 million jobs and gross domestic product grew 12.6. They are the only administration in history to have created jobs every single month.

SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes.

GOLDBERG: They achieved –

[Applause]

Wait, wait.

But wait, there’s more! They achieved the lowest average unemployment in 50 years.

BEHAR: Yeah.

GOLDBERG: Wealth adjusted for inflation rose a record 37 percent for the median American household and Americans filed a record 21 million new small business applications, the most in any presidential administration.

You came in to a very robust [economy] — there were issues. There’s always going to be issues but you can’t blame all what’s happening on him.

HOSTIN: No.

GOLDBERG: So, how long do you think people gunna — and not just people but even Republicans. What do I think?

No, I didn’t.

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: [Laughter] They are people.

GOLDBERG: I didn’t mean it like that. But I didn’t want to not include Republicans because we’re starting to hear Republicans say, ‘wait, what is going on?’

(…)

11:30:56 a.m. Eastern

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): I think there is a feeling in the country. And I often say this, you know, we’re about to turn 250 years old. Right? We’re still pretty young for a country. These are, like, our angry teenage years. Right? We are going through this push and pull where we’re happy, we’re sad, we want this, we want that. And what do you do when you have a teenager who’s threatening themselves and others, you just try to get them through this period alive. So, that their brain can fully form and you can come back to kind of what —

BEHAR: Are you talking about Trump?

SLOTKIN: No, I’m talks about our country. We’re a pendulum swinging.

[Laughter]

We are a pendulum swinging. I don’t think there’s a single American who feels like this is normal.

(…)

MSNBC’s weeknight viewers got a preview of a new show on Monday as Symone Sanders-Townsend joined Inside with Jen Psaki guest host Michael Steele for a panel on the political ramifications of Elon Musk’s budget-cutting initiatives. The fact that the ex-RNC chairman is so at home on MSNBC, he is guest hosting the Biden White House press secretary’s show aside, Sanders-Townsend alleged the beginning of the Trump Administration is akin to the rise of Vladimir Putin in Russia.

Sanders-Townsend told her current weekend and future weekday co-host, “Can I just say one point because I know you’re about to go. So, the point that you started with about why all the focus on Elon Musk. And we always talk about, kind of, some of these similarities between what’s happening now and Russia in 2000 when Putin first came to power. We don’t know any of the oligarchs’ names in Russia, but we know Putin, right? And so the problem, I think, with elevating and continuing to elevate Elon Musk so much in the messaging is that you miss the forest for one tree.”

 

 

Still, Sanders-Townsend had some advice for Democrats: focus on elected Republicans instead, “Elon Musk is not the goal. Republicans writ large, I would like to, I don’t understand why in these messaging, in the messaging Democrats are not making Mike Johnson and Republicans in the House and Senate look like fools who are being pushed around by unelected billionaires that woke up one day and just decided to do politics.”

It is likely that Vladimir Putin’s rise to power was helped by a false flag terrorist attack, so that isn’t the best analogy. Second, and more to the point, Russian oligarchy and corruption stem from state-owned businesses. Trying to replicate that here would not be compatible with the agenda of downsizing the federal government. In fact, it is the left that is freaking out over what Trump, Musk, and Republicans may do to PBS, NPR, the Postal Service, and Amtrak.

Here is a transcript for the March 10 show:

MSNBC Inside with Jen Psaki

3/10/2025

8:20 PM ET

SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNEND: They haven’t saved any money yet. Can I just say one point because I know you’re about to go. So, the point that you started with about why all the focus on Elon Musk. 

MICHAEL STEELE: Right.

SANDERS-TOWNSEND: And we always talk about, kind of, some of these similarities between what’s happening now and Russia in 2000 when Putin first came to power. We don’t know any of the oligarch’s names in Russia, but we know Putin, right? And so the problem, I think, with elevating and continuing to elevate Elon Musk so much in the messaging is that you miss the forest for one tree.

Elon Musk is not the goal. Republicans writ large, I would like to, I don’t understand why, in these messaging, in the messaging Democrats are not making Mike Johnson and Republicans in the House and Senate look like fools who are being pushed around by unelected billionaires that woke up one day and just decided to do politics. Like that’s some of the stuff.