A few day ago Heather Cox Richardson started her column with a list of Trump’s Truth Social posts the night before and time stamped them. It was the clearest example of Trump’s madness - in his own words - that I’ve seen in a long time.
This was epic. I wish more people saw that! I wish news outlets other than obvious lefty ones would do something like that. Here, ladies and gentlemen, was what your president was writing between midnight and 4am. Enjoy.
Hi! And Heather Cox Richardson *never* interviews any of the leading mental health experts who've accurately warned for 11yrs + remain BANNED from major media!
*
‘Trump’s Mental Decline is Alarming—I’m One of the 36 Doctors Asking for an Intervention’
‘The Question They Have is How So Many Can Listen to these Sirens for So Long and Choose to Do Nothing’ ~DR BANDY LEE
EXCERPT: On May 12, 2026, American historian Heather Cox Richardson opened her Newsletter with:
The biggest story in the country, today and always, is that the president of the United States is mentally unwell.
However, there is no mention of our efforts in her or any other American media. We must go to the foreign press for that, such as the Independent:
"Third, most of the media is VERY sensitive to accusations that they are biased against Republicans. This is less true than it used to be, but most reporters are personally liberal on issues like abortion, guns, and climate. Some end up overcompensating by being tougher on Democrats."
I think this is what a lot of journalists tell themselves, and it's what a lot of Democrats including Pfeiffer tell themselves.
I also think it's bullshit.
I don't know if it's because they like their tax cuts, or they're scared, or they just admire Republicans for being willing to fight for what they want (easier to do when you know billionaires have your back), but it's very clear that political journalists in this country really *despise* Democrats.
Biden should never have run for re-election, and that disastrous decision will forever tarnish his legacy. But JFC the contrast between the piling on after that debate fiasco and the sane-washing of Trump including during the 2024 campaign is kind of hard to miss, don't you think?
I've heard a theory that the wrong kind of people got into political journalism after Woodward and Bernstein. For them it's all about the flash and hob-nobbing with the people they regard as powerful. They forget that Woodward and Bernstein were local beat reporters who got the Watergate story because it was ignored by the political media.
[[But JFC the contrast between the piling on after that debate fiasco and the sane-washing of Trump including during the 2024 campaign is kind of hard to miss, don't you think?]]
The first that I remember was the coverage of the hot mic comments to Billy Bush about the “perks” of being a misogynist celebrity, and the media’s focus on Hilary Clinton’s (foolish and possibly illegal) email server.
The NY Times and other mainstream media was and remains arguably worse than the right wing media. The mainstream media claims to speak to and for all of us. The right wing media only to the true believers.
Understandably, since the country and the world continue to suffer from it. I have been struck by the unwillingness or inability of Times leadership to explain it in any defensible way -- including to you personally in "Newsroom Confidential." In few things has the legendary Times hauteur been more obvious.
The legacy media’s minimization of the cruelty, corruption and lawlessness of this man and his regime is indefensible. They have abrogated their responsibility to the public they purportedly serve.
We know what it looks like when our media stars are really upset about something, like the academic citation practices of the president of Harvard, so it’s pretty hard to not see it when they’re not. Hell, we’re less than a month removed from Trump posting a picture of himself as literally Jesus Christ and it’s completely by the boards.
A few other things:
Jennifer Schulze’s suggested headline could work, but it’s longer than the original and this wouldn’t work for print. How about “Trump Dodges Facts as Iran-War Forecast Crumbles”? (Personally I’d go with “ … as Iran-War Fantasy Falls Apart” but I know that wouldn’t pass, especially at the NYT.)
Among the many things that have been normalized in that 60 Minutes interview is the fact that Trump isn’t even pretending CBS donated money to his “library” (lol). He said CBS “paid me 38 million dollars.” I know everyone knew that, but he’s not even pretending and no one is asking. Again.
And once again, I’m left wondering what kind of conversation we’d be having if a woman president tore down half the White House because the ballroom wasn’t fancy enough, and in the middle of a war still couldn’t go literally five minutes without screaming about it. (Or for that matter, fixating on Cabinet members’ shoes.)
I look forward to your next post on how to remedy journalism’s reluctance to clearly and accurately cover the constitutional concerns and real-world consequences of Trump’s policies, as well as ongoing questions about his fitness for office.
It would also be valuable to ground the analysis in what can be verified on evidence: He is a terrible president. His handling of COVID-19 and its public health impact; the global implications of his foreign policy decisions, including his war of choice in Iran; and the extent to which his economic agenda has not translated into broad-based gains for most Americans.
Too often, substantive issues are overshadowed by a constant stream of distractions. A focus on his policies and their consequences would help cut through that noise and elevate the conversation.
"Flooding the zone" has been this administration's most effective strategy, and it's making us all slightly crazy in the head. I actually have a lot of sympathy for mainstream media in this deeply strange era.
I would love to see major media hone in on the massive, daily, unending examples of CORRUPTION. Hammer it home, every single day -- or at the very fugging least, keep those stories from drowning in the sh*t and completely disappearing. There should be pointed, direct questions about corruption, for every republican politician and member of the administration at every possible opportunity.
People understand the concept of corruption, at a gut level. Keep pointing it out. Make these vile "public servants" squirm. Stop rewarding the zone flooders.
I agree that the media tends to soft pedal everything about this administration. I wonder how much this is caused by the ownership structure of the media. Not to pick on Bezos (but let’s pick on Jeff), how much of the change in the approach at WAPO is due to the potential impact of this administration on the Bezos empire should they be displeased with what WAPO does? What does freedom of the press mean, and how can it be defended, when there are so many pressure points that can be brought to bear on the corporate owners of the media?
I covered Trump’s first term in my capacity as a transportation and logistics reporter. My beat included Amazon. No one got hammered more by Trump than Bezos. It was relentless and the threats he made about Amazon’s business would be shocking if they weren’t so stupid. He owned the Post then as he does now.
The difference between then and now is that the current administration is much more willing, and able, to use the levers of the presidency to carry through on the threats.
"Just imagine if President Biden (or any other president) had said such a thing. Huge headlines. Weeks of coverage. Opinion pieces about the need to employ the 25th Amendment." MS
I think I have said in this comment section before that literally not a day has gone by since Trump came down the escalator that one could not entertain a counternarrative with (insert Democrat here) that would not have caused the legacy/mainstream media to take out their flamethrowers and light up the media landscape, resulting in a days or weeks long scandal and very possibly the end of a political career. And on the majority of those days those counternarratives could be imagined multiple times.
Dan Pfeiffer's idea that "Trump has worn down the media" is pure fantasy. They covered him from the beginning the way they cover him now. Let me remind readers that in the run-up to the 2016 election, the MSM was pre-outraged about the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming president without first dissolving the Clinton Foundation even though that foundation had an A rating and there was no proof or even reliable accusations of corruption. Most of the coverage demanded she divest herself because of "appearances" and "optics". Fast forward to November 2019 while Trump is the sitting president: "A judge Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to an array of charities as a fine for misusing his own charitable foundation to further his political and business interests (AP)". If you remember this at all you will not remember it as a scandal or an outrage because it didn't become one. Feel free to look up some of the aforementioned coverage of Hillary and compare the heated, accusatory tone over something that hadn't happened with the muted, straight reporting of Trump being found guilty of the same thing the media was purportedly concerned about with Hillary.
I only bring this up to emphasize that it is not possible for the mainstream/legacy/corporate media to hide behind explanations or rationalizations for their asymmetrical coverage and their overall fecklessness in the face of Trump's authoritarianism.
It may feel good to say there's some good journalism still being done but what does it matter if, in the aggregate, the institution is so broken that they've accepted Trump's corruption as well as his pathologies as too commonplace to consider news while everybody knows they would have a field day cranking up the outrage over lesser behavior from someone with a D next to their name. Objectivity, my ass. Legacy media is an abject failure.
I awaked just yesterday to my Bloomberg “Top News” feed featuring five or six separate “Trump says…” headlines. All were his usual deflection, “I may or may not” nonsense, or typical bluster. None seemed particularly impactful for financial markets, but were nonetheless amplified. Flooding the zone to capture media shelf space works - and readers are misled - unless editors do a better job editing.
Responsible major sources of news are generally reporting the awful things Trump does and says, but not in a systematic way that would make our national situation clear. That way they can claim to be holding Trump's feet to the fire, while ignoring the rest of his flabby carcass. If a Democrat (or maybe another Republican?) was flailing around like this there would be long-running discussions of a "failing presidency" and "historic corruption and incompetence."
Thanks for your analysis. But maybe next time you could over your take on why the media tilt to the right on most issues (and fall over for Trump). Is it just money, or safety, or belief that the underlying model that markets are always right or ?
I'd really like you to spend more time on "why" these biases exists.
Unless or until the worthless scribes of the WH press corp decides that access to people who lie to them constantly isn't worth it nothing will change. They need to challenge Trump and all of his mouthpieces when they lie, especially when they blatantly, provably, obviously lie. They need to make an issue of Trump's obvious physical and mental decline. Heck, I heard an interview with Vance this morning where he was asked if he worried about having to take over if Trump dies. He launched into a filibuster about Trump's excellent health and brilliance while slamming Biden. It was unchallenged. This has to stop. And you are right, NYT and other headline writers need to stop softening the story. Reporters (not in the worthless WH press corps) are doing good work exposing the failures of the Trump regime. You would never notice it if all you do is scan the headlines.
Absolutely spot on, Margaret, yet again. Thank you for sharing Pfeiffer's piece as well about why media give Trump and Republicans a pass. As a former journalist, I can attest to what he wrote.
The Pfeiffer piece was useful, but it does not emphasize enough the Democrats own contribution to journalism’s tepid coverage of them. Leader Jeffries went on Fox News and conceded that, if Democrats take back the House, they would not impeach Trump**. There may be some (foolish) political calculation in ceding impeachment before the election, but it profoundly undercuts Democrats’ argument that Trump** is dangerously unfit for office and an existential threat to democracy. Maybe Democrats don’t really believe he is, but the list of Trump**’s impeachable offenses could fill volumes. It is nonsensical—and an invitation for the press to downplay Trump**’s lunacy—for Democrats to give him a pass on th3 one power Congress actually has to hold him to account.
Bang on, every word, Margaret. Legacy media serves shareholders first, the public last. “Public interest” is a philosophical term, a study focus for journalism (Is it still a college major?), not something that exists in the “real” world of legacy media.
Ms. Sullivan, Steve Bannon's hideous strategy works, in part, because of the media's failure to adapt to it. Couldn't the Times dedicate a half-column of its front page to a list of bullet points enumerating Trump's latest lies and depravities with citations to its own reporting? The other day, I learned from Pr. Krugman's newsletter that Trump's vanity fleet of obsolete battleships are budgeted to cost SEVENTEEN BILLION DOLLARS EACH! The Sec. of the Navy was fired for not producing these floating white elephants fast enough to suit His Orangeness. I try to stay informed,
Stacy, I agree. I also think the media should refuse to give him so much air to fill with lies that go unchallenged. His staged "press conferences" should be covered by the pool and his statements should be fact-checked. Every time I watch him in the oval office with a visiting head of state, acting like he's the host of a TV show, it turns my stomach. Cut off the oxygen to the guy. Just report the facts. Yes I know his lunacy is A Story Unto Itself. But there should be a way for the press (especially NYT) to stop just quoting him ad nauseam and leading almost every day's paper with his name in a headline. Putting him front and center every day isn't serving American readers. Perspective and context are needed daily. I also rue politics as horserace reporting and that "politics" has been made the top story every single day, as if nothing else is happening and nothing else matters. They have done a horrible job covering the resistance and also the old beats (education, state house, culture) that used to share the front page. We readers need the balance that newspapers were once able to give when we existed in every town in America and operated with full newsrooms. In their deeply weakened and corporatized state, obviously, they are just trying to hang on. Without all the independent journalists on Substack like Margaret and so many others, we would all be sorely under-informed.
Agree. The press needs to cut off Trump and his lackeys. Continue to report on what he DOES but not what he SAYS. They lie; we know this. Stop platforming lies. Stop going to the press conferences. Ignore him on Air Force One. Don't give him an audience. Being quoted or aired is a privilege and he has abused it.
A few day ago Heather Cox Richardson started her column with a list of Trump’s Truth Social posts the night before and time stamped them. It was the clearest example of Trump’s madness - in his own words - that I’ve seen in a long time.
I love that
Sounds like a daily feature in the making, but how best to avoid normalizing his cruel and crazy drivel?
Yes. It would require some very brief accompanying fact-check and commentary.
This was epic. I wish more people saw that! I wish news outlets other than obvious lefty ones would do something like that. Here, ladies and gentlemen, was what your president was writing between midnight and 4am. Enjoy.
Hi! And Heather Cox Richardson *never* interviews any of the leading mental health experts who've accurately warned for 11yrs + remain BANNED from major media!
*
‘Trump’s Mental Decline is Alarming—I’m One of the 36 Doctors Asking for an Intervention’
‘The Question They Have is How So Many Can Listen to these Sirens for So Long and Choose to Do Nothing’ ~DR BANDY LEE
EXCERPT: On May 12, 2026, American historian Heather Cox Richardson opened her Newsletter with:
The biggest story in the country, today and always, is that the president of the United States is mentally unwell.
However, there is no mention of our efforts in her or any other American media. We must go to the foreign press for that, such as the Independent:
https://bandyxlee.substack.com/p/trumps-mental-decline-is-alarmingim?r=l5uf&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
"Third, most of the media is VERY sensitive to accusations that they are biased against Republicans. This is less true than it used to be, but most reporters are personally liberal on issues like abortion, guns, and climate. Some end up overcompensating by being tougher on Democrats."
I think this is what a lot of journalists tell themselves, and it's what a lot of Democrats including Pfeiffer tell themselves.
I also think it's bullshit.
I don't know if it's because they like their tax cuts, or they're scared, or they just admire Republicans for being willing to fight for what they want (easier to do when you know billionaires have your back), but it's very clear that political journalists in this country really *despise* Democrats.
Biden should never have run for re-election, and that disastrous decision will forever tarnish his legacy. But JFC the contrast between the piling on after that debate fiasco and the sane-washing of Trump including during the 2024 campaign is kind of hard to miss, don't you think?
I've heard a theory that the wrong kind of people got into political journalism after Woodward and Bernstein. For them it's all about the flash and hob-nobbing with the people they regard as powerful. They forget that Woodward and Bernstein were local beat reporters who got the Watergate story because it was ignored by the political media.
[[But JFC the contrast between the piling on after that debate fiasco and the sane-washing of Trump including during the 2024 campaign is kind of hard to miss, don't you think?]]
God, this.
You are so right. Thank you.
The first that I remember was the coverage of the hot mic comments to Billy Bush about the “perks” of being a misogynist celebrity, and the media’s focus on Hilary Clinton’s (foolish and possibly illegal) email server.
The NY Times and other mainstream media was and remains arguably worse than the right wing media. The mainstream media claims to speak to and for all of us. The right wing media only to the true believers.
I’m still traumatized by that campaign coverage.
I will die mad at that.
Understandably, since the country and the world continue to suffer from it. I have been struck by the unwillingness or inability of Times leadership to explain it in any defensible way -- including to you personally in "Newsroom Confidential." In few things has the legendary Times hauteur been more obvious.
Especially now that Trumpkopf keeps repeatedly grabbing Lady Liberty by the p***y.
The legacy media’s minimization of the cruelty, corruption and lawlessness of this man and his regime is indefensible. They have abrogated their responsibility to the public they purportedly serve.
How about the legacy media’s minimization of the cruelty, corruption and lawlessness of the war? Minimization is what they do
We know what it looks like when our media stars are really upset about something, like the academic citation practices of the president of Harvard, so it’s pretty hard to not see it when they’re not. Hell, we’re less than a month removed from Trump posting a picture of himself as literally Jesus Christ and it’s completely by the boards.
A few other things:
Jennifer Schulze’s suggested headline could work, but it’s longer than the original and this wouldn’t work for print. How about “Trump Dodges Facts as Iran-War Forecast Crumbles”? (Personally I’d go with “ … as Iran-War Fantasy Falls Apart” but I know that wouldn’t pass, especially at the NYT.)
Among the many things that have been normalized in that 60 Minutes interview is the fact that Trump isn’t even pretending CBS donated money to his “library” (lol). He said CBS “paid me 38 million dollars.” I know everyone knew that, but he’s not even pretending and no one is asking. Again.
And once again, I’m left wondering what kind of conversation we’d be having if a woman president tore down half the White House because the ballroom wasn’t fancy enough, and in the middle of a war still couldn’t go literally five minutes without screaming about it. (Or for that matter, fixating on Cabinet members’ shoes.)
I look forward to your next post on how to remedy journalism’s reluctance to clearly and accurately cover the constitutional concerns and real-world consequences of Trump’s policies, as well as ongoing questions about his fitness for office.
It would also be valuable to ground the analysis in what can be verified on evidence: He is a terrible president. His handling of COVID-19 and its public health impact; the global implications of his foreign policy decisions, including his war of choice in Iran; and the extent to which his economic agenda has not translated into broad-based gains for most Americans.
Too often, substantive issues are overshadowed by a constant stream of distractions. A focus on his policies and their consequences would help cut through that noise and elevate the conversation.
Yes, I will take heed!
And what ever happened to the Epstein files?!
"Flooding the zone" has been this administration's most effective strategy, and it's making us all slightly crazy in the head. I actually have a lot of sympathy for mainstream media in this deeply strange era.
I would love to see major media hone in on the massive, daily, unending examples of CORRUPTION. Hammer it home, every single day -- or at the very fugging least, keep those stories from drowning in the sh*t and completely disappearing. There should be pointed, direct questions about corruption, for every republican politician and member of the administration at every possible opportunity.
People understand the concept of corruption, at a gut level. Keep pointing it out. Make these vile "public servants" squirm. Stop rewarding the zone flooders.
I agree that the media tends to soft pedal everything about this administration. I wonder how much this is caused by the ownership structure of the media. Not to pick on Bezos (but let’s pick on Jeff), how much of the change in the approach at WAPO is due to the potential impact of this administration on the Bezos empire should they be displeased with what WAPO does? What does freedom of the press mean, and how can it be defended, when there are so many pressure points that can be brought to bear on the corporate owners of the media?
Yes, I think ownership is a huge factor in going easy in him. Thanks.
I covered Trump’s first term in my capacity as a transportation and logistics reporter. My beat included Amazon. No one got hammered more by Trump than Bezos. It was relentless and the threats he made about Amazon’s business would be shocking if they weren’t so stupid. He owned the Post then as he does now.
The difference between then and now is that the current administration is much more willing, and able, to use the levers of the presidency to carry through on the threats.
"Just imagine if President Biden (or any other president) had said such a thing. Huge headlines. Weeks of coverage. Opinion pieces about the need to employ the 25th Amendment." MS
I think I have said in this comment section before that literally not a day has gone by since Trump came down the escalator that one could not entertain a counternarrative with (insert Democrat here) that would not have caused the legacy/mainstream media to take out their flamethrowers and light up the media landscape, resulting in a days or weeks long scandal and very possibly the end of a political career. And on the majority of those days those counternarratives could be imagined multiple times.
Dan Pfeiffer's idea that "Trump has worn down the media" is pure fantasy. They covered him from the beginning the way they cover him now. Let me remind readers that in the run-up to the 2016 election, the MSM was pre-outraged about the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming president without first dissolving the Clinton Foundation even though that foundation had an A rating and there was no proof or even reliable accusations of corruption. Most of the coverage demanded she divest herself because of "appearances" and "optics". Fast forward to November 2019 while Trump is the sitting president: "A judge Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to an array of charities as a fine for misusing his own charitable foundation to further his political and business interests (AP)". If you remember this at all you will not remember it as a scandal or an outrage because it didn't become one. Feel free to look up some of the aforementioned coverage of Hillary and compare the heated, accusatory tone over something that hadn't happened with the muted, straight reporting of Trump being found guilty of the same thing the media was purportedly concerned about with Hillary.
I only bring this up to emphasize that it is not possible for the mainstream/legacy/corporate media to hide behind explanations or rationalizations for their asymmetrical coverage and their overall fecklessness in the face of Trump's authoritarianism.
It may feel good to say there's some good journalism still being done but what does it matter if, in the aggregate, the institution is so broken that they've accepted Trump's corruption as well as his pathologies as too commonplace to consider news while everybody knows they would have a field day cranking up the outrage over lesser behavior from someone with a D next to their name. Objectivity, my ass. Legacy media is an abject failure.
I awaked just yesterday to my Bloomberg “Top News” feed featuring five or six separate “Trump says…” headlines. All were his usual deflection, “I may or may not” nonsense, or typical bluster. None seemed particularly impactful for financial markets, but were nonetheless amplified. Flooding the zone to capture media shelf space works - and readers are misled - unless editors do a better job editing.
No competent journalist should ever begin a story or headline with “Trump says”.
Agreed. Editors own the headlines and, in this case, were lazily regurgitating the prior night’s ravings.
Exactly. Trump is NOT a source! Ever!!
Responsible major sources of news are generally reporting the awful things Trump does and says, but not in a systematic way that would make our national situation clear. That way they can claim to be holding Trump's feet to the fire, while ignoring the rest of his flabby carcass. If a Democrat (or maybe another Republican?) was flailing around like this there would be long-running discussions of a "failing presidency" and "historic corruption and incompetence."
Thanks for your analysis. But maybe next time you could over your take on why the media tilt to the right on most issues (and fall over for Trump). Is it just money, or safety, or belief that the underlying model that markets are always right or ?
I'd really like you to spend more time on "why" these biases exists.
Thanks
Unless or until the worthless scribes of the WH press corp decides that access to people who lie to them constantly isn't worth it nothing will change. They need to challenge Trump and all of his mouthpieces when they lie, especially when they blatantly, provably, obviously lie. They need to make an issue of Trump's obvious physical and mental decline. Heck, I heard an interview with Vance this morning where he was asked if he worried about having to take over if Trump dies. He launched into a filibuster about Trump's excellent health and brilliance while slamming Biden. It was unchallenged. This has to stop. And you are right, NYT and other headline writers need to stop softening the story. Reporters (not in the worthless WH press corps) are doing good work exposing the failures of the Trump regime. You would never notice it if all you do is scan the headlines.
Absolutely spot on, Margaret, yet again. Thank you for sharing Pfeiffer's piece as well about why media give Trump and Republicans a pass. As a former journalist, I can attest to what he wrote.
Jeff Ballinger
Turning Heads: Rewriting Headlines for Accuracy https://jeffballinger.substack.com/
The Pfeiffer piece was useful, but it does not emphasize enough the Democrats own contribution to journalism’s tepid coverage of them. Leader Jeffries went on Fox News and conceded that, if Democrats take back the House, they would not impeach Trump**. There may be some (foolish) political calculation in ceding impeachment before the election, but it profoundly undercuts Democrats’ argument that Trump** is dangerously unfit for office and an existential threat to democracy. Maybe Democrats don’t really believe he is, but the list of Trump**’s impeachable offenses could fill volumes. It is nonsensical—and an invitation for the press to downplay Trump**’s lunacy—for Democrats to give him a pass on th3 one power Congress actually has to hold him to account.
Bang on, every word, Margaret. Legacy media serves shareholders first, the public last. “Public interest” is a philosophical term, a study focus for journalism (Is it still a college major?), not something that exists in the “real” world of legacy media.
Ms. Sullivan, Steve Bannon's hideous strategy works, in part, because of the media's failure to adapt to it. Couldn't the Times dedicate a half-column of its front page to a list of bullet points enumerating Trump's latest lies and depravities with citations to its own reporting? The other day, I learned from Pr. Krugman's newsletter that Trump's vanity fleet of obsolete battleships are budgeted to cost SEVENTEEN BILLION DOLLARS EACH! The Sec. of the Navy was fired for not producing these floating white elephants fast enough to suit His Orangeness. I try to stay informed,
but this one had gotten by me in Bannon's miasma.
Stacy, I agree. I also think the media should refuse to give him so much air to fill with lies that go unchallenged. His staged "press conferences" should be covered by the pool and his statements should be fact-checked. Every time I watch him in the oval office with a visiting head of state, acting like he's the host of a TV show, it turns my stomach. Cut off the oxygen to the guy. Just report the facts. Yes I know his lunacy is A Story Unto Itself. But there should be a way for the press (especially NYT) to stop just quoting him ad nauseam and leading almost every day's paper with his name in a headline. Putting him front and center every day isn't serving American readers. Perspective and context are needed daily. I also rue politics as horserace reporting and that "politics" has been made the top story every single day, as if nothing else is happening and nothing else matters. They have done a horrible job covering the resistance and also the old beats (education, state house, culture) that used to share the front page. We readers need the balance that newspapers were once able to give when we existed in every town in America and operated with full newsrooms. In their deeply weakened and corporatized state, obviously, they are just trying to hang on. Without all the independent journalists on Substack like Margaret and so many others, we would all be sorely under-informed.
Agree. The press needs to cut off Trump and his lackeys. Continue to report on what he DOES but not what he SAYS. They lie; we know this. Stop platforming lies. Stop going to the press conferences. Ignore him on Air Force One. Don't give him an audience. Being quoted or aired is a privilege and he has abused it.
Exactly
That is why Bannon remains the most dangerous man alive. He is smart, shrewd and evil