Posted originally on CTH on July 18, 2026 | Sundance
In a recent counterpoint posed by Michael Smerconish against his own interests at CNN, ABC and NBC, the pundit was refreshingly honest, albeit maintaining pretense.
Smerconish noted it would be “unfair to the office of the President” to present rebuttal dialogue to a speech they refused to air. He posed the issue as one of intellectual hypocrisy, which it is; however, in reality, that was a feature of the media approach, not a flaw within it.
For several years CTH has noted there is no such thing as mis-dis or mal-information, there is only information. The purpose of our emphasis is highlighted in this example.
The leftist media did not want to allow information to reach their sheeple viewers. So, they awaited the conclusion of President Trump’s remarks and then summarized what he said for the audience along with their rebuttal. By blocking the information from Trump, they limit and control the information to only that which they present. This is by design.
We are seeing this approach in the USA for the same reason we are noting it in Canada. The audience for both messaging systems is the same, blind sheeple leftists. If the source information is never displayed or heard, the only reference is the rebuttal information. This is the same pattern within domestic abuse situations.
A domestic abuser often tries to isolate their victim from family and friends to cut off sources of information or support that could counter the abuse. If the victim maintained contact, it would be harder for the abuser to manipulate them. Some people draw a parallel between this dynamic and the way they perceive leftist media influencing its audience, casting the media in the role of abuser and the audience as willing participants.
The Smerconish segment highlights how wrong it is for any argument to start by isolating, blocking, or censoring the source of information, then spinning their own version of it and offering counterpoints aimed at eliminating the perceived threat of the information itself.
You may have heard me say, “the need for control is a reaction to fear.” This is evident in this dynamic as well. The media have built their brand around a single, fragile narrative that depends on maintaining falsehoods. That brand could crumble if ever challenged by the original source or an opposing viewpoint.
Unless and until people are willing to engage with intellectual honesty, communists are comprehensively incapable of this consideration, there is no hope within the debate. This is a serious problem made worse by the severity of the media’s financial position in retaining lies. WATCH:
