Morning news brief

CBS News effort called a 'blatant sham' by expert: 'Yet another embarrassment'

A veteran journalist and former New York Times public editor called out CBS News' gesture toward public accountability as a "blatant sham."The network's Donald Trump-aligned new owners tapped Kenneth R. Weinstein, a former chief executive of the right-leaning Hudson Institute, to review complaints about its coverage as ombudsman, but media expert Margaret Sullivan wrote on her "American Crisis" Substack that he had failed to be independent or transparent as promised."From the get-go, there was no reason to think this would be a real thing — a person whose first responsibility was to the CBS audience and whose first interest was fairness in the public interest," Sullivan wrote. "First off, Weinstein had no background in supervising news coverage. He was a denizen of the right-leaning think tank, the Hudson Institute, a vocal champion of Israel, a critic of the Biden administration and a big donor to Republican and pro-Trump political groups.""I’m not sure how this amounts to independence," she added.Weinstein had been "notably unresponsive" to viewer complaints about CBS News, which has seen "60 Minutes" stars like Anderson Cooper and Scott Pelley flee and ratings collapse, and Sullivan said the network's ombudsman had done remarkably little to respond to the tumult."Despite the lip service to 'transparency,' his role was never meant to face outwards, as is the norm with news ombudsmen; rather, if he saw a problem, he’d report it to his corporate bosses," Sullivan wrote.The Times recently reported on Weinstein's public silence, noting that he hadn't issued any statements about the CBS News controversies or issued any guidance to staffers, and employees say he's told them he is scheduled to work only one day a month."It’s absurd," Sullivan wrote."I know something about this because I was the fifth 'public editor' at the New York Times, a role dedicated to making sure the news organization was fair and was serving the public interest," she added. "The way the Times’s position was structured created actual, not fake, transparency."Sullivan compared her workload – several blog posts each week and a more formal column every other week, in addition to fielding hundred of emails and calls – to Weinstein's duties, and she suggested five topics the CBS News ombudsman could look into during his seemingly singular workday.For example, Sullivan urged him to investigate editor-in-chief Bari Weiss delaying Alfonsi's El Salvador prison report amid a pending merger; mass departures of top talent like Cooper, Pelley and "60 Minutes" executive producer Tanya Simon; CBS Evening News' ratings collapse under Dokoupil; CBS Mornings' steep audience drop post-Pelley; and whether Weiss's pro-Israel views compromise Gaza coverage independence."I could go on, but you get the picture," Sullivan said. "So does the public, if comments on the Times article are any indication. It’s (yet another) embarrassment to CBS News."

'Wow': Legal expert flags 'two telling confessions' from Fox News host

Legal analyst and journalist Marcy Wheeler, who writes under the handle EmptyWheel, mocked Fox News host Laura Ingraham this week over a segment celebrating the end of Biden-era protections for Haitian immigrants, arguing Ingraham's framing revealed "two telling confessions."The segment aired during Fox's coverage from Trump's Great American State Fair in Washington, D.C. In it, Ingraham promoted comments from White House adviser Stephen Miller declaring the Biden administration's Haiti policy finished."STEPHEN MILLER MAKES IT CLEAR: BIDEN'S HAITI POLICY IS OVER," Ingraham wrote in a post sharing the clip, quoting the assessment that the policy "was one of the most heinous things this government has ever done."That characterization is what caught Wheeler's attention, and she reacted with mock astonishment, arguing Ingraham had inadvertently revealed more than she intended."WOWOW," Wheeler wrote, before laying out what she framed as two unintended admissions.The first, according to Wheeler, was a matter of basic timeline: that Ingraham "doesn't know who was President in 2010 or 2017" — years relevant to when Haitians received Temporary Protected Status following natural disasters, under administrations that included Trump's own first term.The second, Wheeler argued, was more pointed — that Ingraham apparently considers renewing protections for immigrants from disaster-stricken countries to be, in her framing, "one of the most heinous things this government has ever done.""Two telling confessions," Wheeler wrote.The jab lands on a recurring criticism of the right's messaging around Haitian TPS — that the timeline of who granted and extended those protections is more bipartisan and complicated than the clean partisan story suggests, and that casting humanitarian protections as among the government's worst acts says more about the speaker's priorities than about the policy itself.The exchange comes amid intense scrutiny of the administration's move to end TPS for hundreds of thousands of Haitians, a decision recently cleared by the Supreme Court and condemned by critics as racially motivated.

The Morning Briefing: We Regret to Inform You That Election Integrity Won't Be Returning

'Quite a contradiction': Analyst calls out Karoline Leavitt's bizarre claim on Fox News

A political analyst called out a striking contradiction that President Donald Trump's chief spokesperson made during an interview on Fox News. David Pakman, host of "The David Pakman Show" on YouTube, said in a recent video that Karoline Leavitt "immediately imploded" during her appearance on Fox News's "Fox & Friends" on Monday. He noted that Leavitt had a hard time explaining how the ceasefire brokered between the U.S. and Iran is going, and offered a contradiction that left him taken aback. "So, as far as we're concerned, we're holding up our end of the ceasefire, but violence will be met with violence," Leavitt told host Brian Kilmeade. "As you mentioned ... there were attacks on commercial vessels that the United States of America, directed by the president, responded to ..." Pakman described Leavitt's comments as "quite a contradiction." "That is a very conditional ceasefire," he said. Now, I'm not suggesting that what we need to be doing is looking away and going, 'We will never defend ourselves.' Of course, that's not what I'm saying. But when you've already failed to end this thing 40 times and every time it looks like negotiations are starting, Donald Trump goes, 'But we'll also destroy the country if we need to.'Why are we pouring gasoline on the fire?"

Trump news at a glance: Trump tried to appeal E Jean Carroll verdict all the way to the supreme court. They passed

The 2023 verdict found Trump liable for sexually ​abusing writer and then defaming her – key US politics stories from Monday 29 June at a glanceThe US supreme court on Monday declined Donald Trump’s request to review a New York jury’s 2023 verdict that found him liable for sexually ​abusing writer E Jean Carroll, and then defaming her.The justices did not provide an explanation or reasoning, and no public dissents were noted. The decision leaves intact the $5m civil judgment against Trump that was returned by the jury after the two-week trial in 2023. Continue reading...

Thomas, Gorsuch target landmark ruling Trump says protects the 'fake news'

Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch call for overruling New York Times v. Sullivan in their dissent over the CNN-Dershowitz defamation decision.

'Did the rapture happen?' Mockery ensues as Fox News broadcasts from empty Trump event

The internet had a hilarious response to the low attendance at President Donald Trump's Great American State Fair on Monday.Reporters broadcast live from the sparsely-attended fair commemorating America’s 250th anniversary, marked by bad weather that canceled rapper Vanilla Ice's performance, power outages melting ice cream, a Confederate flag display that ignited a firestorm and lackluster reviews from attendees. Journalist Aaron Rupar commented on a Fox News reporter's live report from the celebration."Did the rapture happen overnight? Fox & Friends is broadcasting from a completely empty Trump state fair on the National Mall," Rupar wrote on X.Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) described a similar scene."I went to the Great American State Fair this weekend…and it really was as empty as reported. **And where did the rest of our taxpayer dollars go?" Stansbury wrote on X.Another D.C.-based reporter questioned the turnout, sharing an aerial video view from the Freedom 250 Ferris wheel."The Great American State Fair on Saturday at 2:15pm. What do you make of the crowd?" Jon Michael Raasch, The Daily Mail's White House correspondent, posted on X.Strategist Christopher Webb responded to reporting from MS NOW at the location."The Great American State Fair was really just the remaining MAGA faithful refusing to admit it’s over," Webb wrote on X.Lawyer David Lurie joked about the situation."Confused attendees thought they were supposed to invade the Capitol," Lurie wrote on Bluesky.Did the rapture happen overnight? Fox & Friends is broadcasting from a completely empty Trump state fair on the National Mall pic.twitter.com/fIdDJZG4FA— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 29, 2026

Samuel Alito shamed as 'braindead Fox News viewer' for dissent in voting case

Justice Samuel Alito's legal reasoning in a landmark voting rights case was mocked as "braindead" and blamed on his presumed consumption of conservative media.The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law by a 5-4 vote allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days after it, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion finding that grace periods still met statute's requirement that voters make their choice by election day."That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote — as it is in Mississippi," Barrett wrote. "But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward."Alito authored the dissent, where he complained that "majority's holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity," and one particular argument stood out to critics."What the election-day statutes demand is that this authoritative choice be made on election day," Alito wrote. "If ballots received after election day are added to the set of ballots that dictate the election’s outcome, the electorate’s choice does not occur on election day, and the federal election-day statutes are violated."Many legal experts disagreed and faulted Alito's logic in the case."Alito’s dissent in the vote counting case makes perfect sense if you think of it from the perspective of a braindead Fox News viewer who thinks Dems are 'cheating' when more vote get counted and a Republican lead in the count is erased," argued writer Adam Serwer."Alito sounds a little bit like someone who fell in love with the chatbot here," pondered reporter Ted Mann. "The votes are inanimate. The voters are not.""Alito's argument – that counting ballots after Election Day means 'the electorate’s choice does not occur on election day, and the federal election-day statutes are violated' – is some of the dumbest reasoning I have ever seen," opined MS NOW's James Downie. "The 'choice' doesn't occur at the time of counting!""If you vote in person at 8:59 PM on Election Day but you ballot isn't counted until one or two days later, the choice was still made on Election Day," noted author and podcaster Doug Gordon. "Why would a ballot postmarked on Election Day but not received until one or two days later be any different? (Answer: Because Alito has brain worms.)""Alito 100% thinks that the 'blue shift' in vote counting represents a dynamic change in the outcome," wagered New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie. "To borrow from @kalimurray.bsky.social this is not a smart man.""I would love Alito to explain to me how he thinks elections worked in the 1790s," challenged civil rights lawyer Johsua Erlich.