Latest
Legacy media trust hits new low with Swalwell story latest example of protecting Dems
A defining story of the past decade or so has been the collapse of trust in the credibility of legacy media institutions.
The latest survey data from Gallup found that just 28 percent of Americans have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in mass media to report accurate or complete information. That’s the lowest number in the poll’s history. Conversely, a whopping 70 percent of respondents have “not very much” confidence or “none at all” in those same institutions. In 1972, that was flipped, with nearly 70 percent of Americans saying they trusted media outlets.
Among Republicans, those numbers are far worse. Just 8 percent of those on the right trust the media to report information fairly. That figure represents a 62 percent decline on the right even from 2015.
And that decline is very well deserved. The latest example of an obvious partisan bias being the reporting around accusations levied at now-former California Congressman Eric Swalwell. Swalwell over the last five to seven years turned himself into one of the most prominent voices on the left. Always outraged, committed to whatever progressive talking points were at a given moment, always with an expression on his face that seemed to imply he couldn’t believe he was getting away with gaslighting, lying, and extreme hypocrisy.
Well, that all came crashing down in less than a week. And in the process exposed not just the Democrat Party yet again, but its most willing and helpful partners: legacy media.
Before diving into Swalwell, it’s important to back up. Starting around the time when Donald Trump was first elected in 2016, legacy media quite obviously made a collective decision about its news coverage and reporting. Instead of attempting to present stories or information and let readers or viewers interpret for themselves, it would put its thumb on the scale. Pew Research, for example, found in 2025 that 55 percent of journalists don’t believe that both sides do not deserve equal coverage. In reality, that number is likely far higher.
Impartiality and fairness among ostensibly unbiased journalists has all but evaporated. This only got worse during the COVID-19 pandemic. While prior generations of journalists believed that their mandate was to hold powerful people accountable, COVID was the exact opposite. The powerful, people like Anthony Fauci, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, or local public health officials, were treated with awe, reverence, and deference. Instead of questioning their statements, decision-making, or mandates, virtually every legacy media outlet promoted them.
Holding the powerful to account turned into holding the public to account. It was your fault for not wearing enough masks, or not wearing the right kind of masks, or for wanting your kid to go to school and have class without wearing a mask. It was your fault for not getting COVID vaccines based on inaccurate promises of efficacy and the disinterest in side effects legacy media demonstrated.
Why did they handle the pandemic this way? Because they do not view journalism as their primary goal or outcome. They are ideologues first, reporters second. And what their ideology said and believed during the pandemic was that Fauci and “health experts” must not be questioned, no matter how absurd their views were, or how quickly they were disproven. Criticism of Fauci, or coverage of his failures would be a betrayal of their political party and the “In this house” messaging it depends on.
There are many more examples of legacy media “missing” stories that would hurt Democrats. The Hunter Biden laptop story undoubtedly impacted the 2020 election, as mass media downplayed, ignored, or in some cases, helped ensure that the story was censored from the internet lest it hurt Joe Biden’s campaign. The lab leak explanation for the pandemic was labeled as a “racist conspiracy,” before evidence became overwhelming that it was the most likely source of the coronavirus.
Joe Biden’s cognitive and physical decline was dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy, with “cheap fakes” becoming one of CNN’s most popular terms before his atrocious debate performance. Russiagate was another. And news this week on the first Trump impeachment has exposed yet another media failing.
Now we have Swalwell as yet another shining example.
After the allegations about years of improper behavior surfaced, several reporters took to social media to explain that they’d long heard rumors or reports of Swalwell’s actions and simply…did nothing about them.
One Democrat strategist posted on X Thursday morning that “…A reporter with Politico was working on verifying the rumors on Swalwell when he was running for President.” He continues, “Two days before he was scheduled to sit down with this reporter Swalwell dropped out of the race. The energy disappeared to potentially take him out, the victims if they were even willing to go on the record never did.”
Another reporter, Bethany Allen, said she heard information on Swalwell’s behavior in 2020 when at Axios, but because it wasn’t her beat, simply passed it along and never reported it. A journalist based in California posted this, saying that “shortly after being elected to Congress in 2013, [Swalwell’s] behavior towards women was known by all levels of our local government and the Alameda County Democratic Party.”
The executive editor of American Prospect, David Dayen, wrote “The truth, which will be available for all to see before long, is that Swalwell’s conduct with interns, young staff, and female fans was an open secret for a long time, and yet the party…had been supporting him and raising money for him.”
There are many more examples of those on the left admitting that Swalwell’s treatment of women was an open secret among Democrats, which would, of course, trickle down to their partners in mass media outlets. So why did it take until now for it to come out?
Well, the legacy media’s primary objective is to help and protect its “side.” Which is why a majority of these people openly admit in surveys that they don’t feel the need to treat both sides equally. Reporting does require those who are making the allegations to come forward. But apparently some did, then interest in the story fizzled as Swalwell stopped running for president. But that’s not an acceptable excuse.
Swalwell was a sitting congressman from the country’s largest state. He started a campaign for governor, and in some polls, was the leading candidate. He was a relentless force against Trump and the right, with sneering, smirking social media videos, predictable #Believeallwomen hashtags, and was seen as one of the primary leaders of the “resistance” in appearances with good buddy Jimmy Kimmel.
He was prominent enough to deserve scrutiny, particularly in light of the “everyone always knew” messaging we now see. They knew, they just didn’t care enough because Swalwell was on the left. And those on the left are never treated with the aggressive mentality journalists take when they can hurt a member of the opposition. Fauci is still viewed as a hero because they never cared enough to point out how many lies he told, or facts he got wrong. All the Democrat Party partners now talking about how it was so obvious Swalwell was engaging in inappropriate behavior were happy to support his candidacy. Until now.
Some look at ~20 percent trust ratings for mass media and wonder how we got here. The real question is why it isn’t lower.
Culture
Cracker Barrel Fans Outraged Again After NEW Major Change
Cracker Barrel built its reputation on comfort food, Southern tradition, and a menu customers could count on for decades.
That’s exactly why loyal diners are still fuming as the restaurant chain continues removing many of the classic dishes that helped make it a household name.
For years, customers have pleaded with the Tennessee-based chain to restore fan favorites that quietly disappeared from the menu, including black-eyed peas, fried haddock, red-eye gravy, fried chicken livers, and perhaps the most mourned item of all—the Sunrise Sampler.
For many longtime patrons, the Sunrise Sampler wasn’t just another breakfast. It was the breakfast.
The hearty platter came loaded with eggs, grits, fried apples, hash brown casserole, sausage, bacon, country ham, and biscuits with gravy—giving diners a taste of nearly everything Cracker Barrel had to offer without having to piece together a meal item by item.
“I noticed a while back that Cracker Barrel removed the GOAT of all breakfasts, the Sunrise Sampler, from the menu,” Josh Cooper, owner of Cooper’s Next Level BBQ in Tallahassee, Florida, told Fox News Digital. “You used to get a little bit of everything without breaking the bank.”
The meal hasn’t completely disappeared—but recreating it now comes with a catch.
Customers must order every component separately, turning what was once an affordable breakfast favorite into a considerably more expensive order.
“Now, in order to get that same teaser touch from the Sunrise Sampler, you have to order it all à la carte, which costs around $25 for the same great meal,” he said. “Blasphemy!”
Fox News Digital reached out to Cracker Barrel for comment.
The growing frustration over disappearing menu items comes after the company already faced a wave of backlash for attempting to modernize its image.
Last year, Cracker Barrel sparked outrage among longtime customers after unveiling a redesigned logo and updated restaurant interiors that many believed stripped away the rustic charm that had long defined the brand.
The changes were part of a sweeping $700 million overhaul across more than 660 locations, including menu revisions and a cleaner, less cluttered dining room design.
The company ultimately reversed course following widespread criticism, but many loyal customers say the damage had already been done.
The leadership shakeup continued last week when Cracker Barrel announced that CEO Julie Masino will step down on Aug. 10.
Former Bloomin’ Brands CEO David Deno is slated to take over.
For many customers, however, the issue extends far beyond a logo or a fresh coat of paint.
They believe corporate leadership has steadily chipped away at the very traditions that made Cracker Barrel stand apart from countless other restaurant chains.
Cooper said companies often underestimate the emotional attachment customers have to longtime menu favorites.
People are “asking for comfort and nostalgia.”
“The reality is that nostalgia matters. And when you remove popular items without controlling the narrative or managing customers’ expectations, you are bound to have upset patrons,” he said.
“Whether it’s due to rising food costs, kitchen timing or any other reason, it’s important to communicate with the people who put you on the map in the first place. Communication matters.”
Rachel Love, a self-described Cracker Barrel enthusiast from Tennessee, said one discontinued favorite remains at the top of her wish list.
“I absolutely loved the black-eyed peas, and I’m so glad they’re getting some attention,” Love told Fox News Digital. “They were one of my favorite sides and always felt like such a classic part of the Cracker Barrel experience.”
Love also hopes the restaurant revives its baked apple dumpling, describing it as “the perfect comfort dessert” for a brand built on old-fashioned hospitality.
To her, the debate is about much more than a handful of discontinued recipes.
“People aren’t just asking for old menu items — they’re asking for the comfort and nostalgia that came with them,” she said.
“Sometimes bringing back one classic dish means more to loyal customers than introducing several new ones.”
That may be the lesson Cracker Barrel continues to learn the hard way.
Customers aren’t asking the chain to reinvent itself.
They’re asking it to remember what made it successful.
They want the front porch.
They want the country store.
They want the breakfasts, the classic sides, and the timeless comfort food that turned Cracker Barrel into an American institution.
For many loyal diners, nostalgia isn’t a weakness.
It’s the brand.
Latest
Mamdani Kicked Out — He’s Livid After Latest Announcement
Backlash against New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani continues to mount, with the Democratic Socialist facing another public rebuke after reportedly being denied the opportunity to speak at the funeral of a U.S. Army soldier killed during an Iranian missile attack.
According to multiple reports, Mamdani attended Friday’s funeral for Army Sgt. Angel Sarah Rampersad in Queens but remained silent throughout the service after the soldier’s family reportedly chose not to have him address mourners.
Rampersad was one of three American service members killed in Jordan during an Iranian attack on July 17.
The funeral was held at a church in Ozone Park, where elected officials, community leaders, family members and fellow mourners gathered to honor the 28-year-old soldier’s sacrifice.
According to the New York Post, Mamdani appeared to review prepared remarks on an iPad while other dignitaries spoke, but his name was never called.
A source familiar with the funeral told The Post the decision came directly from Rampersad’s family, which reportedly wanted to keep politics out of the ceremony.
The family chose not to have Mayor Zohran Mamdani speak in an effort to avoid what the source described as “political distractions.”
After the funeral concluded, the mayor’s office released the remarks Mamdani had planned to deliver.
“It is often said that our fallen ‘gave their tomorrows for our today,’” Mamdani planned to say.
“Sergeant Rampersad had tomorrows waiting for her: birthdays, ordinary mornings, evenings spent with her loved ones,” his remarks continued.
“But she gave every one of them up so that we could have ours — so that we could stand here today, safe and protected,” he was to say.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, however, did address those gathered and offered an emotional tribute to the fallen soldier.
“I feel after reading and admiring this woman from a distance, I feel like she could be one of my daughters,” Hochul said.
Other speakers included Ozone Park Residents Block Association President Sam Esposito, state Sen. Joseph Addabbo Jr., and Queens Borough President Donovan Richards.
According to the Department of War, Sgt. Angel Sarah Rampersad, 28, of Ozone Park, New York, was killed in action during an enemy attack at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan.
U.S. Central Command said Rampersad and two fellow service members were killed while American and coalition forces defended against Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks.
The other fallen Americans were identified as 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, and Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas.
All three were deployed to Jordan in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, the international mission to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Rampersad served with the 1st Battalion, 57th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 52d Air Defense Artillery Brigade, 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command in Ansbach, Germany.
She worked as a 25U Signal Operations Support Specialist, according to the Department of War.
One person who attended the funeral told the newspaper the mayor appeared visibly upset after realizing he would not be invited to speak.
“He looked over at his staff, frustrated and seemed angry that he didn’t speak,” the source told the Post.
The attendee said Mamdani eventually understood that his name would not be called, glanced toward members of his staff, and put away the tablet that reportedly contained his prepared remarks.
Another source cited by the newspaper said the decision reflected the wishes of Rampersad’s family, describing them as politically conservative and supportive of President Donald Trump.
“The family is more conservative and wanted to limit any political distractions,” the source told the Post.
Neither Mamdani’s office nor members of the Rampersad family have publicly confirmed the account explaining why the mayor was not invited to speak.
Although he never addressed the congregation during the service, the mayor’s office later publicly released the remarks he had prepared, bringing attention to a moment that underscored the growing political controversy surrounding New York City’s new mayor.
Latest
GOP Just Passed It 232-288 — Pelosi And AOC Lose It On House Floor
The House of Representatives delivered a major victory this week for Americans with disabilities who want the opportunity to work instead of being trapped by a broken federal bureaucracy.
In a bipartisan vote, lawmakers approved legislation aimed at dismantling long-standing barriers within the Social Security Disability Insurance program that critics say have discouraged work and punished self-sufficiency for decades.
H.R. 8884, the **Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act**, sponsored by Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., passed the House by a vote of 232-188 and now heads to the Senate, where it has been referred to the Committee on Finance.
The legislation restores an important tool that the Social Security Administration lost when its demonstration authority expired in 2022.
Under the bill, the SSA would once again be authorized to test practical reforms under the Social Security Disability Insurance program through Dec. 31, 2030, with demonstration projects continuing through the end of 2031.
Rather than permanently rewriting federal law, the agency would be able to pilot innovative approaches designed to help beneficiaries who are able and willing return to the workforce.
The legislation includes significant safeguards. Participation would be entirely voluntary, and no participant could receive less total income as a result of joining one of the demonstration projects.
Supporters say those protections make the bill a common-sense effort to modernize a system that has too often discouraged Americans from pursuing employment.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., argued the current system is failing many of the very people it was designed to help.
“With over 60 percent of Social Security Disability Insurance recipients expressing an interest in returning to the workforce but less than one percent leaving the program because of a successful return to work each year, the Social Security Administration’s complex rules and regulations are clearly failing to deliver for too many Americans,” Smith said.
“Giving the SSA the authority to test innovative ways to better help disabled Americans pursue gainful employment is pure common sense, and this legislation goes a step further to ensure participation in any new system is both voluntary and will not reduce a beneficiary’s total income,” Smith added.
Smith pointed to what he described as a massive disconnect between Americans who want to work and those who are actually able to do so under the current system.
For years, disability recipients have warned that attempting to return to work can trigger a maze of complicated regulations, overpayment disputes, benefit cliffs, and uncertainty that ultimately makes taking a job financially risky.
Rather than encouraging independence, critics say the current structure often rewards staying on the sidelines.
Supporters argue H.R. 8884 takes a fundamentally different approach.
Instead of expanding government programs or imposing sweeping permanent reforms without evidence, the legislation gives the Social Security Administration the flexibility to test targeted solutions, evaluate the results, and determine what actually helps Americans reenter the workforce before making lasting policy changes.
Backers say the measure reflects a core conservative principle: government assistance should serve as a bridge to opportunity—not a permanent barrier to self-reliance.
The bill recognizes that having a disability does not automatically mean someone is unable to work and that federal policy should encourage those who are capable of seeking employment rather than penalizing them for trying.
The legislation also broadens the agency’s authority to include additional populations, including blind Americans, expanding the reach of future demonstration projects.
The proposal advanced through the House with bipartisan support after clearing the Ways and Means Committee, where lawmakers from both parties acknowledged that the current disability system leaves too many Americans behind.
Still, Republicans led the charge, arguing that practical reforms backed by measurable results are preferable to expanding entitlement programs or making permanent changes without first proving they work.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where lawmakers will decide whether to send it to President Donald Trump’s desk.
Supporters are urging swift action, arguing that restoring the SSA’s demonstration authority represents a fiscally responsible, low-cost reform that could help thousands of Americans regain the dignity, purpose, and financial independence that comes with meaningful work.
If enacted, the Social Security Administration would once again have the authority to launch carefully monitored pilot programs designed to improve employment outcomes, while reporting requirements would provide transparency and accountability as Congress evaluates which reforms deserve permanent consideration.
-
Economy4 months agoVance Leaves Meeting, Looks Straight Into Camera, Announces Stunning Arrest
-
Economy4 months agoAdam Schiff Facing 30 Years In Prison After Bank Records Leak
-
Economy4 months agoSupreme Curt Sides With Trump — He Can Remove The All
-
Economy4 months agoAll Hell Breaks Loose On Fox When Jesse Watters Asks Fetterman One Question
-
Economy2 months agoPrayers Pour In After Fox Host Dies: ‘Senseless Murder’
-
Economy4 months agoNBC Stops LIVE Broadcast — Breaks Big Trump News
-
Culture2 months agoMichelle Obama Drops Nasty Bomb About ‘Useless’ Daughter
-
Economy4 months agoTrump Pulls Off Miracle Of A Lifetime — It’s Permanently Open
