We’ve seen some stunning admissions over the past couple of days in the media meltdown over President Donald Trump daring to defend himself after his arraignment and being embraced by the public.

Here was what MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said:

MSNBC won’t carry Donald Trump’s remarks live because “there is a cost to us as a news organization to knowingly broadcast untrue things.”

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 pic.twitter.com/sITOWbiJjk

— Nicholas Giordano (@PasReport) June 14, 2023

We knew heading into this that he was planning to make these remarks. We are prepared for his pre-fundraiser remarks tonight to again be essentially a [suddenly looks nauseous] Trump campaign speech.

Because of that, we do not intend to carry these remarks live.

She also said this:

As we have said before, in these circumstances, there is a cost to us as a news organization to knowingly broadcast untrue things.

She said if there was news, they would cut back to it. But of course, they didn’t.

Then there was CNN’s Jake Tapper who didn’t like the love that Trump was getting after his arraignment in Miami.

Jake Tapper tells CNN control room to cut the feed of Trump in Miami:

"I don’t need to see any more of that. He’s trying to turn it into a spectacle and into a campaign ad. That is enough of that. We’ve seen it already."pic.twitter.com/FmnLXUUPSs

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) June 13, 2023

To the folks in the control room, I don’t need to see any more of that. He’s trying to turn it into a spectacle, into a campaign ad. That is enough of that. We’ve seen it already. Ah, let’s go over again the 37 charges that Donald Trump is facing…

Then Tapper was even more biased, claiming they weren’t running it because what he says could be potentially “dangerous.” You can see with Chris Licht gone they’re now fully reverting to form.

CNN’S JAKE TAPPER ON TRUMP: “We're not carrying his remarks live because frankly he says a lot of things that are not true and sometimes potentially dangerous.”

pic.twitter.com/7FxKsn27dY

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) June 14, 2023

Let’s listen to fired former CNN media critic Brian Stelter tell the BBC that all the media outlets are making these decisions because they want to report the “truth” and not to be on the side of “disinformation.” So once again, just as they did in 2020, they’re interfering in the election by not just reporting the facts, but sorting out things they don’t like, deciding what is “true” and what is “disinformation,” just as they did with the Hunter Biden laptop.

My comment on @BBCNews about the Trump coverage conundrum: News outlets strive to relay true information, not nonsense and innuendo and disinfo pic.twitter.com/7VOgzaXq7t

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 15, 2023

News networks are struggling with that “demand to be lied to,” Stelter claimed.

Now it’s incredibly ironic that they talk about “truth” when they’ve pushed so much that isn’t the case, particularly the mountain of nonsense about Russia collusion.

Hi @jaketapper — You are a hack pic.twitter.com/JYD4mZftnq

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) June 14, 2023

What did they cut off when they refused to cover Trump? They covered the arraignment, but they cut off Trump presenting his defense. As I noted, he presented a very measured defense citing the Presidential Records Act and comparing how he’s been treated versus how Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and even Sandy Berger were. So they cut off their audience from seeing any of his defenses. Now whether you agree with the defenses or not, that’s news and they should have covered it.

They cut off people showing love to Trump and even tried to spin that during the video in Miami, saying, “Now remember — he was just charged with 37 counts.” They don’t want to show his supporters, they only want to concentrate on the indictment.

That’s censoring, guys. That’s shutting down the political opposition. They’re admitting to shutting down the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for 2024.

What’s “dangerous,” Jake, is when the media who is supposed to cover all the facts, decides to only present some that align with their political viewpoint. What’s worse is they admit it and see nothing wrong with it. So can we call that a donation in kind to the Democratic Party?