Death, taxes, and CNN lying through their teeth. You can rely on these as long as the sun comes up.
And now CNN’s been caught in a blatantly moronic lie that has the network in huge trouble.
CNN has long been a punching bag for accusations of bias, and for good reason. Time and again, the network has been caught twisting facts, omitting key details, or outright fabricating narratives to prop up a leftist agenda. From misrepresenting firearms to manipulating political coverage, CNN’s track record reveals a pattern of deception that undermines trust in journalism.
One recent glaring instance came on Wednesday when CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez made a wildly inaccurate claim about semiautomatic firearms during coverage of a tragic Minneapolis shooting. Perez stated on The Situation Room that these weapons can “shoot dozens of bullets, you know, in just one trigger pull.” This is flat-out false.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) clearly states, “What has incorrectly been termed an ‘assault weapon’ is a semi-automatic firearm that fires just one bullet with each pull of the trigger (versus a fully automatic firearm — machine gun — which continues to shoot until the trigger is released).” Perez’s claim feeds into the leftist push for gun control by exaggerating the capabilities of legal firearms, sowing fear and confusion among viewers.
The Minneapolis shooting at Annunciation Catholic School was horrific, with at least two children k*lled and 17 injured. Yet, instead of sticking to the facts, Perez speculated about the weapon used, claiming it “seemed like a rifle, a semiautomatic rifle” that allowed the shooter to reload multiple times. This commentary came before any official information was released, showing CNN’s eagerness to spin a narrative that aligns with anti-gun rhetoric.
The network didn’t bother to correct Perez’s falsehood, despite basic information about semi-automatic firearms being readily available online. CNN’s silence when pressed for comment only deepens the suspicion of deliberate misinformation.
CNN’s coverage of the 2020 Kenosha unrest is another textbook example of their selective storytelling. While businesses burned and violence erupted, CNN described the protests as “fiery but mostly peaceful,” a phrase that became infamous for its absurdity. Footage showed looting, arson, and clashes with law enforcement, yet the network downplayed the chaos to focus on the “peaceful” aspects. This framing conveniently aligned with the left’s narrative of justifying unrest as a response to social injustice, ignoring the millions in damages to local businesses and the economic toll on the community. Such reporting isn’t just biased—it’s a deliberate attempt to sanitize reality for political gain.
The 2016 election cycle exposed CNN’s cozy relationship with the Democratic Party. Leaked emails from WikiLeaks revealed that then-CNN contributor Donna Brazile shared debate questions with Hillary Clinton’s campaign ahead of a Democratic primary debate. “CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information, or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” the network claimed, but the emails told a different story. Brazile’s actions compromised the debate’s integrity, and CNN’s tepid response—merely cutting ties with her—failed to address the ethical breach. This scandal showed how far CNN was willing to go to tilt the scales for Clinton, betraying any pretense of journalistic neutrality.
CNN’s mishandling of the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” narrative during the Ferguson, Missouri, protests further illustrates their agenda-driven reporting. The phrase, tied to the Michael Brown shooting, became a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement. However, the Department of Justice later found no evidence that Brown surrendered with his hands up. Despite this, CNN continued to amplify the discredited slogan, fueling a misleading narrative that stoked racial tensions. By ignoring the DOJ’s findings, CNN chose activism over accuracy, prioritizing emotional impact over factual reporting.
In 2017, CNN’s coverage of a Trump-related story took a hit when they falsely reported a connection between Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci and the Russian Direct Investment Fund. The story was so baseless that CNN retracted it, and three journalists resigned. The Intercept, a left-leaning outlet, called this out as part of a pattern of CNN spreading “fake news.” The network’s rush to publish unverified claims about Trump’s Russia ties fed into the leftist obsession with the “Russia collusion” narrative, which ultimately fizzled out. This wasn’t just sloppy journalism—it was a calculated move to smear a political opponent.
CNN’s coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic also raised eyebrows. On April 15, 2020, they reported that “not a single serving member of the country’s military has been infected” in China, citing the People’s Liberation Army’s website. This claim, which contrasted sharply with America’s struggles, was absurd on its face, especially given China’s history of underreporting cases. CNN’s willingness to parrot Chinese Communist Party propaganda while criticizing the U.S. response reeks of an agenda to make America—and Trump—look bad by comparison. Real journalists, like those at Radio Free Asia, had already exposed China’s lies, but CNN chose to amplify Beijing’s narrative instead.
The network’s handling of Trump’s 2024 campaign was equally egregious. Following an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, CNN ran a headline claiming, “Secret Service Rushes Trump Off Stage After He Falls at Rally.” This framing downplayed the fact that shots were fired and Trump was struck in the ear, implying a mere stumble rather than a violent attack. Critics slammed CNN for sensationalizing the event to avoid acknowledging the severity of the situation, a move that aligns with their pattern of minimizing threats against conservative figures.
During the 2016 election, CNN’s collaboration with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) further eroded its credibility. Reports revealed that the network sought DNC approval for questions before Wolf Blitzer’s interview with Trump. This coordination suggests CNN was more interested in serving as a mouthpiece for the DNC than conducting impartial journalism. The network downplayed the scandal, but the damage was done—viewers saw CNN as an extension of the Clinton campaign, not a neutral news outlet.
CNN’s bias isn’t just about what they say—it’s about what they omit. In 2019, when covering hate crime statistics, CNN emphasized a rise in incidents without noting that the increase was partly due to more agencies reporting data. This selective omission painted a skewed picture of a growing crisis, aligning with progressive narratives about systemic issues while ignoring context that might temper the story. Such cherry-picking is a hallmark of CNN’s reporting, where facts are curated to fit the desired narrative.
The network’s treatment of conservative figures is consistently lopsided. A 2007 study by the Shorenstein Center found CNN’s coverage of Republican candidates was three times more negative than positive, while Democrats like Barack Obama received overwhelmingly favorable treatment. Fast forward to today, and little has changed. CNN’s panel discussions often feature a single token Republican against a chorus of left-leaning voices, ensuring conservative perspectives are drowned out. This imbalance isn’t accidental—it’s a deliberate tactic to marginalize right-wing viewpoints.
Even CNN’s leadership has been embroiled in scandal. Former CEO Jeff Zucker resigned in 2022 after failing to disclose a relationship with a senior executive, a controversy that exposed deeper issues of ethics at the network. His tenure was marked by a shift toward sensationalism, with CNN prioritizing ratings over substance. Zucker’s departure, like many of CNN’s missteps, was brushed off without meaningful accountability, leaving viewers to question the network’s integrity.
The public’s trust in CNN has plummeted for good reason. A 2022 Statista survey found 20% of Americans deemed CNN “not at all credible,” while only 23% found it “very credible.” This divide reflects the network’s polarized audience, with liberals viewing it as a reliable source for progressive causes like racial justice and climate change, while conservatives see it as a propaganda machine. CNN’s refusal to engage with criticism or correct its course only widens this gap.
