A Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission tore into the panel’s recent actions under its new chairman, without naming him, saying the agency has been “weaponized to chill speech and to punish the press.” “We are witnessing a dangerous precedent: the transformation of an independent regulator into an instrument of political censorship,” Anna Gomez, a 2023 Biden appointee, said Thursday during a fiery speech at the 2025 Media Institute Communications Forum in Washington, DC. Gomez did not directly name Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed FCC chair who has used his authority to pressure media outlets President Donald Trump has deemed unfavorable. Carr has opened investigations into PBS and NPR over their sponsorship practices; reopened a probe of CBS for “news distortion;” reinstated complaints against ABC for its handling of a presidential debate between Trump and then-Vice President Kamala Harris; and opened new probes into NBCUniversal and Disney, ABC’s parent company, over their promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. “This FCC has made clear that it will go after any news outlet that dares to report the truth if that truth is unfavorable to this administration,” Gomez said. In contrast, she applauded past FCC chairs who demonstrated “courage” by “refusing to wield the agency’s licensing authority as a weapon… even in the face of political pressure.” Gomez said she will “refuse to stay quiet” as the federal government “weaponizes its regulatory tools” to violate the First Amendment and attack the news media. After fellow commissioner Geoffrey Starks resigns this spring, Gomez will be the lone Democrat on the five-seat commission, alongside Carr and another Trump appointee. The remaining slot currently sits vacant. “Unfortunately, the administration efforts to censor and control appear to be working, at least for now,” Gomez said. “Some media outlets are finding it is easier to retreat in the face of government threats, veiled or otherwise, than to be responsive to their audiences.” Gomez pointed to changes at CBS News and its flagship news program “60 Minutes” as examples of what gets lost when political pressure comes to bear on reporting the news. CBS News is reportingly considering a settlement of a lawsuit brought by President Trump, which accuses the broadcaster of deliberately mis-editing a “60 Minutes” interview with Harris to manipulate the November election. While many experts have deemed the lawsuit to be bogus, CBS parent Paramount Global has begun discussing a settlement, especially as company chair Shari Redstone looks to complete a merger with Skydance Media — a deal that will require signoff from Carr’s FCC. The pressure to settle the lawsuit and clear the way for a merger has trickled down to CBS News. In late April, longtime “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens stepped down because he felt he could no longer make “independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes,” according to a memo he wrote to the show’s staff. Days later, the newsmagazine’s host Scott Pelley said on-air that Paramount had begun “to supervise our content in new ways” amid the Trump pressure, leading Owens to feel “he had lost the independence that honest journalism requires.” “Pardon my language, but that is a B.F.D.,” Gomez said on Thursday of the “60 Minutes” ordeal, using a shorthand for “big f**ing deal.” She continued: “Corporate parents should give journalists the independence they need. A free press requires free journalists.” Gomez closed by saying that if she’s removed from her seat, “it wasn’t because I failed to do my job. It’s because I insisted on doing it.”

Max will rebrand once more as HBO Max. Speaking on stage during Warner Bros. Discovery’s Upfront presentation to advertisers, HBO chief executive Casey Bloys announced that the company’s streaming platform, Max, would revert to its previous name, HBO Max. WBD executives emphasized that the move is an attempt to emphasize its strongest offerings. “We all know this industry is cluttered. Streaming has become a lot like fast fashion,” Max chief marketing officer Shauna Spenley said on Wednesday. “So when we think about our competitive advantage, it’s the same one that we’ve had at HBO for the last 50 years.” WBD changed HBO Max’s name to Max in 2023 shortly after WarnerMedia and Discovery merged, creating WBD, in 2022. The company originally rebranded the service as HBO Max in 2020, having pivoted away from the previous name HBO Now, which it announced in 2015. (WBD is also CNN’s parent company.) By changing the streaming platform’s name roughly two years ago, WBD intended to highlight its diversity of offerings, which include original IP from HBO, Warner Bros. Pictures and Discovery. While Warner Bros. Pictures has seen box office success recently with “A Minecraft Movie” and “Sinners,” the company has suffered several misfires. For years, WBD’s superhero arm, DC Studios, has lagged behind Disney’s Marvel Studios, which, despite historic successes, have seen diminishing returns in recent years as audiences experience superhero fatigue. The change pushes HBO, the crown jewel in WBD’s content coffers, to the forefront as it looks to draw audiences to the platform. Though WBD’s latest quarterly earnings saw Max report 5.3 million new subscribers, the company still lags behind rivals Netflix and Amazon Prime Video.

A voting technology firm suing Fox News for defamation over its 2020 election coverage claimed senior corporate executives, including Rupert Murdoch, intentionally destroyed damning evidence in the case, according to court filings. Smartmatic levied the stunning new allegations on Wednesday, alleging in court filings that Fox “orchestrated the destruction of text messages across all levels of their corporate hierarchy… despite a clear duty to preserve evidence.” In the highly redacted filings, Smartmatic claimed Murdoch and his son Lachlan Murdoch were among the Fox officials who “deleted their texts” in an “extensive and willful” fashion — and not by accident. Rupert Murdoch was chairman of Fox Corporation during the 2020 election, and his son was CEO. The elder Murdoch stepped down in 2023 and his son became Fox Corp. chairman. A Fox spokesperson said the latest allegations from Smartmatic were a “desperate attempt to distract” from a recent evidentiary ruling that was decided in the network’s favor. “Smartmatic weakly attempts to resurrect stale, baseless discovery issues that actually were disclosed by Fox and resolved two years ago,” the Fox spokesperson said. “These issues have no bearing on the merits of Smartmatic’s case, which has fallen apart at every turn.” Smartmatic claimed the deleted texts were from November and December 2020, when numerous Fox hosts promoted the debunked lie that Smartmatic machines rigged that year’s presidential election against President Donald Trump. Evidence from a related case established that around the same time, Rupert Murdoch and other top Fox officials – as well as on-air hosts, producers, and fact-checkers – said they did not believe the claims of massive voter fraud that were being promoted on Fox News’ shows. “Fox has eliminated contemporaneous texts that would have revealed further evidence of what Fox executives knew about the falsity of their broadcasts,” Smartmatic lawyers wrote in the filing. “While it championed election fraud on air, behind the scenes Fox ensured that many of its executives’ incriminating communications would never see daylight.” The long-running lawsuit doesn’t yet have a trial date in New York state court. Smartmatic asked the judge overseeing the case to tell the eventual jury that Fox destroyed evidence, and that they can assume that the evidence would’ve hurt Fox’s defense. The right-wing network denies wrongdoing and says the case threatens First Amendment press freedoms. Fox’s lawyers have said Smartmatic is “a failing election company that was in financial free fall” and the lawsuit is nothing more than a “meritless cash grab.” The latest evidentiary squabbles come as both sides try to strengthen their hand before a trial, or in potential settlement negotiations, which are commonly how major defamation cases are resolved. On Tuesday, an appeals court granted Fox News access to documents about a separate federal bribery indictment against senior Smartmatic executives, which the network believes will bolster its defense in the defamation lawsuit. (The defendants in that bribery case have pleaded not guilty and Smartmatic has denied any wrongdoing.) Lawyers for Fox have argued that Smartmatic isn’t entitled to the billions of dollars its seeking in damages because its reputation was already tarnished by its controversial foreign dealings, as highlighted by the alleged Philippines bribery scheme laid out in the federal indictment. Earlier in the litigation, which has been ongoing since February 2021, Smartmatic faced accusations from Fox of improperly deleting materials, which the voting company denied. A New York appeals court ruled that Smartmatic needed to provide Fox with some of its internal communications about deleting text messages. A Fox spokesperson said Wednesday that the network would soon file its own motion outlining this “massive failure to preserve evidence” by Smartmatic.

Fox News lawyers will soon receive new documents that could bolster their defense against Smartmatic’s defamation lawsuit over the 2020 election. Reversing a lower court decision, a New York appeals court ruled Tuesday that Fox News can obtain disputed materials about a separate federal bribery indictment against senior Smartmatic executives. The conservative cable network says the documents are crucial to its defense in the defamation lawsuit. Smartmatic, a voting technology company based in Florida, sued Fox News and its parent corporation in 2021, claiming that the network’s conspiracy theory-tinged coverage of the 2020 election destroyed its reputation. Numerous on-air hosts and guests promoted the debunked lie that Smartmatic machines rigged the 2020 results against President Donald Trump. Adding to its legal troubles, three current and former executives at Smartmatic were charged last year by the Justice Department with allegedly paying more than $1 million in bribes to secure a contract in the Philippines. The defendants in the bribery case have pleaded not guilty, and Smartmatic denies criminal wrongdoing. Fox has argued that if Smartmatic’s reputation was damaged, it was because of its controversial foreign dealings — not because of news coverage about the 2020 election. “We are pleased with the Court’s ruling that materials about Smartmatic executives’ indictments are ‘plainly relevant’ to its lack of damages,” Fox said in a statement on Tuesday. “The factual evidence shows that Smartmatic’s business and reputation were badly suffering long before any claims by President Trump’s lawyers on Fox News.” Lawyers from Fox News say the case threatens First Amendment press freedoms. They say the network impartially covered claims from Donald Trump’s lawyers about possible voter fraud. Smartmatic wants an even bigger payday than Dominion Voting Systems, which was similarly smeared by Fox News and settled a defamation lawsuit with the network in 2023 for a whopping $787 million. But the Dominion case established that Fox News executives, hosts, producers and fact-checkers didn’t believe the voter fraud claims that were being promoted on its airwaves. Smartmatic has expanded on this record to boost its own case, and its attorneys have argued that Fox’s on-air lies created $2.7 billion in damages. (Pro-Trump cable channel Newsmax settled a separate defamation lawsuit from Smartmatic for $40 million last year.) “The discovery that Smartmatic has already produced shows that Fox’s campaign of lies was the number one cause of Smartmatic’s injuries,” Smartmatic lawyer Erik Connolly said in a statement. “Fox trying to blame anyone other than itself for Smartmatic’s injuries is just more lies from Fox. The writing is on the wall. Lies have consequences.” Both Fox and Smartmatic have asked the New York judge presiding over the case to end the lawsuit now without going to a jury. Those motions are still pending. If there isn’t a settlement, the case could possibly head to trial by 2026.

After much teasing and speculation, ESPN has finally unveiled the details of its new flagship streaming service. While the streamer long had the working title “Flagship,” the Disney-owned sports network revealed the platform, slated to launch in the fall, will be called something even simpler: ESPN. “As we explored options, we kept coming back to our four letters ESPN,” network chairman James Pitaro explained during a press event on Tuesday morning. “There’s power in our name, and there’s trust in our name.” The direct-to-consumer platform will feature two subscription tiers at launch, said Roz Durant, ESPN’s executive vice president of programming and acquisitions. The unlimited plan will cost $29.99 per month (or $45.99 when bundled with Disney+ and Hulu) and will give users access to all things ESPN — including ESPNs 2 and 3, along with ESPNU, ESPN Deportes and a slate of college sports-focused networks. “That’s 47,000 live events, studio shows and more every year,” Durant said. The other plan, titled “select,” will cost $11.99 per month and will include all content currently available on the ESPN+ over-the-top service. Since the platform was first announced, Disney executives have touted the streamer as an immersive new experience for sports fans. During a sit-down with CNBC last year, Disney chief executive Bob Iger hailed the streaming service as “very user-friendly because it’s more app-based.” The streamer reveal comes as Disney looks to shore up its subscriber numbers, as its linear networks have been challenged by the same cord-cutting habits as the rest of the industry. However, live sporting events have proved relatively impervious to the viewership declines felt across traditional television. That’s why Disney was willing to spend big to ensure ESPN would retain its NBA rights, especially among an overcrowded streaming sector, with heavyweights like Netflix, Amazon’s Prime Video and WBD’s Max carving up access to sporting events. During its quarterly report last week, Disney posted strong earnings despite the economic headwinds from President Donald Trump’s tariff chaos. Revenue at ESPN was up 5% to $4.53 billion, even as operating income dropped 16%. Disney attributed that drop to increased programming and production costs from three additional college football playoff games and an added NFL game during the quarter, though these helped increase domestic advertising revenue 29%. To ensure a smooth launch, Iger said on the earnings call that linear ESPN subscribers will automatically get the ESPN flagship streamer. ESPN’s streamer reveal comes just over four months after the collapse of Venu Sports, the joint sports streaming venture among Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney, and Fox. In Venu’s final months, Disney began touting its own streaming platform, hedging its bets as it became increasingly clear there was no path for Venu to launch. (WBD is CNN’s parent company.) The trio’s decision not to launch the JV came after they ended a months-long lawsuit from Fubo four days earlier. Despite that, reports had emerged that satellite TV providers DirecTV and Dish had asked a judge to reconsider dismissing Fubo’s case, signaling further delays in the platform’s launch.

“Indefensible.” “It’s a bribe.” “Such a stain” on the administration. Some of President Donald Trump’s staunchest supporters are among the loudest critics of his plan to accept a jet from Qatar for use as Air Force One. In a rare break from the cheerleading that typifies MAGA media outlets, some commentators are using their platforms to urge Trump to change his mind about the highly unusual gift. Others are encouraging Trump voters to consider how they’d react if a Democratic president hatched the same plan. “I think if we switched the names to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, we’d all be freaking out on the right,” Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro said Monday on his podcast. Shapiro also linked the potential Qatari deal with other reports of “influence peddling,” like Trump’s cryptocurrency sweepstakes. “The administration’s policy is too important for this sort of activity,” Shapiro said, emphasizing that he wants Trump to succeed. “President Trump promised to drain the swamp. This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.” Some Trump-aligned commentators and social media stars are echoing the president’s talking points about the luxury jet, including his insistence that only “stupid people” would turn down such a gift. Some MAGA media outlets are deflecting the criticism by sowing doubt about the media coverage of the controversy However, a striking number of Trump boosters sound almost as outraged as the Democratic lawmakers who say accepting the plane would be profoundly unethical and possibly illegal. Many of these right-wing critics, like Laura Loomer, predicated their objections on Qatar’s relationship with the militant group Hamas. Senior members of Hamas have long been based in the Qatari capital of Doha, though Qatar reportedly agreed to expel Hamas officials last November. Loomer criticized Trump’s potential jet deal on Sunday and Monday by writing a series of anti-Qatar posts on X. “This is really going to be such a stain on the admin if this is true,” she wrote. “And I say that as someone who would take a bullet for Trump. I’m so disappointed.” Fox News host Mark Levin shared her post and wrote, “Ditto.” For now, most of the conservative criticism has been leveled in social media spaces, not on the TV shows Trump is known to enjoy. The jet controversy has been very lightly covered on Fox News, the country’s dominant right-wing TV channel. The main story on Fox’s website about the matter on Monday was titled, “Trump rips ABC reporter for asking about accepting luxury jet from Qatar,” as if ABC was the problem. But “Fox & Friends” host Brian Kilmeade did ask White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt about the matter on Monday morning. Leavitt positioned it as a government-to-government transaction that would be done “in full compliance with the law,” sidestepping reports that Trump’s presidential library will take possession of the plane shortly before he leaves office, ensuring he can still use it. The “Fox & Friends” host then asked Leavitt, “Do you worry that if they give us something like this, they want something in return?” The press secretary said no because Trump “only works with the interest of the American public in mind.” Kilmeade then moved on and asked Leavitt about Mother’s Day. Other conservative media figures seem less inclined to move on. “This is not a gift” from Qatar, it’s “a bribe,” Batya Ungar-Sargon, who has championed the MAGA movement on CNN and other channels, told Newsmax on Monday afternoon. National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy wrote Monday that accepting the plane is “indefensible,” arguing that “the president and his flacks again demonstrate that they don’t grasp the concepts of constitutional duty and conflicts of interest.” He cited the “Trump family crypto venture” as another example. Talk radio host Erick Erickson, who, like the National Review, has often criticized Trump from a conservative perspective, didn’t mince his condemnation of the potential jet gift. On his Monday show, Erickson argued that Qatar is not a US ally (though the US government disagrees) and pointed out that Attorney General Pam Bondi, who reportedly signed off on the legality of the gift, was previously a paid lobbyist for Qatar. “I think she’s opening Donald Trump up to legal trouble later,” Erickson said. On X later in the day, Erickson observed that “even a lot of Trump supporters were not thrilled about the Qatar plane gift” when the initial reports surfaced on Sunday. “Now,” he wrote, suggesting bots are flooding X with pro-Trump propaganda, “a lot of small accounts I’ve never interacted with before are flooding my timeline insisting it is a great idea.”

Jeanine Pirro’s absence from “The Five” on Thursday was a tell. Minutes after the Fox News show wrapped, President Trump confirmed that Pirro will become the interim US attorney in Washington, DC, one of the top prosecutor jobs in the country. Don’t tune into “The Five” expecting a Pirro send-off show; her exit was effective immediately, according to a Fox spokesperson. This means that one of the most coveted seats in right-wing media is suddenly up for grabs. “The Five” often ranks as the top-rated show across all of cable news and is a proven launchpad for MAGA media superstardom. It is also an important plank of Fox’s profits since the high ratings for the 5pm talk show help propel viewership for the rest of the evening. Fox News says it will rely on a rotation of Fox personalities to fill the seat until a new co-host is named. Numerous Fox hosts and contributors have filled in for Pirro in the past, including Katie Pavlich, Kayleigh McEnany and Kellyanne Conway. Fox contributor Joey Jones sat in Pirro’s usual seat on Thursday. Of all the Fox figures Trump has tapped to fill out his administration this year — by one count, he’s approaching two dozen — Pirro is one of the most bellicose. Trump and Pirro have had a friendly relationship for decades. (She was hanging out at Mar-a-Lago long before Trump even ran for president.) One of her books, titled “Don’t Lie to Me,” was even dedicated to Trump. Pirro’s staunch defense of Trump and derision of his critics made her a favorite of the network’s Trump-aligned fan base. And Trump was a regular (and fawning) guest when Pirro hosted a weekend evening show called “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” In 2020, however, her Trump loyalty wound up angering her bosses and wounding Fox’s parent company when she promoted his voter fraud lies. Pirro’s name came up repeatedly in Dominion Voting Systems’ blockbuster lawsuit against Fox News. Documents obtained by Dominion during the legal battle showed that her own executive producer, Jerry Andrews, wrote to a colleague in 2020 that one of Pirro’s proposed monologues was “rife with conspiracy theories and BS and is yet another example why this woman should never be on live television.” During one internal argument over Pirro’s conspiratorial pro-Trump commentary, Andrews called her a “reckless maniac.” In 2022, she was moved onto “The Five.” Pirro’s Fox persona has been ripe for “SNL” impersonation over the years. Her Fox colleagues truly respect her, though, specifically for her legal background, including her time as DA of Westchester County, New York. While her law-enforcement work ended 20 years ago, she is recognized as a trailblazer and still brings a lawyerly mindset to TV segments, Fox staffers said. In a statement on Thursday, the network said, “Jeanine Pirro has been a wonderful addition to The Five over the last three years and a longtime beloved host across FOX News Media who contributed greatly to our success throughout her 14-year tenure. We wish her all the best in her new role in Washington.” Pirro is replacing archconservative activist Ed Martin, whose conduct in the US attorney job was so aberrant that even some Republican lawmakers spoke out against him. Fox News has barely covered any of the many Martin controversies, so Pirro’s viewers may be unfamiliar with the reasons why she is, as The New York Times put it, ditching “a lucrative TV career, on short notice,” to bail Trump out of “an embarrassing jam.” But her willingness to do so is certainly not surprising. “We should respect her experience” as a former elected official and prosecutor, CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams said on “The Source with Kaitlan Collins” Thursday night. However, he continued, “if you look at the 20 years since then, she has demonstrated a willingness to step out for the President of the United States in a role” — U.S. attorney for the nation’s capital — “that really ought to be independent of the White House.” “We have to remember, these are very important management roles,” Williams said. “This is the biggest U.S. Attorney’s Office in the country.” He said Trump picking Pirro is “quite frankly, an affront to the office.”

A new documentary about the 2022 killing of Al Jazeera correspondent Shireen Abu Akleh claims to have identified the Israeli soldier who fired the fatal shot. Additionally, the film alleges that while the Biden administration had initially concluded an Israeli soldier intentionally shot at Abu Akleh, despite the fact she was identifiable as media, it publicly declared that there was “no reason to believe” her killing was “intentional.” The documentary, produced by independent news outlet Zeteo and titled “Who Killed Shireen?,” follows former Wall Street Journal Middle East reporter Dion Nissenbaum and longtime foreign correspondent Conor Powell as they and fellow journalists seek to figure out who killed Abu Akleh and how the Biden administration handled the investigation into her killing. Abu Akleh, a Palestinian journalist with US citizenship, was a well-known and respected correspondent for Al Jazeera. She was shot while covering an Israeli military operation targeting militants in Jenin in May 2022. When she was killed, she was wearing protective gear identifying her as a member of the press. In the immediate aftermath of her death, Israeli officials suggested crossfire from Palestinian militants fighting with Israeli soldiers nearby could have been to blame. Shortly thereafter, however, investigations by CNN and other outlets found that the only militants in the area could not have reached Abu Akleh from where they stood when she was killed.  CNN further concluded that she was killed in a targeted attack, based on eyewitness statements and analysis from audio forensic and explosive weapons experts. The Israel Defense Forces eventually said there was a “high possibility” Abu Akleh was killed by Israeli fire, but said they would not charge any soldiers as there “was no suspicion that a bullet was fired deliberately” at anyone identified as a journalist and the soldier thought he was shooting at militants who were firing upon him. An Israeli military spokesperson later apologized for the journalist’s death and said the soldier responsible “did not do this on purpose.” But one subject interviewed for the documentary, identified only as a “key Biden administration official,” says that based on where the soldiers and the reporters were located at the time, “it was an indication that it was an intentional killing” and that the soldier would have been able to clearly see Abu Akleh was a noncombatant. “Whether or not they knew it was her or not, can very well be debated, but they would have absolutely known that it was a media person or a noncombatant at a minimum,” the anonymous Biden administration official states. “Absolutely knew that it was non-combatant, and every indication was that it was media. It was clear within all optics from that distance and location and the visual capabilities of that day.” The documentary does not detail how the official knows this information, although a source close to the documentary told CNN the official had “direct knowledge” of the Biden administration’s internal assessments of Abu Akleh’s death. As for who fired the fatal shots, an unidentified Israeli soldier interviewed in the documentary, who said he served alongside the soldier responsible for the slaying, identified the soldier by name and said he was a member of an elite commando unit called Duvdevan. (Because CNN has not been able to verify the reporting, we are not naming the soldier.) “When you open the corner and you have this second to take a decision, to take a shot and you see someone who hold a camera or something that, you know, point at you, you don’t need more than that to shoot the bullet,” the anonymous soldier says in the documentary. The soldier identified as Abu Akleh’s killer “wasn’t happy” to discover he killed a journalist, the fellow soldier says, but “he wasn’t like, you know, eating himself from the inside, like thinking about, ‘Oh, what have I done,’ or something like that.” Abu Akleh’s alleged shooter was later killed by an explosive device buried in the road during a June 2024 military operation in Jenin, the documentary notes. His family has said in interviews with Israeli media that he died while rescuing military medics, who’d been injured by a separate explosion allegedly planted by Palestinian militants. Reached for comment, the IDF said “Zeteo has decided to publish the name of the IDF soldier who fell during an operational activity, despite the family’s request not to publish the name, and even though they were told that there is no definitive determination regarding the identity of the individual responsible for the shooting that caused the journalist’s death. The IDF shares in the family’s grief and continues to support them.” A State Department investigation into Abu Akleh’s death, released in July 2022, found that the IDF was “likely responsible” for the shooting, but that there was “no reason to believe” the soldier intentionally targeted her. However, the unidentified Biden administration official alleges in the documentary that despite those findings, the administration’s assessment was ultimately publicly presented as the shooting having been “a tragic accident versus being an intentional killing of the individual.” He alleges the alteration was made because of “pressure within the administration to not try and anger the government of Israel too much by trying to force their hand at saying that they’d intentionally killed a US citizen.” The State Department did not respond to a request for comment. The Department of Justice, which was reportedly working on its own investigation, declined to comment. Since Abu Akleh’s death, the situation on the ground in the region for reporters has changed dramatically. In May 2024, Al Jazeera was officially banned from Israel and the West Bank, with its offices in Ramallah at one point sealed shut by the IDF. In Gaza, press watchdog groups say at least 175 reporters, photographers, producers and other journalists have been killed since Israel began its military campaign following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. In some cases, Israel has claimed that the journalists killed were working with militant groups. Nevertheless, the war in Gaza has become the deadliest conflict on record for members of the media. In the documentary, Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who has long advocated for more accountability following Abu Akleh’s death, said he believes “if the US had been more effective and more forceful in insisting that the rules of engagement changed after the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh,” then further civilian deaths could have been avoided. Abu Akleh’s family echoed that sentiment in a statement to CNN: “Our calls for justice have never been about one individual soldier, but rather for the entire chain of command—those who gave the orders, those who covered it up, and those who continue to deny responsibility — be held to account for the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh on May 11, 2022 . Only then can there be any hope for real closure, not just for Shireen, but for every journalist and family seeking truth. “Regardless if the soldier’s identity is known or whether he is dead or alive doesn’t change the fact that Shireen was intentionally targeted and killed, and that happened within a system that enables impunity.”

President Donald Trump is belatedly raging against CBS News’ latest Emmy nomination. The president took to his Truth Social platform on Wednesday morning to vent about the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences’ decision to nominate the “60 Minutes” interview at the center of his defamation lawsuit against CBS for an Emmy Award last week. “In a total slap in the face to anyone who believes in TRUTH and Honest Journalism, this Fake News Puff Piece has now been nominated for an award by the totally discredited Emmys,” Trump fumed about the Outstanding Edited Interview nod being given to the newsmagazine’s October 2024 sit-down with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. “These antics are why the American People have no trust in the Press, and demand that the Media, very much including 60 Minutes, CBS, and its owners, be held responsible for their corruption and lies, which is exactly what we are doing in Court,” he continued. In a November lawsuit, Trump accused “60 Minutes” of deliberately mis-editing that Harris interview at the Democratic campaign’s direction, an accusation he has repeatedly leveled, including on Wednesday, when he described the interview as “much worse than expected,” “unlawfully fixed,” “manipulated,” and “doctored throughout.” He once again claimed that “60 Minutes” is an “Election Interfering” program. CBS in October called the suit baseless and said, “We will vigorously defend against it.” Numerous First Amendment lawyers agreed that the lawsuit, which alleged that CBS engaged in consumer fraud, was frivolous. However, after Trump won the 2024 election, CBS’ parent company, Paramount, which will need Trump’s approval for its pending merger with Skydance, began to discuss settling the case. Trump and his allies have made it a mission to punish “60 Minutes” and CBS News for the interview. Two days after the inauguration, Trump’s new Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, revived a complaint about the broadcast that his predecessor had dismissed. That inquiry has resulted in the broadcaster releasing the interview’s full transcript despite initially resisting such a move. On Monday, Carr called his probe a “penalty,” not a “threat.” Despite Trump’s attempts to discredit “60 Minutes” and the Emmys, the academy last week told CNN that the Harris interview was “evaluated by two separate panels of judges, including senior editorial leaders from every other major U.S. broadcast news organization.” The interview was selected from more than three dozen submissions and was “nominated on the strength of its journalism.” Meanwhile, Paramount heiress Shari Redstone’s desire to settle the lawsuit to help facilitate a merger has led to discontent within CBS. In late April, Bill Owens, the longtime “60 Minutes” executive producer, announced he would step down because he could no longer make “independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes.” Scott Pelley, the program’s anchor, noted in its first broadcast after Owens’ announcement that Paramount had begun to “supervise our content in new ways” as it looked to finesse the Skydance merger. Despite reports that Redstone had urged “60 Minutes” producers to hold off on segments critical of the president, the newsmagazine has so far refused to comply.

Voice of America is off the air for now, having been gutted by President Donald Trump, but it may soon return — partly as a vessel for one of his favorite MAGA propaganda outlets. One America News (OAN), the amateurish far-right TV outlet best known for promoting Trump’s 2020 election lies, is going to provide “newsfeed services” to VOA and other US-funded international broadcasters, according to Kari Lake, the MAGA loyalist Trump picked to run a hollowed-out VOA. In a late-night X post, Lake said the idea originated from the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which beams Radio Martí into Cuba. OAN will provide “their newsfeed and video service free-of-charge,” she wrote, portraying it as a win for taxpayers. Lake noted that she doesn’t currently have editorial control over VOA, so the immediate impact may be negligible. But having access to OAN content is a big step toward turning the Voice of America into the Voice of Trump — an outcome that journalists at the network have feared. VOA’s networks and websites are currently offline, but a handful of employees were called back to work on Tuesday. Staffers told CNN they sense that Lake wants to reboot the network as a shell of its former self. The goal, they believe, is to terminate most of the employee base but keep enough of the network intact to satisfy the federal judges who are scrutinizing the shutdown. Repurposing OAN content would be in line with such a strategy. Patsy Widakuswara and Jessica Jerreat, two of the sidelined journalists who are suing over Trump’s actions against VOA, told CNN in a statement, “Congress mandated VOA to report reliable and authoritative news, not to outsource its journalism to outlets aligned with the president’s agenda.” “VOA already has talented and professional journalists ready to tell America’s story in line with the VOA Charter, but we are blocked from our own newsroom,” they said. “That is why we will continue fighting for our rights in court.” OAN launched in 2013 and, during the first Trump presidency, quickly morphed into a conspiracy-boosting outlet with a far fringier voice than right-leaning outlets like Newsmax and Fox News. Former congressman Matt Gaetz, a MAGA devotee, currently hosts a primetime show on the network. The little-watched cable channel was a leading proponent of Trump’s 2020 election lies and has settled multiple defamation lawsuits resulting from its on-air claims. Last year, OAN settled a lawsuit from voting technology company Smartmatic alleging the channel spread lies about the election to “increase viewership and revenue.” The network also settled a defamation suit from a Dominion Voting Systems executive, whose case revealed how OAN coordinated with Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell and others to spread election lies. OAN currently still faces a defamation lawsuit from Dominion. The network’s viewership and revenue have dwindled since DirecTV dropped it in 2022.