Media Narrative Control Was on Full Display With the Treatment of President Trump’s Address

Watching the press complex of our country clinging mightily to its grasp of our collective news narrative speaks oh so much. Back in the day, the limited number of news sources meant the cabal could dictate what it was we would consume — or have hidden — regarding the news cycles. Today, however, the news landscape is broader, and those fences controlling the flow of information have been trampled, like so many guardrails on January 6.

Today the big-name outlets are, for the most part, just that, in name only. Recognizable brands, but hardly our main sources of information. So to sit back and watch as they resort to their same methods is almost like witnessing animals in a zoo enclosure: We see some examples of them acting on base instinct in a desultory manner, but they are a shadow of the alpha predators taking down prey on the savannah.

When President Trump announced he would address the country Thursday evening, the first indicator of issues was reports on which networks would carry his address and those boldly announcing they would not. This was not an automatic controversy, as previous office holders have had, at various points in their terms, speeches and addresses that went unbroadcast.

It was the bold announcement of these decisions by the outlets that made it more of a story. At CNN, Brian Stelter came forward to declare that his cable outlet would refrain from airing the Trump speech, which is a curious decision on business grounds. Its primetime lineup is such that no show can even break 750,000 viewers on a given night. They NEED any infusion that would draw a crowd, yet here was the network whose highest-rated program barely cracks the top-40 of cable news shows.

But Stelter’s reason for CNN avoiding the speech was as ridiculous as you could imagine. It was done in the name of safety.

“Frankly, some network executives felt that it would be dangerous to just air Trump’s speech live, in full, unedited - without knowing what he was going to say ahead of time.”

CNN has Brian Stelter on to try and downplay the massive media censorship against Trump's big speech last night. Apparently, it would be too "dangerous" for the media to let people listen to Trump's unadulterated speech. The only "danger" here is people thinking freely! pic.twitter.com/vuys8TbnKo
— James Waterman (@jwatermaniv) July 17, 2026

Hey, they were just protecting us for our own safety! What complete nonsense from this oxygen thief. Brian tipped his hand to the real reason behind the blockade on Trump’s address, and the immediate rush to tell us what the speech meant.

“The newsrooms monitored the speech, evaluated what was actually newsworthy, looked at the documents Trump was declassifying, and THEN reported on what happened.”

Absolute news content manipulation. “We will determine what content is acceptable, which you will be permitted to learn about.” That is utter condescending contempt for their audience. But Brian’s own claim about shielding the public from “dangerous” speeches by the president was unwound by his own network. Intel correspondent Zachary Cohen claimed somehow to have reviewed all of the documents the president had just declassified, and he declared that nothing new was seen. Well, so much for threatening content…

The documents Trump is referring to right now, and CNN has reviewed all of them, largely discuss vulnerabilities that have been known for years and/or are reflected in the 2021 US intel community assessment.

None of the declassified information supports the claim that any…
— Zachary Cohen (@ZcohenCNN) July 17, 2026

At CBS News, the address was carried live, and at the allegedly MAGA-adjacent network, they too had contempt for and criticism of Trump’s speech, declaring it to be full of false claims. The kicker there was Major Garret and others making these claims BEFORE Trump addressed the nation. That is some helpful predictive news reporting!

For more media contradiction, Margaret Brennan hailed her colleagues for diligently poring over the released documents and for avoiding “confusing the public” – after her colleagues told us the speech they had not yet heard and the documents they had yet to see were declared “False.” And at CNN, the media guru Stelter saw no problem with that miscarriage of journalism ethics; he praised CBS News for “prebunking” the speech.

At ABC News, they also avoided running Trump’s speech, but immediately after, the network brought its news team on in primetime to cover all of the important details that were not important enough to run live. Mary Bruce sat in and then pitched to Rachel Scott, who was full of criticism about what she was unsure of. She says the focus of the speech was about contesting the 2020 election, when the bulk was actually about Chinese hacks and what the acquisition of that data could mean.

So @ABC News refused to run the president’s address, but was just fine broadcasting its own interpretation of his speech immediately after.
This is basically the equivalent of the Democrat rebuttal after the SOTU. https://t.co/q5ExyvpVt7
— Brad Slager: CNN+ Lifetime Subscriber (@MartiniShark) July 17, 2026

But just on the surface, we see the issue with ABC News in this case, and the press in general. They treated the address on Thursday night as something not worthy of granting live airtime, and yet breaking into programming to immediately address what was just spoken was completely valid. What sheer contempt for the audience and the truth.

You, as a news source, completely expose your adherence to propaganda when you are telling the American public that the president’s delivery is not worthy of being heard, but your response to his speech is an immediate concern. Telling us what we missed in the address you refused to carry is placing your words on the matter above those of the president and tacitly insisting that we are not capable of listening to him ourselves. We need to rely on their fractured interpretation of the specifics.

The cold irony in all of this is seen from the press telling us that the president cannot be trusted, and we need to rely on their coverage, which is shown to be corrupted by their inability to give us the straight news. Consider it to be a quoted line from a motion picture, “So Few Good Outlets”: You WON’T Handle The Truth!

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.