Latest / CHECKED by HonestReporting / Red, Blue, and Green: Midterm coverage, Tucker Carlson's nuclear tweet, and why RSF put HonestReporting on its predators list | With Justin Pozmanter | Nov 5, 2026
Transcript
- [00:13] Ben Chertoff: Welcome to CHECKED by HonestReporting. I'm Ben Chertoff. [00:16] Joe Truzman: And I'm Joe Truzman. It's Thursday, November 5th. The results are in for the US midterm elections, and the coverage of those results is in. Let's check it. [00:25] Ben Chertoff: So on Front Page today, we are joined by Justin Pozmanter, director of the news division here at HonestReporting. He shows us how the goalposts keep moving and what the press needs to do to keep them in check. [00:39] Joe Truzman: And on The Feed, how a Tucker Carlson tweet claiming Israel is pushing America into nuclear war got amplified past Tucker's usual audience by two very unlikely boosters: Christiane Amanpour at CNN and Ryan Grim at Drop Site. Why this tweet, and why them? [00:58] Ben Chertoff: And in Open Cases, we are the story. Reporters Without Borders put HonestReporting on its 2026 Press Predators list, next to Vladimir Putin and the Chinese Communist Party. We'll tell you what RSF did before they put us on it. [01:16] Joe Truzman: And we'll close with Honest Mistake, or not. The New York Times can't talk about graffitied swastikas without also talking about Islamophobia. And The Guardian explains Israeli elections to its readers by telling them that Palestinians in Gaza had no vote. [01:35] Ben Chertoff: So let's get into it in Front Page. [01:40] Joe Truzman: All right. So first off, let's talk about a rule here. So, one ground rule before we get into this. HonestReporting is nonpartisan. We do not endorse US candidates, and we do not pick parties. What we cover is how the coverage was built. That is the segment. [01:58] Ben Chertoff: This week, Americans voted in the midterms. It's being called a blue wave, but for the most prominent names being talked about, it might be more aptly named a red-green wave. These are the Democrats being labeled anti-Israel candidates or pro-Palestinian candidates. Some of the loudest English-language coverage of what that means is being written by Tehran and amplified by Russia. Justin Pozmanter runs the news division here at HonestReporting. Justin, welcome. [02:31] Justin Pozmanter: Thank you. [02:32] Ben Chertoff: Iranian officials spent election night and the morning after celebrating this outcome. Can you walk through what they were saying and what the English-language press did with it? [02:41] Justin Pozmanter: Sure. First of all, I'd like to point out this is all very new. It's very raw. Everyone's still trying to kind of unpack what it all means. So I would just say, over the next coming days and weeks, to everyone listening, keep an eye on our website or social media as we continue to analyze what's going on. So on Iran, the Iranians seemed quite pleased with the outcome and what happened. From the Supreme Leader, to some of the Iranian embassies, to the speaker of the parliament, Ghalibaf, they've all weighed in. And some very problematic press entities from Russia and elsewhere picked up on the narrative that the election was a referendum on the war and that Israel was to blame. Most problematically, many reporters in the Western media, their take wasn't really that distinguishable from hostile foreign governments and state media. And it's somewhat absurd. It's really easy to recognize this as a bogus framing. It's 100% legitimate to say increased gas prices affected people in the United States and to connect that to the Iran war. However, that narrative breaks down when you start blaming Jews, the Israel lobby, or Israel itself for the decisions of the democratically elected government of the United States. President Trump chose to go to war with Iran. Israel supported the decision and took part in the war, but was not the reason for it. He made that decision because he believes it was consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and he has been very consistent in defending it since, including after the election results came in, when he made clear that even though he took a hit at the polls, his party took [inaudible] the polls, he still believed it was the right thing to do. And whether to go to war and whether it was executed well are both issues that are absolutely legitimate for debate. However, scapegoating a minority community in the United States, or the State of Israel, for an electoral loss, whether by the media or by the vice president for that matter, is not legitimate discourse. [04:46] Ben Chertoff: And the Iranian regime officials, they celebrated the strikes as a vote against the Iran war. And you were talking about the English-language outlets that also framed it as a blue-wave referendum against Trump and the war. But, you know, it's red, green and blue, which sounds pretty muddy, like these tweets from Russian state media and Middle East Eye. [05:13] Justin Pozmanter: Yes, absolutely. The framing of it as a referendum against Israel, you saw in some places: "Israel lost the vote." This was not a vote on Israel. Americans do not tend to vote on foreign policy issues. All the polling afterwards showed that while the Iran war was a factor for many, it was not the primary factor. It was corruption, it was economics, it was all sorts of other things. Framing this as a referendum in any way on Israel, or AIPAC, or the Israel lobby, or anything else in the United States related to Israel is just a fallacy. [05:46] Joe Truzman: All very interesting, Justin. Now let's, I want to talk about midterm elections here, specifically Abdul El-Sayed, because I'm sure you have, we've all heard a lot about it, about him and his election. So my question is, the press is calling El-Sayed an anti-Israel candidate, right? So, you know, he's had his victory speech. You know, I'm just curious about, you know, what do you think he's, well, what he said during his victory speech, and how the reporting can hold him, or reporters can hold him, accountable for what he says moving forward. [06:28] Ben Chertoff: We actually have the speech here, by the way, if we want to take a listen. [06:32] Clip (Abdul El-Sayed): You can just go on and call me Senator. To AIPAC, who spent $42 million against us: thank you for giving me the opportunity to beat you twice. See, they try to call you hateful if you believe that Palestinian kids should get to grow up in the land of their forefathers without being murdered by our tax dollars. If you believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination, that's not hate, it's love. [07:06] Justin Pozmanter: So Abdul El-Sayed likes to berate reporters who have the audacity to challenge him on his foreign policy views. He says, "I only care about Michigan. I only care about Michiganders." But he also reportedly wants a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee, a committee that, to my understanding, has a jurisdiction somewhat outside the borders of Michigan. He's had no problem weighing in on Israel, or regularly smearing us with libelous claims like genocide and apartheid. And he did so several times in his victory speech. Now, it's interesting that that last line, about his definition of hate versus love, was most notably amplified by none other than Husam Zomlot, who is the PLO representative in the United Kingdom. Now, maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure that a senior member of Fatah, an organization responsible for hundreds of terror attacks over decades, is really a win when it comes to the definition of hate versus love. In addition, there's been plenty of coverage that has sought to minimize the threat of some of the views that El-Sayed represents. The Guardian, a reporter by the name of Arwa Mahdawi, ran a column titled, so I'm going to make sure I got this right, "Get Ready Habibis, Abdul El-Sayed's Shawarma Law Is Coming to the United States." And this was essentially mocking any concerns whatsoever about El-Sayed's views, telling anyone with legitimate concerns about things he has said or done that they're simply being silly, that they're being xenophobic. That was the meaning of her saying "shawarma law" instead of "sharia law," to essentially just mock that concern. At the end of the day, the press needs to stop this. They need to stop celebrating and running interference for Abdul El-Sayed and start holding him accountable, not for any imagined offenses or because he's Muslim, but for what he's actually said and what he's actually done. [08:57] Ben Chertoff: The press is using Israel as the frame because, you know, Israel is the less costly target. The real project seems to be reshaping the Western world. But the press lets Israel just sit as cover, because calling it what it actually is reads as partisan. And the press is more afraid of reading partisan than being wrong. Does that track with you, Justin? [09:21] Justin Pozmanter: Absolutely. A fair number of anti-Israel candidates were elected, and they were anti-Israel candidates. But in most cases, those same candidates also had views that were outside the mainstream on issues far more fundamentally important to someone seeking high legislative office in the United States than their hostility to Israel was. They had extreme economic and social views, negative views on American symbols and the fundamental values underpinning the republic itself. And the press still focused obsessively on Israel. This is really a case of misdirection. It allows the press to say they were thorough because they covered a candidate's negative opinions on Israel. Those opinions were outside the mainstream, to be sure, but on an issue that is not the focus to most American voters. While the voters' eyes are on Israel because of that coverage, they're largely ignoring that many of those same candidates don't share their values, do not share their vision for the future of the country. And being anti-Israel is one thing, but most voters would have a far harder time tolerating someone who is anti-American or anti-Western civilization. And those very real issues were largely buried in favor of an obsessive focus on Israel. [10:28] Joe Truzman: Very interesting. One more question for you, Justin. I'm really curious about this. So El-Sayed is no longer a candidate. He's going to be a US senator. So the press's constitutional protections exist specifically to hold people, make him accountable. So during the campaign, it seemed to me, at least, that the press failed to ask the hard questions. So what is the job to do now for the press? What are your thoughts? [11:00] Justin Pozmanter: So first of all, I agree. The press during the campaign did not hold El-Sayed accountable. And this goes far beyond Abdul El-Sayed. The press has a responsibility to hold all of the anti-Israel candidates who were just elected accountable, and in fact, to hold all elected officials accountable, anti-Israel or not. Kind of antisemitism and defamatory anti-Israel rhetoric used to be on the fringes, and the press could largely avoid kind of weighing into those fever swamps. Unfortunately, now the fever swamp is coming to Washington itself. The press is crucial. It is critical to any free society, to any free country, which is why they have such powerful constitutional legal protections, as you mentioned. And the reason the press is so important is that it holds the powerful accountable. El-Sayed, Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier, and others like them are now the powerful. They might like to see themselves as outsiders or as renegades, but they no longer are. They're not outsiders. They're no longer private citizens. They are members of, or they're about to be members of, the United States Congress. They are very much part of the system now, whether they want to kind of go in that direction in their own minds or not. And they need to be scrutinized and held to account just like everybody else. [12:13] Ben Chertoff: Justin Pozmanter, thanks again for coming on. Always good stuff to hear from you. And Joe, can you tell us what's coming up on The Feed? [12:23] Joe Truzman: Absolutely, Ben. All right. So Sunday night, Tucker Carlson posted a 2,000-word tweet claiming the Trump administration is days from a nuclear strike on Iran, and also that Netanyahu called Trump every day to push for it, and that we're heading for World War III. Carlson's source is "an informed observer." No name, no corroboration. The White House, the White House has already said it has no, he, Carlson, of course, has no insight into military planning. So the post, the post has tens of millions of views and climbing. Tucker tweets regularly. This one, this one got there in part because two people who don't usually amplify Tucker, Tucker's post, well, they amplified it. On The Feed today: how a Carlson tweet broke containment. [13:20] Ben Chertoff: Yeah. So this one is pretty interesting, because Tucker is, like, you know, he is a very fringe character these days. He's moved himself into what I would see as the fringe, and I think most people would. Yet this one got, let me see, as of when we picked it up, it was 94.7 million views, which, of course, is way above his normal amount. So something else moved it, right? And the question with a tweet like this, it's never whether Tucker Carlson believes it. It's who else amplified it, and what that amplification does. So can you walk us through some of the people who push this one out? [14:14] Joe Truzman: Right. Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. So let's talk about the post in a little bit of detail. So the claim was a nuclear strike on Pickaxe Mountain near Natanz, and this is in Iran, and it would happen within days. So Trump would decide by, I think it was, November 7th. And of course, like I said earlier, the source was some unnamed observer. So in the White House, of course, Carlson has no insight into military planning, and Trump has publicly ruled out nuclear use against Iran. So, you know, what's in Carlson's normal tweets, right? Or his followers, at least. He's got about 18 million. Usually he gets about one to three million views a post, which is, that's a lot. Nevertheless, this one got 95 million. So there is a gap in the story, like you're alluding to. So it's all very, very interesting, I think. But this didn't go viral on Carlson, just him posting alone. He got a lot of help. [15:19] Ben Chertoff: Yeah, we had Christiane Amanpour, who pushed it out. Now, that alone, Christiane Amanpour, a veteran journalist who should know better, or at least I would think should know better, is, when quoting Tucker Carlson about something about Israel, kind of skipping the fact-check part and taking it at face value, which I think says something right there. There was also Ryan Grim of Drop Site News, who says that Tucker is extremely well sourced in the Trump administration. I, you know, this kind of language is the same language that comes out of the conspiracy world when they are picking up, like, fringe people and saying that they have amazing experience: when you start saying these people are excellently sourced. Anyway, that's my experience. But some other people push this out, right? [16:23] Joe Truzman: Yes, you had actually quite a few. But what's interesting is, you know, I'm thinking about this. You know, if you strip out the nuclear claim, right, you know, what Carlson talked about, and of course others, too, amplified it, what's left is basically a US commentator telling, well, 94 million accounts and climbing, that Israel is dragging America into war. And that's the oldest dual-loyalty libel in a new wrapper, basically. So, you know, it's very, a little bit strange to me, but unfortunately something we're seeing a lot. But listen, let's head over to Open Cases. The subject this week is, as you said earlier, oh, it's about us. [17:11] Ben Chertoff: It is about us. You want to go through that? [17:17] Joe Truzman: Yeah, yeah. No, by all means. By all means. So, like I said, Open Cases is about us. So earlier this year, I'll tell you a little bit about it, so earlier this year, HonestReporting investigated Reporters Without Borders, RSF for their French name, and found out that it had quietly removed the names of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists from its database of slain Gaza journalists without a public correction, and without drawing, withdrawing, the war crimes complaint they had already filed with the International Criminal Court using those names. We called it out. RSF's response? Well, they blacklisted HonestReporting. They put HonestReporting on their 2026 Press Freedom Predators list, next to Vladimir Putin, the Chinese Communist Party, and Erdogan. That is the case. [18:16] Ben Chertoff: Yeah. I mean, what this is about are these four reporters who we had identified. Mohammad Jarghoun, a Smart News reporter; Hamas admitted he was a member of its Rafah Brigade. Mohamed Nasr Abu Huwaidi, I'm going to butcher this pronunciation, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad member. Muhammad Mahmoud Abu Sharia, who's Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Quds Brigade, also the managing editor of Shams News Agency. And Assem Al-Barsh, who's Al-Rai radio, named by Hamas as a fighter in its Northern Brigade. So, I mean, these are obviously not press people, but they were removed, as you said, after we flagged them. It's not just their list that is the issue here, right? I mean, they had been, RSF had gone farther than just name these people as journalists who had been killed. [19:22] Joe Truzman: Right. I mean, you can see right there that these are members of terrorist organizations, and they're being claimed by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. So, you know, again, we have three of the four, Al-Barsh, Abu Huwaidi, Abu Sharia. The big thing here is that these are subjects of a criminal complaint that RSF filed at the ICC. So this is a big deal. They're accusing Israel of war crimes based on terrorists who were acting as journalists. So it's a big problem here, right? So nevertheless, they ended up blacklisting HonestReporting, and I don't think they were happy with us calling them out, Ben. [20:09] Ben Chertoff: And as far as we know, these criminal complaints are still on file with the ICC. There's no indication that it's been removed, or that RSF has taken the steps to kind of follow through on that, right? [20:24] Joe Truzman: I believe so. But, you know, this should have been taken care of a long time ago. Listen, it's very easy to look this information up. It's really not that hard. But for whatever reason, you know, RSF didn't. And they, well, they listed these people as, you know, killed by Israel, journalists. But they were, in fact, members of terrorist organizations. So, again, it's an issue. But they decided to blacklist HonestReporting. [20:57] Ben Chertoff: What are the stakes here? I mean, what does it mean if RSF is accusing a country of a war crime by using names that they later withdraw from their own list? Are there stakes for them? [21:12] Joe Truzman: Right. Well, you'd think it'd be credibility, right? [21:15] Ben Chertoff: Right, right. [21:16] Joe Truzman: This is a major accusation, right? You make a major accusation, then you better back it up with some, well, pretty significant evidence. And honestly, as far as, you know, because I've dealt with this type of issue before, as far as looking through, you know, researching the names of those killed in the Gaza war, those who were members of terrorist organizations, it's not really that hard to do. So if you're going to make an accusation like this, you better do your homework. Obviously, RSF didn't do their homework, right? [21:48] Ben Chertoff: Right. [21:49] Joe Truzman: Nevertheless, so yes, it's a big deal. And what's worse, too, is that they don't want to, they had issues with removing the names, right? So nevertheless, this is all very interesting, but we need to move on, and we need to go over to Honest Mistake. [22:05] Ben Chertoff: Okay. So today in Honest Mistake, we have, I'm just going to zoom ahead here, Monday morning in South Williamsburg, not too far from where I am now, four school buses serving Jewish religious schools were vandalized with swastikas. The graffiti also read "F Israel," "Free Palestine" and "USA first." So the NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force is investigating. Mayor Mamdani condemned it. And The New York Times ran the story. So, and then three sentences in, here's the word choice that the Times is using. Hang on, let me get a better image of that. This is a story about Jewish children. The Times tells you hate crimes against Jews and Muslims have risen in the city since October 7th. That's blocked out there just by the crop, but it says there that that continues, with Jews and Muslims since October 7th, which seems to be what is now required by news organizations when they print anything about antisemitism rising. There is always the disclaimer, the addition that anti-Islamic hate or Muslim hate crimes have risen. But the next part is really the astounding part, where it says, shortly thereafter, in a Brooklyn story about a Brooklyn vandalism, it includes 74,000 dead, which is sourced from "local health officials." So they're talking about Gaza casualties, quoting the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry without saying that. So, the story about where vandals themselves spray-painted "Free Palestine" on buses, the Times decides to reach for a Gaza casualty figure from a terrorist organization. It's three choices in 40 words. So, Joe, swastikas on a Jewish school bus in Brooklyn: honest mistake, or is this on purpose? [24:24] Joe Truzman: Sorry to say, but it's probably on purpose, I think. You know, the vandalism made it quite explicit. Yeah, made it quite explicit. It was anti-Israel graffiti. So choosing, in that story, to supply the Gaza casualty figures under a cleaned-up source credit, rather [inaudible] adding context, is supplying the political frame the vandals themselves used. [24:52] Ben Chertoff: Yeah, I mean, yeah, The New York Times, three sentences into covering it, picks up that same frame and gave it a casualty count, rather. I don't know. Honest mistake as a copy editor, on purpose as a newsroom. I got to agree with you that that one is on purpose. [25:13] Ben Chertoff: So, Joe, the next one here you have. [25:16] Joe Truzman: Right. Right. Yeah, absolutely. So let's do this one. So The Guardian, covering the Israeli election last week, explained the results to its readers, as you see here. So the turnout among Arab Israelis, who The Guardian calls "Palestinians with Israeli citizenship," doubled to 80%. The Guardian describes this as transforming the political landscape. And then, the sentence that does the work. So here, I quote: "Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza had no vote." So this is in a paragraph about Israeli election turnout. The Guardian has, in one sentence, told its readers that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank ought to have been able to have voted in the Israeli election, and that the fact that they couldn't is a story worth telling alongside the Arab Israeli turnout number. Palestinians vote in Palestinian elections when the Palestinian Authority holds them, if it holds them. Gaza hasn't voted since 2006. Israeli national elections, like national elections almost everywhere, are based on citizenship, not ethnicity. The Guardian is confused about that, it seems, from this. So, Ben, cold: The Guardian, explaining the Israeli election to its readers, informs them that Gazans had no vote. Do you think it was an honest mistake, or was it on purpose? [26:51] Ben Chertoff: I am torn with this, and only because I'm going to be incredibly generous to the people who are writing this story, in the sense that I think they have no idea what's going on, or any of the actual ground truth or facts about how the borders of Israel work and who is a citizen where, because I think there is just an endemic lack of education and understanding of what is actually going on on the ground. So by that measure, I would say it's an honest mistake. But I think that that is a problem from the bigger organization of The Guardian, that they should be teaching their reporters what is what. So I'm going to give that one on purpose. But I want to talk just a little bit about the issues here, Joe. People are confused about who votes where. Can you explain the Palestinian elections, where Palestinians vote, how that works, when the last election was? [28:04] Joe Truzman: Right. When it comes to, it can be pretty confusing, you're saying, because we have Gaza, right? That's, well, currently in a war, unfortunately. [28:13] Ben Chertoff: Right, and controlled by Hamas. [28:15] Joe Truzman: Controlled by Hamas, right. Even though there's some control, some control by the Palestinian Authority there, it's, yeah, it's mostly Hamas. Hamas hasn't run elections since 2006, as we said earlier. So they definitely haven't held votes. Now, as far as the West Bank is concerned, the Palestinian Authority does hold votes. Actually, they were scheduled, at least it was announced a few months ago, if I recall correctly, that they were going to, right? But it never happened. They canceled it, not going to do it. I can't recall the exact reasoning behind it. But yes, so the PA, they do have elections when they have them, but those are held in the West Bank, some in the Gaza Strip, but it's virtually impossible right now. But Hamas hasn't held votes, or anything similar to that, since 2006. But of course, it can be confusing, so I understand why you chose the way you did, Ben. But it's all very interesting. I mean, again, I still think it's on purpose. [29:25] Ben Chertoff: Okay. So, three days on from an American election, and the frame of the coverage is running on what was written before anyone voted. The candidates aren't candidates anymore. And what the press does with that over the next two weeks is the story that we will be watching. Joe, what are you looking at next week? [29:45] Joe Truzman: Right, Ben. So next week, I'll be watching how the wires handle the newly elected members' first appearance on the Sunday shows: which questions get asked, which don't. Send me what you're seeing in your feed. So, three things, if you got something out of this today. One is, follow HonestReporting on X, @HonestReporting. Two, subscribe to us on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple. Also, subscribe to us on Instagram, Facebook, X, also @HonestReporting. And three, send us a tip for Honest Mistake, please, to that email down there. Well, I appreciate it, Ben. It's always a pleasure. [30:28] Ben Chertoff: Yeah. Before we leave, though, one piece worth your time this week is Simon Plosker's investigation into Reporters Without Borders at honestreporting.com. That is the one that anchored today's Open Cases. That is CHECKED. We'll see you next Thursday. Thank you. Thanks, Joe. See ya.