A wide ranging commentary and dialogue
on the media, politics, today's headlines and the popular culture. Always fresh and new every day! Now celebrating our second decade and more than 28 million page views. Nationally recognized, widely quoted, newsworthy, noteworthy.
and gas just dipped under $4
An affordability crisis? Hmmm . . . could it be that it's been been manufactured by the media and the left for the midterms? Sadly, when something is repeated enough people begin to assume it's the truth.
*As high as $4.95 per dozen at the end of Biden's term, or have you forgotten?
Attorney and columnist Christine Flowers and Dan tackle the topic of the moment: Crisis at Cornell, The Court of Law vs The Court of Public Opinion. What's happening and why -- and what are the legal ramifications?
It's happened again. Just a few weeks ago, we saw it in the heart-wrenching trial of Lindsay Clancy. And now, the possibilities loom once more in the explosive rape allegations coming out of Cornell University, one of America's most prestigious institutes of higher education.
We're talking about the clash between the court of law and the court of public opinion.
In today's media saturated world knowing the difference between the court of law and the court of public opinion is vital if you want to have any sense of what's actually happening.
The most important thing to remember about the court of law and the court of public opinion is that they couldn't be more different.
They are almost like the two sides of the brain. One's more rational and linear. The other's more intuitive and non-linear. Think of the court of law as the verbatim transcript of a murder trial. Then, think of the court of public opinion as the same trial reported by TMZ. That's an exaggeration, to be sure. But now, you're starting to comprehend the difference. For a better understanding, consider the following:
1) In the court of law, facts theoretically count for something and the facts of the case are collected carefully and methodically and presented in some kind of order. In the court of public opinion, the facts may not be facts at all, and what information is brought forward is collected in a haphazard and fragmented manner and presented in bits and pieces in an often sensationalized fashion.
2) In the court of law, the rules are reasonably clear and they are presented to and known by all parties beforehand. In the court of public opinion, there really are few if any rules and besides, even if rules seem to exist, those rules can change at any moment.
3) In the court of law, the principals pretty much know who the main characters in the drama will be. In the court of public opinion, we never know who will pop up on which side and what role he or she may play.
4) Generally, the court of law is quiet and structured. People speak when spoken to. Only one person speaks at a time. Equal time is given for each side to present its case. A single presiding officer remains in charge. There is a clear sense of order and authority. The court of public opinion, on the other hand, is noisy and often downright chaotic. People do not wait to speak. Sometimes several voices are heard at once. While equal time guidelines may seem to exist, that does not mean they will be observed. No one seems to know who is in charge and the party who appears to have the "upper hand" may change many times during the course of the proceedings. There is virtually no sense of structure or order.
5) In the court of law, the proceedings have a beginning, a middle and an end. At some point, the matter is brought to a conclusion. A decision is made. In the court of public opinion, there often is no finality - no deciding moment. Just when you thought the story was over, a new chapter emerges. Today's victory can be tomorrow's debacle. The hero of 2025 is the villain of 2026. "Hot-button" issues now are "old hat" in a matter of weeks if not days.
If these contrasts seem to smack of hyperbole, think for a moment about some of the stories and characters that have inhabited the court of public opinion in recent years. The murder of George Floyd and the trial of Derek Chauvin. The charges against Kyle Rittenhouse and his subsequent law suit. The tales and travails of Jussie Smollett. Britney Spears' financial tussle with her dad. The legal journey of Bill Cosby. And, of course, who can ever forget the O.J. Simpson trial which became its own long-running daytime drama?
And now the Clancy case and impending allegations of a gang rape. One continues to play out in the court of public opinion following a hung jury while the other unfolds as a possible future trial.
The court of public opinion hosts a variety of issues and personalities in a continuously chaotic, unpredictable setting. The whole show unravels in front of an often mesmerized audience that isn't always sure what it's seeing or what to think about it.
Now, all along, of course, the audience is part of the show as the principals carry out a breakneck effort to sway the jury of public opinion. Glancing into this shrill well of public discourse, one can understand Ralph Waldo Emerson's frustration when he concluded: "The people are to be taken in very small doses."
Ideally, one would hope for a strong, sturdy wall between the two courts. But that simply is not the case -- if, indeed it ever was.
In the end, democracy demands that the people's voice be heard. That voice is what we call public opinion. And that collective opinion is monitored, scrutinized, analyzed, disseminated, amplified, manipulated and some might say magnified to the point where it is a force unto itself.
And the court of public opinion is the collective environment in which this continuing process occurs. It is an environment inhabited by media moguls, TV cameras, cell phones, street reporters, satellite dishes, pollsters, newspaper scribes, podcasters, focus groups, social media influencers, bloggers, reality TV, marketing strategists, docudramas, packs of paparazzi, anchorpersons, commentators, talking heads, serious authors and ordinary Janes and Joes. Like it or not, it's a vital and integral part of what we call the popular culture.
And, for better or worse, today's savvy lawyers are attuned to the court of public opinion and are adept at playing it like a fine instrument to advance their case in the court of law. They thrive within the periodic intersection of the two courts.
Or, as Billy Flynn sings in the iconic musical Chicago:
Give 'em the old three ring circus Stun and stagger 'em When you're in trouble, go into your dance
Though you are stiffer than a girder They'll let you get away with murder Razzle dazzle 'em And you've got a romance.
Last week, President Donald J. Trump removed CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House grounds after yearsoffalsereporting. The First Amendment protects their right to publish; it does not entitle them to a hard pass, briefing room seat, or place in the press pool.
Access changes are nothing new. What is new, however, is the sudden claim that it becomes sacred only when the outlets are friendly to the Radical Left. The rule was never “every outlet gets in.” It was always “our side stays in.”
For years, Democrat Administrations have restricted, punished, and locked out the press.
2009: The Obama White House branded Fox News as the “research arm” and “communications arm” of the Republican Party, barred it from a round of exclusive Sunday show interviews, instructed agencies to “skip” including it in pooled coverage, derided it as “really not news,” and undertook an all-out effort to isolate the organization. Barack Hussein Obama now calls a Fox ban “unimaginable,” but his White House tried it — and his spokesman admitted they were willing to do it.
2010: The Obama Justice Department labeled Fox News correspondent James Rosen a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal leak case, secretly monitored his emails and phone calls, and tracked his movements — an “unprecedented” level of surveillance and intimidation of a journalist over his reporting.
2011: Obama White House officials restricted the Boston Herald from coverage — writing that pool slots depended on covering Obama “fairly” — after the paper ran a front page Mitt Romney op-ed.
2011: After a San Francisco Chronicle reporter recorded protesters interrupting an Obama fundraiser, White House officials threatened to strip the outlet from access and warned of retaliation if the paper reported on it.
2012: The Obama Justice Department secretly seized two months of telephone records covering more than 20 Associated Press lines used by more than a dozen journalists — targeting them over their reporting.
2023: The Biden White House blockedNew York Post reporter Steven Nelson from covering the President’s only daytime public event — despite empty seats in the room — after the reporter pressed Biden on his family’s shady business dealings.
2023: The Biden Administration restricted more than 440 reporters from White House access through a new, retroactive press credentialing process — with independent and conservative journalists taking a heavy share of the hit. The White House Correspondents’ Association barely objected.
2008: In the Obama campaign’s final days, senior campaign officials pulled reporters from three prominent outlets off the traveling press plane — restricting them from coverage after the papers endorsed Obama’s opponent.
2021: The same media now suing once urged a ban on Fox News. CNN’s Brian Stelter repeatedlyfloated removing Fox News from the White House press tool as a “political tool,” and later even suggested Fox News be dropped from cable altogether.
During the first 100 days of President Trump’s second term, the Media Research Center found that 92% of coverage by mainstream outlets was negative compared to nearly 60% positive coverage during the same period under Biden. That’s more like a political operation with cameras than a free press holding power to account.
No President is required to host a hostile operation on the grounds. Access has always been a privilege — and President Trump is applying that rule.
Gentlemen,This is a hard note to write.I have watched your shows for years. I will miss you. You have been straight with the country when a lot of people were not.I will not be watching anymore. After Fox pushed Maria Bartiromo out the door, I cannot keep supporting this network. Maria stood with the people who actually watch Fox. The way she was treated is a line I will not cross.This is not about you three. It is about the company. I will not give Fox my time or my loyalty after this.Thank you for the years. I wish you well.Respectfully, True Patriot Voice
Fox Corp has parted ways with Maria Bartiromo. In other words, far as we can tell, she's been fired!
And WE are not amused. Not one bit! Maria has always been tops in our book.
In fact, anyone who knows her or has worked with her can tell you that she is/was the hardest-working journalist at the company -- in fact, she's one of the hardest working journalists anywhere where and she's been an absolute trailblazer for women.
Maria worked at CNN as a producer for five years before joining CNBC in 1993, where she worked on-air for 20 years. She was the first television journalist to deliver live television reports from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. She has won numerous awards for her work on these programs, including two Emmy Awards.
Maria has given everything to her 12 years of work at Fox Corp. And she certainly did not deserve the manner in which she was dismissed --abruptly and apparently without explanation.
She worked six days a week and had a presence on their platforms seven days a week.
She was always a class act and embodied what journalism should be.
Fox stripped Maria's name off every show she built. Mornings with Maria is now just Mornings with FOX Business. Her Friday night Wall Street show got the same treatment. Sunday Morning Futures is being handed to Jason Chaffetz this weekend while they figure out a replacement.
We look forward to seeing what she does next.
BTW: there's even been some talk that Maria may become the new White House press secretary. We imagine she can pretty much have her pick at Newsmax or News Nation or any one of a number of other outlets that would be glad to have her.
Be sure of this: we will follow Maria wherever she goes. As for Fox -- shame on em!
"Serving as the White House Press Secretary over the past year and a half has been the honor and adventure of a lifetime. I am incredibly grateful to President Trump for granting me so many extraordinary opportunities, such as working in the West Wing and spending countless hours in the Oval Office, flying around the world and meeting foreign leaders, and traveling across our beautiful country and meeting Americans from all walks of life.
Most of all, I am thankful to the President for entrusting me with the distinct privilege of speaking on his behalf at the White House podium. I have spoken with great pride about the many historic accomplishments of this Administration, and I have relished holding the liberal media accountable and ensuring the American people hear the truth about President Trump’s successes.
Being a mother and welcoming a new baby while working in one of the most demanding jobs in the world has been the most rewarding yet challenging season of my life, to say the least. The truth is since returning to the White House after the birth of my daughter, I have felt in my heart that I cannot be the best mom my two young children deserve while devoting the constant time, energy, and attention required of the White House Press Secretary — and that is why I have ultimately made the bittersweet decision to depart the White House and embark on a new chapter in my life.
President Trump has asked me to continue serving as a top advisor to him on the outside, and I will always remain a vocal advocate for MAGA and the Republican Party.
Our country is facing an existential threat from an increasingly extremist Democrat Party that seeks to destroy everything great about America, and I believe it is incumbent upon all of us who care about this country to fight back against that threat. My fight is entering a new phase, but it is far from over.
Thank you again to the President, the First Lady, and the entire Trump family for your kindness and generosity over the years. Thank you to our amazing Chief of Staff Susie Wiles for empowering me since the day she hired me on the campaign, and to the President’s cabinet, my staff, colleagues, and friends at the White House who work so hard on behalf of our nation. It has been a privilege to serve alongside so many accomplished and impressive people, and I look forward to cheering them on over the next two and a half years.
And of course, thank you most especially to my loving and supportive husband and family for the sacrifices they made for me to serve in this role.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “I know you're flustered now, and it is…”
CNN’s Dana Bash: “I'm not flustered at all.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “Do you see your job as ending vaccine hesitancy, or do you see your job as telling the truth to the American people?”
Dana Bash: “I see my job as telling the truth. And the truth is that there is study after study after study. It's one of the most studied things out there in science.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “You're repeating it like a parrot. You're repeating it like a parrot.”
“I have actually read the science.”
“Let's you and I come back here and debate the science.”
Dana Bash: “I'm not debating this with you.”
Robert F. Kennedy: “Of course you won't. All you know how to do is repeat things that people told you and say, trust the experts.”
“That's what you did during COVID. Now we know that Anthony Fauci, who was the expert, was lying about everything, about masks, about the social distancing, about natural immunity, about the transmission from the vaccine, about the source of COVID.”
“[Fauci] was lying, and you were punishing people for not trusting the experts. And now you're rolling out the experts again to talk about something that you have no personal knowledge of.”
“Your job is to tell the truth to the American public.”
“A lot of people hate Trump, and that's fine. But if you're watching a news network that refuses to air the president of the United States, they're not giving you a chance to think for yourself. They're telling you what to think.”
Six swing states pretty much simultaneously, like clockwork, stopped counting votes on election night, November 3, 2020.
So, let me get this straight: Six swing states simultaneously and like clockwork—a conspiracy—stopped counting on election night, November 3, 2020, and not a single member of the U.S. Congress has asked the obvious question:
