Hollywood Targets LA Mayoral Candidate Spencer Pratt

As the race for the Los Angeles city mayor heats up, some top-name celebrities are rushing to the rescue of incumbent Mayor Karen Bass by targeting her rising-star challenger Spencer Pratt.

Actor, comedian, and game show host Drew Carey recently took to the social media stage to spout off about Pratt and cuss in current Dem fashion.

“Anyone who votes for, or endorses Spencer Pratt for Mayor of LA needs to get their head out of their a**,” Carey wrote.

Carey’s tirade is no isolated rant. It’s actually a reflection of a broader pattern on the part of select Hollywood celebrities, who appear to be trying to save Bass from an embarrassing loss come election day.

Aside from Carey, additional Pratt detractors include Jimmy Kimmel, Chelsea Handler, and Lisa Rinna, to name a few.

Bass is a longtime Democrat politician, who has unsurprisingly collected endorsements from some of Hollywood’s most far-left hotshots.

Why would celebrities the likes of Carey and Kimmel be rushing to endorse Bass and attack Pratt?

Much of the celebrity praise is obviously virtue signaling. But there is also a desire on the part of some to firmly align themselves with high-profile status quo politicians.

Celebrity activists are in a panic because the unexpected happened.

Pratt had a highly successful reality TV show, which makes him a bona fide Hollywood star himself.

Now he has succeeded in bursting onto the political scene with his blunt-truth communication style and his incredibly effective use of social media. His big rise in the polls says it all.

As June 2 quickly approaches, things are reaching a fever pitch. Many who live in the celebrity bubble appear to be visibly shaken.

That’s because to them the mayoral election is less about government solutions and more about far-left ideology and self-preservation.

A lot of the A-listers live in gated communities and work in sequestered studio lots. Such settings are far-removed from the failing streets that ordinary Angelenos have to endure.

Endorsements of Bass allow them to feign compassion without having to address the policy failures that have turned the City of Angels into a scene out of Dante’s Inferno.

Pratt’s rise is directly related to the incompetent leadership and failed policies of the city’s incumbent mayor.

Having lost his home in the 2025 Palisades wildfire, he has been publicly criticizing Bass and other state leaders for the inadequate preparation, empty reservoirs, delayed responses, and broader lack of governance regarding infrastructure, crime, and homelessness.

His campaign for mayor has emphasized practical fixes, such as bolstering the LAPD, mandating treatment for those with addiction and mental health issues, cleaning up the street encampments, and demanding accountability for nonprofits that are gobbling up billions of dollars.

The grassroots support for Pratt continues to build as he is besting Bass in small-dollar campaign donations as well as in the polls. To the celebrity class this, along with his genuineness, makes him dangerous. Deriding him is just plain easier than debating him.

Pratt points out that, under Bass’s leadership, the city of Los Angeles has struggled with persistent homelessness, surging violent crime, and emergency preparedness gaps, which were exposed by the fires.

It turns out that Bass’s leftist credentials were actually honed during the 1970s, when she joined the Venceremos Brigade and made multiple trips to Cuba doing construction and agricultural work in support of Fidel Castro’s revolution.

The Brigade was organized by pro-Cuba leftists that had Marxist-Leninist ties. Rather than being a humanitarian organization, it was simply a communist one.

The mayor has admitted that she grew up around “red diaper babies” (children of Communist Party members). She has also said that radicals and communists played a “huge role” in her early influences.

In 2016, after Castro’s death, she issued a statement characterizing his demise as a “great loss to the people of Cuba.”

In 2017, she inserted congressional remarks, eulogizing longtime Communist Party USA leader Oneil Cannon as a “friend and mentor.”

Pratt is resonating with the voting public precisely because he is mirroring what they see. He’s no routine polished politician reciting talking points. Instead he is advocating for a rejection of the far-left orthodoxy that created the whole mess.

In a nutshell, LA is a city that is desperate for deliverance from its misery.

Pratt is offering a much-needed remedy to the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same wretched results.

Trump’s Blockade and Negotiate Strategy Is Working

President Donald Trump’s decision to impose a naval blockade on Iran while keeping the door open for serious negotiations represents classic America First leadership. It is decisive, pragmatic, and rooted in the proven principle that weakness invites aggression while strength compels compromise.

Critics on both the isolationist right and the interventionist left have attacked the strategy, but the facts on the ground tell a different story. Thanks to the overwhelming success of Operation Epic Fury, the United States now possesses the military dominance necessary to enforce a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical energy chokepoint, without risking an uncontrollable escalation.

Launched on February 28, 2026, Operation Epic Fury was a laser-focused, 38-day campaign that achieved what previous administrations only talked about. U.S. and Israeli forces flew over 10,000 air sorties, struck more than 13,000 targets, and delivered devastating blows to Iran’s military capabilities. Key achievements included:

– Destruction of large portions of Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal (over 450 ballistic missile targets hit) and missile production facilities.

– Near-total elimination of Iran’s naval power, including dozens of warships, submarines, and fast-attack boats. As CENTCOM reported, after the operation there was “not a single Iranian ship underway in the Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, or Gulf of Oman.”

– Degradation of Iran’s air defenses, command-and-control centers, and defense industrial base, severely limiting its ability to threaten commercial shipping or project power.

These successes directly paved the way for the current blockade. By neutralizing Iran’s navy and anti-ship missile capabilities, Operation Epic Fury removed the greatest risks that previously made a sustained blockade too dangerous. Starting in mid-April, the U.S. Navy has effectively controlled access to Iranian ports, choking off the regime’s oil export revenue — which funds both its nuclear program and terror proxies. Iran is now losing hundreds of millions of dollars every day.

The brilliance of Trump’s approach lies in pairing this maximum pressure with maximum flexibility for diplomacy. The blockade remains firmly in place until Iran agrees to a real deal, one that verifiably ends its nuclear weapons program, severs support for terrorism, and guarantees safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

This is not endless war. This is targeted leverage designed to force the Iranian regime to choose between survival and suicide.

History shows this strategy works. Ronald Reagan used similar pressure on the Soviet Union. Trump’s first-term “maximum pressure” campaign brought Iran to the table before Biden’s weakness squandered it. Now, with America’s military having demonstrated overwhelming dominance through Operation Epic Fury, Trump is once again negotiating from a position of strength.

The results are already visible. Iran is desperate to reopen the Strait. Multiple rounds of talks are underway. Oil markets have stabilized somewhat as the world witnesses American resolve. Our Gulf allies feel safer than they have in years.

The alternative — retreating, lifting sanctions, and hoping for good behavior — has been tried and failed spectacularly. It led directly to the crisis that made Operation Epic Fury necessary.

President Trump’s blockade-and-negotiate doctrine is not warmongering. It is responsible statecraft that protects American interests, secures global energy supplies, deters future aggression, and gives diplomacy the only thing that actually works: real leverage.

America is stronger when we lead with strength. Trump’s strategy in the Strait of Hormuz is proving that truth once again. Critics are gonna complain, but results will vindicate the president.

The AGI Tower of Babel

In the Book of Genesis, humanity speaks with one tongue, resolving to build a city and tower “whose top may reach unto heaven.”

The intended purpose of the tower is not just for shelter or utility but for self-exaltation, as illustrated by the verse, “Let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

The project is breathtaking in ambition and terrifying in its implication. It is an overt attempt to storm the divine realm through collective human will.

God looks down, sees their unity, and declares that “nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” He then confounds their language and scatters them. The tower is left unfinished, a monument to hubris.

As may have been predictable, tech driven members of our society appear to be building that tower again. Only this time the bricks are silicon, the mortar is computer code, and the “heaven” that is being sought after is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

AGI has the capacity to reason, invent, and act across every domain in a far superior manner than the greatest geniuses among us.

To understand AGI we must do a comparison between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AGI.

Imagine a super-smart computer or robot that can do any kind of thinking task that a human being is able to do, only in a much faster and advanced way.

Right now most AI technologies are “narrow,” meaning that they are really good at one specific thing. For example, one AI might beat you at chess, another might write poems, and another might translate languages. But they cannot easily switch over to tasks for which they were not trained.

However, when it arrives AGI is going to be very different from AI. It will be able to learn new skills on its own just by searching, reading, and watching. It will be able to program itself, train itself, replicate itself, and improve itself. And by using this self-training, it will be able to grow its abilities at lightning speed.

It is easy to see why the race for AGI is no longer just about science or product competition. AGI looks to ultimately be able to complete thousands of years of human thought in a single solitary moment.

Scientists have not built true AGI yet, but many people are working to do just that. Experts say it is set to arrive in years as opposed to decades.

The above noted parallels between the Tower of Babel and AGI are not poetic license. The world’s brightest minds are actually speaking the same language, the language of code, math, and data.

Despite the appearances of a rivalry between companies and/or nations, the underlying project feels eerily unified in nature.

What looks to be a competitive frenzy may be masking a deeper convergence.

Everyone understands that the first to win the AGI race will not only rule, the victor will have a potentially permanent advantage in the area of intelligence itself.

Biblical metaphors seem fitting.

A growing faction within the AI race is no longer framing AGI as a powerful tool, or even as a transformative technology. Instead competitors, both openly and in private, speak of creating a “god,” i.e., a super-intelligent entity whose alignment with their own interests effectively crowns them with the title of “all-powerful.”

The underlying logic is brutally Darwinian: Whoever is the first to birth the super-intelligent god ascends to the rank of high priest.

Researchers are describing the moment of AGI’s arrival in religious terms. The ongoing race has ceased to be commercial or geopolitical. It has actually acquired a zealous urgency to create the god before the competition does. Then you will not only win, you will transcend.

You will be the triumphant one. The one who chose correctly. And the one that history will remember as having ushered in the next stage of existence.

Lose, and you risk being rendered irrelevant by someone else’s deity.

The ancient builders of Babel looked to make a name for themselves. Today’s builders are looking to make a god for themselves.

Perhaps the confusion of tongues, which stopped the tower from being built, will arrive in the form of technical failure, regulatory intervention, or a sudden realization that an intelligence vastly superior to our own may not remain grateful to its creators.

Or perhaps the intervention will be a morally based one. The moment in time when the realization hits that in trying to become gods, humanity becomes complicit in making itself obsolete.

The clock is ticking, and the AGI Tower of Babel keeps on rising.

No longer is the question whether or not we will witness the completion of the tower.

Rather, it is whether or not we will still have the wherewith-all to look up and ask what exactly is being created.

An Elon Musk Win in His OpenAI Lawsuit Is a Win for the Public

The high-profile trial of Elon Musk vs. Sam Altman is one week in.

As the federal jury in Oakland, California takes in the evidence, one simple question hangs over the courtroom: Can you steal a charity?

The answer will determine the future of artificial intelligence as well as the fate of charitable giving.

OpenAI, the entity that Musk and Altman co-founded, was built on a solemn, legally binding promise that its leaders have since breached.

What began in December 2015 as a nonprofit organization, which was dedicated to developing artificial intelligence that benefitted all of humanity, has become a closed-source, profit-making, $850 billion company.

The stealth transformation was not merely a clever business plan. It was a breach of charitable trust.

Musk, Altman, and Greg Brockman co-founded OpenAI. Prior to its founding, Musk had grown increasingly worried about the risks of advanced AI. Altman shared similar concerns about AI’s concentration in a few big companies.

Altman and Musk had the titles of co-chairs at OpenAI’s launch. Musk hadn’t just lent his name to the new nonprofit, he had conceived the idea, recruited key talent, and poured in tens of millions of dollars.

The founding charter sought to advance digital intelligence safely and openly, free from commercial pressures. Internal documents, emails, and Musk’s sworn testimony presented during the first week of the trial have laid it out plainly.

Musk would never have funded or championed the project had he known it would morph into a Microsoft-backed profit engine. But this is exactly what happened.

After Musk left the board of directors in 2018 over conflicts with Tesla’s own AI work, OpenAI’s management pivoted.

First came the effort to attract capital. Then billions of dollars rolled in from Microsoft. And by 2025, OpenAI had fully restructured into a for-profit entity, with Microsoft securing a 27% stake worth $135 billion. The company was sprinting toward going public.

OpenAI’s ChatGPT became a commercial hit, while the original open-source safety-first mission was quietly deleted.

The very organization that Musk helped to create, trying to prevent AI from being controlled by a handful of profit-driven giants, was now partnered with one of them.

Based on the evidence in court, Musk’s motives for bringing the lawsuit appear to be legitimate. Musk has testified that, by late 2022, he had lost confidence in Altman’s commitment to the nonprofit charter. And he has renounced any personal financial gain he would obtain from a legal victory. It appears as though the legal proceeding is not about him enriching himself, because he has pledged to redirect any damages back to the original charitable mission.

In large part, this case is about enforcing the rules that protect donors who give to a charitable cause with the expectation that the organization will remain a charity.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If the jury and the judge allow to stand the transformation of a charity into a business enterprise, a dangerous precedent will be set.

If this should happen, any nonprofit entity would be able to use a founder’s accomplishments and status to bring in initial donations, and then flip to a for-profit model once the money and talent have been locked in.

Such a precedent would cause charitable giving in America to suffer a serious decline.

Ironically, the future of AI would be handed over to the same concentrated corporate power that Musk and Altman originally set out to counter.

It is unlikely that a Musk victory in this legal battle would detrimentally affect innovation. Rather, it may have the potential to restore competition and accountability. It may also force OpenAI to honor the safety-and-humanity-first charter, which justified its tax-exempt status and spurred its original support.

Despite the high profile and high net worth of both of the parties in this trial, the issues at stake are more than just monetary. The founding documents of OpenAI are, in essence, a contract with the public.

Musk’s attorney put it bluntly in the opening statement: “No one should be allowed to steal a charity.”

As an example, a nonprofit museum can run a gift shop, but it cannot loot the Rembrandts and sell them for private gain.

The monumental trial is expected to last three to four weeks. After the jury has heard the testimony, seen the emails, and gone over the timeline, it must decide whether promises made in the name of humanity still mean anything.

A verdict for Musk would send a clear message to those creating AI models: Innovation without integrity has consequences.

Promises must be kept, especially when it comes to the commitment between a charity and its donors.

The commitment of OpenAI to pursue safe, open, humanity-first artificial intelligence must be honored.

If justice prevails, Musk should be the victor. And the public will reap the benefit.

Justice Clarence Thomas’s Ominous Warning

Recently, as Americans were busily filing their taxes, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was hard at work on an ad campaign, which was about to launch on social media.

The self-described democratic socialist soon let loose with an off-the-wall video ad, titled “Happy Tax Day, New York. We’re taxing the rich.”

In the clip, he lauded the passage of the city’s first-ever pied-à-terre tax,which is an annual levy on luxury second homes that are valued at $5 million or more and are not considered primary residences.

Mamdani framed the bill’s passage as a big victory, carrying on about “taxing the rich” and the “fairness” of it all, while claiming that the revenue raised would fund numerous so-called progressive priorities.

At the same time any concerns about wealthy residents fleeing the city were quickly dismissed as “imagined.”

In the real world, such a confiscatory tax drives out investment, crushes the real estate industry, and decimates the city’s already beleaguered economy.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who had previously resisted broad tax hikes on the wealthy, has done a massive turnaround and is now totally on board with Mayor Mamdani.

The theatrical Marxism of Gotham’s mayor affects more than just the city of New York. His video ad is a textbook exhibit of the very leftism that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently warned against in a powerful speech, which was delivered at University of Texas’s Austin campus.

Speaking on the 250th anniversary of The Declaration of Independence, Justice Thomas described the code word that radicals prefer these days; i.e., “progressivism,” as an “existential threat” to America’s founding principles.

“Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government,” the justice said. “It holds that our rights and dignities come not from God, but from government.”

In other words, so-called progressivism, or what increasingly appears to be communism in disguise, has nothing to do with progress.

Instead the implementation of the ideology turns back the clock on limited government, individual liberty, and the self-evident truths that built the most prosperous nation in the annals of history.

Mayor Mamdani’s video ad embodies the insidious slide toward tyranny to which far too many unfortunate countries before us have succumbed.

It’s a kind of trickle down ideology that celebrates a forced redistribution of wealth that is camouflaged as moral virtue.

A smidgen of real history is helpful in aiding our understanding of what is going on.

The United States of America did not have a permanent federal income tax for the first 137 years of its existence.

From our nation’s founding until the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the federal government operated without routinely confiscating a portion of every citizen’s earnings.

In fact, America grew into an economic powerhouse precisely because individuals and businesses were free to create, invest, and retain the fruits of their personal labor.

The free market, rooted in property rights, voluntary exchange, and limited government interference, is what drove innovation, lifted millions out of poverty, and rewarded those who were willing to take a risk.

Much like humanity itself, the capitalist system is not perfect. However, it is far better than any alternative that has been tried.

Economic freedom has unleashed human potential and achieved greater success than the best of central planners ever could.

Like Mayor Mamdani, the Marxist-minded among us are aggressively dismantling our freedoms.

For every fiscal shortfall, their solution is never to place a cap on spending. Rather, it is to foment more class envy and/or assign additional victim status to those who are vulnerable.

New York’s fancy sounding pied-à-terre tax is simply being sold as the pinpointed targeting of luxury homeowners and global elites.

But like a freight train with no brakes, history has demonstrated that policies such as these have no stopping point. Instead they cavalierly race forward, smashing into things, distorting markets, squelching investments, and sending wealth sailing off to better shores.

When those in power punish success and fund their agenda on the backs of producers, an erosion of the incentives that make the free market work begins to feed upon itself.

Slower growth sets in. Fewer jobs are created. Opportunities for everyone diminish at an accelerated rate. And the collapse of a once-solid system begins to look inevitable.

Justice Thomas is correct. This malignant ideology doesn’t improve on the Founders’ vision. It wholeheartedly rejects it.

The Declaration’s promise of unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, stands in direct contrast to the non-progressive notion that rights are doled out by politicians, are revocable at the ballot box, and are able to be axed at any local budget hearing.

Mayor Mamdani’s smirk says it all.

Look at it as a cultural signal that the deconstruction of free-market principles is marching on, that government gets to be the one that picks winners and losers, and that wealth is a public resource available to be harvested on a Marxist’s whim.

As we approach the 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding, may we take heed of Justice Thomas’s call to reject cynicism and stand firmly for first principles.

And may more and more of us help Lady Liberty hold up the torch.

The Crawl toward Communism

Communist ideology should have been sidelined decades ago.

That’s what so many of us thought was going to happen after the Soviet Union collapsed back in 1991.

Instead the malignant ideas and strategies of communism, derived from the twisted mind of Karl Marx, gained a significant academic, institutional, and cultural foothold in the Western world.

Here’s a brief summary of how things played out.

Just about the time when the 1970s counterculture appeared to be fading away, a quiet yet insidious revolution was set in motion here in the United States.

There was no red flag waving in the air bearing a hammer and sickle. Rather, a long march through American universities began to take place.

New Left radicals weren’t storming barricades. Instead they were earning PhDs. Humanities and social science departments became ideological echo chambers.

Drawing from Antonio Gramsci’s theory on how the ruling class maintains power, and also the Frankfurt School’s critical theory that derided capitalism and promised social liberation, communist principles became the blueprint for how to deconstruct a societal framework, with the ultimate goal of supplanting it with a Marxist one.

In order to accomplish this, a battlefield had to be set up. The one chosen was that of “The Oppressors vs. the Oppressed.”

Through the fomenting of class envy and the assigning of victim status, members of society were pitted against one another.

What was already entrenched in the halls of our universities quickly spread to our elementary and high schools. Then like dominoes in a row, our federal and local governments, corporate boardrooms, news agencies, internet platforms, and even our Hollywood studios simply gave way.

Communism has been described by some as progressivism, democratic socialism, etc. But call it what you will, it’s just plain old communism, forever seeking the gradual ideological capture of the systems that comprise our societal pillars.

Which systems? Government, legal, education, economic, business, and media, to name some major ones.

Looking back, it seems that for America communism was custom-tailored to focus on culture and identity, a relatively easy way of conditioning our society to turn against neighbor.

It was then marketed, i.e., propagandized, to an already-primed public in order to reshape institutions from within.

We need look no further than our universities to see how the reshaping from within worked to our country’s immense detriment.

The faculties of almost all of the elite universities in our nation have come to lean decidedly to the far-left politically. In most cases, there are entire departments that are devoid of any dissenters to the dominant ideology.

As would be expected, graduating students of these institutions are highly knowledgeable on the topics of “systemic oppression,” “equity,” and “decolonization.” But they are woefully ignorant with regard to the death toll in the millions, which occurred at the hands of history’s most notorious communist regimes.

Sadly, the same communist-laced curriculum easily made its way into our preschools, elementary, and secondary schools. Consequently, far too many of our youth now find socialism and communism acceptable, and sometimes even preferable, than the representative republic that has secured our freedom for just short of 250 years.

Of course, a sizable portion of our Democrat politicians, major corporations, news media outlets, entertainment industry, and internet platforms have played a major role in the crawl toward communism.

We have heard a whole lot of talk over the last few years about existential threats.

It appears that we are currently facing a potential “Mother of All Existential Threats”; that being that communism could seep into our hearts, minds, and souls under the cover of virtue.

Whether the unthinkable occurs in a single stroke or bit-by-bit, the end result is the same. The America we love and cherish ceases to exist.

This is why we are duty-bound to reverse the trajectory.

A good place to start is to hold accountable the politicians who are already out of the communist closet.

This is an imperative since having avowed communists holding public office is a fairly new occurrence. Even Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders didn’t cozy up to communist candidates until somewhat recently.

Another idea is to join in on the religious revival that’s been going on, if you haven’t already. Nothing like faith, hope, and love to turn your world around.

May God bless America, now and forever.

Can David Ellison Save CNN?

A bold corporate move is taking place in the news media world that has the potential to have a profound effect on CNN.

It is a business acquisition that affords the rare opportunity many free press devotees have been waiting for: The restructuring of a once-prestigious cable news network.

The acquisition may go a long way in restoring journalistic integrity and balance.

Paramount Global, under the leadership of CEO David Ellison, is acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery, a major entertainment company.

Warner Bros. happens to be the owner of CNN, and also some valuable yet beleaguered film and TV assets as well.

Paramount’s bid, which prevailed over competitors that included Netflix, has the possibility of significantly altering the current media and entertainment landscape.

The resulting entity, when measured by revenue, will be in the world’s top-four entertainment companies. Additionally, it will be a significant player in Hollywood’s global streaming, linear television and cable programming, and entertainment output.

CNN has been dealing with a growing credibility crisis. Once revered as a global standard bearer for straight news reporting, the network increasingly became an outlet that prioritized a one-sided narrative over news, and opinion over objectivity.

Ratings suffered accordingly, and public confidence continued to erode.

Polls now consistently indicate that a majority of Americans view many of the major cable news outlets with deep skepticism, particularly CNN. This is obviously unhealthy for our national discourse.

The public’s right to have access to accurate information is no partisan issue. Rather, it is the cornerstone of an informed citizenry.

Whenever a major news outlet is more consumed with the pursuit of power and fame instead of integrity and truth, the situation becomes a zero-sum game.

Enter CEO David Ellison, the son of mega-billionaire Larry Ellison. The younger Ellison is now steering an old-line Hollywood studio toward a new destination.

He is transforming Paramount (a company where the writer of this article was once employed) into a media and entertainment powerhouse.

Ellison has already signaled a willingness to make “sweeping changes” where necessary, while simultaneously pledging to uphold editorial independence. This is a balance that should inject some major accountability regarding inaccurate reporting.

CNN presently has a sizable track record of dispensing falsehoods. The Jussie Smollett attack tale, the accusations against the Covington Catholic students, and the fabricated narrative surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop are a few of the more egregious examples.

Most recently, the network claimed that officials in President Trump’s administration had supposedly made the admission that the Pentagon and National Security Council “did not plan” for Iran’s attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. Additionally, the charge was made that the economic impact of the military operation had been underestimated.

CNN appears to have ignored the fact that the operation was explicitly designed to neutralize Iranian naval missile threats to shipping. The network’s selective reporting evidently prompted White House Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to remark, “The sooner David Ellison takes over CNN, the better.”

There are concerns on the part of some that too much media “consolidation” is taking place, which could result in reduced competition. However, the alternative could make things much worse; i.e., that CNN and other media outlets would simply be allowed to continue to harm the public with unfettered false narratives.

Ellison is suggesting a different path, one that is focused on rebuilding viewer trust.

Under new ownership, CNN could benefit from a fresh perspective that tilts toward factual reporting as opposed to ideological slant. This is what Ellison appears to favor as he addresses the challenges at CBS News with what some observers have called a “conservative-friendly” openness to diverse viewpoints.

This news redo is not about one political side scoring a win. It is about the public scoring one.

The fragmented media terrain of the last decade is one that has been saturated with social media echo chambers and partisan outlets. A restored CNN, led by competent executives at Paramount, may actually be the catalyst to reverse course.

For far too long the American people have been receiving news that has largely been a massage of the mind dressed up as journalism.

The moment has arrived for a return to news that can be trusted.

Ellison has a window in time in which he can deliver exactly that.

May the CNN makeover begin.