Important: This story is categorized as an opinion piece. This means it bypasses ordinary fact checking and is likely based entirely on the authors opinion. Please see disclosure in author bio below story.

Op-Ed: Mainstream Media Mob Thumped by Columbia Journalism Review for Trump-Russia Hokum

Today, the US media has the lowest credibility—26 percent—among forty-six nations, according to a 2022 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. File photo: Stock Photo World, Shutter Stock, licensed.

“I realized early on I had two jobs. The first was to run the country, and the second was survival. I had to survive: the stories were unbelievably fake.” –President Donald Trump

PORTSMOUTH, OH  – Boff, Bonk, Pow, Kapow, Swa-a-p, Bam! These cheesy Batman fight words describe what the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) did to the mainstream media (aka legacy, corporate) mockingbirds in a four-part article series. Journalist Jeff Gerth put on the gloves and came out swinging. He tells the story of Trump, Russia, and the press. 

The Columbia Journalism Review which calls itself “the most respected voice on press criticism,” recently published findings from an 18-month investigation: a 24,000-word expose’ entitled, “The Press Versus The President.” 

However, salty Eddie Scarry at The Federalist, one of my favorite online news organizations, is not buying Gerth’s long-winded article: 

“If you have nothing going on and 10 hours to spare, you should still find something to do other than read the tragically long article in the Columbia Journalism Review that bills itself as a reckoning for the appalling misconduct of the news media during the Trump years. It’s too little and about six years too late for that trash.” Kapow! 

“As horrid as the media was pre-Trump, its shortcomings were mostly recognized as “liberal bias.” What they did beginning in 2017 and ever since isn’t bias. It’s dishonest. It’s malicious. It’s evil,” Scarry proclaims. Bam! 

I agree with Scarry. Do you? 

Part One: The Press versus the President 

Splatt, Whamm, Whack, Z-zwap, Boff, Zowie! 

Gerth takes aim at The New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, Slate, Mother Jones, CNN, and others.


The end of the long inquiry into whether Donald Trump was colluding with Russia came in July 2019, when Robert Mueller III, the special counsel, took seven, sometimes painful, hours to essentially say no. 

But outside of the Times’ own bubble, the damage to the credibility of the Times and its peers persists, three years on, and is likely to take on new energy as the nation faces yet another election season animated by antagonism toward the press. 

Today, the US media has the lowest credibility—26 percent—among forty-six nations, according to a 2022 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. In 2021, 83 percent of Americans saw “fake news” as a “problem,” and 56 percent—mostly Republicans and independents—agreed that the media were “truly the enemy of the American people,” according to Rasmussen Reports. 

Part Two: The Press versus the President

Ooooff, Bloop, Zap, Crash, Sock, Kapow! 


The day before Trump’s inauguration, the Times featured a story: “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates.” 

As the story is being edited, Mark Mazzetti, an investigative reporter in the Washington bureau who was also helping edit some of the Trump-Russia coverage, is shown telling senior editors he is “fairly sure members of Russian intelligence” were “having conversations with members of Trump’s campaign.” (The story would say the conversations were based on “phone records and intercepted calls” and involved “senior Russian intelligence officials.”)  

Hours after the Times story ran, the Post upped the temperature on Russia even more.  

Part Three: The Press versus the President

Whap, Vronk, Pow, Zamm, Bam, Zlopp! 


The media focused on the “Russia thing” quote; the New York Times did five stories over the next week citing the “Russia thing” remarks but leaving out the fuller context. The Postand CNN, by comparison, included additional language in their first-day story. The White House was upset and repeatedly asked reporters to look at the full transcript, according to a former Trump aide and two reporters. 

For the Times, Trump’s mess was a pot of gold: two of the Times stories about the meeting and the emails were part of its winning Pulitzer Prize package. 

Part Four: The Press versus the President

Eee-yow, Awk, Clunk, Biff, Crunch, Urkkk! 

Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC host, saw the day’s events as affirmation of her having covered the Trump-Russia matter “more than anyone else,” because, as her blog pointed out, Americans were now “coming to grips with a worst-case scenario that the US president is compromised by a hostile foreign power.” 

On January 6, 2021, Trump’s legacy, in most of the media and elsewhere, was sealed. Some of Trump’s most devoted supporters—who also believed in his unsubstantiated claims of a rigged election— went wild, as Trump had predicted in a December tweet, leaving a dark stain on the Capitol, and the country. 

Media Mafia Responds  

 “Columbia Journalism Review’s Big Fail: It Published 24,000 Words on Russiagate and Missed the Point,” opined Mother Jones. “The magazine’s attempted takedown of the media’s coverage bolsters Trump’s phony narrative.” 

Mother Jones is a radical rabid rag. WHINERS R US. 

“The Pulitzer Prize Board announced earlier last year that it stands by its 2018 National Reporting prizes given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for coverage of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”  

Well, flush any future credulity of the Pulitzer Prize Board straight down the toilet. Woosh! 

Why are the reponses and rebuttals by the Times and the Post not spewing forth? LIARS R US. 

What about the other legacy media mimes? No response is a response.

Trump’s Response 

“It is a STAGGERING, detailed account of the lies, disinformation, and complete lack of journalistic integrity,” Trump wrote Feb. 2, 2023, on Truth Social, singling out “the purveyors of Fake News at the Washington Compost (sometimes known as the Washington Post), the Failing New York Times, and many others.” 

Via Twitter, persecuted hero Edward Snowden weighed in on the CJR article: Corporate media “knowingly suppressed facts that cut against popular narratives, ignored denials, eagerly laundered partisan attacks via ‘anonymous sources,’ and refuses to reflect on mistakes.” 

The Deep State regime goes after anyone that gets in the way of their nefarious agenda. 

CJR Comments on the Comments 

Where does Trump coverage go from here?  “The reaction to the piece reflected the divisions in the country, and its media,” writes Kyle Pope, publisher of CJR. 

Folks, of course, conservative alternative media organizations, newspapers, and social media sources are going to cheer for Gerth’s better-late-than-never article.  

And of course, the mainstream media muppets are going to continue the spin. Why? Because corporate media is controlled by the radical Democrats and RINO’s of the Deep State regime (aka Great Reset of the World Economic Forum, New World Order).  

CJR is a member of the lefty liberal mainstream media mob in my opinion. 

My suspicious questions: What motivated CJR to hire a freelance journalist to investigate and write a play-by-play article that shows the innocence of Trump? And why did they publish this piece? 

Peruse my former columns “Mainstream Media Sources That Promoted Climate Crisis Propaganda,” in The Published Reporter where I provided foundational information about the “Big Daddy” media outlet of climate crisis lies – Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) and “Lamestream Columbia Journal Review And The Guardian, Along With Bill Gates Continue The Climate Crisis Ruse.” 

Who penned an article on the climate crisis hoax series at CJR? Kyle Pope, editor in chief and publisher. Hmmm.  

That’s why I’m skeptical. Why hire an outsider to write the article for CJR about the Russian collusion codswallop instead of one of their own journalists or yourself? 

More about CJR: 

Columbia Journalism Review is published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. 

Kyle Pope replaced Elizabeth Spayd, a former managing editor of the Washington Post, who accepted a position as public editor of The New York Times. And he previously worked at the Wall Street Journal. 

Folks, are you connecting the dots?  

In 2017, in Washington, D.C., Pope addressed the House Judiciary Committee bipartisan Forum on Press Freedoms regarding concerns that the actions of Donald Trump during his campaign for and following election as President of the United States undermine the constitutional freedom of the press.  

Pope says he is currently working on a book about Trump and the media. So, I ask again, why didn’t Pope write the article on Trump and the Russian hoax? 

Who Funds CJR? 

Major funders for CJR and include non-faculty members of the Board of Overseers and the Maria Moors Cabot Fund, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, the George Delacorte Center for Magazine Journalism Fund at The New York Community Trust, the Saul and Janice Poliak Center for the Study of First Amendment Issues, Puffin Foundation, Rockefeller Family & Associates, Rockefeller Family Fund and R. Ted Weschler. 

Do a deep dive into the above funders and you’ll find more about how the liberal tentacles weave and interweave together. 

Hmmm. The Rockefeller Family throws money at CJR. Now, isn’t that interesting.  

And by the way, Hillary Clinton has a new teaching gig at Columbia University as global affairs professor. Imagine that. 

Folks, are you connecting the dots? 

Throughout all the persecution from the radical Democrats and the media mafia, President Donald Trump remained dedicated to the freedom-loving citizens of the USA. When the 2020 Election was stolen by the Deep State regime, he remained faithful to God and “We the People.” And that’s why he deserves to be reelected in 2024. Moreover, the swamp needs more draining. Kapow!

My God bless America – again. 

Comment via Facebook

Corrections: If you are aware of an inaccuracy or would like to report a correction, we would like to know about it. Please consider sending an email to [email protected] and cite any sources if available. Thank you. (Policy)