by Adam Johnson | Nov 2, 2026 | Article, Democratic Party, Media Criticism, midterms, Opinion, Politics and Movements: US
You may have heard that Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed is “having a lot of trouble putting [the Democratic] coalition back together,” or that “Democrats [are] struggling to unite behind El-Sayed,” or that “Democrats are still struggling to unite behind El-Sayed,” or that “El-Sayed faces resistance from some voters who would ordinarily be inclined to support a Democrat,” or that “Democratic divisions could hurt El-Sayed.” It’s a prominent narrative that is driving political discourse in the closing weeks of the tight Michigan Senate race.
There’s only one problem with this narrative: It has zero empirical basis. It’s a total confection of US media and the pro-Israel lobby that isn’t supported by any data whatsoever. Two recent polls, one from Marist and one from RedBox Research, make it clear that El-Sayed’s support among Democratic voters in Michigan is both extremely high (95%) and the exact same percentage as Republican candidate Mike Rogers’ support with Republicans. And a new poll from Mitchell Research CBS complicates the narrative even further, finding that support for El-Sayed among Democrats is, in fact, 3 points higher than Rogers is among Republicans, at 94% versus 91%, respectively.
If El-Sayed and Rogers have the exact same percent of party dissent—or, as is the case in the CBS Detroit poll, Rogers has more—then why are there countless stories highlighting, handwringing, and scandalizing the trivially small dissent for only one of the candidates? Where are the breathless profiles of Republicans refusing to vote for Rogers? Where are the NPR and CNN segments focusing on “Republican divisions”?
There, of course, aren’t any, because this narrative wouldn’t advance an ideological agenda.
The “Michigan Democrats are
by Sharon Zhang | Sep 22, 2026 | Article, Economy, Media Criticism, Politics and Movements: US, Reprint, The Cultural Front
This article was originally published by Truthout on Sept. 21, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.
A coalition of Democratic states and Paramount reached a settlement in a lawsuit against its proposed $111 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery on Monday, paving the way for one of the largest media mergers in history — and a massive consolidation of power over a huge swath of the entertainment and news industries under the conservative billionaire Ellison family.
The antitrust lawsuit was the last major obstacle for the deal, which has already been blessed by the Trump administration. Attorneys general from 12 states had sued to block the merger, which leading California Attorney General Rob Bonta had called “unlawful,” amid a flurry of antitrust concerns from prominent Hollywood figures and press freedom groups. The Writers Guild of America’s (WGA) lawsuit against the merger was also settled on Monday, with the union saying that its members could not afford to continue the legal battle on their own.
The merger will grant widespread power to a company that would effectively control CNN; CBS News; and, in all, roughly 30 percent of wide-release theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing. It amounts to roughly 20 percent of Americans’ television watching time — all conglomerated under the leadership of Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison. David Ellison is a major ally to Trump and son of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, who has personally donated millions to Israel’s military; Paramount had once dubiously suggested that opposition to the merger was a result of antisemitism.
David Ellison, who thanked California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in his statement celebrating the deal, has said that the merger is expected to go through in two weeks. Pro-Israel David Zaslav, the president of Warner Brothers
by Maximillian Alvarez and Dave Zirin | Sep 18, 2026 | Media Criticism, Politics and Movements: US, The Cultural Front, Trump, video
Long after his death in 2010, the books and speeches of Howard Zinn are frequently targeted by right-wing critics, MAGA book-bans, and fundamentalist politicians. In 2020, President Trump called out Zinn by name from the White House lawn, smearing Zinn’s work as “propaganda… that tries to make students ashamed of their own history.” So, who was Howard Zinn? And why are his critics so determined to keep his work from the public? In this live event, hosted at Red Emma’s Cooperative Bookstore and Coffeehouse in Baltimore, Maryland, TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with author and TRNN contributor Dave Zirin about his latest book, “The People’s Historian: The Outsized Life of Howard Zinn.”
Credits:
Studio Production / Post-Production: David Hebden
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Howard Zinn:
Protest will always be useful. Protest will always be important. Protest always looks futile at the time that it takes place, but protest mounts up. If they though protest was futile, they wouldn’t send the police out every time. There’s a demonstration. Have you noticed that you set up a picket line of somewhere of seven people and 12 policemen show up? They must worry about protest because they know that small protests lead to large ones.
Maximillian Alvarez:
All right. Well, thank you all. It is such an honor to be here with y’all tonight in Red Emma’s cooperative bookstore and coffee house in our great city of Baltimore. Give it up. And I am really, really honored and excited that we get to chat to the man, the myth, legendary sports writer, book author, documentary maker, political thinker, a true
by Adam Johnson | Sep 15, 2026 | Article, Israel, Media Criticism, Opinion, Palestine, Politics and Movements: International, Politics and Movements: US
Once again, anti-semitism is being cynically—and falsely—redefined in the press and broader Discourse as “pointing out uncomfortable facts about the nation state of Israel.”
This past weekend, the Israel Crybully Lobby, using a familiar script I’ve detailed before, led a smear campaign against actor Mark Ruffalo because he had the temerity and integrity to note that the family vying to control not only 60 Minutes and CBS News, but CNN and HBO, is a committed and open supporter of Israel and its genocidal military.
Ruffalo is leading a broad coalition of antitrust activists, creatives, and filmgoers to oppose the pending Skydance Paramount-Warner Brothers Discovery merger and, in doing so, violated an unwritten rule against noting that the father-son duo behind the merger, David and Larry Ellison, are well-documented and open zionist advocates that not only lobby for and support Israel, but “privately” donate to their military. A military that—it’s worth noting—Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, OxFam, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and dozens of other humanitarian and human rights organizations have determined is committing genocide in Gaza. Ruffalo also pointed out that the Ellisons’ $400 billion fortune was largely built on military and surveillance technology from Oracle that is used, in part, to surveil, imprison, and kill Palestinians, as well combat opposition to Israel stateside.
Ruffalo simply noted the open and well-documented ideological commitments that the Ellisons themselves have long championed.
Predictably, the Israel Crybully Lobby and its one-note propaganda organs in the nonprofit and media world responded to these comments by accusing Ruffalo of “antisemitism” and engaging in “tropes”—many of which are not, of course,
by Taya Graham and Stephen Janis | Sep 14, 2026 | Media Criticism, police accountability, Police Accountability Report, Prisons and Policing, video
Something strange is happening to the cop-watching community on YouTube. The obvious explanation might be YouTube’s enforcement against repetitive, mass-produced or AI-generated content. But the creators we’re investigating aren’t AI channels. They’re filming police, publishing encounters with public officials and, in some cases, using body-camera footage. So what is happening?
In this live stream, cop watchers and First Amendment activists Rights Crispy and Long Island Audit debate who’s behind this demonetization wave.
Credits:
Pre-production: Taya Graham/Stephen Janis
Written by: Stephen Janis
Production: Cameron Granadino/David Hebden/Maximillian Alvarez
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Taya Graham:
Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to this breaking news edition of our Police Accountability Report livestream. Now, we decide to do the show because there have been serious widespread disruptions across the 1A and Copwatcher YouTube community, namely a broad and still unexplained demonetization of an array of channels related to both copwatching and First Amendment auditing. Whether this is targeted, random, part of YouTube’s overhaul to its partnership system, what it means for some very popular activists is what we will unpack today. And to help us, we’ll be joined by two influential copwatchers, Long Island Audits, also known as Sean Paul Reyes and Wright’s Crispy or Finn Vargas. Both have been instrumental members of the Copwatcher movement and both have been affected by YouTube’s mysterious move to end their ability to monetize their content, at least on YouTube for now. But before I get to them, I want to check in with my reporting partner, Steven Janis, who has been researching and reporting on what’s happening.
So Stephen, thank you for joining
by Adam Johnson | Aug 12, 2026 | Article, Democratic Party, elections, Media Criticism, midterms, Opinion, Politics and Movements: US
As progressive, DSA, and DSA-adjacent candidates win primaries throughout the US, corporate media is rushing to prop up their favorite “centrist” and “moderate” critics—who, ostensibly, are just looking out for the wellbeing of the Democratic Party—to explain why these candidates people are voting for are actually dangerous and “unelectable.” What the media is refusing to do, on an institutional level, is disclose the glaring conflicts of interests these groups—backed by billionaires, health insurance giants, pro-Israel lobbying firms, and massive corporations —would have in attacking candidates who undermine their sponsors’ bottom lines and ideological agendas.
As progressive, DSA, and DSA-adjacent candidates win primaries throughout the US, corporate media is rushing to prop up their favorite “centrist” and “moderate” critics—who, ostensibly, are just looking out for the wellbeing of the Democratic Party—to explain why these candidates people are voting for are actually dangerous and “unelectable.”
As I noted in TRNN in June, certain personalities and parties with blatant conflicts of interest are being boosted by US media—presented as mere neutral observers who are Deeply Concerned About Electability—to dump on insurgent candidates such as Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila-Chevalier, Melat Kiro and, most recently, Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed. El-Sayed’s primary victory in Michigan signaled serious upward momentum for the latest progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party—and triggered a PR crisis for the Democratic establishment. That momentum was stemmed this week, if only for now, as DSA-endorsed candidate for Wisconsin Governor Francesca Hong was narrowly defeated—a defeat that was reportedly due, in part, to voter concerns over “electability.”
But who shapes “electability” perceptions in our media?
Let’s examine a recent article in The New York Times,
