Newsbusters

Just in case there had been any remaining doubt as to how far the mainstream media had fallen in the world, former host of NBC’s Today and CBS Evening News Katie Couric’s podcast Next Question served as a beautiful example Monday. Couric interviewed comedian Chelsea Handler about her new autobiographical work, I’ll Have What She’s Having. The book, and the conversation, were far from G-rated, with apparently very few details considered unfit for public consumption, and the conversation culminated with banter about Handler’s drug habit, and Couric seeming to jokingly say that she herself might try mushrooms sometime.

 

 

“I’m sorry, I meant to ask you this because I’m curious,” Couric began on the subject, “what’s your relationship with drugs and alcohol these days, Chelsea?” She then went on to note that she herself never went beyond an occasional glass of wine or cocktail, but:

[Y]ou’ve had this very interesting kind of on-off relationship with drugs and alcohol. And I know during this kind of intense period when you started meditating and taking care of yourself and really kind of- to figure out what was going on inside of you, you gave it up. And I’m curious—what the situation is now?

Handler responded that she had quit drinking for a month due to medical treatment for an infection, to which Couric reminded her “You like mushrooms.” Handler responded:

 I love LSD microdose, I love edibles, I love marijuana. I love all of it. I mean- that’s never really changed. So, it just depends. I go in cycles. Sometimes I love everything, sometimes I don’t do anything. But I have a pretty healthy relationship with it. I’ve never gotten to the point- anytime I’ve- been in my youth and gotten to the point where I thought I was in- abusing it, I’ve taken a long break. So I never wanted to get to the point where I had to give it up. And I think I’ve done a pretty good a job at that [sic].

After a laugh over what a fitting title I’ll Have What She’s Having was for the book, Couric admitted, “I’ve never had mushrooms.”

Handler was quick to assure her that, “mushrooms are so fun. You would just laugh your ass off, Katie, and that- and I know when people can do drugs or not. You would love mushrooms. You would. A light microdose, just the giggly kind.”

“All right, duly noted,” Couric responded. “[M]aybe if I do it one day, I’ll do it with you.”

Handler assured her she would indeed like it.

It was hilarious, but a tad pathetic, to watch as Katie Couric, once one of the most well-acclaimed, reputedly serious professional journalists in America, stooped to the level of devoting a podcast to jokes about the joys of drug usage.

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

Next Question With Katie Couric
02/24/2025

KATIE COURIC: What’s your- what’s your relationship- I’m sorry, I- I meant to ask you this because I’m- I’m curious- what’s your relationship with drugs and alcohol these days, Chelsea? Cause I know you’ve kind of- you know-

It will also shock you that I’m not really into drugs and I drink very rarely or occasionally. You know, I- I drink wine or I have a cocktail. But- um- you’ve had this very interesting kind of on-off relationship with drugs and alcohol. 

And I know during this kind of intense period when you started meditating and taking care of yourself and really kind of- to figure out what was going on inside of you, you gave it up. And I’m curious- what the situation is now?

CHELSEA HANDLER: Uh, well, funnily enough, I had this- I had to get shoulder- I had to clean out- I had an infection in my shoulder. So that forced me into a month of sobriety because I’m on intravenous antibiotics every day. So I haven’t had it- well, I just had a drink yesterday for the first time- or the day before. 

Anyway, it was a month. That was nice. I welcomed it. It was a nice kind of breather before I had to hit the road and do all my press for my new book. So that was nice. 

I mean, my relationship is, I’m always pro- I’m always pro-microdosing, alcohol. I- I have pretty-

COURIC: You like mushrooms. You like mushrooms- 

HANDLER: I love LSD microdose, I love edibles, I love marijuana. I love all of it. I mean- that’s never really changed. 

Um- so, it just depends. I go in cycles. Sometimes I love everything, sometimes I don’t do anything.

But I have a pretty healthy relationship with it. I’ve never gotten to the point- anytime I’ve- been in my youth and gotten to the point where I thought I was in- abusing it, I’ve taken a long break. So I never wanted to get to the point where I had to give it up. And, um, I think I’ve done a pretty good a job at that [sic].

COURIC: I was gonna say the book is called I’ll Have What She’s Having. [Laughs] That sounds very appropriate given what you just said. I’ve never had mushrooms.

HANDLER: I know, but mushrooms are so fun. You would just laugh your ass off, Katie, and that- and I know when people can do drugs or not. You would love mushrooms. You would. A light microdose, just the giggly kind.

COURIC: All right, well, duly noted, maybe if I do it one day, I’ll do it with you.

HANDLER: Yeah, I- you know- I- like- I know you like to giggle, so you’re gonna like it.

COURIC: All right. Well, I’m so happy to see you. Congratulations on the new book. It was really fun being with you and talking to you. And, um, good luck on the book tour. 

(…)

The Media Research Center launched its “Defund PBS & NPR” campaign Tuesday with a digital mobile billboard driven on roads around the Capitol and House and Senate office buildings calling for defunding. The van will be on the roads in Washington and in Virginia through Thursday.

The mobile billboards tout our new coalition website DefundPBSNPR.org. Backers can sign our petition and follow our new X account as well. As the website proclaims:

Taxpayers should never be forced to subsidize media companies in America. The arguments made 60 years ago to justify the creation of federally funded news outlets have become obsolete, just as NPR and PBS have revealed themselves to be nothing more than mouthpieces for a radical agenda. Half a century ago, consumers had very few options on TV and radio. There are thousands of options today. The partisan bias reflected in NPR and PBS “news” coverage is likewise completely indefensible. Their time is over. The time to protect taxpayers is now. 

Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner reported on the campaign, as Elon Musk has suggested that “public” broadcasting is wasteful federal spending. The DOGE squad is already under assault from PBS and NPR in expectation that Musk is soon coming to expose them. 

“For decades, conservatives have been forced to send our tax dollars to Washington so that PBS and NPR can smear us as horrible bigots and racists who want to starve children,” I told Bedard. “Now is the time for Republicans to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to end this abuse. Let George Soros and Rob Reiner and the like fund PBS and NPR. If the government were shoveling money to Fox News, you know the left would say it was unfair to them. But for them, it’s never unfair to take government money to push their talking points.”

I was also thrilled to discuss the Defund PBS & NPR campaign on Tuesday morning with Larry O’Connor and Julie Gunlock on “O’Connor & Co.” on WMAL-FM. The audio is here. 

Largely going under the radar for the last few years was President Trump’s defamation suit against the Pulitzer Prize Board for awarding The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting promoting the Russian Collusion Hoax. But on February 12, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the 19th Judicial Circuit’s ruling that Trump did have standing in the state and that the case could proceed.

In the order obtained by NewsBusters, Justice Jeffrey Kuntz wrote, with Justices Burton Conner and Ed Artau concurring, that the lower court was correct to apply “Florida’s long arm statue and the Due Process Clause” and that Trump “sufficiently pled that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defame him”:

The circuit court concluded that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the eighteen defendants was proper. We agree. Trump’s operative pleading sufficiently pled that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defame him. Further, the defendants issued the website public statement in response to the requests of a Florida resident—Trump. They did so in a meeting attended remotely by a Florida resident who also conducted an editing review of the proposed website statement while in Florida.

Because Trump met the personal jurisdiction requirements of Florida’s long arm statute and the Due Process Clause, the circuit court’s order is affirmed.

Justice Artau went further with this own concurring opinion to address the Pulitzer Prize Board’s “alleged roles in conspiring to issue the defamatory statement standing by the debunked allegations that the President colluded with the Russians.”

Interestingly, Artau directly called into question the veracity of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the long-standing precedence for alleged defamation involving public figures:

In 1964, however, the Supreme Court held in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, that the First Amendment “prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

But this standard wrongly applies the First Amendment because it deviates from the common law’s standard for libel at the time of the ratification of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

(…)

In fact, the common law recognized a special cause of action, known as scandalum magnatum (slander of the nobles), for “[w]ords spoken in derogation of a peer, a judge, or other great officer of the realm[.]”…This was considered “more heinous” than ordinary defamation and was “not . . . actionable in the case of a common person[.]”

But slander of the nobles did not require any heightened standard of malice to be proved… Instead, the difference between general defamation and slander of the nobles was the status of the person about whom the statement was made.

“In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court deviated from these common law principles ‘and primarily justified its constitutional rule by noting that 20th century state-court decisions and ‘the consensus of scholarly opinion apparently favor[ed] the rule,’” Artau wrote.

Additionally with this case, in late January, the Pulitzer Prize Board submitted a motion requesting a stay on the case until Trump was out of office. Their reasoning being that he’s now the president.

They looked to previous cases where Trump had asked for stays by citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. “Specifically, in his first term Plaintiff argued that if a case pending against him the New York state court was not ‘temporarily stayed, it will disrupt and impair [his] ability to discharge his Article II responsibilities,’” their filing argued.

But there’s a critical difference between all those cases and the current one that could make all the difference: Trump’s the plaintiff.

Between Monday and Tuesday mornings, the major broadcast networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC were beside themselves, enraged over President Trump’s decision to select our friend (and 2022 MRC Bulldog Award winner) Dan Bongino as deputy FBI director, painting his “no experience” at the agency as a national security threat and insinuating wholesale changes could thwart their ability to stop terror attacks.

The CBS Evening News was the tip of the smear. Co-anchor Maurice DuBois made sure to point out from the onset that there’s “[n]o Senate confirmation necessary” for Bongino, to which arrogant co-anchor John Dickerson huffed, “neither, apparently, is FBI experience” even though Bongino’s a “former secret service agent and New York City police officer.”

 

 

But, to the liberal media, those careers in law enforcement meant absolutely zilch.

Having January 6 investigations robbed a large part of meaning in his professional life, Justice correspondent Scott MacFarlane came out enraged that Bongino will join the FBI after years “tout[ing] his army of followers, millions of talk radio and podcast listeners who share his devotion to President Trump, his conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, and his pledge to own the libs.”

A friend of the Deep State, MacFarlane fretted FBI Director Kash Patel and Trump bucked the FBI Agents Association’s demand a current agent be named to the number-two spot.

MacFarlane went to Never Trumper Gregg Nunziata to voice his concerns for him, including the doomsday prediction of mass resignations and an inability for the agency to function as Americans expect (click “expand”):

NUNZIATA: You want someone who can build faith. Instead, he’s chosen someone who is really a radical, conspiracy theorist.

MACFARLANE: Gregg Nunziata is a former aide to then-Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio.

NUNZIATA: You’re going to see career professionals leaving.

MACFARLANE [TO NUNZIATA]: Do you think there will be resignations?

NUNZIATA: No, I do think — I do think it will lead to that. It will be harder to recruit and attract the kind of people that the FBI requires.

MACFARLANE: Bongino steps in amid turmoil with agency who worked January 6 case is under scrutiny themselves.

BONGINO [on 02/06/25]: If you swore to uphold the constitution of the United States as a FBI agent and engaged in a tyrannical investigation against Donald Trump with partisan intent and not the Constitution in mind, you do not deserve your job.

MacFarlane explained back live that Bongino “can touch any part of the agency he wants to” and went right into some doomcasting himself by suggesting Bongino would meddle in any and all “big case[s],” especially “a politically charged case.”

He went as far as implying moves Patel and Bongino make could put the country’s safety at risk:

[I]n just the first few hours, John, a pretty big change. FBI has ordered more than 1,000 agents and employees who work here in Washington, D.C., to be reassigned to field offices, outposts all across the country. And Kash Patel has argued he wants more agents in the community, but, Maurice and John, this could destabilize things, because more resignations, retirements and really thin the herd of agents supposed to protect America from terrorists.

Hours earlier on Monday’s CBS Mornings, chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes described Bongino as “a fierce defender of the President,” “conservative podcaster, and former Secret Service agent” who “lacks any FBI experience.” On CBS Mornings Plus, Cordes said this pick has “generat[ed] some controversy[.]”

Monday’s Good Morning America exhibited similar disgust with ABC co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos declaring Bongino to be merely “right-wing podcaster, election denier.”

Senior political correspondent Rachel Scott added “he has pushed false claims about the 2020 election, conspiracy theories about January 6” and thus “sends a strong message and a signal about the way that the FBI will now be reshaped. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, two of the harshest critics, they will now be leading the department, George.”

“Neither — neither with any experience at the FBI,” Stephanopoulos replied.

Hours later on ABC’s World News Tonight, former Biden regime apple polisher Mary Bruce decried Bongino as “the far-right podcaster” and “loyal Trump supporter” who has “stoked conspiracy theories about January 6 and has been deeply critical of the FBI.”

 

 

On Tuesday morning, NBC Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles offered a blatant, intentional slip of the tongue on Today when he said Elon Musk and not President Trump had made “a controversial move at the FBI, appointing Dan Bongino, a former police officer and Secret Service officer with no experience at the FBI, as the deputy director of the agency, normally reserved for a career agent.”

He continued:

Bongino has used his conservative media platform to peddle conspiracy theories, falsely cast doubt on the 2020 election results, and attack the FBI, saying it needs to be disbanded. And Bongino’s appointment as deputy director was a shock to the rank and file agents at the FBI. The FBI Agents Association had circulated a memo to their workforce that revealed that the new director, Kash Patel, had promised to appoint a career agent to the post. Meanwhile, Bongino has promised to help “reestablish faith in the institution.”

A day earlier on Today, senior White House correspondent Garrett Haake fretted the ascension of the “pro-Trump podcast” meant there’s “two Trump loyalists at the top of the FBI” and that the Trump administration failed to follow the demands “of the FBI Agents Association, who had argued that the deputy director job should be filled by a career special agent, as is typically the case.

European bureaucrats eager to crack down on free speech seek major leverage over American social media platforms, House Republicans warned on Sunday.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) requested answers from EU antitrust chief Teresa Ribera over the future enforcement of a law they said unfairly targeted large American tech companies.

In a Feb. 23 letter obtained by MRC Free Speech America, Jordan and Fitzgerald asked to be briefed on the  Digital Markets Act (DMA), warning that its enforcement would impose exorbitant fines and regulations on American companies. The lawmakers also noted that the DMA was “proposed alongside” the censorship regime of the Digital Services Act (DSA).

[Story Continues on MRC Free Speech America] 

Sunday was a big night for HBO’s John Oliver. In addition to his regular show, the Last Week Tonight host was also the subject of a gushing profile from CBS’s Bill Whitaker on 60 Minutes. Whitaker fawned over Oliver’s “unique take on politics,” the “twinkle in his eye,” his “mischievous smile,” and “takedown” of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, where Oliver tried to bribe Thomas off the Court.

After running through Oliver’s early career, Whitaker declared how, “He decided to stop going for the easy laughs.”

Oliver then recalled how, “When I started off, I just wanted to make people laugh. Then I wanted to make people laugh about things I cared about, and, for me, that was politics in its broadest form.”

A captivated Whitaker added, “And it worked. On his weekly HBO show taped in New York City, his unique take on politics and intrinsic problems is what sets him apart from just about every other comedian on TV… He delights in revealing the absurdity in the obscure, always, we noticed, with a twinkle in his eye and a mischievous smile.”

 

 

By “unique,” Whitaker means that unlike other comedy show hosts who usually do a 10-15-minute monologue, often on several subjects, followed by a couple of sit-down interviews with one or two guests, Oliver spends around 40 minutes giving a Rachel Maddow-like address on one or just a few topics, but with more profanity.

As it was, Whitaker then told Oliver that, “You tackle topics, hospice care, bail reform, organ donations. It’s not your typical comedy fare.”

Oliver concurred, “No. I know those don’t sound funny. It’s because fundamentally they’re not. But there are funny things about how entrenched some of those problems are, and sometimes I think comedy is the best, most illuminating way to talk about them.”

Whitaker chose his topics carefully. Sure, when Oliver decides to bake the world’s largest cake in an attempt to make fun of the former dictator of Turkmenistan, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, he can be called “unique.” When he does the same old liberalism as everyone else on the current late night comedy roster, he isn’t.  

But, it was that same old liberalism that Whitaker also wanted to highlight, “it’s his takedowns that seem to delight him the most… He pounced on news reports that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had not disclosed lavish gifts from rich friends and a generous deal on his prized motor coach.”

 

 

As clips from Oliver’s February 18, 2024, episode were intermixed with his narration, Whitaker continued, “He offered Thomas a new motor coach plus $1 million a year out of his own pocket… if Thomas would resign from the Supreme Court.”

After briefly issuing a disclaimer that “Thomas’s lawyer says the justice met the terms of the RV agreement and any other omissions were strictly inadvertent,” Whitaker told Oliver that “You seem to have few limits on how far you’ll go to get a laugh.”

Oliver claimed that “the main point was saying there are not enough guardrails on people giving the money. I can prove that to you by offering this guy a million dollars a year to get the [bleep] off the Supreme Court. That should be a crime. The very fact that it isn’t is a problem, and that felt like the most visceral way to prove that fact.”

In reality, Oliver got away with it because everyone knew he wasn’t literally trying to bribe Thomas, just like nothing happened to Thomas because being friends with Harlan Crow isn’t a crime.

Here is a transcript for the February 23 show:

CBS 60 Minutes

2/23/2025

7:42 PM ET

BILL WHITAKER: He decided to stop going for the easy laughs.

JOHN OLIVER: When I started off, I just wanted to make people laugh. Then I wanted to make people laugh about things I cared about, and, for me, that was politics in its broadest form.

WHITAKER: Did it feel like a risk at the time?

OLIVER: It felt like a risk worth taking.

WHITAKER: And it worked. On his weekly HBO show taped in New York City, his unique take on politics and intrinsic problems is what sets him apart from just about every other comedian on TV.

OLIVER [FEBRUARY 16, 2025]: It looks to me like you are striking out looking right now.

WHITAKER: He delights in revealing the absurdity in the obscure, always, we noticed, with a twinkle in his eye and a mischievous smile.

OLIVER [JULY 27, 2014]: Our main story tonight is the threat of nuclear annihilation.

WHITAKER: You tackle topics, hospice care, bail reform, organ donations. It’s not your typical comedy fare.

OLIVER: No. I know those don’t sound funny. It’s because fundamentally they’re not. But there are funny things about how entrenched some of those problems are, and sometimes I think comedy is the best, most illuminating way to talk about them.

…

WHITAKER: But it’s his takedowns that seem to delight him the most.

OLIVER [FEBRUARY 18, 2024]: Because Thomas is now at the heart of the –

WHITAKER: He pounced on news reports that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had not disclosed lavish gifts from rich friends and a generous deal on his prized motor coach.

OLIVER [FEBRUARY 18, 2024]: Look at this beauty, Clarence.

WHITAKER: He offered Thomas a new motor coach plus $1 million a year out of his own pocket–

OLIVER [FEBRUARY 18, 2024]: Just sign.

WHITAKER: — if Thomas would resign from the Supreme Court.

OLIVER [FEBRUARY 18, 2024]: This is not a joke.

WHITAKER: Thomas’s lawyer says the justice met the terms of the RV agreement and any other omissions were strictly inadvertent.

You seem to have few limits on how far you’ll go to get a laugh.

OLIVER: Yeah, with Clarence Thomas, the main point was saying there are not enough guardrails on people giving the money. I can prove that to you by offering this guy a million dollars a year to get the [bleep] off the Supreme Court. That should be a crime. The very fact that it isn’t is a problem, and that felt like the most visceral way to prove that fact.

WHITAKER: Facts are fundamental to Oliver’s humor.

OLIVER [OCTOBER 27, 2024]: We filed a Freedom of Information Act request.

WHITAKER: His deep dives into serious topics are painstakingly crafted.

ABC’s The View was to facts and history as water was to oil; they don’t mix. So, it made sense that they would celebrate Black History Month on Tuesday by promoting the long-discredited work of far-left journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones and The 1619 Project. Staunchly racist Sunny Hostin praised the work of her friend and downplayed the legitimate criticisms from actual historians (including minorities and people on the left).

“Today, we honor investigative journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones who continues to redefine our national conversations on race,” Hostin announced.

She went on to laud the fictitious writer for her “career covering race, class, education, and equity,” while writing off the criticism:

Born in Waterloo, Iowa her award-winning career covering race, class, education, and equity all started with a letter to the editor of her local paper at just 11 years old. Joins Jones [sic] The New York Times in 2015 and publish her groundbreaking investigative piece four years later, The 1619 Project. The collection of essays and art backdated the founding of the United States from 1776 to 1619, the year when the first enslaved Africans arrived in Virginia.

Although it was met with backlash, the project went on to become a best-selling book, a Hulu docu-series and podcast, and inspired her children’s book Born on the Water.

Hostin’s scripted screed actually perpetuated one of the lies from Jones’s project, one even edited by The New York Times: that America was “founded” in 1619.

 

 

As The Federalist wrote in the fall of 2020, “At some point in the last year, while defending their project from the disputes of respected historians and issuing corrections for other central claims, the paper of record quietly omitted the controversial ‘founding’ claim from its description.” Jones herself also tried to defend the edit by calling it just a “rhetorical argument” she was supposedly making.

Obfuscated by Hostin’s use of the word “backlash” was also The Times’ correction of Jones’s lie that the American Revolution being fought to preserve slavery (a lie Hostin had floated on the ABC News program herself). “This re-dating of the founding of the United States only makes sense if we accept an ahistorical claim that slavery was a major reason colonists split with England. That is exactly why Hannah-Jones made the claim,” The Federalist wrote.

In 2022, legitimate historian Wilfred Reilly called out the 1619 Project’s omission of key context from its revisionist history:

The 1619 essays almost universally ignore or minimize four critical pieces of context that any unbiased school curriculum would include. These are the truly global prevalence of slavery and similar barbaric practices until quite recently; the detrimental economic impact of the Peculiar Institution on the South and on the American national economy; the nuanced but deeply patriotic perspectives on the United States expressed by the black and white leaders of the victorious anti-slavery movement that existed alongside slavery; and the reality that much of American history in fact had nothing to do with this particular issue.

Given the true context, it makes sense that Hostin would promote Jones and The 1619 Project, because they’re all highly anti-American and only see the world through a warped racist lens.

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

ABC’s The View
February 25, 2025
11:26:36 a.m. Eastern

SUNNY HOSTIN: Today, we honor investigative journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones who continues to redefine our national conversations on race.

Born in Waterloo, Iowa her award-winning career covering race, class, education, and equity all started with a letter to the editor of her local paper at just 11 years old. Joins Jones [sic] The New York Times in 2015 and publish her groundbreaking investigative piece four years later, The 1619 Project. The collection of essays and art backdated the founding of the United States from 1776 to 1619, the year when the first enslaved Africans arrived in Virginia.

Although it was met with backlash, the project went on to become a best-selling book, a Hulu docu-series and podcast, and inspired her children’s book Born on the Water.

Jones’s work led her to give a speech before the U.N. in 2022 and has earned her an Emmy and Pulitzer Prize.

Today, she’s empowering the next generation of truth seekers through her Ida B. Wells society for Investigative Reporting while serving as the knight chair at Howard University. And back in her hometown in Iowa, Jones established the 1619 Freedom School, a free community-based after-school literacy program where she continues to share the message that education is the key to freedom.

Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary — aka “Mr. Wonderful” — took a blowtorch to CNN and other lefties experiencing a mental collapse over emails from Elon Musk’s DOGE to federal workers asking them to give an account of their work progress.

CNN Host Laura Coates tried to box O’Leary into a corner by drumming up controversy over Musk sending an initial email to workers that allegedly required only a voluntary response followed by a second mandatory email that included a threat of termination.

O’Leary’s response during the tense segment during the February 24 edition of CNN’s Laura Coates Live could be summed up by his one-liner: “Get over it.”  

“First of all, if they’re not answering after two times requested, are they dead,” O’Leary snarked. “What’s wrong with that? The rational person would say, ‘Yeah it’s not okay.’” 

Coates kept trying to interject but O’Leary wouldn’t let up, “You’ve got billions of dollars going out to hundreds of people — thousands, tens of thousands of people — and nobody knows if they’re A: alive. B: working. Where are they? What are they doing? There’s nothing wrong with this request.” O’Leary then utilized his own experience in the private sector, noting that he does these sorts of inquiries with his workers “every day.”   “This is not unreasonable. The average person doesn’t think this is unreasonable,” O’Leary concluded, before quipping that Musk is generating furor because DOGE is “electric and controversial, got it.” 

Coates, obviously triggered by O’Leary, then objected to the notion that CNN is only covering Musk because the conflict is “sexy.” She proclaimed CNN and the rest have an “appropriate emphasis” on Musk. They’re just supposedly looking to report the truth on the government, which would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetically ironic considering the network she works for:

I must say though: It bothers me when I hear people suggest that the only reason to cover what’s going on with DOGE is somehow it’s ‘electric’ or somehow ‘sexy to the media.’ These are consequential steps that are being made. And so we’re not focusing just for the sake of focusing. There’s appropriate emphasis on what’s so important in the federal government.

“Appropriate emphasis” Coates? Really? Like when your colleagues at CNN and other media talking heads spent a ridiculous amount of airtime obsessing over “Big Balls?”

There are two types of journalists:
1) People who spent all day yesterday saying “Big Balls” on national television.
2) Actual journalists.
Yesterday was weird. pic.twitter.com/IiITHKklhU
— Bill D’Agostino (@Banned_Bill) February 7, 2025

Because HBO’s John Oliver waited until last week to kick off the 2025 season of Last Week Tonight, he is still catching up on all the news he missed. On Sunday, Oliver turned his attention to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to ditch its fact-checking partners, calling the decision “self-serving bullshit.” Oliver also tried to dismiss Big Tech censorship concerns, claiming Facebook and Twitter failed to censor the New York Post’s 2020 story about Hunter Biden’s laptop despite them doing precisely that.

After playing a clip of Zuckerberg with Joe Rogan defending his decision, Oliver ranted:

And look, I’m not saying Facebook was doing a perfect job of moderating content until now, we’ve criticized them multiple times before on this show. I’m also not saying they even could’ve done perfectly. It’s been said that ‘Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well.’ But the decision to both abandon fact-checkers, and turn off systems they’d previously claimed made the platform safer does feel like it’s about to make that site a whole lot worse. And the self-depiction of Zuckerberg, rap name Lil Broccoli, as someone simply embracing his company’s ‘Roots around free expression’ is self-serving bullshit.

 

 

Later, Oliver was trying to downplay the idea that the Post was an example of conservatives being censored as he sarcastically declared, “Hunter Biden’s fucking laptop, a story that Big Tech successfully censored, which is why you’ve never heard about it.”

After recapping the ordeal, Oliver made sure to first remind people that there was nothing to see, “Now, it eventually came out that files from the laptop were legit, but also, that nothing on it revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden.”

Moving back to the tech companies, Oliver continued:

So, was initially suppressing the laptop story a fuckup by these companies? In hindsight, yeah. Was the story itself particularly revelatory or important? Not really. Did Facebook’s actions prevent people from finding out about it before the election? Again, not really; even during the period Facebook was limiting its spread, the story got 54 million views on its site. So, if this was an attempt at censorship, it was successful in limiting the audience to the same number of people who watched the fucking Friends finale.

The fact that Twitter and Facebook failed to stop the Post story does not mean they didn’t try. We don’t apply that standard to anything else. If a terrorist attack fails, that doesn’t mean the terrorist behind it isn’t a terrorist.

Here is a transcript for the February 23 show:

HBO Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

2/23/2025

11:18 PM ET

JOHN OLIVER: Zuckerberg is framing all this as merely responding to a broader cultural shift, something he outlined, naturally, on Joe Rogan.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: What we do is, we try to build a platform that gives people a voice. But I think that there’s this wholesale generational shift in who are the people who are being listened to. [Jump cut] I think it’s just, like, a wholesale shift in saying, “We just want different people who we actually trust.”

JOE ROGAN: Right.

ZUCKERBERG: Who are actually going to like, tell us the truth, and like, and not give us, like, the bullshit opinions that you’re supposed to say, but like, the type of stuff that I would actually – like, when I’m sitting with — in my living room with my friends, like the stuff that we know is true.

OLIVER: Is there anything more off putting than a guy worth hundreds of billions, trying to be a relatable everyman? “You know how it is, chilling in the living room with the bros, cracking a six pack of Ace of Spades magnums, kicking back on your diamond encrusted sofa and turning on the big screen TV, which in my house, is a hollow box where I pay the cast of The Office to reenact my favorite scenes. Y’know, just relatable, everyday stuff, guys.” 

And look, I’m not saying Facebook was doing a perfect job of moderating content until now, we’ve criticized them multiple times before on this show. I’m also not saying they even could’ve done perfectly. It’s been said that “Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well.” But the decision to both abandon fact-checkers, and turn off systems they’d previously claimed made the platform safer does feel like it’s about to make that site a whole lot worse. And the self-depiction of Zuckerberg, rap name Lil Broccoli, as someone simply embracing his company’s “Roots around free expression” is self-serving bullshit.

…

OLIVER: Right. Hunter Biden’s fucking laptop, a story that Big Tech successfully censored, which is why you’ve never heard about it. And I’m afraid it is worth taking a second to remind you of the details in this story. Because while people’s minds may immediately swing to “Russian hoax” or “Damning evidence of Biden corruption,” the truth is, it was neither. 

Very briefly: Back in 2020, while Trump was president, social media sites got a warning from the FBI to look out for hack-and-leak operations before the election. Then, in October, the New York Post ran a story based on files from a laptop they claimed belonged to Hunter Biden, which had been given to them by Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani. Facebook and Twitter were wary of the story. Twitter briefly didn’t allow people to post links to it and Facebook allowed the story to be seen and shared, but limited the article’s reach, only to remove that restriction soon after. 

Now, it eventually came out that files from the laptop were legit, but also, that nothing on it revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden. 

So, was initially suppressing the laptop story a fuckup by these companies? In hindsight, yeah. Was the story itself particularly revelatory or important? Not really; Did Facebook’s actions prevent people from finding out about it before the election? Again, not really, even during the period Facebook was limiting its spread, the story got 54 million views on its site. So, if this was an attempt at censorship, it was successful in limiting the audience to the same number of people who watched the fucking Friends finale.

PBS News Mideast “special correspondent” Simona Foltyn reported from Lebanon for Sunday’s PBS News Weekend, from a funeral service celebrating the life and legacy of….Hassan Nasrallah, who led the Iran-backed anti-Israel terrorist group Hezbollah before dying months ago under Israeli bombardment.

Foltyn has a virulently anti-Israel X feed and a journalistic history to match, always boosting the pro-Hamas perspective, and this story is a bizarre encomium to Nasrallah, whose Hezbollah forces fought alongside Syrian dictator Assad killing thousands of Syrian rebels in the process, and then joined forces with the terrorists of Hamas to attack Israel via rocket fire from Lebanon — an overreach for which paid the price.

Simona Foltyn: It’s the end of an era for Lebanon. Hassan Nasrallah was the country`s most powerful man. His group Hezbollah, its strongest political and military force. Labeled a terrorist by Israel, Nasrallah is revered by Lebanon`s Shiite community, who gathered in their thousands to pay their respects. Rasha Accoushe traveled to the capital from her village in southern Lebanon.

Rasha Accoushe, Hezbollah Supporter (through translator): We will keep crying over him for a long time, but this person, he taught us what it means to stand up for ourselves, to defend our land and to defend our rights.

Foltyn: Nasrallah was killed on September 27th when Israel pummeled Beirut suburbs with a barrage of bunker busting bombs supplied by the United States. Despite his demise, his supporters have remained defiant. 

Another Accoushe rant followed.

Foltyn: Israel and Lebanon agreed to a ceasefire back in November, but this didn`t stop Israeli jets from flying overhead, a violation of Lebanese airspace that drew angry chants from the crowd, some directed at the United States. Rasha`s demands towards the U.S. Government are clear.

Accoushe: We want the United States to stop financing Israel. It’s very simple. And we want them to leave the Muslim world alone.

But will the Muslim world leave the West alone?

Foltyn interviewed a Hezbollah member of Parliament who bragged “Nobody can surpass Hezbollah on the domestic front. Hezbollah has the most popular support in Lebanon.”

Foltyn: Only time will tell if Hezbollah can maintain the support base without Nasrallah. For many people gathered here, Nasrallah was a father figure who led the movement for more than three decades. His assassination has no doubt weakened the group, but his legacy is likely to live on. This funeral sends the message that Hezbollah has survived the war and still enjoys a lot of grassroots support. For PBS News Weekend, I`m Simona Foltyn in Beirut, Lebanon.

After that treatment, it would surely shock no one that Foltyn worked for the virulently anti-Israel outlet Arab news network Al-Jazeera English from 2019 to 2021 (on the Iraq beat), 

A related New York Times piece was also far too favorable to Nasrallah but at least wasn’t as grossly positive as PBS was about Hezbollah’s post-Nasrallah prospects, noting its decimated military might and increasing unpopularity among the Lebanese people.