Get access to Brad Slager's "Riffed From the Headlines," a daily VIP feature where he looks to bring accountability to the mainstream media. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Border-line Obsession – NEW YORKER
What’s a little homicide when you break into a country?!
It was just yesterday that we speculated that The New York Times delivered possibly the worst favorable coverage of an illegal alien with a lengthy rap sheet stealing the identity of an American and using it for years, rendering the life of the citizen as a debt-ridden, criminal curse. The paper tried to equate the men and have them both cast in a favorable light, despite the illegal having lengthy crimes on his record, as well as taking a life in an auto accident.
The New Yorker saw this horrid effort and essentially said, “Here, hold my beer.”
In attempting to draw sympathy for one man deported, the magazine highlights how he has been in this country for 50 years, and was forcibly deported to another country. What The New Yorker did not feel was a vital component in its tale of woe is that this man was CONVICTED of murder and has numerous other charges against him, including armed robbery. He has had a deportation order due to these crimes since 2009.
Not only should he not have been in the country, why he was free on the streets following this conviction is a complete sham of justice.
Orville Etoria, a Jamaican national who’d lived in New York for nearly 50 years, was shackled and put on an ICE flight to Eswatini. “It helped me imagine how the slaves might have felt, going to another land in shackles and chains,” he said. https://t.co/ikbiDVyif8
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) November 24, 2025
Dos Equis-perts Opinion – POLITIFACT
The lack of evidence was apparently not a measurable detail.
Normally, if a Republican makes a claim and PolitiFact sees a lack of approved proof, it stampedes to label that person’s comment as FALSE. But we had to place this entry in a category apart from “Body Checking the Fact-Checkers” because somehow the truth-detecting wizards at this outlet did not see fit to place a judgment on the video from the Democrats accusing illegal orders in our military.
Seriously – even as the article determines the Democrats made a baseless claim (“The video did not specify what orders the lawmakers were referring to”), PolitiFact did not rate them as being untruthful in any capacity. And then, it went further.
In the patented media method, it found some “experts” who backed up the narrative by saying it was President Trump making a baseless claim. Despite the encouragement of our military to defy direct orders being the very definition of sedition, these geniuses managed to offer up the argument that Trump had no recourse in accusing them of the very thing that they did.
After Democratic lawmakers urged U.S. military service members not to carry out illegal orders, President Donald Trump called the lawmakers’ actions seditious. Legal experts said that’s unsupported.https://t.co/EOdMPlbxo8
— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) November 24, 2025
DNC PR Firm – THE NEW YORK TIMES
They were obviously wrong, but this involves Trump, so they were obviously in the right.
David French is The New York Times’ resident “conservative.” He is also the self-appointed authority on theistic issues. So to see this anointed thinker bearing false witness is certainly distressing (/sarc).
The Sebastian Cabot of The Times looked at the sedition video from the Democrats and came to daft conclusions. He insists the Dems did not order them to defy orders, which is itself an admission they have no illegal orders to reference, and therefore, the video was propaganda of the lowest order. Then French states that soldiers are apprised of the laws of war, specifically regarding illegal orders. So then there was no need for this video to be created, which underscores that this was, in fact, an effort to compel disobedience in the ranks.
This makes no sense. Lawmakers did not tell the military to defy the president. Troops are briefed about the laws of war, including that they must not follow manifestly illegal orders. Restating the law is not violating the law. https://t.co/rDFRlwKTyJ
— David French (@DavidAFrench) November 24, 2025
Reporting on the Mirror – BBC
The mirror to the PBS/NPR process is quite obvious.
While we have been covering the controversy at the British Broadcasting Company, regarding the exposure internally of lengthy examples of violating journalism ethics, there are now incoming indicators of accountability.
The Sun reports that the BBC is facing financial challenges in the form of citizens not paying their compulsory licensing fees. British citizens are required to pay for the BBC, regardless if they watch or listen. The surprise is that this is a fee paid independently, and the network actually has people who are sent to residences to collect this fee. The issue is that a growing number of Britons have refused to pay this fee, costing the network more than $1 billion pounds last year:
Around 3.6 million households simply said they did not want to use the corporation’s services. 2.9million BBC viewers evaded paying the television tax, depriving the broadcaster. despite enforcement visits to unlicensed properties increasing by 50 per cent last year, prosecutions actually fell by 17 per cent. The BBC said “it has become harder to get people to answer their doors” to revenue officers. Some £166million — 4.3 per cent of its entire income — was spent collecting the fee.
Go woke, go broke👇
— Annunziata Rees-Mogg (@zatzi) November 21, 2025
Embattled BBC loses more than £1BILLION as record number of families refuse to pay licence feehttps://t.co/6oKOGsx4J0
Artisanally-Crafted Narratives – VARIETY
While art is interpretational, you do not need to rewrite the entire product.
There is a desire among some cultural writers to explore themes and metaphors in works that are not necessarily part of the original narrative. It is an exercise in forced intellectual analysis. We gave an example of this in the summer, when the 50th anniversary of “Jaws” was approaching. A writer at The Atlantic tried to insist that some of the thematic elements in the film were predicting the rise of Donald Trump.
In not quite as forced a fashion, but no less ridiculous, Owen Gleiberman of Variety tries to insist to us that the book that the Broadway play adapted, on which the motion pictures are based upon, was a piece of feminist dogma. But to do so he needs to inject themes into the original film from the 1930s to set the table:
Beneath its candified surface, though, what remains haunting about “The Wizard of Oz” is that the film unveils a surreal cosmology of topsy-turvy gender-role reversals. Simply put, it’s Hollywood’s first vision of the patriarchy…that dares to imagine a world after the patriarchy.
Then, as far as the “Wicked” films reflecting contemporary feminism, Gleiberman had to hedge on this point as well. The issue being, the book series began 30 years ago:
“Wicked,” the stage musical, took its first bow 22 years ago. The novel it’s based on, “Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West,” was published in 1995. All of that happened well before the #MeToo revolution.
Why Does 'The Wizard of Oz' Still Cast Such a Wicked Spell? Because It's the Movie That First Flipped the Patriarchy on Its Head https://t.co/ztr526FSR2
— Variety (@Variety) November 23, 2025
