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!
Both Kinds of Standards – VARIOUS OUTLETS
So, you say you oppose this kind of military strike…now.
For days, the press has been fulminating over the Pentagon and Secretary Hegseth having committed an alleged war crime by calling for a second strike on a drug boat, killing survivors. This has since been disputed by The New York Times, but there is another issue the press has managed to step in.
In calling this an unlawful "double-tap" drone attack, it has implicated a prior president and exposed their own fluid outrage. In the recent boat strike in Venezuela, the second hit occurred within a minute in the same mission. But Barack Obama has been cited in the past for engaging in double-tap strikes, which would occur hours after an initial strike, and would involve rescue workers and civilians.
And there was barely a whisper of outrage in the press back in the day…
The media are strung up by their own language in trying to nail the Trump administration.
— Brad Slager: CNN+ Lifetime Subscriber (@MartiniShark) December 3, 2025
In declaring double-tap drone strikes a war crime, occurring within moments in a mission, it dredges up the Obama policy of waiting hours for a second strike, taking out first responders. pic.twitter.com/QakgZQCWX8
Low-Octane Gaslighting – MS NOW
Rowboats, hundreds of miles offshore…really, Rachell?!
Leave it to Rachel Maddow to concoct delirious fantasies to sell her narratives. It is always so precious. In her latest effort at crafting fables, she is describing these hits by the military being executed on innocent fishermen on "boats without motors." Uh-huh, sure, Rachel.
We'll just ignore the actual footage showing these have been watercraft with triple 300hp Evenrude outboards cutting a severe wake in the open ocean.
WATCH: Rachel Maddow says the Trump admin. is targeting Venezuelan narco-terrorists to illegally deport people from America
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) December 3, 2025
"They declared a war. Then, they needed a reason for the war."
"Why are we killing people in boats without motors?" pic.twitter.com/BIJiCmtwNo
Pathological Media Amnesia – MS NOW
We do not know if she can explain the difference; we just know that she never will.
On the topic of drone strikes and convenient outrage, Ms. Maddow displays a rather interpretational approach to when it is wrong and when it is proper to target individuals with drone attacks.
There was a time when Maddow was actually in support of a president using drones to arbitrarily take out human targets, be they terrorists or civilians. Of course, that was when it was Barack Obama, who ordered hundreds of these strikes, often taking out civilians in the process.
Find me a bigger phony and hypocrite on TV than Rachel, win valuable prizes. https://t.co/fHHaoG7XBA pic.twitter.com/BK7RxpZag8
— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) December 3, 2025
Legalized Press-titution – ROLLING STONE
Why is it so hard to criticize a murderer?
The recasting of the killer who ambushed two National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., killing one, continues. For some reason, the press continues to look into possible influences that led this poor soul to lash out in this unhealthy manner.
The latest is the music and quasi-news magazine to delve into the motivations that we should consider when looking sympathetically at the Afghan man who committed premeditated homicide.
A fellow unit member describes how the alleged D.C. National Guard shooter felt abandoned by the CIA:
— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) December 1, 2025
“He’d say, ‘I am working nine years or 10 years with [the] U.S. government. [They] never answer my phone [call].’”
Story: https://t.co/xStLmvC3iD pic.twitter.com/CcKH4xYoFu
Body Checking the Fact-Checkers – SNOPES
So your point is that even though she said it, she did not REALLY mean it?
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MN-12) is easily one of the most contemptible members of Congress, and she seems to revel in that character trait. She was recently called out for a speech she gave, where she was openly hostile toward this country and called for an uprising from antagonistic Hamas supporters.
Snopes decided to fact-check the claim that she wanted this uprising, calling it FALSE that she wants "Hamas supporters to mobilize and take over America."
Small problem here. They provided the transcript of her speech, and it sure sounds like she did that very thing:
They will never truly comprehend, even after seven decades, that we aren't going anywhere. We are just getting started. I want to say to all of them — every genocide enabler — look at this room, motherf*****s, we ain't going anywhere! Real change doesn't come from the cowards and warmongers in Congress. It comes from the streets, it comes from all of us mobilizing and seizing the power to resist and fight back.
She was not speaking as an American or motivating Democrats. Just to clarify, all of her use of "we" and "us" was in her speech given at the People's Conference for Palestine.
❌ Rep. Rashida Tlaib did not publicly call for Hamas supporters to "mobilize and take over America," as posts claim. Here's what she actually said. 👇 https://t.co/ZU8IvI7IoB pic.twitter.com/ZOfPsQFAFZ
— snopes.com (@snopes) December 3, 2025
Stealth Story Evolution – NATURE
Sure sounds like it is acceptable to question the "science," now.
It is a common trait in any discussion on the climate that if you dare inquire about the accuracy of studies or even go so far as to challenge the news reports on our impending doom, you get slapped with the "Science Denier!" label. It is especially quaint when this happens after providing conflicting evidence that is scientific data.
Now, we see another example in the unending line of revisionist reporting on the promised demise of our planet. It was in the Spring of 2024 that Nature published a study on the economic impacts of climate change, stipulating that by 2049, we would encounter $38 trillion in additional global costs. This study was adapted by industries and politicians worldwide.
Nature has now announced it is taking down the study entirely, due to flawed data and overestimations seen throughout:
The authors acknowledge that these changes are too substantial for a correction, leading to the retraction of the paper. An updated version of the paper with these changes, which has yet to undergo peer review, is publicly available with continued open access to its data and methodology.
Nature retracts a study claiming “climate change would cause far more economic damage by the end of the century than previous estimates had suggested.”
— Steve McGuire (@sfmcguire79) December 3, 2025
It “grabbed headlines and citations around the world and was incorporated in risk management scenarios used by central banks.” pic.twitter.com/xq8ux8p6Xk
