Earlier this week, we published another post about the media's dreadful bias and corruption on the issue of illegal immigration -- which is nearly as pervasive as their bias and corruption on guns and abortion. With credibility and public trust hemorrhaging, many media members simply refuse to grapple honestly with the reasons why so few Americans believe them anymore. Some are in outright denial, lashing out at their usual bogeymen and scapegoats. They'll do anything but take a long, hard look in the mirror and actually change, it seems. The industry has been politicized and saturated with agendas for years; it's just less deniable than ever now. It therefore feels fitting that journalism's major self-congratulatory events are also deeply politicized, as are the committees that dole out 'prestigious' awards. For example, 2024's highly controversial 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, which drew criticism from conservatives and former CBS employees, has been nominated for an Emmy award. For outstanding editing. Its editing is the reason for the controversy, as critics charged that the program misleadingly cleaned up at least one of the Democratic presidential nominee's answers.
60 Minutes also famously refused to release the full, unedited transcript of the exchange, even though they'd done so on other occasions, including a previous Trump interview. Trump even sued CBS over this particular program, calling it (ridiculously, in my view) "election interference." Make no mistake, that is the reason why an otherwise-unremarkable, run-of-the-mill production "earned" an Emmy nod. Conservatives were angry about it, and Trump sued over it, so congrats -- here's your nomination. How prestigious:
60 Minutes got an "Outstanding Editing" Emmy nod for their interview with Kamala Harris. Yes, THAT interview. https://t.co/vxEip5o9IR
— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) May 3, 2025
The 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris that prompted President Trump to sue CBS was just nominated for an Emmy in the category of Outstanding Edited Interview.
— The Free Press (@TheFP) May 2, 2025
In February, CBS released the unedited footage in the face of a firestorm about the edits made to Harris’s… pic.twitter.com/mgJxV75dyZ
In the print journalism realm, here's what just won a Pulitzer. How prestigious:
Falsehoods funded by left wing dark money win Pulitzers now. Characteristic. https://t.co/jLc9coPbf0
— James Lynch (@jameslynch32) May 5, 2025
An explicitly left-wing outlet, funded by left-wing dark money, pumped out factually-false pro-abortion propaganda, and the Pulitzer committee slapped a medal on the piece. Who's surprised?
Pulitzer Price administrator Marjorie Miller suggests criticizing the mainstream media is anti-American: “Journalists and writers now face additional threats in the form of legal harassment, the banning of books, and attacks on their work and legitimacy. These efforts are meant… pic.twitter.com/qqWCDmL7TV
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 5, 2025
The entire purpose of the ProPublica story was to blame a woman's tragic death on Georgia's abortion restrictions. Kamala Harris raced down to Georgia to give a speech about it and exploit the issue for political gain, which was the whole point. That its central premise was factually flawed is beside the point, including or especially to the Pulitzer award-givers. But that doesn't change the reality that it was factually flawed:
Recommended
ProPublica reports that a state committee deemed Thurman’s death “preventable” and argues that delays in Thurman’s care were caused by Georgia’s pro-life laws. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media opportunistically pounced on this tragic story. It was covered by the New York Times, Slate, Mother Jones, People, and numerous other mainstream media outlets. Countless politicians and elected officials got in on the act. Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris mentioned the story on Twitter, stating that “Trump Abortion Bans prevent doctors from providing basic medical care.” Harris even plans to give a speech today in Georgia where she will tout her support for legal abortion and will likely blame Georgia’s pro-life laws for Thurman’s untimely death...Georgia’s pro-life heartbeat act was not responsible for Thurman’s death. That is because the law allows physicians to intervene in cases of medical emergencies or if the preborn child has no detectable heartbeat. Both of these clearly applied in Thurman’s case. Furthermore, a D&C to remove the remains of an unborn child that has died is not an abortion and is not criminalized in Georgia...In this case, Thurman’s death was caused by chemical-abortion pills.
Georgia’s LIFE Act was not the cause of Thurman’s death. Rather, a cascading series of causes — ranging from loosened FDA regulations, medical malpractice, and anti-life fearmongering — led to Thurman’s tragic death. The primary cause of her death was sepsis, a potential side effect of the most common chemical abortifacient — a regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol. Crucially, the FDA has dramatically loosened regulations on the drugs in recent years — regulations that would help keep women safe...There is no reason, under Georgia’s law, that a doctor should have been afraid to treat Thurman. Pro-abortion groups have fostered terror among doctors and patients alike, furthering the false narrative that they will be prosecuted for administering or receiving lifesaving care under pro-life legislation. Women are afraid to get the care they need — and doctors are afraid to do their jobs — for fear of nonexistent consequences.
The 'reporting' advanced the cause of unfettered abortion-on-demand and also provided an emotional, if deceitful, electoral attack line for Democrats. The 'reporting' has therefore been rewarded with a Pultizer. This is how far-left clubs operate, squeezing the last drops of "prestige" out of accolades and institutions that formerly held much more meaning and widespread respect. Not all recipients are undeserving, of course, but the whole enterprise is tainted. Here's another example of embarassing, reputation-ruining institutional capture at the Pulitzer committee:
The 1619 Project based its entire argument on a set of hilariously wrong historical claims—and when they got called out for it, they went back and stealth-edited the entire piece, hoping no one would notice.
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) May 5, 2025
In 2020, they won a Pulitzer Prize.
The whole thing is beyond parody. https://t.co/En2h3S1jo2
The 1619 project was brazenly ahistorical. It was an ideological misinformation document pushing a racial agenda, masquerading as truth-telling "history." After an array of historians ripped it to shreds, as Sen. Schmitt notes, the New York Times made quiet but intensive after-the-fact edits. Its primary author was celebrated in leftist circles despite the cascade of challenges on accuracy and ethics, because truth wasn't especially relevant. Pulitzer slapped a medal on 1619 because it represented the left-wing zeitgeist at the time. How prestigious.
