ABC and NBC Skip Trump's Election Security Address, Then Pretend Transparency Still Matters

If there was ever any doubt that legacy media still believes it should decide what Americans are allowed to see, ABC and NBC settled the matter Thursday night.

Both networks declined to air President Donald Trump's election security address on their broadcast channels, prompting Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to torch the decision on Friday. His reaction was difficult to argue with.

"How shameful is that?" Mullin said.

"ABC and NBC not carrying that. Why? What are they trying to cover up? Why wouldn’t they want to inform the American people? Why are they calling themselves a news outlet if they’re not actually trying to put the news out there?"

That is the question, isn't it?

Fox News aired the speech in its entirety. CBS carried part of it before cutting away. ABC and NBC relegated it to their streaming platforms, while CNN skipped the live address altogether. MSNBC aired only a portion before pulling the plug. Apparently, when the subject is election integrity and newly declassified intelligence, the gatekeepers suddenly decide viewers have seen enough.

Mullin also pointed out the glaring double standard. The same media outlets that enthusiastically repeated claims that the 2020 election was "the most secure election ever" suddenly lost interest when the Trump administration presented evidence it says raises new concerns.

"Two major networks didn't want to cover it? I think the question really should say why. Because they sure covered the other part of it when they were saying that it was the most secure election ever," Mullin said. "What facts did they have? Because they didn’t have facts. They were taking someone’s word for it. President Trump gave facts. Today we’re giving facts."

That inconsistency is impossible to ignore. When the narrative aligned with the media's preferred conclusion, airtime was unlimited. When information surfaced that challenged it, viewers were expected to hunt it down online instead.

During the address, Trump announced the release of previously classified intelligence that, according to the White House, documented vulnerabilities in voting infrastructure and foreign efforts to obtain American voter data. He also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, legislation that would establish federal voter identification and proof of citizenship requirements.

Trump also blasted ABC and NBC for refusing to air the speech.

"They don't like the topic because they know how corrupt our system is, and they don't want to reveal it," Trump said. "They and others in the media are part of a plot. They want to continue this fraud for whatever reason. They want to keep it going. They want to protect the radical left. They can't have a great country, and that's true, you can't have a great country without free and fair elections."

Whether one agrees with Trump's conclusions or not, refusing to broadcast a presidential address on election security while claiming to be committed to informing the public is a curious editorial choice.

Trump also argued the networks should face regulatory consequences.

"Fraud like this should mean a revocation of their licenses," he said. "They use our public multibillion dollar in value airways for absolutely no money."

That proposal runs into a legal reality. The Federal Communications Commission licenses individual local broadcast stations, not the national television networks themselves.

Still, the larger issue remains. Americans can decide for themselves whether Trump's claims are persuasive. News organizations are supposed to provide access to information, not act as referees who determine which presidential addresses the public is permitted to watch.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

FCC begins probe into Soros-backed radio station that doxxed locations of undercover ICE agents

Federal Communication Commission chairman Brendan Carr has begun an investigation into a radio station backed by uber-left-wing billionaire scumcrumpet George Soros. The station broadcasted live locations of undercover Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, which the kids call doxxing.

Soros, a palindrome and far-left kingmaker, purchased a stake in more than 200 Audacy radio stations across America last year. Among them was the San Francisco-based KCBS 740 AM, which has come under fire for doxxing live locations of undercover ICE vehicles and agents that were conducting deportation operations in the San Jose area.

The FCC's Enforcement Bureau has already sent a formal Letter of Inquiry to the radio station as part of their investigation. This letter questions whether the station, which is licensed by the FCC, is breaking the rules of its license by not acting in the "public interest." The letter from the Enforcement Bureau mentions that ICE agents were working in an area known for gang violence.

"I want to express my thanks and appreciation to DHS and ICE agents. These law enforcement professionals are honorably serving this country and carrying out vital missions. Their safety is paramount. The FCC will hold broadcasters accountable for complying with their public interest obligations," Carr told Fox News Digital.

Audacy, the company that owns the station, and whose name may have been inspired by former President Barack Hussein Obama, has not yet responded to requests for comments.

During the January 26 broadcast of "KCBS Radio Weekend News," the show disclosed specific details about undercover ICE agents involved in an operation on "the east side of town."

"The Santa Clara County Rapid Response Network, which is a community defense projecting system for immigrant communities against deportation threats, first report the activity on its platforms," the host told listeners.

The host then shared the exact make, color, and model of several unmarked cars used by the agents, along with the precise locations where these ICE agents were working.

President Trump appointed Brendan Carr to be the FCC chairman. Before this, he was the senior Republican on the FCC, first nominated by Trump in 2017.

Tweet

CBS Hands Over Harris Interview Transcript Amid Trump's Legal Onslaught

In a move that could only be described as the latest dance in the long, bizarre ballet between now President Donald Trump and the legacy media, CBS, has decided to turn over an unedited transcript of its October interview with Vice President Kamala Harris to the FCC. This comes as part of Trump's ongoing, feud with the network over how it handled a story about his political adversary.

Trump, never one to shy away from a legal skirmish, has slapped CBS with a $10 million lawsuit, accusing them of "deceptively editing" the "60 Minutes" segment to paint Harris in a saintly light. The whispers around town suggest that CBS' parent company, Paramount, might be looking to settle out of court, perhaps eager to avoid further entanglement in Trump's web.

The network, under the stern gaze of Brendan Carr, Trump's FCC appointee, has been compelled to expose the raw footage and transcripts, a move that "60 Minutes" has historically resisted, valuing their editorial discretion like a dragon guards its treasure.

"60 Minutes" insists that the clips aired on "Face the Nation" and later on their show were from a single, extended response by Harris, edited for time rather than deceit. Yet, Trump's lawsuit, filed with the dramatic flair one might expect in Texas, claims this was not just editing but a "partisan and unlawful act of voter interference."

Interestingly, Trump himself dodged an interview with "60 Minutes" during the campaign, perhaps knowing too well the dance of media manipulation. His legal battles persist, even after clinching the election, demonstrating a tenacity that is either commendable or exhausting, depending on your viewpoint.

CBS has remained tight-lipped about any settlement talks, but the Wall Street Journal and New York Times have both reported on these potential backroom deals. This legal drama unfolds as Paramount seeks approval for a sale to Skydance, suggesting that business interests might just be the silent puppeteer here.

Meanwhile, ABC News has already tasted the bitter end of crossing Trump, settling for $15 million towards his presidential library over comments made by George Stephanopoulos. Meta, too, has reportedly paid a hefty sum for the sin of suspending Trump's social media accounts post-Capitol riot, showing that even giants must bow to the litigious might of Trump.

This case, watched eagerly by press freedom advocates and journalists alike, serves as a stark reminder of the power dynamics at play when media, politics, and law intersect. CBS's lawyers have labeled Trump's lawsuit "completely without merit," yet the fight continues, perhaps proving that in the world of media and politics, the battle is as much about the spectacle as it is about the substance.

Tweet

FCC:a not guts, no ethics

Showing his holster

You can't even write in a blog what Colbert said on the air about President Trump, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is letting him get away with it. That sucks.

And if I can say 'that sucks' and get away with it, you can imagine what Colbert actually said. If you don't know, you might be living in a box in North Korea.

The FCC said on Tuesday that it isn't going to take any action whatsoever against the foul-mouth scumcrumpet, Steven Colbert because they work for the government and they're here to help. 

They will not do anything against "Late Show with Stephen Colbert." They do not care that they received thousands of complaints from viewers who were appalled over Colbert's homophobic and generally disgusting reference to oral sex involving Trump and Putin. They are from the government and there is nothing you can do about it.

"Consistent with standard operating procedure, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau has reviewed the complaints and the material that was in the subject of these complaints,"  said a statement by Neil Grace, an FCC spokesman. "The Bureau has concluded that there was nothing actionable under the FCC's rules."

And they had to admit, they found the joke against Trump rather funny.

Colbert also criticized Trump for abruptly ending an interview with CBS News. "Face the Nation" hosted by John Dickerson.

"Sir, you attract more skinheads than free Rogaine," Colbert ignorantly said, thinking that skinheads would actually want to grow hair, or aren't able to grow hair. 

Then he went into a profanity dump and I'm not going to go there.

Suffice it to say, Colbert has the right to say whatever he wants, but not necessarily on national television. But the FCC  does not have the right to be impotent in doing the job we taxpayers expect them to do. 




Tweet

FCC will "investigate" Colbert and his homophobic potty mouth

The Federal Communications Commission said they will "investigate" the rantings of Stephen "Toilet-Mouth" Colbert, but said nothing about DNC head Tom Perez whose mouth spews forth words that usually go down toilets.

Both leftists use vile, disgusting language on national television, and are unapologetic about the disrespect they show toward their audience. Perhaps they don't see it that way because they aren't capable of empathizing with the common folk.

The main reason the FCC is doing anything at all about Colbert's garbage-mouth rant against President Trump on Monday is because they received "a number of complaints" over Colbert's 12-minute monologue on CBS' The Late Show. Some are calling the monologue homophobic, disrespectful and not funny.

FCC commissioner and Trump appointee, Ajit Pai, promised to take "appropriate action" once an investigation is completed. What exactly has to be investigated is unclear, unless it's the actual letter of the law since it's clear what was said. Colbert's show is pretaped and the word "cock" was bleeped out by CBS when it was used to describe President Trump performing oral sex on Vladimir Putin.

Personally, I don't believe that Colbert should be fired, as many are calling for on Twitter, nor do I believe in boycotting Colbert's sponsors because I don't think it would make a real difference and it isn't fair to put the onus on them. 

But I do believe in the free market. If people refuse to watch his show, and his numbers are down, the sponsors would leave on their own.

However, it's possible that Colbert has broken the law and the FCC will have to decide if it finds a violation. "A fine, of some sort, is typically what we do," Pai said.

Due to the fact that Colbert's garbage airs at 11:35 p.m., there is a lower standard of decency since the children are tucked away in bed.

FCC regulations, as per their website, says that all content on broadcast TV must meet a three-tier Supreme Court test to be considered "obscene."

The FCC says: "It must appeal to an average person's prurient interest; depict or describe sexual conduct in a 'patently offensive' way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

Anyone who believes that it passes all of those tests is a leftist fool.

In 2004, CBS was fined $550,000 by the FCC when Janet Jackson had her "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl Halftime Show, exposing her breast. Unfortunately, the fine was appealed and thrown out.

I believe that everyone should be entitled to freedom of speech and expression. Personally, I'm going to express my beliefs with my TV remote.

Tweet

Regulation Nation is an Obamanation

If Obama has his way, internet freedom will be eradicated and all communication will be overseen by his administration and eventually the government.
I received an email from Ben Sasse about the current situation regarding the Internet and Obama's desire to regulate it to his advantage. Below is my take on the letter and a link where you can sign a petition to have the FCC hear your opinion.

In Turkey, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan had similar goals: "We now have a court order. We will eradicate Twitter; I don't care what the international community says. Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic."

Obama and Erdogan have company. In 2009, Iran began a crackdown on the Internet and China has been doing it for years. Last year, Russia forced Facebook to remove content that was critical of Vladimir Putin, so you might be seeing a pattern here.

Last November, President Obama called upon the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to classify the Internet as a public utility, which by doing so, would put the government in the position of having the jurisdiction to police it. 

Now that's Orwellian. 

We certainly don't need the government to have regulatory power over the Internet and with Obama as president, it could only work to the advantage of the far left and perhaps a certain religious group.

The worst part is that it's all happening too fast, and Obama is trying to bypass Congress and push this regulation through before the public gets to hear the debate. 

Now that's Pelosian.

Free speech and expression are far too important to allow a leftist like Obama to regulate them. The FCC will be voting on this issue February 26th. If this matters to you, go here to sign the petition to stop Obama. 

If you don't, you probably will not be able to read my blog or others that take an opposing point of view from the powers that be. And Twitter? Forget about it.

Tweet

First Amendment: What, He Worry?

Should the Federal Communications Commission have the right to monitor American newsrooms? Sure, if you believe they have the right to redefine the US Constitution. Think of the FCC as your Big Brother who knows what's best for you. Not.

Here's the deal. The FCC wants to launch a new study so that they can decide what you news you "need" to hear. Your opinion doesn't matter. These FCC clowns will conduct a "General Population Survey" to "measure what your real needs are versus what you think they are." So, what you perceive you need to know is not the same as what the GOVERNMENT says you need to know.