Get access to Brad Slager's "Riffed From the Headlines," a daily VIP feature where he looks to bring accountability to the mainstream media. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Reporting On The Mirror – CNN
The defamation suit against CNN continues toward a jury trial as the network loses challenges in court. Recent decisions saw it denied from dismissing the punitive case, requests to stall revealing its financials have been overruled, and the attempt to keep Jake Tapper from having to testify has also been turned down.
In a sign of sheer desperation, one component of the suit – that CNN reported the plaintiff was engaged in illegal black market activity – see the lawyers turning on their own prior arguments and now resorting to Sharia Law to excuse their behavior. Yes, seriously.
As the argument that CNN never accused illegality has been proven inaccurate, the latest is that the network's lawyers are insisting the plaintiff was breaking Sharia Law in his business:
This entire defamation case centers on Young's accusation that CNN implied he engaged in illegal conduct when he arranged, for a substantial fee, to have women smuggled out of Afghanistan…discovery has indicated that those activities he orchestrated and funded, which involved moving women out of Afghanistan, almost certainly were illegal under Taliban rule.
CNN Defamation Suit: Jake Tapper Compelled to Testify and Network Desperately Relies on…Sharia Law?https://t.co/5XYnOCsBcb
— RedState (@RedState) August 19, 2024
Legalized Press-titution – WASHINGTON POST
How does this not qualify as an in-kind donation?
The Washington Post has been advertising on Xitter to promote its articles, but this appears to be crossing proper election lines. WaPo has been belching out the hyperactively positive coverage of Kamala, and as a result, it is placing these spots with pro-Harris coverage, which amounts to campaign ads.
Wapo with an ad noting the great media coverage Kamala is getting (despite not doing interviews or press conferences) 🙄 pic.twitter.com/MjBqyXKACx
— Ryan (@alwaysonoffense) August 10, 2024
Body Checking the Fact-Checkers – WASHINGTON POST
Glenn Kessler goes to bat for Harris by addressing some claims about her, battling them back with his version of supposition. He tries to distance her from the ridiculous argument over gas stoves for the past year, and Glenn lapses into the already tired and pedantic excuse-making. He tries to say there was no call for a ban (Richard Trumka said as much), that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is independent of the Biden administration (Trumka was appointed by Biden), and even says, "The Biden administration never had a policy on gas stoves." Um, Glenn? The Department of Energy just passed new gas stove regulations. But of course, once again, somehow, Harris was not a part of the administration as the administration takes action.
Then Kessler addresses the infamous quote of Harris discussing eliminating red meat from our diets. She answered a question posed to her on CNN and was asked about the curtailing of eating red meat. Kessler leans on her meandering answer that was a long way of agreeing indirectly, while not stating she favors ending eating red meat. Then Kessler goes ahead and essentially confirms she said just that:
In essence, she said she would support a change in the guidelines, as there had to be incentives to encourage less consumption of meat. 'The balance that we have to strike here, frankly, is about what government can and should do around creating incentives and then banning certain behaviors,' Harris said. 'But there has to be also what we do in terms of creating incentives that we will eat in a healthy way.'
New #FactChecker --> A trio of silly, false claims that JD Vance makes about Kamala Harris https://t.co/HYZVfplTGV
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) August 13, 2024
DNC PR Firm – VANITY FAIR
He's still lashing out at Fox News in exile, folks.
Brian Stelter is still watching his favorite news channel. This time we see him protecting the good name of Kamala against a criticism made about her on Fox while ignoring the reality that Harris has refused to grant any serious interviews, take questions at a press conference, or post her agenda on her campaign website. But she read off a teleprompter this weekend!
Sure hope the checks from the Harris campaign are large enough to paper over the shame from this level of sycophantic fluffing you are doing on her behalf. https://t.co/1yrNk1hSWO
— Brad Slager - Scrubbing Down In a Bloodbath (@MartiniShark) August 18, 2024
Race to the Bottom – ABC NEWS
And this is the network moderating the presidential debate?
In this street interview, Martha Radditz displays a series of disturbing characteristics; hyper-partisanship, condescension, and layers of racism. A younger, black, female voter tells Radditz she is leaning toward voting for Donald Trump. The reactions and comments by Radditz are rather disturbing:
Trump's rhetoric has clearly had an effect on her – in an astonishing way. And there was no convincing her otherwise.
First, why is it astonishing to Radditz? Candidates say things – that is, use rhetoric – to sway voters. But more unsettling, why does Radditz believe that it is her job, being a journalist, to convince her to change her mind? When she encounters a Harris supporter it is a quick video bite, and done. Does Martha challenge her with follow-up questions and then try to persuade her to switch to Trump? Oh, hell no. The Trump backer is grilled with tougher questions than Harris faces on the campaign trail.
Some astonishingly blatant partisanship from @MarthaRaddatz as she grills this young voter favoring Trump.
— Brad Slager - Scrubbing Down In a Bloodbath (@MartiniShark) August 19, 2024
She challenges her views, implies she is brainwashed, and laments she cannot change the woman’s mind.
“Journalism” pic.twitter.com/q9hjPabM92
Pre-Written Field Reports – THE NEW YORKER
The New Yorker has a big exposé on the upbringing of Senator JD Vance. Okay, maybe not "big," exactly. In fact, we are not quite sure this qualifies as an exposé. In truth, it is barely a story.
This is all positioned as catching the VP candidate in some sort of subterfuge with his famous memoir, "Hillbilly Elegy," when, in fact, all the magazine manages is to back up what he wrote.
His crime here is…accuracy?
Hey, whatever it takes to avoid his policy positions, they'll just run with it.
J. D. Vance’s grandparents, immortalized in “Hillbilly Elegy” as Mamaw and Papaw, had a deeply troubled marriage, and Vance praises them for sticking it out. But records show that they entered divorce proceedings twice. https://t.co/TjxxGvU5es
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) August 16, 2024
