The discussion on a recent CNN panel took a dramatic turn when South Carolina GOP Rep. Nancy Mace’s pronunciation of Vice President Kamala Harris' name ignited a heated debate over respect and racial sensitivity.
The CNN conversation, initially centered on Harris’ economic policies, quickly shifted to accusations of disrespect and racism, essentially cutting off discussion of the original topic, as the Western Journal reports.
During the panel, Mace pronounced Harris' first name with emphasis on the “mal” in Kamala, which drew immediate reactions from Democratic strategist Keith Boykin and Professor Michael Dyson. Both Boykin and Dyson, who are African American, expressed concern that the pronunciation was incorrect and insensitive, especially given the racial and cultural significance of names.
Boykin was the first to address Mace’s pronunciation, attempting to correct her while emphasizing the importance of getting it right. Despite Mace’s attempt to rectify her pronunciation, the issue did not subside. Mace’s response, asserting that she would pronounce Harris’ name as she chose, further fueled the debate.
The panelists' exchange quickly became more contentious. Dyson argued that Mace's pronunciation was not just a simple mistake but part of a broader issue of racial insensitivity. He linked the act to what he said were historical patterns of disrespect towards Black people, suggesting that it perpetuated a legacy of white supremacy. Mace, visibly frustrated, denied any racist intent and found Dyson’s remarks to be offensive. She stood firm on her stance, rejecting the notion that her pronunciation was an act of racism.
While the panel discussion was initially intended to focus on Harris' economic policies, the argument over name pronunciation took center stage. Boykin and Dyson repeatedly corrected Mace, which prevented the conversation from returning fully to the intended topic.
As the discussion veered further from its original focus, Dyson expanded his critique, connecting the issue to broader societal problems. He highlighted the struggles faced by Black women and criticized the disrespect shown towards Harris, framing it within a larger context of racial injustice.
Despite attempts to steer the conversation back to policy matters, the issue of Harris’ name and the accusations surrounding it continued to dominate the exchange. Mace, who had been prepared to discuss Harris’ economic record, found herself defending against allegations of racism instead.
Dyson’s remarks intensified the discussion as he accused Mace of embodying a disregard for Black women’s experiences. He suggested that Mace’s attitude reflected a broader societal problem where the humanity of Black individuals, especially women, is often overlooked.
Mace reacted strongly to these accusations, expressing her anger and frustration. She denied that her actions had any racial undertones and rejected the notion that she was perpetuating a legacy of white supremacy. The back-and-forth exchanges between the panelists became increasingly heated, with interruptions and overlapping arguments becoming more frequent.
The discussion touched on other sensitive topics, including Harris’ stance on LGBTQ+ issues and Republican policies. Dyson continued to challenge Mace’s perspectives, while Boykin supported Dyson’s critique, reinforcing the argument that names hold significant cultural importance.
The CNN panel discussion, intended to explore Vice President Kamala Harris' economic policies, was overshadowed by a contentious debate over the pronunciation of her name. The exchange between Rep. Nancy Mace, Democratic strategist Keith Boykin, and Professor Michael Dyson quickly escalated into accusations of disrespect and racism.
Boykin and Dyson criticized Mace’s pronunciation, arguing that it reflected a broader issue of racial insensitivity. Mace defended herself, denying any racist intent and rejecting the accusations as offensive. The debate ultimately highlighted the deep divisions over issues of race and respect, overshadowing the intended policy discussion.
As the U.S. presidential race heats up, a dispute over debate schedules between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris's campaigns intensifies.
The disagreement centers on the number of debates, with Trump advocating for more appearances than Harris, leading to a highly publicized conflict, as the Daily Caller reports.
The Trump campaign has publicly accused Harris's campaign of dishonesty regarding the agreed-upon schedule for the upcoming presidential debates. This accusation underscores the rising tensions between the two camps as the election approaches.
Former President Donald Trump has proposed a schedule of three presidential debates. His campaign's insistence contrasts sharply with the Harris campaign’s acceptance of fewer such meetings, proposing just two presidential debates and one vice presidential debate. Karoline Leavitt, the National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign, stated that the Harris campaign's claim of an agreement on fewer debates was false. This denial adds another layer of controversy to the pre-election environment.
The specified channels for these debates include Fox News, ABC, and NBC/Telemundo, according to the Trump campaign. These platforms are meant to host the presidential debates, while CNN and CBS are set for the vice-presidential debates involving Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance, and Harris’s counterpart, Tim Walz.
The Harris campaign suggested dates for the debates, with the first presidential debate tentatively scheduled for Sept. 10 and a hint at another in October. However, the Trump team has refuted any proposals for an October presidential debate.
Leavitt criticized the Harris team's approach, suggesting it might be a tactic to gauge Harris’s performance in the first debate before committing to a second one. This strategy, according to the Trump campaign, illustrates a lack of confidence in Harris’s debating abilities. Amid these strategic plays, both campaigns previously opted out of organizing debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates, which traditionally organizes such events.
Historically, debates have played a critical role in presidential races. Previously, Trump had challenged former President Joe Biden to debates before Biden's performance issues led to his withdrawal, prompting Harris's candidacy. Biden and Trump had initially agreed to a second debate in September before this change. CBS News had also lined up four potential dates for the vice-presidential debates, with Walz agreeing to participate on Oct. 1.
To date, the only debate that both campaigns have officially confirmed is the one on Sept. 10, hosted by ABC News. This debate is anticipated to be a crucial moment in the election cycle, providing voters a direct comparison between the presidential candidates.
In a series of statements, Leavitt has been vocal about the Harris campaign’s reluctance to engage fully in the debate process. She criticized Harris for not taking more proactive steps to engage with the media and the public in various formats.
"Let’s be clear: President Trump will be on the debate stage three times... If Harris and Walz don’t show up, an empty podium can stand in their place, proving to the American people just how weak they are," Leavitt declared, emphasizing the Trump campaign's readiness to debate extensively. This strong rhetoric from the Trump campaign seeks to frame the debate schedule as a reflection of Harris's willingness and ability to engage with critical national issues openly.
As election day draws near, the debate over debates highlights the strategic differences and priorities of the competing campaigns. The discussions around debate schedules are more than logistical—they also serve as a means for each campaign to position their candidate as the more transparent and engaged choice.
The ongoing disputes and strategic positioning are likely to intensify as each side tries to gain an upper hand before voters head to the polls. The outcome of these debates, both on and off the stage, could be instrumental in shaping the final weeks of the campaign.
The Democratic National Convention in Chicago is set to be a historic event featuring a lineup of prominent figures who have shaped the modern Democratic Party.
Vice President Kamala Harris will be officially recognized as the party's presidential nominee, with speeches expected from President Joe Biden, former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
CBS News reported that the four-day convention, scheduled for next week in Chicago, is anticipated to be a key moment for the Democratic Party as it rallies behind Harris following President Biden's decision to end his reelection campaign. The convention will serve as a platform to solidify the party's message and vision heading into the general election.
The convention will mark Vice President Harris's official transition from candidate to nominee, a move that has been expected since she secured the majority of delegates earlier this month. The Democratic Party quickly coalesced around Harris after Biden announced that he would not seek reelection, a decision made in the wake of a challenging debate performance against the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump.
Speeches by Biden, Obama, and the Clintons are anticipated to highlight the convention. Biden and former Secretary Clinton will address the convention on Monday. These speeches are expected to reflect on the party's achievements and the challenges ahead.
Former President Obama, who has remained an influential figure within the party, will deliver his remarks on Tuesday. Obama’s speech will likely focus on unity and the party's future direction under Harris's leadership.
Former President Bill Clinton is slated to speak on Wednesday, the same night Minnesota Governor Tim Walz will officially accept the nomination as Harris's vice-presidential running mate. Clinton’s speech is expected to draw from his extensive experience in both domestic and international affairs, offering a seasoned perspective on the current political landscape.
The choice of Walz as Harris's running mate was announced last week, rounding out a ticket that aims to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Walz, a two-term governor, is known for his focus on education and healthcare, issues that are expected to be central to the campaign.
Harris will formally accept the Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday night, closing the convention. Her acceptance speech is expected to be the highlight of the event and set the tone for the general election campaign.
While the convention is set to begin next week, some details, including the full schedule, have yet to be finalized. However, as reported by NBC News, the lineup of speakers is already generating significant interest. The participation of Biden, Obama, and the Clintons underscores the importance of this moment for the Democratic Party.
A source familiar with the convention’s planning stated that the inclusion of these prominent figures is intended to "rally the base" and present a unified front heading into the election. The source emphasized the significance of each speaker’s role in shaping the party's current platform and their influence on the next generation of Democratic leaders.
The convention’s location in Chicago, a city with deep Democratic roots, further highlights the party's focus on building momentum in key battleground states. The choice of venue reflects the strategic importance of the Midwest in the upcoming election.
As the Democratic Party prepares for the convention, the eyes of the nation will be on Chicago. With the party’s most influential figures set to speak, the event promises to be a defining moment in the lead-up to the election. The speeches by Biden, Obama, and the Clintons, along with Harris’s acceptance, are expected to shape the narrative of the campaign and set the stage for the general election.
Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign has indicated a shift in her health care policy stance for the upcoming presidential election.
Despite previously supporting "Medicare-for-all" during her 2019 presidential run, a campaign official told Fox News that Harris will not push for single-payer health care in her current bid for the presidency.
Harris initially backed a single-payer plan proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2017 and reiterated her support for "Medicare-for-all" in 2019. However, her campaign now states that she will not advocate for this policy. Harris had previously proposed a plan allowing private insurers to offer Medicare plans under strict rules, a change from her initial call to eliminate private insurance entirely.
In January 2019, Harris openly supported a single-payer system during an exchange with Fox News reporter Peter Doocy. When asked about her health care plans, she emphasized the need for universal access to health care, even if it meant eliminating private insurance. At the time, she believed that a "Medicare-for-all" approach was the best way to ensure that every American could receive necessary medical care.
By July 2019, Harris had fleshed out her health care proposal on her campaign website, advocating for "Medicare-for-all." This plan promised comprehensive coverage for medically necessary services, including visits to emergency rooms, doctor appointments, and even dental care. Additionally, the proposal included a provision for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.
Despite her previous support for a single-payer system, Harris' 2019 plan also included a role for private insurers, allowing them to offer Medicare plans. This inclusion marked a noticeable shift in her stance, leading to criticism and accusations of inconsistency from supporters and opponents.
Harris's journey toward supporting "Medicare-for-all" began in 2017 when she publicly backed a single-payer healthcare plan introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders. Her endorsement came during a town hall in Oakland, where she announced her co-sponsorship of Sanders' bill. Harris's decision to support Sanders' plan was seen as a significant moment in her political career, as it aligned her with progressive elements within the Democratic Party.
At the time, Harris argued that a single-payer system was not only morally and ethically correct but also fiscally sensible. This endorsement marked her first public commitment to a "Medicare-for-all" system, although she had previously expressed support for the concept.
However, as the 2020 presidential campaign progressed, Harris began to modify her position. In an October 2019 interview with The Hill, she acknowledged that her evolving stance on health care led to flip-flopping accusations. She admitted that her initial support for eliminating private insurance might have been too extreme for some voters, prompting her to reconsider her approach.
The Vice President's current health care proposal reflects a more moderate approach, balancing the desire for universal coverage with the realities of the American political landscape. By incorporating private insurers into her plan, she hopes to appeal to a broader range of voters who may be wary of a government-run system.
Her shift also reflects the complexities of the American healthcare system, which Harris has described as a frustrating "patchwork" that leaves many citizens feeling powerless against insurance companies. Her updated proposal addresses these issues while avoiding the potential pitfalls of a single-payer system that could alienate some voters.
As Harris continues her presidential campaign, her evolving stance on health care is likely to remain a focal point of discussion. Supporters and critics alike will be watching closely to see how she balances her previous commitments with the demands of a competitive and often contentious race.
In conclusion, Vice President Kamala Harris' journey on health care policy highlights the challenges and complexities of advocating for change in a deeply entrenched system. While she once championed a single-payer "Medicare-for-all" approach, her current proposals reflect a more nuanced and pragmatic perspective. This shift underscores the balancing act that Harris must perform as she navigates the expectations of her supporters and the broader electorate in her pursuit of the presidency.
According to Conservative Brief, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz faces backlash over claims that he misrepresented his military service by stating he was deployed to a war zone.
The allegations have sparked criticism from politicians and military personnel, pointing out discrepancies between his statements and actual service record.
Governor Tim Walz's integrity has come under scrutiny following a C-SPAN video in which he allegedly overstated his military service. The footage shows Walz, then a U.S. Representative, speaking to a Gold Star family and asserting that he had participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in 2004.
Walz went on to describe experiences that align with war deployments, stating that returning troops were shown “the horse whisperer” and directed to behave politely upon their return. Despite his vivid recounting, records indicate that Walz was never in combat zones.
This discrepancy has fueled criticism, leading many to question the validity of his claims and the motivations behind them.
Tim Walz served in both the Army and the Army National Guard for 24 years. Although his service record is extensive, it does not include combat deployment. Notably, when his unit received orders to deploy to Iraq, Walz chose to retire instead.
This decision factored significantly into the condemnation from senior military personnel and politicians alike. It has further complicated his current political standing as critics highlight the contrast between his statements and actual decisions.
Senator J.D. Vance, among others, has not only questioned Walz’s honesty but also his motives. In a pointed critique, Vance stated, "He lied about his service for political gain."
Senator J.D. Vance, a former U.S. Marine, has been particularly vocal about Walz's claims. Vance noted that Walz’s decision to retire came right when his unit was Iraq-bound. This timing has led Vance to challenge Walz’s narrative that he was unaware of the deployment order.
Vance said, "He decided to quit — to retire; whatever word you want to use … because he wanted to run for Congress." The senator emphasized that this action showcased a lack of transparency on Walz's part.
Vance further accused Walz of lying about the circumstances of his retirement, bringing attention to statements from senior officers who supported this claim.
A resurfaced video shows Gov. Tim Walz falsely claiming that he was deployed to Afghanistan in 2004 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, despite never serving in a combat zone. Walz, who served in the Army and Army National Guard for 24 years, retired before his unit was deployed to Iraq, a decision that has sparked criticism from various military personnel and politicians, including Sen. J.D. Vance.
Vance accused Walz of lying about his military service for political gain, pointing out inconsistencies in Walz's statements about his retirement and deployment status. Additionally, Walz has faced criticism for anti-gun remarks where he claimed Americans shouldn't carry the same weapons he used "in war," further complicating his public image.
Former President Donald Trump has initiated a significant legal challenge against the Department of Justice (DOJ), filing a notice of intent to sue for $100 million over the August 2022 raid on his Mar-A-Lago estate.
According to a report by The Western Journal, Trump's legal team alleges that the DOJ violated established protocols and engaged in political persecution during the raid.
The notice gives the Justice Department 180 days to respond before the case proceeds to a U.S. District Court in Florida.
Trump's attorney, Daniel Epstein, stated that this action is not just about defending the former president but about standing up for all Americans who believe in the rule of law and government accountability.
Epstein claims that there is clear evidence of the FBI failing to follow protocols during the raid, suggesting an improper purpose behind the action.
He argues that if the government is allowed to target individuals they dislike, violate their privacy, and breach protocols for personal motives rather than justice, it sets a dangerous precedent for all Americans.
The filing against the Justice Department accuses Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray of acting in "clear dereliction of constitutional principles" and with "clear intent to engage in political persecution."
Trump's legal team contends that the raid and subsequent indictment should never have been approved, as the established protocol for dealing with former presidents involves non-enforcement means to obtain records.
According to the filing, Garland and Wray deviated from standard procedures by not seeking consent from Trump, notifying his lawyers, or seeking cooperation before conducting the raid.
Trump's legal team characterizes the classified documents case as "very accurate and precise election interference." They argue that the entire special counsel investigation was aimed at interfering with Trump's ability to run for office again.
The filing also references a recent Supreme Court ruling granting presidents immunity for their official actions. Based on this ruling and Judge Aileen Cannon's dismissal of the prosecution on grounds that the Special Counsel's appointment violated the appointments clause, Trump's attorneys argue that there was no constitutional basis for the search or the subsequent indictment.
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon has thrown out the classified document case, citing the improper appointment of special prosecutor Jack Smith. The Justice Department is currently appealing this decision.
The lawsuit filed by Trump against the DOJ marks a significant escalation in his legal battles. It challenges the legitimacy of the Mar-A-Lago raid and subsequent legal actions taken against him. The former president's team argues that the DOJ's actions were politically motivated and violated established protocols for dealing with former presidents. As this case unfolds, it may have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the executive branch and law enforcement agencies and for the conduct of investigations involving high-profile political figures.
Senator JD Vance (R-OH) stated on Sunday that the Trump administration should initiate mass deportations, beginning with one million individuals.
According to a report by Breitbart News, when asked about the feasibility of deporting 15 to 20 million people, Vance responded by emphasizing the need to start with achievable goals.
He suggested that the first step should be focusing on deporting violent criminals and making it more challenging to hire illegal labor.
In an interview with ABC's "This Week", Vance discussed the proposal for large-scale deportations, which has been a topic of discussion for both him and former President Donald Trump.
Vance attributed the current situation at the southern border to what he described as "open border policies" set by the "border czar." While the interviewer, Jonathan Karl, pointed out that the individual in question was not actually the border czar, Vance maintained that she had assumed the title based on media coverage.
The senator argued that the attitude towards the issue of illegal immigration needs to change. He acknowledged the presence of approximately 20 million individuals in the country illegally but stressed the importance of starting with what is achievable and progressing from there.
Vance criticized the failure of Vice President Kamala Harris to address the problem and emphasized the necessity of being willing to deport some individuals to maintain border security.
Former President Donald Trump has been a vocal proponent of mass deportations as a solution to illegal immigration. Vance's comments align with Trump's stance on the issue, highlighting the need for decisive action to address the situation at the southern border.
The proposal for large-scale deportations has generated significant debate and controversy, with critics questioning the practicality and ethical implications of such an approach. Supporters argue that it is a necessary measure to restore order and enforce immigration laws.
Vance outlined his approach to tackling illegal immigration, which involves starting with the deportation of violent criminals and making it more difficult for employers to hire illegal labor. He believes that these steps would go a long way in resolving the issue.
The senator emphasized the importance of starting with an achievable goal, such as deporting one million individuals, and then progressively working towards addressing the larger problem. He criticized the focus on the logistics of deporting 18 million people and instead advocated for a phased approach.
Vance's plan also includes measures to strengthen border security and deter illegal crossings. He argued that the failure to take decisive action has contributed to the current crisis at the southern border.
In conclusion, Senator JD Vance has called for the Trump administration to initiate mass deportations, beginning with one million individuals. He criticized the current open border policies and emphasized the need for a phased approach to addressing illegal immigration. The senator's plan involves targeting violent criminals, making it harder to hire illegal labor, and progressively working towards resolving the broader issue of illegal immigration in the United States.
A group of federal judges has been cleared of misconduct allegations related to their hiring practices.
The judicial council of the Fifth Circuit Court upheld a decision dismissing charges against judges who refused to hire Columbia University graduates involved in anti-Israel protests, as Just the News reports.
In recent months, several federal judges announced they would not offer clerkship positions to Columbia University students participating in anti-Israel protests following the attack on Israel on Oct. 7.
These announcements led to a complaint against the judges, accusing them of discriminatory hiring practices. The complaint was addressed by Chief Judge Priscilla Richman of the Fifth Circuit Court.
Richman dismissed the misconduct allegations, stating that the judges acted within their ethical bounds. According to Richman, federal judges have the discretion to decline hiring law clerks based on the clerks' participation in activities perceived as unlawful or against institutional policies. This stance drew a complex reaction from both legal experts and onlookers.
Richman emphasized that the judges’ decision did not constitute ethical misconduct. She wrote in her official dismissal, “Judges do not violate ethical rules or standards when they exercise discretion in refusing to hire law clerks who may have engaged in unlawful conduct or violation of a university's [sic] rules.” Furthermore, she declared the matter settled without evidence of ethical breaches.
The Fifth Circuit Court’s judicial council reviewed and upheld Richman’s dismissal earlier this month, lending additional support to the initial decision.
The council's review serves to reinforce the authority and discretion judges possess in their hiring decisions.
The decision has sparked discussions within the legal community regarding the balance between personal discretion and institutional bias. Critics argue that the judges’ choice to boycott graduates from Columbia University could set a concerning precedent. However, supporters emphasize the importance of maintaining judicial independence, especially in decisions regarding hiring practices.
In her ruling, Richman also noted, “The subject judges have chosen to boycott the hiring of future graduates of the university as a means to implement their hiring discretion. While reasonable jurists may disagree about the effectiveness of their method and whether it is justified, the judges have not engaged in misconduct.”
This explanation underscores the principle that judicial discretion must be respected, even when it may be deemed controversial or unpopular. The legal doctrine surrounding this principle remains relevant in the broader conversation about judicial conduct and autonomy.
The case’s resolution raises broader questions about the intersection of political expression and professional opportunities.
For Columbia University students, the boycott might seem to curtail their potential legal careers. However, it also presents a unique challenge as they navigate their personal beliefs and academic ambitions.
Following this ruling, other educational institutions and students may reconsider their approach to advocacy and protest. The outcome of this incident reinforces that institutional decisions and individual actions in academia could have lasting career impacts.
Hollywood actor Gabriel Olds has been arrested and charged with seven counts of felony sexual assault.
The charges stem from allegations by multiple victims who claim that Olds, known for his appearances in popular television shows, used his celebrity status and education to lure them into violent encounters, as Fox News reports.
Olds, originally from New York and now residing in Los Angeles, was apprehended on Wednesday. The Los Angeles Police Department announced that the 52-year-old actor is being held on $3.5 million bail following the arrest.
Detectives have been investigating Olds since January 2023 when a 41-year-old woman accused him of rape. The incident allegedly occurred at her residence and marked the beginning of a series of similar accusations against the actor.
Investigators revealed that Olds often leveraged his fame and his Ivy League credentials to attract victims. Many of the alleged assaults occurred after he met the women through dating applications. His educational background includes his status a Yale University alumnus, a fact he reportedly used to gain trust and secure dates.
Additional accusations surfaced after the initial report, with two more women stepping forward, reporting incidents of a similar nature that date back to as early as 2013. According to the Los Angeles Police Department, three women in total have accused Olds of assault, with the encounters described as starting consensually and then turning violent. As the details unfold, detectives believe there could be more victims nationwide. They are urging anyone with information about Olds' activities to come forward.
According to Detective Brent Hopkins, a supervisor in the special assault section, the narrative was disturbingly consistent. "We heard the same story again and again," Hopkins stated, emphasizing that Olds began by charming his victims but then resorted to violence. "Some of these survivors suffered in silence for years before finding the strength to speak up," he added.
Following the January report, a warrant for Olds' arrest was issued on July 19, 2024. The arrest has now placed him in custody, potentially removing a predator from society and providing a measure of safety to potential future victims.
In addition to the three primary victims, two other women have come forward describing incidents of violent sexual conduct, though not to the degree of those brought forth by the primary accusers.
Gabriel Olds has had a prolific career since the early 1990s, featuring in numerous television series. His portfolio includes parts in well-known series like Law & Order, NCIS, Charmed, and Criminal Minds. Most notably, he held a supporting role in the 2021 film The Eyes of Tammy Faye.
Despite the gravity of the charges, a representative for Olds did not respond to requests for comments from Fox News Digital. As legal proceedings unfold, the entertainment industry's reaction remains to be seen.
The nature of Olds' crimes has left many in Hollywood and beyond in shock. This case echoes a broader movement within society demanding accountability from those accused of sexual misconduct, regardless of their status or fame.
The bail set at $3.5 million underscores the severity of the charges against Olds. Law enforcement officials express a stern focus on ensuring justice for the victims and continuing to investigate any further allegations that might arise.
Variety reported that Oliver Darcy, the well-regarded author of CNN's "Reliable Sources" newsletter, has departed the network to forge his own path.
His departure signifies a pivotal moment in media industry coverage as he embarks on a new project called "Status."
Darcy launched "Status" on Thursday morning, utilizing the Beehiv platform to distribute his new newsletter. "Status" will be produced from Sunday to Thursday, providing a solid and unfiltered analysis of the media landscape, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley.
In explaining his motivation, Oliver Darcy expressed a desire to create a scalable business centered around his media reporting talents. This move follows a growing trend among high-profile journalists, such as Don Lemon, Medhi Hasan, and Tucker Carlson, who have likewise transitioned from television to digital initiatives.
Unlike some departures marked by conflict, Darcy's exit from CNN seems amicable. Both the network and Darcy have independently confirmed his departure.
CNN's CEO, Mark Thompson, commended Darcy’s contributions, describing him as a prominent and fair-minded voice in media reporting. Thompson extended his best wishes for Darcy’s future endeavors.
As Darcy steps away, CNN’s "Reliable Sources" newsletter will be pausing for the remainder of the summer. However, the network plans to relaunch it in the fall with a new lead writer.
CNN continues to maintain a robust team dedicated to media coverage, which includes Hadas Gold, Jon Passantino, and Liam Reilly. This ensures that CNN’s commitment to scrutinizing the media industry remains strong.
"Reliable Sources" has a storied history at CNN, having aired as a prominent program for 30 years that closely examined media operations, particularly in Washington. The program’s previous leader, Brian Stelter, was let go in 2022 after the show was canceled, partially due to concerns of perceived bias during Jeff Zucker’s tenure as CNN’s president.
Darcy's final "Reliable Sources" newsletter was released on Wednesday evening, notably without any mention of his departure. This issue's leading story focused on a significant fiscal write-down of $9.1 billion at CNN's parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, highlighting a tough day for its CEO, David Zaslav.
In announcing "Status," Darcy articulated his mission to deliver direct and unsparing reporting on influential industry players. He asserted that there would be no concessions made for sensitive egos, aiming always to present the blunt truth.
Oliver Darcy's move away from CNN to "Status" represents a key development in media industry coverage. With "Status," he intends to maintain a rigorous and candid approach to his reporting across media, automotive, and tech sectors.
While CNN adjusts its "Reliable Sources" newsletter with a new helmsman to be appointed in the fall, the network’s commitment to providing critical media coverage remains steadfast. The legacy of "Reliable Sources," spanning three decades of influential content, continues to hold an important place in CNN’s offerings.