As we have just reached the halfway point on the calendar, we see that the tough year for our nation’s media complex continues. The fact that the journalism industry is feeling compelled to issue official statements in defense of their reporting highlights a new level of debasement for the profession.
An action that previously had been relatively rare has sprung up with regularity over the past weeks, and it indicates the growing condition of fractured examples of journalism. When the news broke last week that Paramount Global reached a settlement with President Trump over his lawsuit with CBS News over its corrupted editing found with their pre-election interview, CBS News saw fit to issue a statement with a dose of obstinate PR clarifying that they were in no way apologizing.
The production has been exposed, mainly through the show officers refusing to release the transcript of the interview as well as the edited video (that only came out due to the network’s compliance with an FCC investigation). The lawsuit has bred internal strife between CBS News figures and the parent company of the network, with those in the news division and at “60 Minutes” offices battling with the executives seeking to settle the suit. This has led to two significant network figures resigning over the controversy.
This followed CNN receiving significant grief over the reporting of Natasha Bertrand claiming she had an internal memorandum from the Pentagon stipulating the Iran bombing was not successful. Bertrand’s history of behaving as a loyal mouthpiece for the intel operatives was brought up, and even the White House clapped back at the report. CNN had to save face with a release backing their reporter, but played word games in the process.
— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) June 25, 2025
While it opens with backing Bertrand’s reporting, the statement reads that “CNN’s reporting made clear…” that this was an initial report. Now, while other coverage at the network might have made this distinction, Bertrand’s initial report used conclusive language and did not express how this was a low-confidence preliminary internal memo. This chicanery used in what is supposedly a defensive correction of their reporting is deeply exposing.
In similar fashion, we saw the Washington Post come out with their own defensive statement supporting its reporter after Tulsi Gabbard came out to describe the methods used by Ellen Nakashima. The paper took the position that Gabbard was upset at the practice of basic journalism chasing down a story, but notably they did not mention any of the details mentioned of their reporter using subversive methods and even refusing to identify that she was a WaPo journalist.
Statement from Executive Editor Matt Murray:
“For three decades, Ellen Nakashima has been one of the most careful, fair-minded, and highly regarded reporters covering national security. Reaching out to potential sources rather than relying solely on official government press… https://t.co/qNi1FBFJgc
— Washington Post Communications (@WashPostComms) July 3, 2025
Reaching out to potential sources rather than relying solely on official government press statements regarding matters of public interest is neither nefarious nor is it harassment. It is basic journalism.
Then this weekend, we saw the polar opposite effect of a paper needing to explain itself. At the New York Times, they had exposed the detail in the past of Zohran Mamdani where he had identified as a black male on a college application. The report had been thoroughly researched by reporter Benjamin Ryan, and he even spoke with Mamdani, who attested that he had filled out the documents in that fashion.
There was blowback to this accurate report to such an extent that not just social media erupted, but also internal outrage at The Times emerged, with Ryan personally attacked by others at the paper. As a result Assistant Managing Editor Patrick Healy saw fit to release a thread addressing what transpired – basically he needed to explain to the offended people how they committed journalism. Click on the tweet to see the full thread:
As the @nytimes assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust, I’ve received reader feedback regarding our reporting on Zohran Mamdani’s 2009 application to Columbia University. To provide context on how the reporting came together, I wanted to share some information:
— Patrick Healy (@patrickhealynyt) July 4, 2025
This current trend is what happens when you find that your outlet has become compromised by the level of reporting you have been putting on display. If your work is substantial and above board, then there is no reason to issue clarifying statements and offer defenses. Clearly, these are major news sources who saw there was in fact this need.
Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie.
Help us continue exposing their grift by reading news you can trust. Join RedState’s VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
