It sounds like a farce. But it’s both real and typical of Big Media.
After Islamist terrorists attempted to bomb a small protest in New York City over the weekend, news giants hid the most basic details. Why? Because the people targeted in this attack are supposed to be the media’s villains. And in the victim-villain-hero triangle, they won’t let villains be potential victims.
I take you through the story in the new episode out today:
Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi are facing federal charges for the attack, in which their explosive devices apparently failed to achieve their deadly aims. (Given that this attack took place in the open and on video, and there’s no sign that they deny any of it, the term “terrorists” applies.) Inspired by ISIS, they were hoping to inflict even maximum casualties, prosecutors say.
When I searched for any coverage of this on the New York Times’ main page, I had to scroll through hundreds of stories about other topics, including the paper’s latest worshipful profile of pro-terror radical Mahmoud Khalil.
Meanwhile, CNN wrote this about the would-be bombers:
“Two Pennsylvania teenagers crossed into New York City Saturday morning for what could have been a normal day, enjoying the city during abnormally warm weather. But in less than an hour, their lives would drastically change as the pair would be arrested for throwing homemade bombs during an anti-Muslim protest outside of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home.”
That’s CNN for you. The story is that these two teenagers had their lives changed by the arrests — not that they could have killed protesters, police who were already on the scene, and passersby.
When called out about this, CNN pulled it and included an editor’s note saying the summary “did not reflect the gravity of the incident, thereby breaching the editorial standards we require for all our reporting.” Ah yes, the “news” network with this track record has such great editorial standards:
In this episode, I also explore the question of whether the protesters are “anti-Muslim” or anti-Islamist. The distinction is essential — but it’s one the media refuses to even recognize.
This only scratches the surface of what the media has been up to lately. In the new episode, you’ll also hear about:
Biased coverage of two political spouses
An analysis, conducted for this episode, shows the media has dramatically altered coverage of U.S. military conflicts
A guest calls out CNN live on the air
A likely Democratic contender for the presidency goes off the rails
and more.
The 100th anniversary is next week! Supporters are invited to share audio or written messages: