Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

🔥 Fox’s Trace Gallagher CALLS OUT MS Now for cutting away from Trump’s UN speech to fact-check him — before having to fact-check themselves! “The Fox News Common Sense department was not one bit surprised to see MS Now cut away from the president’s speech at the United Nations... General Assembly. But Common Sense was surprised that the reason MS Now cut away was to fact-check the president’s speech at the UN General Assembly.” “And let’s face it, allowing MS to fact-check the president is like allowing the United Nations to fact-check Israel. In other words, when hatred runs deep, facts run awry.” “For example, MS Now disputed the president’s claim that he was responsible for ending eight wars. Problem is, other fact-checkers have said the president makes a compelling argument that he ended eight wars.” “And the truth is, the MS fact-check had little to do with facts and everything to do with opinion. And wouldn’t you know, MS Now and the president of the United States have a difference of opinion.” “But the amazing thing about the MS fact-check is the fact that MS had to fact-check itself. The same network who said the president’s speech was, quote, “riddled with false claims,” had to come back on the air and correct a false claim. Oops.” “Common Sense thinks if you’re gonna interrupt the president’s speech just to criticize the president’s speech, why not just take a page out of CNN’s playbook and ignore the president’s speech altogether?”show more

TV News Now

54,037 subscribers

19,402 views • 4 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

12 Comments

Gina Milan4 days ago

Why is MSNOW fact-checking his UN speech? LOL. These people are crazy. 😂

Ekpen Oje4 days ago

Little wonder he kicked them out of the White House

Marie Manganello4 days ago

I do miss Trace, Kevin & a few others by not watching @FoxNews but has been like a day of sunshine. My mute button also gets a break.

George Danton4 days ago

When fake news journalists ask questions based on a false premise, they should be fact checked. WH spokesperson should say your question is parked until your premise is checked, then move on to the next question, come back later. It would be annoying and hilarious.

Goddlove Everyones4 days ago

MSNOW, CNN and yes the mainstream media are all FAKE NEWS. They’re part of the leftist propaganda and the Democratic Party.

CountryGurl57🇺🇸4 days ago

They fact checked Trump - but no fact checking of Iran’s lying speech. Can a person despise the lying msm any more?!!

Metalliknight4 days ago

More proof they don’t need White House access when they’ll just make shit up anyway.

Laura Mallow4 days ago

The American people don't need fact-checking by journalists. I just want to watch uninterrupted and form my own opinions. I’m perfectly capable of doing that.

tioga574 days ago

Anyone at @fox talking “facts” is laughable

Jesse Lee4 days ago

The only thing you say that is correct is that we should ignore the speech all together!! Typical Fox brand maga nonsense

ToodySue4 days ago

Y'all sided with them

KyHick4 days ago

I thought Fox was boycotting Trump

Related Videos

🚨 NEW: Fox News panel SLAMS MS Now for interrupting Trump’s U.N. speech with a failed ‘fact check’ Trace Gallagher: “I mean, the whole thing is you want to criticize the president and then you screw up the criticism. It’s a bad look when you get the fact and you have to fact-check yourself!” LA Mom Magazine’s Shirin Yadegar: “Well, if you’re going to interrupt the president for fact-checking, then make sure you’re going to do it across the board, right? You can’t just interrupt the president and fact-check him. You’ve got to do this with everyone if it’s real objective journalism.” “Why is it that it’s only the president of the United States who gets this live scrutiny? When we go to journalism school, we learn about objective journalism. This is activism. This is not journalism. These gotcha moments that they’re trying to do—if you’re gonna do it, at least make sure you get your facts right,” adds Shirin Yadegar. TRACE: “I mean, you know, you cut away from the president every time you do that, just because you disagree with the president, you wanna take a swing. I mean, you’d never get through any kind of United Nations speech, you’d never get through anything. Come on, it’s fair to put the speech on there, and when the speech is concluded, you go back and you analyze it, but to cut away in the middle just so you can take a couple swings. Jeff, your thoughts?” Jeff Vaughn adds: “I’m okay with them fact-checking, but it seems like they wanna interrupt and get the last word, and that really is the control here.” “The media’s full of elitists, and they think that they know better than President Trump or whoever happens to be on the right, right? And so they interrupt, they wanna do everything they can to make sure they get their word in edgewise before the president does. In that case, I just thought, Trace, it looks silly and childish.”

🚨 NEW: Fox News panel SLAMS MS Now for interrupting Trump’s U.N. speech with a failed ‘fact check’ Trace Gallagher: “I mean, the whole thing is you want to criticize the president and then you screw up the criticism. It’s a bad look when you get the fact and you have to fact-check yourself!” LA Mom Magazine’s Shirin Yadegar: “Well, if you’re going to interrupt the president for fact-checking, then make sure you’re going to do it across the board, right? You can’t just interrupt the president and fact-check him. You’ve got to do this with everyone if it’s real objective journalism.” “Why is it that it’s only the president of the United States who gets this live scrutiny? When we go to journalism school, we learn about objective journalism. This is activism. This is not journalism. These gotcha moments that they’re trying to do—if you’re gonna do it, at least make sure you get your facts right,” adds Shirin Yadegar. TRACE: “I mean, you know, you cut away from the president every time you do that, just because you disagree with the president, you wanna take a swing. I mean, you’d never get through any kind of United Nations speech, you’d never get through anything. Come on, it’s fair to put the speech on there, and when the speech is concluded, you go back and you analyze it, but to cut away in the middle just so you can take a couple swings. Jeff, your thoughts?” Jeff Vaughn adds: “I’m okay with them fact-checking, but it seems like they wanna interrupt and get the last word, and that really is the control here.” “The media’s full of elitists, and they think that they know better than President Trump or whoever happens to be on the right, right? And so they interrupt, they wanna do everything they can to make sure they get their word in edgewise before the president does. In that case, I just thought, Trace, it looks silly and childish.”

TV News Now

99,488 views • 4 days ago

I’m not surprised that ABC fact-check and the Crikey blog did a “fact-check” to spread misinformation and doubt. Strangely a lot of individuals that doubt fact-checkers for everything else fell for it.

I’m not surprised that ABC fact-check and the Crikey blog did a “fact-check” to spread misinformation and doubt. Strangely a lot of individuals that doubt fact-checkers for everything else fell for it.

Rukshan Fernando

17,077 views • 2 years ago

FAKE NEWS ALERT! The 'Fact Check' of Mohammed Zubair's video by Delhi Police is FALSE. Here is Fact Check of the False 'Fact Check' by the Delhi Police, PIB Fact Check & DD News Claim : Delhi Police claims this videoof police carrying batons fitted with nails is not related to Yesterday's protest. Fact : The video fact checked by Delhi Police is indeed from Yesterday. Here is the full video. You can see One of the protesters can be seen taking the baton from the police in his hand and showing it to camera. While the police officials seemingly remain unperturbed. Article link :

FAKE NEWS ALERT! The 'Fact Check' of Mohammed Zubair's video by Delhi Police is FALSE. Here is Fact Check of the False 'Fact Check' by the Delhi Police, PIB Fact Check & DD News Claim : Delhi Police claims this videoof police carrying batons fitted with nails is not related to Yesterday's protest. Fact : The video fact checked by Delhi Police is indeed from Yesterday. Here is the full video. You can see One of the protesters can be seen taking the baton from the police in his hand and showing it to camera. While the police officials seemingly remain unperturbed. Article link :

Mohammed Zubair

245,918 views • 2 months ago

Candace Owens calls for a fact-check on whether Tyler Robinson ever said he'd be seen on security footage at UVU. The fact-check arrives. She reads Robinson's words out loud, and Wilson embraces the moment with a big "OOF!" CANDACE: "Okay, so let's address those multitude of evidences. The first one, we're working on a fact check on, because I do not ever remember him texting that, 'That's me in the staircase.'" WILSON: "I didn't say that. What I said is that he texted over, 'You'll be able to see me in footage at UVU' — and I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he said." CANDACE: "Yeah, could we get a fact check on that?" PBD: "If you want to pull it up. You said you have the text? If we can put that up on the screen. Thank you." CANDACE: "'It was me. Look at the pictures from the surveillance footage. It was me.'" WILSON: "Oof!" CANDACE: "It's not an 'oof.' I said I didn't remember this, and I'm happy to have a fact check on that. I didn't call for the fact check saying you're wrong. I literally said, 'I don't remember that from the texts.'"

Candace Owens calls for a fact-check on whether Tyler Robinson ever said he'd be seen on security footage at UVU. The fact-check arrives. She reads Robinson's words out loud, and Wilson embraces the moment with a big "OOF!" CANDACE: "Okay, so let's address those multitude of evidences. The first one, we're working on a fact check on, because I do not ever remember him texting that, 'That's me in the staircase.'" WILSON: "I didn't say that. What I said is that he texted over, 'You'll be able to see me in footage at UVU' — and I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he said." CANDACE: "Yeah, could we get a fact check on that?" PBD: "If you want to pull it up. You said you have the text? If we can put that up on the screen. Thank you." CANDACE: "'It was me. Look at the pictures from the surveillance footage. It was me.'" WILSON: "Oof!" CANDACE: "It's not an 'oof.' I said I didn't remember this, and I'm happy to have a fact check on that. I didn't call for the fact check saying you're wrong. I literally said, 'I don't remember that from the texts.'"

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

484,002 views • 1 month ago

This clip may be the most egregious example of ABC debate moderators' direct actions/inactions to affect viewers’ perceptions of the information presented at the debate. There are at least seven instances of this within a two-minute span. This is not “bias." It’s much worse. This is direct, planned interference in the debate outcome. When moderators take on the role of “fact checkers" the inference is that the absence of a “fact check” confers validity to the non-fact-checked information. When one side is repeatedly “fact checked,” while the other is not, that is a signal to the viewer that one side is not reliable and truthful, while the other side is. The ABC moderators had their orders, and here you see those orders executed. In this clip: 1) Trump says Pelosi is responsible for security at the Capitol. True. Muir intervenes on Kamala’s behalf by cutting him off with snarky retort, doesn’t acknowledging the validity of Trump’s statement, and immediately redirects to Kamala to set up her “answer" he knows is coming. This is direct action by Muir to affect the outcome of this exchange. 2) Kamala says she was at the Capitol on J6. She was there in the morning, but left to go to DNC HQ prior to the riot. Critical information is omitted. No fact-check. 3) Kamala says Trump incited a mob to attack the Capitol. False. Trump’s “peacefully and patriotically” comments are ignored. Trump is not charged with inciting violence. No fact check. 4) Kamala says that “some" police officers died on January 6. False. No fact check. 5) Kamala recites the Charlottesville “Fine People” hoax. This has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. No fact check. 6) Kamala recites the “stand back and stand by” hoax. This is designed to infer that Trump was ordering a “militia” to act on later orders, when he was clearly asking for a cooling of tensions. No fact check. 7) Kamala recites the “bloodbath" hoax. Trump was talking about the automobile industry, not violence. No fact check. To quote Megyn Kelly on the ABC moderators: "They did exactly what their bosses wanted."

This clip may be the most egregious example of ABC debate moderators' direct actions/inactions to affect viewers’ perceptions of the information presented at the debate. There are at least seven instances of this within a two-minute span. This is not “bias." It’s much worse. This is direct, planned interference in the debate outcome. When moderators take on the role of “fact checkers" the inference is that the absence of a “fact check” confers validity to the non-fact-checked information. When one side is repeatedly “fact checked,” while the other is not, that is a signal to the viewer that one side is not reliable and truthful, while the other side is. The ABC moderators had their orders, and here you see those orders executed. In this clip: 1) Trump says Pelosi is responsible for security at the Capitol. True. Muir intervenes on Kamala’s behalf by cutting him off with snarky retort, doesn’t acknowledging the validity of Trump’s statement, and immediately redirects to Kamala to set up her “answer" he knows is coming. This is direct action by Muir to affect the outcome of this exchange. 2) Kamala says she was at the Capitol on J6. She was there in the morning, but left to go to DNC HQ prior to the riot. Critical information is omitted. No fact-check. 3) Kamala says Trump incited a mob to attack the Capitol. False. Trump’s “peacefully and patriotically” comments are ignored. Trump is not charged with inciting violence. No fact check. 4) Kamala says that “some" police officers died on January 6. False. No fact check. 5) Kamala recites the Charlottesville “Fine People” hoax. This has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. No fact check. 6) Kamala recites the “stand back and stand by” hoax. This is designed to infer that Trump was ordering a “militia” to act on later orders, when he was clearly asking for a cooling of tensions. No fact check. 7) Kamala recites the “bloodbath" hoax. Trump was talking about the automobile industry, not violence. No fact check. To quote Megyn Kelly on the ABC moderators: "They did exactly what their bosses wanted."

Western Lensman

41,371,188 views • 2 years ago

In his first speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York since 2020, Trump began his speech by announcing that the teleprompter was broken. He said, “Whoever is operating the teleprompter is in big trouble”. The president went on to criticise the United Nations ; he claimed he had ended seven wars on his own, and the ‘United Nations did nothing to help’.

In his first speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York since 2020, Trump began his speech by announcing that the teleprompter was broken. He said, “Whoever is operating the teleprompter is in big trouble”. The president went on to criticise the United Nations ; he claimed he had ended seven wars on his own, and the ‘United Nations did nothing to help’.

Channel 4 News

44,297 views • 1 year ago

This clip may be the most egregious example of ABC debate moderators' direct actions/inactions to affect viewers’ perceptions of the information presented at the debate. There are at least seven instances of this within a two-minute span. This is not “bias." It’s much worse. This is direct, planned interference in the debate outcome. When moderators take on the role of “fact checkers" the inference is that the absence of a “fact check” confers validity to the non-fact-checked information. When one side is repeatedly “fact checked,” while the other is not, that is a signal to the viewer that one side is not reliable and truthful, while the other side is. The ABC moderators had their orders, and here you see those orders executed. In this clip: 1) Trump says Pelosi is responsible for security at the Capitol. True. Muir intervenes on Kamala’s behalf by cutting him off with snarky retort, doesn’t acknowledging the validity of Trump’s statement, and immediately redirects to Kamala to set up her “answer" he knows is coming. This is direct action by Muir to affect the outcome of this exchange. 2) Kamala says she was at the Capitol on J6. She was there in the morning, but left to go to DNC HQ prior to the riot. Critical information is omitted. No fact-check. 3) Kamala says Trump incited a mob to attack the Capitol. False. Trump’s “peacefully and patriotically” comments are ignored. Trump is not charged with inciting violence. No fact check. 4) Kamala says that “some" police officers died on January 6. False. No fact check. 5) Kamala recites the Charlottesville “Fine People” hoax. This has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. No fact check. 6) Kamala recites the “stand back and stand by” hoax. This is designed to infer that Trump was ordering a “militia” to act on later orders, when he was clearly asking for a cooling of tensions. No fact check. 7) Kamala recites the “bloodbath" hoax. Trump was talking about the automobile industry, not violence. No fact check. To quote Megyn Kelly on the ABC moderators: "They did exactly what their bosses wanted."

This clip may be the most egregious example of ABC debate moderators' direct actions/inactions to affect viewers’ perceptions of the information presented at the debate. There are at least seven instances of this within a two-minute span. This is not “bias." It’s much worse. This is direct, planned interference in the debate outcome. When moderators take on the role of “fact checkers" the inference is that the absence of a “fact check” confers validity to the non-fact-checked information. When one side is repeatedly “fact checked,” while the other is not, that is a signal to the viewer that one side is not reliable and truthful, while the other side is. The ABC moderators had their orders, and here you see those orders executed. In this clip: 1) Trump says Pelosi is responsible for security at the Capitol. True. Muir intervenes on Kamala’s behalf by cutting him off with snarky retort, doesn’t acknowledging the validity of Trump’s statement, and immediately redirects to Kamala to set up her “answer" he knows is coming. This is direct action by Muir to affect the outcome of this exchange. 2) Kamala says she was at the Capitol on J6. She was there in the morning, but left to go to DNC HQ prior to the riot. Critical information is omitted. No fact-check. 3) Kamala says Trump incited a mob to attack the Capitol. False. Trump’s “peacefully and patriotically” comments are ignored. Trump is not charged with inciting violence. No fact check. 4) Kamala says that “some" police officers died on January 6. False. No fact check. 5) Kamala recites the Charlottesville “Fine People” hoax. This has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. No fact check. 6) Kamala recites the “stand back and stand by” hoax. This is designed to infer that Trump was ordering a “militia” to act on later orders, when he was clearly asking for a cooling of tensions. No fact check. 7) Kamala recites the “bloodbath" hoax. Trump was talking about the automobile industry, not violence. No fact check. To quote Megyn Kelly on the ABC moderators: "They did exactly what their bosses wanted."

Deep Leaks

117,162 views • 17 days ago

MSNBC cuts away from Trump's speech to fact check his lies: It is stunning for him to say that. We have had the best economic recovery in the world. Think about the American Rescue Plan, the infrastructure plan, and the 3.2 million more jobs than we had pre-pandemic

MSNBC cuts away from Trump's speech to fact check his lies: It is stunning for him to say that. We have had the best economic recovery in the world. Think about the American Rescue Plan, the infrastructure plan, and the 3.2 million more jobs than we had pre-pandemic

Headquarters

264,617 views • 2 years ago

Let’s do a little FACT CHECK! Trump posted a letter from 2018 of Stormy Daniels saying she did not have an affair with him. Trump claimed that the letter was “JUST FOUND”. Trump also claimed that the media won’t report on it: FACT: The Letter was not “Just found”. FACT: The media reported on the letter, literally on the day it was written in 2018. FACT: Yahoo, The Atlantic, The Guardian and Jimmy Kimmel reported on it 6 years ago. FACT: Stormy Daniels, well over a year ago explained that she felt that she had to lie about the affair because of an NDA and she was made to think she had no choice. FACT: Michael Cohen was literally CONVICTED for paying her off with Trump’s money to keep the affair secret. FACT: Stormy Daniels Testified UNDER OATH that she had an affair with Trump, well after the letter was written, FACTS MATTER. Trump’s LIES don’t.

Let’s do a little FACT CHECK! Trump posted a letter from 2018 of Stormy Daniels saying she did not have an affair with him. Trump claimed that the letter was “JUST FOUND”. Trump also claimed that the media won’t report on it: FACT: The Letter was not “Just found”. FACT: The media reported on the letter, literally on the day it was written in 2018. FACT: Yahoo, The Atlantic, The Guardian and Jimmy Kimmel reported on it 6 years ago. FACT: Stormy Daniels, well over a year ago explained that she felt that she had to lie about the affair because of an NDA and she was made to think she had no choice. FACT: Michael Cohen was literally CONVICTED for paying her off with Trump’s money to keep the affair secret. FACT: Stormy Daniels Testified UNDER OATH that she had an affair with Trump, well after the letter was written, FACTS MATTER. Trump’s LIES don’t.

Brian Krassenstein

963,875 views • 2 years ago

The Mainstream media (A DISGRACE) is again Derelict in their duty to report the unbiased facts and TRUTH as ABC & NBC are now refusing to air the President’s speech tonight on ELECTION INTERFERENCE in 2020. At today’s briefing, I asked Karoline Leavitt: “Why do u think the mainstream media is so fearful of tonight’s speech and anything to do with election interference? Why do u think they are attempting to discredit President Trump’s speech before they hear it or the facts? And what is your message to AOC who asked the media to censor a sitting President tonight?” It felt really good to ask the last question after I had to endure an entire briefing of Mainstream Media attempts to discredit the speech before they heard a single fact. Same playbook as 2020. Compliant or collusion? Your thoughts below👇🏽 Watch the enraging montage from today below:

The Mainstream media (A DISGRACE) is again Derelict in their duty to report the unbiased facts and TRUTH as ABC & NBC are now refusing to air the President’s speech tonight on ELECTION INTERFERENCE in 2020. At today’s briefing, I asked Karoline Leavitt: “Why do u think the mainstream media is so fearful of tonight’s speech and anything to do with election interference? Why do u think they are attempting to discredit President Trump’s speech before they hear it or the facts? And what is your message to AOC who asked the media to censor a sitting President tonight?” It felt really good to ask the last question after I had to endure an entire briefing of Mainstream Media attempts to discredit the speech before they heard a single fact. Same playbook as 2020. Compliant or collusion? Your thoughts below👇🏽 Watch the enraging montage from today below:

Cara Castronuova

103,620 views • 2 months ago

The decision by ABC, CNN, and NBC not to carry President Trump’s primetime address on election security raises a fundamental question about the role of major broadcast networks in a democracy. This was a nationally announced speech by a sitting, duly elected president on the integrity of U.S. elections. An issue that affects every voter, regardless of party. This is not about liking or disliking Trump, or agreeing or disagreeing with his claims. The presidency is the highest elected office in the country. When a president addresses the nation in a formal, scheduled primetime speech, there is a strong public‑interest argument that news networks should air it live and in full. Citizens can’t evaluate their leaders, or their claims, if they aren’t allowed to hear those leaders directly. Editorial judgment and criticism remain essential. Networks are entirely within their rights to add clear disclaimers before and after the address, fact‑check in real time or immediately afterward, host panels that challenge, contextualize, or rebut the president’s statements. But substituting that for the speech itself, showing only handpicked clips, summaries, or commentary, shifts from informing the public to curating what the public is permitted to see. At that point, viewers are reacting to the networks’ framing, not to the president’s actual words. Even after being censored in the U.S., having its license revoked and facing sanctions, RT International chose to air the address in full. RT has publicly disagreed with the president’s policies and with parts of this speech, but it treated the event as a matter of public record. Our principle is simple: viewers should be able to watch the complete address in context, hear the arguments unedited, and then weigh both the speech and the subsequent criticism for themselves. Rather than having corporate media gatekeepers decide in advance which presidential messages are fit for broadcast.

The decision by ABC, CNN, and NBC not to carry President Trump’s primetime address on election security raises a fundamental question about the role of major broadcast networks in a democracy. This was a nationally announced speech by a sitting, duly elected president on the integrity of U.S. elections. An issue that affects every voter, regardless of party. This is not about liking or disliking Trump, or agreeing or disagreeing with his claims. The presidency is the highest elected office in the country. When a president addresses the nation in a formal, scheduled primetime speech, there is a strong public‑interest argument that news networks should air it live and in full. Citizens can’t evaluate their leaders, or their claims, if they aren’t allowed to hear those leaders directly. Editorial judgment and criticism remain essential. Networks are entirely within their rights to add clear disclaimers before and after the address, fact‑check in real time or immediately afterward, host panels that challenge, contextualize, or rebut the president’s statements. But substituting that for the speech itself, showing only handpicked clips, summaries, or commentary, shifts from informing the public to curating what the public is permitted to see. At that point, viewers are reacting to the networks’ framing, not to the president’s actual words. Even after being censored in the U.S., having its license revoked and facing sanctions, RT International chose to air the address in full. RT has publicly disagreed with the president’s policies and with parts of this speech, but it treated the event as a matter of public record. Our principle is simple: viewers should be able to watch the complete address in context, hear the arguments unedited, and then weigh both the speech and the subsequent criticism for themselves. Rather than having corporate media gatekeepers decide in advance which presidential messages are fit for broadcast.

Ben Swann

1,177,553 views • 2 months ago

It appears that Karoline Leavitt just confirmed that President Trump is going to present evidence tonight during his primetime address that the 2020 election was stolen. “You should report on the President’s speech and the findings that he is going to reveal in this speech with a little bit of honesty and a little bit of ntegrity. It will shock you if you have an honest eye listening to the President tonight - and everything he is saying will be backed by facts and by evidence. That will be provided this evening.” You gotta love the NBC fake news hack saying, “wHy iS tHe pReSiDenT unAbLe tO LeT tHiS go?!!” 😂

It appears that Karoline Leavitt just confirmed that President Trump is going to present evidence tonight during his primetime address that the 2020 election was stolen. “You should report on the President’s speech and the findings that he is going to reveal in this speech with a little bit of honesty and a little bit of ntegrity. It will shock you if you have an honest eye listening to the President tonight - and everything he is saying will be backed by facts and by evidence. That will be provided this evening.” You gotta love the NBC fake news hack saying, “wHy iS tHe pReSiDenT unAbLe tO LeT tHiS go?!!” 😂

TheStormHasArrived

15,713 views • 2 months ago

Tony Dokoupil on CBS: “Much of what the President has said on [security of American elections] has been false." "There is an argument that it’s irresponsible to air the President’s speech tonight. But this speech will be made. It will be news. And it’s our job to cover the news.”

Tony Dokoupil on CBS: “Much of what the President has said on [security of American elections] has been false." "There is an argument that it’s irresponsible to air the President’s speech tonight. But this speech will be made. It will be news. And it’s our job to cover the news.”

Sports TV News & Updates

275,518 views • 2 months ago

CNN’s attempt to fact-check President Trump’s congressional address backfired. They claimed Trump lied about $8 million spent on transgender mice research, only to discover the real figure was $8.3 million. Forced to retract their “false” label, CNN revised the article, added context, and issued a humiliating disclaimer admitting their error. Fact-checkers checked CNN, and CNN had to check themselves.

CNN’s attempt to fact-check President Trump’s congressional address backfired. They claimed Trump lied about $8 million spent on transgender mice research, only to discover the real figure was $8.3 million. Forced to retract their “false” label, CNN revised the article, added context, and issued a humiliating disclaimer admitting their error. Fact-checkers checked CNN, and CNN had to check themselves.

ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể

55,187 views • 1 year ago

Wrong again Dimitri. This is the last minute that was cut out from Reagan’s speech. The ad agency & the Ontario Government conveniently left out the fact that Reagan thought it was IMPORTANT for the president to impose tariffs.

Wrong again Dimitri. This is the last minute that was cut out from Reagan’s speech. The ad agency & the Ontario Government conveniently left out the fact that Reagan thought it was IMPORTANT for the president to impose tariffs.

Mario Zelaya

358,764 views • 11 months ago

Hello Rubika Liyaquat, You and Ambani's channel News18 amplified false claim by your BJP friend Shehzad Jai Hind on Rahul Gandhi's Myanmar link. As a News Channels and a News anchor, It is your basic responsibility to first fact check the claim and call out people who are spreading Fake News instead of amplifying their baseless claim. Now that Alt News has done a detailed fact check debunking the said claim, Will you not informed your television viewers what the truth is? Or is your channel there only to run one sided narrative attacking the opposition and defending the people in power?

Hello Rubika Liyaquat, You and Ambani's channel News18 amplified false claim by your BJP friend Shehzad Jai Hind on Rahul Gandhi's Myanmar link. As a News Channels and a News anchor, It is your basic responsibility to first fact check the claim and call out people who are spreading Fake News instead of amplifying their baseless claim. Now that Alt News has done a detailed fact check debunking the said claim, Will you not informed your television viewers what the truth is? Or is your channel there only to run one sided narrative attacking the opposition and defending the people in power?

Mohammed Zubair

298,282 views • 1 year ago

Mike Johnson: “Senator Murkowski's view on this is plainly wrong. The person who walked away from the table was President Zelensky…” (Fact check: false. After the Oval Office ambush, Trump refused to sign the deal and kicked Zelensky out of the WH.

Mike Johnson: “Senator Murkowski's view on this is plainly wrong. The person who walked away from the table was President Zelensky…” (Fact check: false. After the Oval Office ambush, Trump refused to sign the deal and kicked Zelensky out of the WH.

Republicans against Trump

1,061,200 views • 1 year ago