Media

It may be cliché to point to CNN as the premiere example of a failed news organization, but there isn’t a better example of what happens to media when the emotions and political proclivities of its staff override journalistic integrity. 

And there isn’t a better recent example than this exchange between CNN anchor Kate Bolduan and Republican House Rep. Cory Mills of Florida. Mills was brought on to discuss how the Secret Service handled security at Donald Trump’s July 13 rally at Butler, Pennsylvania. We can all see the result—20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks shot at the president, nearly putting a bullet in his brain while the crowd screamed in panic. 

We’re now seeing video on social media with people claiming to have seen Crooks maneuvering to get on top of a nearby roof with a clear line of sight, begging police to do something about it, to no avail. Well, Rep. Mills is a former Army sniper and he’s displeased with the Secret Service, to put it mildly. 

During the interview he listed numerous apparent failures, most obviously the fact that Crooks was able to get on top of the building roof with no one stopping him, and no agents stationed on that roof. Mills called it an “obvious” spot for a shooter to go for. He said he was left scratching his head about the Service’s decision-making process.

“I’m having a very difficult time not leaning myself toward . . .this was intentional as opposed to fecklessness.”

That’s when CNN anchor Bolduan began to lose it. Visibly agitated, she interrupted Mills and said with obvious emotion in her voice that he was “leaning toward” being a conspiracy theorist:

She interrupts him repeatedly like a scolding schoolteacher, clearly trying to get him to stop speculating about even the possibility that some of the security failures might have been intentional. Despite Mills trying to explain to her that he is pointing out why an investigation is necessary, Bolduan is clearly upset and alarmed that she cannot force him to stop speaking. 

“Is it not dangerous? Is it not reckless to even be throwing around the word intentional?” she said, repeatedly moving her hand toward him in a “shush” gesture. You can see her clenching her jaw and sighing while squirming in her chair. “Mommy” was clearly upset. At one point, she even said, “I’m so uncomfortable right now.”

Are you feeling confident in your ability as an American to hear the news and information you need? 

Twitter/X users were, in the main, not impressed with Bolduan. 

Several users obviously wanted to hear more from the expert, Rep. Mills, and less from what some called the “blonde woman on CNN.”

It brings to mind the line from Don Henley’s famous song “Dirty Laundry”: “Bubble-headed bleach blonde comes on at five.”

How you rate CNN on this one? Tell us in the comments. 

Oh, Jennifer.

Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post columnist, has managed the neat trick that a faction of politicians have. Despite spilling almost all of her ink on how terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad Donald Trump is, she’s still referred to as a “conservative.” Of course, it’s perfectly possible to be a conservative who doesn’t like Donald Trump. But when one appears to make a full-time job out of it, it’s fair to ask which side of the bread the butter is really on.

Rubin really put her foot in it on Twitter/X recently, but let’s start with her branding and presentation.

“Dissenting” seems to be a trend among American women this past decade. They’re dissenting in pussy hats against “patriarchy,” they dissent while beatifying the late Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsberg, they put on Dutch maid costumes and dissent against abortion laws, as depicted here in a scene from the Texas statehouse this week.

This week, Jennifer is dissenting about the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity by lifting the histrionic line from Justice Sotomayor’s minority opinion.

Again, Rubin presents herself as a conservative for reasons unknown, but she’s plumping for the Biden-Harris ticket.

Ah, “our democracy.” The 2024 mating cry of middle-aged female leftists.

In one blast from the past, she got completely destroyed during an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor when she was pressed for evidence of her arguments by O’Reilly, leading to her flipping through pages of notes only to realize she had nothing of substance.

But this contribution on the Biden age issue takes the cake, where she attempts to make a Nazi analogy (how original) that backfired instantly due to people actually understanding history.

One almost feels bad for her (almost). Rubin is trying to mock those voting for Trump by making an analogy to the 1932 elections in Germany. But she has it backward—Germans voted for Hindenburg, not for Hitler, in 1932. She got “Community-noted” on Twitter—that’s when a number of people correct a misstatement. The correction appears along with the original tweet.

The fun is in the reactions.

You just knew someone would do this.

User KH wonders if Jennifer has had a tipple.